asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether at the expiration of the Commercial Treaty with France in March next, it will be within the power of this country to impose a Duty on the export of coal to France; or whether, under the operation of the most favoured nation clause, no Duty on the export of coal to France can be imposed until the expiration of the Commercial Treaty with Germany in 1877?

Sir, when the Treaty expires, it will be within the power of Her Majesty's Government to impose a duty on the export of coal to France, as the operation of the most favoured nation clause in the said Treaty will then cease.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the law advisers of the Irish Government see any difficulty in the case of the Dublin Corporation in enforcing this year the provisions of "The Local Government Ireland Act 1871," for the audit of its accounts; and, as the accounts of that Corporation for the year ending the 31st of August 1871 have not been signed and certified by any auditor, whether the Chief Secretary can state that the accounts for that year will be audited by the auditor appointed by the Lord Lieutenant in December 1871 for that purpose?

said, there was no difficulty now; but there was a difficulty in 1871, because the Act did not come into operation until the 1st of September, and there having been one audit of accounts up to the 31st of August, it did not seem right to incur the expense of a second.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he would inform the House whether the authorities of the Ottoman Porte are giving effect to the provisions contained in various edicts issued by the Sultan of Turkey during recent years in favour of his Christian subjects?

Sir, the latest report from Constantinople, received two days ago, states that, as a general rule, the edicts in favour of the Christians are fairly carried into effect, and that as a class they have no reason for complaint.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that Albert Charles Griffin, who was sentenced to eight years' penal servitude for a rape upon a child eight years of age by Baron Bramwell at the Central Criminal Court, has been released after having undergone only six months' imprisonment; and, if so, whether this commutation of the sentence was founded upon facts which have transpired subsequent to the trial, or upon any recommendation from the Judge who pronounced the sentence?

replied that after the trial a Memorial, with some fresh evidence, was submitted by him to the consideration of the Judge, who, in consequence, suggested that fresh inquiries should be made through the police. Such inquiries were made; and the learned Judge, on the result being submitted to him, informed him (Mr. Bruce) that at the trial the evidence given by the child had been in some respects contradictory, and the fresh evidence showed her to be an artful little girl; and, moreover, that it had not been without a doubt that he had sentenced the prisoner, and if he had been on the jury he would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Under these circumstances, no other course could have been pursued than the one he had adopted.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the lamentable massacre of foreigners at Taudil, Buenos Ayres, on the 1st January last, Whether, after communication with the British Consul there, he is now in a position to state what steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government have taken or intend to take to secure for the future the safety of British settlers in the Argentine Republic?

Sir, on the 22nd of June, as appears in the Papers lately presented to Parliament, Mr. MacDonnell was instructed to remind the Argentine Government of the obligation incurred by it to deal with those whom it had induced by its assurances to settle in the country as with its own citizens, and to take the most effectual measures in its power for their protection; but that if this be not done—

"It must reconcile itself to the reproaches of those nations whose subjects suffer from its neglect of duty, and to the loss it will sustain by a cessation of the flow of immigration which has hitherto been directed to the country."

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it was by Statute Law or by the Prerogative of the Crown, that he, as Master of the Mint, caused the scarcity of silver coinage, the existence of which scarcity he admitted on the 1st of August, in his reply to the honourable Member for Sheffield; and, whether it is by Statute Law, or by the Prerogative of the Crown, that he now limits the coinage of silver for the people of Great Britain and Ireland to £50,000 a-week?

Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me whether it was by statute law, or by the Prerogative of the Crown, that I, as Master of the Mint, caused the scarcity of silver coinage? The scarcity of silver, in my opinion, was caused by the great increase of trade in this country, and certain changes, which are very much to be rejoiced at, in the direction of making the payment of wages much more frequent. As I do not admit, therefore, that I caused the scarcity of silver, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I am sure, be kind enough to relieve me from finding an explanation of the circumstance. Then, the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me, whether it is by statute law or by the Prerogative of the Crown that I now limit the coinage of silver for the people of Great Britain to £50,000 a-week? I have announced that it would not be possible to increase the silver coinage of the country to more than £50,000 a-week, owing to the imperfection of our machinery; but as I did not say that that was for any other reason the maximum amount of the coinage, I apprehend that I am also discharged from the necessity of stating whether it is by statute law or the Prerogative of the Crown that such a limit has been fixed.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury), Whether he is aware that charges have been openly made in Parliament against the authorities of the Mint of peculation, and of secret alteration of official documents, and that an inquiry was demanded, which inquiry has hitherto been successfully resisted; and, whether he will consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into, and report upon, the truth of those charges?

I am not aware of the correctness of the facts stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but, certainly, whether they have happened or not, they have not happened in this House. The only answer I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, that in order to found a case for an official investigation of any kind, either by inquiry or by Royal Commission, two things must be combined. In the first place, a charge must be distinctly made, and secondly some sort of evidence must be produced to give a colour and plausibility to that charge. Until these two conditions are complied with, I am sure the House and the Government will not grant a Royal Commission; and in the present case, as far as I am aware, neither of these conditions has been complied with.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any communication has been received from the Trinity House relative to the dismissal of Mr. Beazeley?

replied that he was not responsible for either the engagement or dismissal of any gentleman in the employment of the Trinity House; but the Deputy Master of the Trinity House being aware that the Question had been addressed to the Board of Trade by the hon. Member, had sent him (Mr. C. Fortescue) a letter, the substance of which was as follows:—Mr. Beazeley had been removed from the service of the Trinity House. He had been employed as assistant to the engineer, and in the course of last year he delivered to the Institution of Civil Engineers a lecture on the subject of fog signals. His official superior objected to Mr. Beazeley's using data which could only be obtained from documents belonging to the Trinity House, and to his putting forward views, the importance of which was solely due to the fact that he was on the Trinity House staff. Nothing further was heard of Mr. Beazeley till a copy of his second lecture at the United Service Institution was forwarded by him to the Deputy Master, without any reference to what had previously occurred. Under these circumstances, and looking to the terms on which Mr. Beazeley stood in the office, the Board felt that there was only one course to be pursued. Mr. Beazeley having only a weekly tenure of office, the Board invited him to name a reasonable time within which he might expect to obtain employment elsewhere; but as he did not do this, they were obliged to give him two months' notice.

said, he wished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) in consequence of some remarks of that right hon. Gentleman, delivered July 30 or 31, relating to Professor Simonds, which have been misunderstood. Professor Simonds occupies the position of Principal of the Royal Veterinary College, and the right hon. Gentleman was understood to say that the Professor went down to Newcastle as Government Inspector. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he intended to convey that Professor Simonds went down as an Inspector in the service of the Government?

said, that if he had spoken of Professor Simonds as one of the Government Inspectors he had made a mistake. Professor Simonds was no longer in the service of the Government, and he was sorry for it; but in such an emergency Professor Simonds had been kind enough to place his most valuable services at the disposal of the Government. He did not suppose, however, that any objection had been raised by the Veterinary College.

proposed, in line 40, to omit "Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act, 1828." That he believed was known as the Alehouse Act, and he suggested the omission of the words "Intoxicating Liquor."

said, he saw no reason for altering the words of the clause.

said, there was another question most difficult to define, and that was what constituted "a bonâ fide traveller." He proposed to insert in the clause, at page 29, Line 19, after "county," an Amendment, to be inserted as a separate paragraph, to this effect—

"A bonâ fide traveller shall mean a person who being in a neighbourhood other than that in which he resides, and at a distance of not less than three miles from such residence, stands in need of refreshment."

Since he had put his Amendment on the Paper official information had been sent him, which showed that three miles would, practically, be hardly a sufficient limit to fix for carrying out the definition of a traveller by a reference to his neighbourhood, and that a larger limit must be assigned. He believed that which was last year adopted by the Home Secretary, when dealing with that very subject, was an unobjectionable one, and he should ask leave of the Committee to alter his Amendment by inserting "five" instead of "three." The Amendment would not do what he should wish to do, by getting rid of the great difficulty which had prevailed on the subject; but he believed it would be a great improvement on the present definition.

admitted that the hon. Baronet had an advantage in being able to quote against him the opinion he expressed last year, but he thought the magistrates would have great difficulty in applying it. How, for example, was it to be interpreted in places of such magnitude as London or Manchester? His own opinion was, upon the whole, that the matter had much better be left to the decision of the magistrates themselves, as the circumstances in different places were so various. Besides, the increased stringency of the Bill and the greater restriction of the open hours, made it desirable that they should not add to the difficulty which must any way occur in enforcing the law. They had reduced the open hours on Sunday afternoons to all except bonâ fide travellers, and he should be sorry to see the law enforced too strictly, which they would do very seriously if they were to adopt the hon. Baronet's definition. For that reason he must oppose the Motion.

said, that if his hon. Friend would stop in his Amendment at the word "resides," it would answer very well. As he had now put it, it would never do. Suppose he (Mr. Locke) said he should walk all the way to Edinburgh. Well, he should very likely get tired before he had gone a mile; and then his hon. Friend stepped in and said he must walk five miles before he should be entitled to any refreshment. Why, it might be the death of him. Or say he only resolved to walk to Croydon, and that he walked to the top of Brixton Hill, and then felt weary. Even then, not having completed the specified five miles, he would have to trudge the difference further on, before he could get anything to drink. He did not think the definition was a good one, and must decidedly say that he coincided in the opinion that the settlement of the disputed point should be left with the magistrates.

said, it was not his intention to press his Amendment, and explained that it only referred to times when public-houses would be closed by law.

said, that the clause had been postponed at an early hour on Saturday morning, in deference to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who had given great attention to the subject; but as a domestic loss prevented the right hon. Gentleman from being present, he had to appeal to the indulgence of the Committee to postpone it a little longer, to enable the right hon. Gentleman to be in his place. His appeal more particularly applied to the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex, who had a Notice of Amendment upon the Paper.

observed, that he was not surprised at the appearance of the House, and did not doubt that its recent labours had told severely on many of its Members, as they must have done, particularly on the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government himself, whose absence from his place too plainly confirmed the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He attached immense importance to the proper discussion of this clause, and one of the chief reasons why he had objected to the Bill going on at so late a period of the Session, was that he had felt that many hon. Members who had taken a deep interest in this question, and who had very strong feelings respecting it, would be absent when it came under discussion. What he had foreseen had come to pass, for many benches were empty, the length of the Session having told on the endurance of hon. Members. He felt, indeed, that even a discussion that evening on the subject would not be so satisfactory as it would have been some short time back. The appeal which had been made under the circumstances was one which he confessed he had the greatest possible difficulty in resisting; but he had to consider not only his own feelings on the subject, but also those of other hon. Members, and there arose the fear that any further postponement would place hon. Members who might be present when the subject came on for discussion entirely at the mercy of the Go- vernment. Under the circumstances, therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that if he said he must press his Amendment that day, it was not from any want of sympathy at all with the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, or from any desire to take an unfair advantage of his absence. It would he open for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the matter afterwards. At any rate, he hardly felt that he would he doing justice to those who had entrusted the question to his hands if he did not ask the Committee that evening to give their opinion upon it.

observed, that he took a warm interest in the subject, and urged that the discussion should be taken on it that night.

pointed out that if his hon. Friend yielded to the appeal, he would only have one more opportunity of bringing the matter under the notice of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman could again raise the question on the Report if the Committee dealt with it that evening. He hoped that as the attendance of the House was diminishing, he might almost say every moment, his hon. Friend would not listen to the appeal which had been made to him. Although he regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, yet he thought no time should be lost.

said, that although on both sides of the House there was an extreme degree of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government under the circumstances which necessitated his absence that day, yet he felt that no further delay ought to take place in dealing with this matter. There was a widespread feeling of discontent arising from the Bill having been brought on at the fag-end of the Session, when many hon. Members, from causes over which they had no control, were obliged to leave town.

observed, that under the peculiar and melancholy circumstances under which the appeal had been made, he thought hon. Members should avoid anything like a controversial tone in discussing the proposal which would come before the Committee. He trusted the Home Secretary would feel, after what had been said on both sides of the House, that nothing short of a sense of public duty had compelled them to press on the discussion.

begged to remind the Committee that, at present, there was no Question before it.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 27, line 33, after "dealer," to insert—

"Whose premises are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors under the provisions of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of Her present Majesty, chapter twenty-one, intituled an Act for granting Her Majesty certain Duties of Excise and Stamps."

He had already stated, he said, the disadvantage under which he laboured; but he proposed to deal with the question as briefly as possible. The Amendment he proposed would practically place grocers—who took out a wholesale 10-guinea license, which afterwards entitled them to a three-guinea retail license—on the same footing as other people who dealt in intoxicating liquors. He wished to base the whole of the argument he brought before the Committee upon that ground, and on that ground alone. He wished to restrict no class of men who chose to conform to the law in conducting their trade; but he said that when the Committee were passing laws in order to restrict and regulate a particular trade, it would be a perfect absurdity and a perfect farce if they left an opening or loophole through which anyone might retreat who wished to evade the action of the law. He, at the same time, confessed that the right hon. Gentleman had strong grounds for the argument he would probably use against the Amendment, because there was no doubt that, with very small exceptions, the conduct of those who had taken out a license up to the present moment had been thoroughly satisfactory. He had himself taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain, as far as he could, the opinions of those people who had to carry out the law in different parts of the country; and he acknowledged at the outset, and stated it openly, that their answers had generally been to the effect that the few grocers—and there were but few—who had taken out licenses in their different districts were carrying on, to the best of their ability, a legitimate trade. It was, however, more on the ground of his dread of the future than of what at present existed that led him to bring forward his Amendment, for he was not afraid that those who had taken out this license with the intention of honestly carrying on a legitimate trade would do anything to bring themselves or their licenses into discredit. What he did fear was that when once that Bill was passed into law, and the penalties it would inflict had had time to operate; that when—as he supposed the right hon. Gentleman hoped and expected would be the effect of the Act—it had got rid of a certain number of badly-conducted public-houses and beerhouses throughout the country, the gaps thus created would be filled up by grocers, who would spring up with the intention of going as close to the wind as they possibly could, and evading, whenever they were able, the action of the law. That, he believed, would be done by grocers, wherever they saw an opportunity of doing business. The feeling throughout the country tended in that direction. Almost all the answers he had received, after stating what he had already told the Committee, set forth that the writers did not believe that any material violation of the law existed; but they invariably added that they must say that the evidence on this matter was excessively difficult to obtain, and that there might exist cases which could not come to their knowledge. These constables and magistrates' clerks, one and all, agreed in that, after the passing of that Bill, they looked forward with considerable alarm to the danger that might arise from these licenses being still unsubjected to magisterial authority. He had brought a few of those letters down, and he would, with the permission of the Committee, read one or two of them. He had a letter from the Chief Constable of Liverpool, in which that official stated—

"It is my strong conviction that all places where intoxicating liquors are sold by retail, whether on or off the premises, should be licensed by the justices, who at the annual Sessions require reports from the police as to how each house has been conducted during the past twelve months, and what breaches of the law or irregularities have taken place, all which operate as a wholesome check on the general body."

He had also a communication from the Chief Constable of Halifax, which stated—

"The result of the Act of Parliament allowing grocers and others to deal in beer and spirits by retail has, so far as my experience and information goes, been injurious. I believe that the Act in question has led thousands of females to habits of tippling that would under Other circumstances have remained sober women to the end of their days. I should amend the Act by repealing it. Open drinking is bad enough, but private drinking is much worse. My opinion is that drinking ought not to be over the grocer's counter."

The Chief Constable of Staleybridge wrote—

"Great evil arises from licensing grocers to sell spirituous liquors in any form. There is no doubt that if the public-houses are either closed in large numbers, or the hours which they are allowed to remain open are curtailed to any great extent, unless the grocers who are licensed for spirituous liquors are compelled to close at the same time, the trade will drift in that direction, especially if neither magistrates nor police have control over them."

Then he had reports from chaplains of gaols, magistrates, and clergymen, got together during the last few months, showing that they all shared the same alarm as to the future. He did not give the names of the writers; but he had received a letter from a clergyman of Manchester, who was the original mover in regard to the collection of the reports—the Rev. Mr. Bardsley—who therein stated that he would vouch for the accuracy of every one of the quotations he had sent. The other testimonials were from gentlemen locally interested, who did not wish to have publicity given to their names, and he would therefore submit their opinions to the Committee for what they were worth. One clergyman said—

"He was quite sure that the sale of beer in grocers' shops was greatly increasing drinking habits among females of the working classes."

Again, a borough magistrate said—

"That intemperance was greatly on the increase among married women, all through the grocers' licenses."

On being asked his opinion of Gladstone's Act, he said—

"The Act was very bad. He was informed that there was only one such house in his district, and it was considered one of the worst."

Farther on, he said—

"That he had hitherto failed to notice any good effects of the Act. The shops were only so many more petty public-houses, and female intemperance was decidedly on the increase, chiefly owing to the facilities of obtaining intoxicants, without the knowledge of their friends, from the licensed grocers and confectioners."

Again, he had the testimony of several gaol chaplains and governors of gaols, but he would only quote one. This gentleman said, speaking of the Act—

"My opinion is, that it is driving our respectable matrons, such as farmers' wives, on to the shoal of intemperance. It is so easy to procure the drink—the grocery being a successful blind in doing the business so respectably. The tap is often in some out of the way corner of the shop."

The Chief Constable of Bradford wrote to him as follows:—

"In reply to your letter, I beg to inform you that, in my opinion, the licensing of grocers' and other shops for the sale of spirits is a source of great mischief. It is next to an impossibility to detect offenders against the law, on account of the cloak afforded by the grocery or other trade carried on upon the premises. If I were permitted, as the Excise are, to send agents to those places to make illicit purchases, I think there would be no difficulty in getting convictions. The system is, I am sure, working great harm, and if such places are to be permitted at all, they should only be allowed on licenses by the magistrates and not by the Excise. The importance of such a measure cannot be over-estimated."

Now, another very important point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was, that if this Amendment were not accepted, they would allow these men to obtain their licenses direct from the Excise; and what, he would ask, had been the general effect of their doing that hitherto? They all knew that the Excise looked more to money than to character. An exciseman never did and never would trouble himself to make inquiries with respect to a man's character who applied for a license, provided he brought the money to pay for it. He had, as bearing on this point, a most important letter from the Chief Constable of Hereford, who said—

"I may add for your information that when the beerhouse jurisdiction was placed in the hands of the magistrates, I found that great laxity had existed on the part of the Excise authorities in licensing houses that were not qualified, for out of 38 beerhouses not less than 29 were not qualified by rental, although the overseers had certified from year to year to the Excise in the usual form. Of course, these licenses were not renewed."

He quoted that, as showing one of the difficulties with which they had to contend, if they looked to the purposes of this measure, and he was strengthened in his argument by the effect of what took place in 1830. If they recalled what then took place, they would find that the same feeling prevailed then which prevailed now—that they would by the opening of the beershops diminish he consumption of spirits throughout the country; but after the lapse of a few years, these houses became the source of all the evil which was now complained of, and it arose from the fact that they took their license direct from the Excise free from magisterial control, and free from all police supervision and inspection. He was afraid it would be just the same with the grocers' licenses, when they considered what were the inducements to intemperance which they held out, and seeing that the public had no guarantee that spirits would not be sold in grocers' establishments in contravention of the law. He hoped that from that the Committee would see the importance of placing all those who dealt in intoxicating liquors under the same law, so as to close every gap and make this Bill a reality and not a sham. The recommendations, too, of the Committee of 1854 supported his view of the case. It recommended that no intoxicating drink should be sold without a license, and that all coffee-shops, temperance hotels, shell-fish shops, and similar places of public resort should be required to be licensed for their respective purposes, and should be subject to be visited and reported upon in the same manner as public-houses, and that the annual amount paid for every such license should be £2. In fact, the whole Report went to show that all persons who engaged or who dealt in the trade should be placed on the same footing in regard to the issue of the license. If they looked to the Government Bill and to the Amendments proposed in it, they would find something more that would strengthen his position. He had looked to the Amendments which the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had put upon the Paper to meet the evils of the case in that country. The law allowing grocers to sell spirits there was only of recent date; but yet they had had evidence before the Committee of 1868 which strongly showed what they might anticipate would be the history of its working in England. On that Committee they had the evidence of Mr. Robert Lindsay, a merchant of Belfast, who, speaking of those licenses, said—

"They are called, in Belfast, night-houses, as distinguished from the regular public-houses. They have the power by law of selling for consumption off the premises."

He would call the right hon. Gentleman's particular attention to this. Mr. Lindsay went on to say—

"But in fact, what they do sell is mostly for consumption on the premises. These night-houses keep a regular watch on the police, and by means of back doors, opening frequently into open yards, if a policeman comes to the front door whoever is inside is turned out into the common ground, and it is impossible to get proof."

Farther on he said—

"These parties do sell tea and coffee; but it is more as a blind than anything else, for the shops are really public-houses. Persons who cannot get a regular license, owing to their character or the character of the premises, go to the Excise, and there, without any reference to character, they can command a license by paying £10."

Turning from that to the evidence of Mr. J. L. O'Ferrall, the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police, they would find that gentleman saying—

"The drinking at all hours now so openly carried on in many spirit grocers' shops and in most of the beerhouses, in direct violation of the condition of their licenses, is proof how reckless people seeking drink usually are, and that there will not be wanting persons, in total disregard of the law, always ready to minister to this craving. The public-houses in Dublin are, for the most part, well conducted; the laws regulating them are sufficiently stringent."

In answer to another question, he says—

"The spirit grocers and beer dealers sell contrary to the law and in violation of the law, because though they have the right to sell, they have only a right to sell a certain quantity, and that not to be consumed on the premises, yet they frequently sell in violation of the law, and to be consumed on the premises, while the houses are closed, and the police have no authority to enter and so to convict them. The more you increase the difficulty of getting liquor in proper places the more people you throw into these houses."

He was asked—

"Do you mean that the spirit grocer may sell between 11 o'clock on Saturday night and 2 o'clock on Sunday?" and he answered—"They may sell at all hours of the night."

Again, on being asked—

"Does that take place, in fact, in Dublin now?" he replied—"Very largely. The whole of the illicit drinking in Dublin is in beerhouses and at spirit grocers, as they are called.

"I believe by the 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 38, s. 3, the grocers are not entitled to sell less than one pint, and not to be consumed on the premises, but there is no limitation with reference to the hour of opening or closing?—But the provisions have been altered; I think, under 8 & 9 Vict., they can sell a less quantity; the quantity has been reduced, any quantity of spirits may be sold, even a glass.

"Can you, from your connection with the police, state from what houses that arises?—From beer dealers and spirit grocers.

"Which should you say chiefly?—I should say the spirit grocers; they sell the most spirits.

"And are not liable to a penalty for selling it, apparently?—No; they are not liable to a penalty for selling it, but only for allowing it to be consumed on the premises.

"In fact, the police are at this moment powerless to prevent this drinking during those hours?—They are to a great extent, from the difficulty they experience in proving the sale; that is, that they had seen payment of the money for the drink consumed on the premises.

"Your opinion is that drinking does not take place to such an extent as that?—I think it does in spirit dealers' and beerhouses; I think there is drinking there going on to a very great extent now."

The Superintendent of Police in Dublin, Mr. Corr, before the same Committee, gave the following evidence:—

"Would you tell the Committee what you consider the evils of the present licensing system at Dublin?—As regards spirit grocers and beer dealers, wholesale and retail, the spirit grocers can keep open on Christmas Day and Good Friday, and every Sunday in the year. I have one at present in my division who keeps open all night for the sale of drink, not to be consumed on the premises. I have to keep a constable there, at the door, to prevent parties from congregating about the place, and to preserve order in the locality. These beer dealers are a great source of annoyance in any locality in the City of Dublin that they spring up in; there are some of them in lanes and in courtways, and I am sure it was never contemplated any license should be given to such places at all.

"They are not subject to any restriction with reference to getting a license; they get it as of right, by paying for it, do they not?—No matter what a man's character may be, he goes down to the Custom House and gets the beer license or the spirit license.

"Do you know whether there are many persons in the City of Dublin who take out spirit licenses not bonâ fide for selling drinks not to be consumed on the premises, but as a blind to enable them to sell it to be consumed on the premises?—The majority of spirit grocers in Dublin violate the spirit of their license.

"Would it not be difficult, indeed, to prevent a man having bought a glass of whisky in a bottle from throwing it down his throat when he had got as far as the door?—Yes, perfectly impossible."

He had referred to the evidence in order to meet the argument which the right hon. Gentleman would, in all probability, put forward—that this system of grocers' licenses had already been in operation in Ireland; but the class of spirit grocers had increased with alarming rapidity in Ireland, in consequence of the abolition of the smaller class of beerhouses, and all the evils which had been pointed out in the evidence given before the Committee of 1868 arose from a class of spirit grocers which the present Bill proposed to set up in this country. If the present Bill were carried out properly, it was hoped that they would put a stop in a great measure to badly-conducted houses throughout the country, and by so doing, they would have a field ready open for occupation by a new class of traders; and it would be a class who would carry out trade in England in the same way as it had been carried on in Ireland. He believed that the effect of that would be to prevent the Bill from working, and that they would soon have to pass another Bill to place these new traders under the same conditions as all others who dealt in the same class of articles, and when that time should come to pass they would regret having to do what was necessary, because they would then have to deal hardly with what would fairly be called vested interests. He therefore contended that if his Amendment were accepted and embodied in the Bill, its effect would be to put a stop to these illegal modes of dealing, for the licenses necessary would have to be obtained from the licensing magistrates, doors would have to be closed at prescribed times, and the number of houses would be materially diminished; whereas unless they could do that, he believed the maintenance of the existing system would be a blot on the Bill, which would render it ineffectual for the object it was framed for. He placed the question upon this ground—that it was only justice that they should deal evenly with the whole trade; that all who elected to sell this particular description of goods should be placed upon the same footing. He owned that he was unable to see the difficulty which had been suggested by the grocers themselves. They said they considered that it would be an indignity that they should have to go before magistrates to ask for the permission to sell these particular things; but he did not believe that the Committee would entertain any such an absurd idea. Why should it be a greater indignity to the grocer than to the publican to go before a magistrate to obtain their licenses to sell intoxicating drinks? There was another argument used which perhaps might be considered to be of more weight—that they, having to apply for a magistrate's certificate, were practically restricted to one day in the year upon which they could take out their license; but this could be met by making special sessions meeting days upon which such licenses might be taken. They knew very well that these grocers' licenses were the means of holding out immense temptation to the men who held them to violate their licenses, and for this reason—The public-house had to close at a particular time, whilst the grocers could keep open all night, and it would be extremely difficult to prove that they were selling after hours. He regretted that a subject of so much importance had not fallen into the hands of those who would have dealt with it as it should have been dealt with; and also regretted further that it should have been discussed at a time when there were present so few hon. Members who took an interest in the subject. He regretted the absence of many who would have given the Committee their opinions; and, in conclusion, he could only recommend the matter to their consideration, and ask them carefully to consider what he had said. He might add that the Amendment technically only dealt with an incidental point; but it was necessary that he should move it in order to raise the whole question.

said, he had had some experience of a similar clause in Scotland to that now proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite, and he should not be doing his duty if he did not express his opinion of its operation in that country to the Committee. Under the Act in Scotland grocers' spirit licenses were obtained in the same way as public-house licenses; and the grocers were not only not allowed to keep open longer than the publicans, but they were restricted to shorter hours. Notwithstanding that, however, enormous evils had arisen from grocers having these licenses, for the party who wanted to drink spirits in Scotland unobserved slipped into the grocer's shop, and thus escaped the notice of his neighbours. That was not all. Poor people, who frequented those spirit-grocers' shops for other articles got spirits also, and told the grocer to put the article down in the pass-book. Then, again, servant girls who went to these shops were often offered a glass of spirits, and in that way led to the commencement of a great evil. The trade was carried on in that way, and numerous bad results followed. As the magistrates had the licensing of public-houses from time to time, there was always the greatest objection on their parts to giving licenses to the grocers. One great evil that existed there was that there were no limits—no minimum quantity, than which the grocer was not permitted to sell less; and if the grocer should be permitted to sell at all, he should be confined, in his (Mr. M'Laren's) opinion, to the sale of reputed quart bottles, and the spirit should be sold sealed up. The system had been most demoralizing. He spoke with some experience in the matter. Although he was not in Parliament at the time, he had a good deal to do with the framing of the last Public House Act; and as an active magistrate, and taking a great interest in the question, he had for years devoted himself to watching its operation. He had thus acquired a considerable knowledge of the subject; and knowing the evils that had arisen from the system under his own eyes and the complaints that were made, he felt that he would not do his duty if he did not rise up and protest against the system being extended to England. He did not believe that much harm would arise from the sale of wine, but thought that the words about the sale of spirits should be altogether obliterated.

wished to corroborate the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex. Having some acquaintance with the northern district, he knew that after the passing of the Act great anxiety was felt by those who were familiar with the condition of the working classes; and he grieved to say that their fears had been confirmed. There was great reason to fear that the grocers' licenses had been much demoralizing. He had heard the same story which had been told by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), about women who would shrink from entering a public-house, entering into these grocer's shops and thereby contracting a habit of drinking, and becoming more and more its victims. He had heard also the same story about disputes between husband and wife, and that which was represented as a dealing in some article of grocery, was really a transaction in wine and spirits. As the representative of a considerable constituency, and having heard much of the evils of the grocer's licenses, he would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex.

said, that appeared to him an important Amendment, and he should like to say one word upon it. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex with considerable interest, and was rather amused at the way in which those different classes of traders spoke of one another. The hon. Baronet had dealt rather hard measure to the grocers. He described them as demoralizing the people; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) must remind him that there was something to say on the other side, and that they had several letters in the newspapers in which Mr. Gilbey stated that he found a great deal of demoralization in the proceedings of the publicans; in fact, most of them were in the habit of getting a little cheap popularity by abusing the lower class of public-houses. The hon. Baronet opposite came down upon the grocers, and then the defendants of the grocers came down upon the publicans; so that they were reminded of the old fable of the pot and the kettle. The hon. Baronet, however, was right in what he said about the experience they had had of the Beer Act of 1830. He said that the Act was passed to benefit the public by promoting free trade in beer; but he must remember what was the state of things before the passing of that Act. It was said that when it passed the Duke of Wellington, under whose Government it became law, observed that in breaking down the publicans' monopoly he had gained a greater victory than Waterloo. If the hon. Baronet would read the debates that took place on that occasion, he would find that the reason why it was passed was that the state of things was intolerable, and that the House rushed into free trade in beer. That system went on for several years, but things still got worse; and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would remember that in 1860, at the time of the French Treaty, the Prime Minister brought in his Wine Act to extend the power of selling wines to other houses. They had now heard that these extensions had resulted in leading to the drunkenness of women; and they now stood in the position that they were asked to go back to the old magisterial system, pure and simple, of 1830; for if this Bill were passed they would come again to where they were in 1830, with the exception of the heavier penalty which it imposed and the shortening of the hours, which, no doubt, would do some good. The hon. Baronet said that if his Amendment were not carried, he was afraid the Bill would be little better than a sham. There were many people out-of-doors who looked at the Bill in that light already; and although they in that House, who had gone more into the question, believed it would do some good, yet a large number of people, viewing the Bill as a remedy for drunkenness, thought they were trifling with the question. It seemed to him that the proposition of the hon. Baronet was quite fair, and that the grocers should be put upon the same footing as the publicans; and believing that its effect would be to do that equal justice to all, and that it would a little diminish the facilities for obtaining drink, he would support it.

said, that nothing could be more consistent than the speech which had just been made by the hon. Baronet. He objected to all facilities for the sale of spirituous liquors; and therefore he wished to put every obstacle in the way of their sale. But the great majority of that House were of an entirely different opinion. They were promoting a Bill to repress disorders; they were dealing with known and admitted evils; they were dealing with actual facts. Now, what were the actual facts which would justify the proposed interference with the issue of grocers' licenses? His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who had moved this Amendment, with the fairness which had been characteristic of his conduct throughout the whole of this Bill, and to which he (Mr. Bruce) wished to bear the strongest testimony, admitted that there was no case against the existing grocers. He said that their conduct had been thoroughly satisfactory; that he had communicated with all classes of persons, and that he had not been able to prove any evils under the existing system. He had admitted that he could not call evidence; but he affirmed, with a number of other persons, that evils existed. He (Mr. Bruce) had applied to the Board of Inland Revenue, and they said that there was no proof of the alleged evils—no proof either of the surreptitious sale of wine and spirits under the name of other goods, or of the sale of liquor to be drunk on the premises when they had only got a license to sell it for consumption off the premises. The only breaches of the law which had occurred had been in some cases where, mostly through ignorance, a smaller quantity was sold than they had a right to sell by law. His hon. Friend further justified his Amendment by taking a prophetical view of the evils which were to arrive hereafter. He referred to the action of the House in regard to the beerhouse system; but he (Mr. Bruce) would remind the House that in that case they had admitted evils. They knew that a class of persons received the licenses who were notoriously improper persons to hold them, and that no sufficient vigilance was exercised with regard to them. Was that said with regard to the class of men who applied for the grocers' licenses? The license duty which they paid for the right of selling these things was about £25, and that was a considerable security for the respectability of the person who entered into that sort of trade. There was, therefore, the strongest evidence with regard to the beerhouses, but none with regard to the grocers. His hon. Friend was obliged to take refuge in the example of Ireland, and his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) in the example of Scotland. The circumstances, however, were entirely different. In Ireland, they had admitted evils. Evidence had been taken, and there had been no difficulty in proving the existence of these evils; but no evidence had been procured in this case. He had communicated with the Chief Commissioner of Police in London, and he and his officers were unanimous in saying that there was no proof whatever of any of the alleged abuses with respect to the grocers' licenses. What was the difference between the case of Scotland and Ireland and the ease of England? In England, the law was that a grocer could only sell in closed vessels, and they could not sell less than a quart of spirits; but in Ireland there was no such limitation. In Ireland they could sell in open vessels, and there was no limit as to quantity. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had rightly fastened upon the circumstance that they were able to sell in small quantities as being the cause of mischief; and that power was more liable to be abused in a country where, on account of the colder, bleaker, and moister climate, there was a greater demand for spirits than for the weaker beverages. In both these countries, therefore, they had the existence of admitted evils; and his noble Friend the Chief Secretary would only be too glad, so far as the cause of temperance was concerned, to substitute for the law in Ireland the existing law of England. But they were now asked by the hon. Baronet to interfere with the sale of liquors by a certain class of dealers—not on account of any existing evils, not because any proof had been given of injurious results, but because such consequences might hereafter follow. To that proposal he would reply, why should they interfere to prevent persons from purchasing wine or spirits in such quantities as they required from persons duly qualified to sell them, and to take them home to be used at their discretion? Public-houses stood upon a wholly different footing. The difference between the grocers' shops and the public-houses was this—that at the public-houses drink was sold for consumption on the premises, and at the grocers' shops it was not, and the sale for consumption on the premises was accompanied by intemperance; men gathered in considerable numbers, and intemperance led to disorder, which it was the interest and duty of society to prevent. But, apart from these evils, which were connected only with the sale for consumption on the premises, if it could be shown that great moral mischief ensued, the right of interference would still arise; but none had yet been proved. No such mischief or disorder as had been adverted to in the course of the discussion had been shown to arise from the grocers' licenses. But there was another thing which he would put to the hon. Baronet and the Committee. If they agreed to the clause which was now proposed, they would in fact be creating a new monopoly. If the grocers were in future to receive their licenses from the licensing magistrates, and to be brought under all the provisions of this Bill, a new vested interest would be created—a great and very formidable interest—with which they might find it hereafter very difficult to deal. It had been objected to the Bill that it would make closer the existing monopoly of the right of sale for consumption on the premises. But what grounds had they strong enough to justify a further extension of the principle of monopoly, and the creation of a new class of houses arbitrarily selected for carrying on a certain trade? The hon. Baronet opposite had not only failed to prove that any evils had been produced by the present system of granting grocers' licenses, but he (Mr. Bruce) would add, that all the information which he had asked for and received from police superintendents and other officers conversant with the facts, had failed to show that there were any grounds even for the suspicion that these licenses were abused for the purpose of promoting or encouraging drinking on the premises. He would, therefore, put it to the Committee, whether it would be right, and consistent with the principles of modern legislation, where no evil was proved, and when it was only suggested by surmises of the vaguest description, to throw impediments in the way of this trade? The greater the restriction on public-houses the greater would be the tendency to evasion, and for that reason they must grant facilities for the purchase of liquors by the public, provided that by so doing they did not endanger public order. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was consistent with his own position; but Government never interfered with the habits and enjoyments of the people, except for the purpose of preserving public order, which was not threatened by the description of trade which it was now sought to restrict. He had been told by deputations of publicans over and over again that the drunkenness of the country arose, not from drinking in the public-houses, but from the drinking of spirits sold by the grocers, If that were so, he should be happy to co-operate with those who impeached the trade of the grocers; hut, as he had the means of knowing what the truth was, he had not the slightest faith in the statements made about the trade of the grocers. The publicans were exerting themselves to the utmost to reduce the competition of the grocers; the supporters of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle wished to impede every branch of the trade without discrimination; he sympathized with neither party in this indiscriminate attack, and therefore, on the part of the Government, it was his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet opposite. He said there was no reason why grocers should not apply to magistrates for licenses, but he had not shown any reason why they should; and he absolutely proposed to vest magistrates with complete discretion to grant or refuse, in which case, if they were prohibitionists, they might occasion great inconvenience to the public. On these grounds he (Mr. Bruce) hoped the Committee would not entertain the proposal.

said, that in his own Bill he had acted on the same principle as he now proposed, and brought two and three-guinea licenses within the cognizance and control of the licensing authorities.

said, the avowed object of the Bill was to extinguish a certain number of public-houses; but he would venture to caution the Committee lest in endeavouring to get rid of one evil, they found themselves creating another. The object of the Motion of the hon. Baronet was to prevent the continuance or extension of a new class of public-houses, placed under more favourable and less stringent regulations, and thus able to supply greater facilities and temptations for the consumption of intoxicating liquors. It was a fair and reasonable proposition that all such houses should derive their authority from the same source, and all be subject to the same regulations and the same penalties for the infringement of these regulations. That, however, was not the case here. The licensed victuallers were obliged to close at certain hours—the grocers might if they chose keep open all night. [Mr. BRUCE: That is dealt with under the Bill.] He was speaking of the present system, and contended that it offered a temptation to grocers to exceed or abuse their power, by supplying that which the public-houses had been prohibited from doing. Again, licensed victuallers were to be subjected to severe penalties if they sold intoxicating drinks to young persons under a specified age; but spirit and wine grocers were subject to no such penalties, and might sell to whom they chose, and a child refused at a public-house might obtain ale or spirits at a grocer's shop, which the Bill contemplated he should not have. Licensed victuallers, too, were to be subject to heavy penalties, not only for selling adulterated liquors, but for having materials on their premises, whether knowingly or not, which might be used for purposes of adulteration, and in the case of two convictions they were to be compelled to placard the fact of these convictions on their own premises. Spirit grocers were exempt from these stringent penalties. He contended that that was unequal and unfair legislation, and he should certainly vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet below him.

said, that looking at the quarters whence came the attacks upon the clause, he was tempted to make the inquiry—"Is Saul, too, among the prophets?" Legislation dictated by dread of the future and designed to meet conjured-up phantoms of the imagination must always fail; indeed, he thought it the chief duty of those who asked Parliament to legislate to make out a present case, a pressing necessity for the remedy advocated. He was astounded that any hon. Member who professed Free Trade principles should think of voting for this Motion. Free Trade seemed a lesson to be, with some, as easily learned as readily forgotten; but he trusted that no Free Trader would vote for the creation of a new monopoly. The attack made on the clause was only one other mode in which the interests of the public were apt to drop out when the interests of individuals stood in the way. If the publicans felt aggrieved with the grocers being allowed to sell spirits, let them form a large society for selling tea; but, as regarded the great body of the nation, he hoped the Committee would not throw difficulties in the way of obtaining the best article at the cheapest price.

thought the remarks that had been made with reference to his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex were most unjust. His Bill was rather unpopular, and it was accepted as a fair compromise. He also objected to the mode in which the other side put the question. In his opinion, the onus probandi lay not with his hon. Friend, but with those who held that grocers should be allowed to sell spirits. Why should not stationers or any other shopkeepers be also allowed to sell spirits? [Mr. BRUCE: So they are.] Prideaux was asked by his publisher to put some jokes into his Sacred and Profane History, in order to make the book sell; and in like manner the grocers now sold wines and spirits in addition to their other commodities. He had always thought that tea and coffee were the great antidotes to intoxication; but now it appeared that the bane and its antidotes were to be sold in the same shop.

said, he was somewhat surprised at the statement he understood the Home Secretary to have made—namely, that persons taking out those licenses paid as much as £25 a-year. Was his interpretation correct? He had always been under the impression that the spirit-grocer's licenses were £13 a-year—£10 for one and £3 for the other; whereas that of the publican amounted to £20 or £30.

said, the wine and spirit licenses together amounted to about £24 a-year.

observed that his clause did not relate to wine licenses.

considered that in connection with these spirit-grocers' licenses the great danger to be apprehended and to be guarded against was that of clandestine drinking. If any tradesman could obtain a license, then they would have the shops of the stationer, draper, tobacconist, and the like turned into lurking dens for the sale of intoxicating liquors. When the Home Secretary said that no evils had been proved to exist from the operation of the spirit-grocer system, he forgot evidently the testimony which had been quoted by the hon. Baronet of governors of gaols respecting the evils clearly traceable to the sale of spirits in shops of this description.

believed that, as a rule, licensed spirit-grocers' shops were not badly conducted, but the great danger arose from tradesman's wives going there to purchase articles of necessity for family use, but being tempted into buying spirits for their own consumption. There was a natural modesty about women, and, in many instances, their sense of delicacy kept them away from the public-house; but this feeling did not prevent them entering the grocers, and bringing away a bottle of spirits. It transpired in the Inquiry respecting Habitual Drunkards that the practice of drinking was spreading more than ever among womankind. Some protection, therefore, such as the hon. Baronet proposed, was necessary, otherwise all that had already been accomplished with regard to beerhouses would prove comparatively useless. The object of the Amendment was merely to extend to grocers those restrictions which they had already determined should apply to publicans.

said, that throughout the discussion there had been considerable confusion because hon. Members did not sufficiently distinguish between sale and consumption on and sale and consumption off the premises. For instance, his hon. Friend and Colleague opposite (Mr. Gregory), in alluding to the 7th clause, which forbade the sale of spirits to persons apparently under the age of 16 years, failed to notice that it applied solely to a sale for consumption on the premises. It had been argued that the system of grocers' licenses encouraged secret drinking by women and young servant girls, and that, therefore, the licenses ought to be subject to a magistrate's certificate; but as a matter of fact, there would, under such a system, be just the same facilities as at present for women and servant girls to obtain spirits. The House ought to keep steadily in view the distinction between regulating houses in which people drank and took refreshments and shops which were only open for the supply of commodities which the purchasers took away to their own homes. Before altering the law in respect of grocers' licenses, a further trial ought to be given to the existing system.

moved that certain of the provisions of this Act with respect to—1. Illicit sales; 2. Offences against public order; 3. Adulteration; 4. Repeated convictions; 5. Entry on premises; 6. Six day licenses; 7. Legal proceedings (except so much thereof as relate to the continuance of license during pendency of an appeal); 8. Miscellaneous, and 9. Saving clauses, shall extend to Ireland, with certain modifications.

in moving as an Amendment, in line 7 of the proposed new clause to leave out from the word "after," to the words "ten o'clock at night," in line 10, said: Sir, the effect of leaving out these words would he to close up all shops where spirituous liquors are sold during the whole of Sunday. The effect would he the same as that of the Sunday Closing Bill, and it is with that object I now propose this Amendment. There is a misapprehension on the part of some who oppose the measure I am now proposing which I desire to remove. The proposal to close public-houses in Ireland during the whole of Sunday has been viewed by some as an attempt to interfere with a supposed almost immemorial right of the trade, and hence is looked upon as an unjustifiable innovation. Now, the fact is, that it is no innovation of an immemorial right. The sale of spirituous liquors on Sunday was in Ireland forbidden by law under penalty up to the year 1833. In that year an Act, commonly called "Perrin's Act," was passed, and it is only since that year public-houses have been permitted to be open in Ireland on Sunday. All that we seek now is to have that bad Act repealed, for experience has convinced us that its effects have been most injurious to the morals, the comforts, and the health of our people and of their families. We ask you to do with this Act as the House has dealt with other Acts when they have been found not to work well. Some years ago this House passed the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. It has been repealed, for its provisions were useless or injurious. Some years since the Party Processions Act (Ireland) was passed. Instead of its achieving the end for which it was passed, it was found to make matters worse. You repealed it. I ask you now to do the same with the Act of 1833. That Act has produced great evil. Do with it as you have done with the Ecclesiastical Titles Act and the Processions Act—repeal the Act of 1833, which permits the sale of liquors on Sunday. We only ask this—place us in the position in which we were before 1833—place us in the same position as the people of Scotland have been in for 18 years. The Prohibitory Law has worked well in Scotland, in all the large towns and through the country. It will work equally well in our cities and through the country. On what grounds do I ask for the repeal of the Act of 1833? I think I shall be able to show the House there are indeed sufficient grounds for the total closing of public-houses on Sundays in Ireland. In 1834, only one year after the passing of Perrin's Act, a Petition from the Corporation of Dublin alluded to the increase of drunkenness consequent on its passing, and from that year up to the present a constantly increasing demand for the closing of public-houses on Sunday has been spreading through Ireland; within the last few days I have had a communication from a society of licensed retailers themselves, informing me they were favourable to Sunday closing. It may not be out of place here to notice that from the nature of the drink taken in Ireland, the effect of Sunday drinking is peculiarly to be dreaded. Beer is the general drink in England; beer taken to excess stupefies: whisky is the general drink in Ireland; whisky maddens. The habits of drinking, too, are different. In England, each man drinks his beer in such quantity as he likes; in Ireland, in country parts especially, they drink in rounds in parties of five or six; each stands his round in his turn, treating the party in glasses of whisky. Swearing into illegal societies too often follows, for the designing entrap the unwary. Faction fights on the way home or agrarian murders are sometimes among the consequences. Such are among the evils of Sunday drinking. I can say, without hesitation, that never on any subject in Ireland has there ever been so widespread, so universal a conviction as on the evil effects of Sunday drinking, and never on any subject in Ireland has there been such an unanimous appeal to the Government and to this House, as for total closing of public-houses in Ireland on Sundays. Within the last few days I presented at the same time to this House two remarkable Petitions on total Sunday closing of public-houses. One was from His Eminence Cardinal Cullen, and 13 Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic Church, The other was from 3 Bishops, 16 Deans, and 21 Archdeacons of the Protestant Church. The Heads of the Presbyterian Bodies and of the Wesleyan Methodists have also petitioned for it. However we may differ in Ireland in politics, in religion, in party, in class, all are united on this point. On the 28th March last an aggregate meeting was held at the Mansion House, Dublin, the Lord Mayor, locum tenens, in the chair, attended by all classes and all religions. There was an unanimous vote in support of Sunday closing. Complaints were made that the trades and workmen of Dublin were not there. To meet this really unfounded objection, a meeting was called of the working men of Dublin, open to all, for the discussion of the question, in the Mechanics' Institute. The great hall was filled; some hundreds were there; only four hands were held up against total Sunday closing. No meeting was ever called against it. The following extract from the form of petition very generally adopted throughout Ireland puts concisely the grounds on which total Sunday closing is asked for:—

"On the day set apart for rest and Divine worship, when usual labour is prohibited, and the wages for the week's support of the family have been recently received, the temptations of the public-houses and beerhouses are permitted, to the grievous injury of good morals, and of the health, wealth, and comfort of the people of Ireland."

Deputations with memorials in favour of total Sunday closing waited on the late right hon. the Chief Secretary, now President of the Board of Trade, and on the present Chief Secretary the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington). The memorials presented were signed by 1,026 Justices of the Peace, 60 Corporations and Boards of Town Commissioners, 84 Poor Law Boards, 23 Boards of Gaols and Lunatic Asylums, 67 County and City Coroners, 57 Chaplains (Protestant and Catholic) of Gaols and Asylums, 13 Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and 10 Clerks of the Crown. The trade itself sent in a Petition from Dublin with 235 names attached. Of 60 signatures from a town in Ireland (Moate) presented in April last, 15, or one-fourth of the whole, were of vintners. In the present year, 1872, the most rev. Dr. Conaty, Catholic Bishop of Kilmore, thus writes—

"Any person with an accurate knowledge of the country knows that many of the deeds of daring and violence which have occasionally disgraced our people were concocted and matured in public-houses notable for Sunday traffic. The Sabbath being a day of rest, the young and unwary assemble in the haunts of the idler, the plotter, and the drunkard. Here it is that wicked and designing men ply their victims with drink, and then engage them in societies alike subversive of order and religion. Close the public-houses, and you deprive all those parties of a legalized rendezvous. Their daily toil or necessary avocations will prevent their meeting on week days."

Let us turn for a moment to the case of the young men and—now, unfortunately, in some cases—young girls employed in selling whisky on Sundays in public-houses. Of these, there are in Dublin about 3,000; through the country altogether, about 60,000. They cannot be in bed on Saturday night before 12 or 1 o'clock. On Sundays they must be behind their counters from 2 o'clock to 11 or 12 at night, exposed to the company often of the dissolute and depraved. There is little or no time for recreation, for religious attendance, or moral instruction, for after the fatigues of Saturday night, the morning time on Sunday is scarcely more than is given to rest and meals. These young persons presented to my Colleague and myself a memorial, asking us to use our efforts for Sunday closing. In it they observe—

"The hours of our body are 16½ hours' work on week days, and 9 hours' work on Sunday. You will search in vain for a parallel for our position."

In several parts of Ireland voluntary closing on Sunday has been adopted. We ask you now to make compulsory throughout Ireland what is now voluntary in some parts. It might, perhaps, be said here, why may it not be left to be voluntary everywhere? For this reason—As one black sheep will spoil a whole flock, so one publican opening his house, forces all the trade about him to break up the voluntary closing. In one large parish in Dublin the Catholic clergymen succeeded in carrying out voluntary closing; but one or two broke the rule, and then the others were obliged to follow for their own protection. In other parts the movement has been more successful. The most rev. Dr. Leahy, Archbishop of Cashel, thus writes after 12 years' experience of Sunday closing in his diocese—

"Our Sunday temperance law has been to the present faithfully observed by the people, and has wrought immense good. A drunken man rarely is to be seen amongst us on Sundays. Rioting and blasphemy, the inevitable consequences of excessive drinking, which, before the introduction of our law, prevailed to a lamentable extent, have ceased to desecrate the Sunday and to disgrace our towns."

The most rev. Dr. Furlong, Roman Catholic Bishop of Ferns, writes as follows, this year, after 15 years' experience of Sunday closing:—

"The closing of public-houses on Sunday in this diocese dates from June, 1857. It has been since that time faithfully observed, and the scenes of drunkenness and disorder which were in former times but too frequent, have altogether disappeared.…. I can say with perfect truth that the calm and abstinence from all disturbance and disorder which pervade this diocese on the Sabbath day is a result of Sunday closing, for which we have reason to be thankful to Providence."

Were the women of Ireland—the mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters of the working men of Ireland—polled, there would not be found amongst them even one dissenting voice. It has been feared that if the licensed houses be closed, drinking in illicit houses would increase. To this there is this sufficient reply—that it has not taken place in those districts where voluntary total closing has been established. We have this also in communications from those districts—

"Should total Sunday closing be established by law, we would have the most efficient watch-guard to discover the illicit houses, for then police and licensed vintners would be combined to detect and punish the keepers of such houses, should any attempt be made to establish them."

It is often said in this House and out of it by successive Governments—"Bring any measure before us on which Irish Members agree, and we will not oppose it." I now propose to the Government this Amendment for their adoption. There is not a constituency in Ireland that has not, either in considerable numbers or unanimously, asked for total Sunday closing. Do, then, grant us what we ask. I will conclude by reading a letter of His Eminence Cardinal Cullen to the very rev. Dr. Spratt on total Sunday closing.

"My dear Dr. Spratt,—I earnestly hope that the exertions which are now being made to obtain an Act of Parliament prohibiting the sale of intoxicating drinks on the Sunday may be crowned with complete and speedy success. The law which forbids the sale of other articles on that day should certainly make no exception in favour of liquors, the abuse of which is so injurious to the public. Almost all the crime we have to deplore in Ireland may be traced to drunkenness; and as long as the doors of the public-house stand open during the leisure of the Sunday, it will be very difficult indeed to root out from among our people that degrading vice. No one knows better than you how much has been already done to meet this evil. The Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Ferns have succeeded in inducing their people to refrain from the sale or purchase of intoxicating drinks on Sunday; and in many parishes of this diocese the parish priests have been similarly successful. The happy results which have followed wherever this has been done, should encourage you and your colleagues to persevere in the work you have undertaken, and should secure for you the hearty co-operation of all those who have at heart the spiritual and temporal welfare of our excellent people.—I am, my dear Dr. Spratt, your devoted servant,+ PAUL CARDINAL CULLEN."

said, he was sorry he could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, believing that the change he proposed to make by his Amendment was one of too great and important a character to be effected by the omission of a few words from a clause, and without due notice being given to the people whom it so much concerned. If such a change as that suggested were desirable, it ought, in his opinion, to be made by means of a Bill framed with the avowed object of shutting up public-houses on Sundays in Ireland. The present measure was not one for that object—it was only a measure for the better regulation of public-houses generally. His hon. Friend had himself brought in a Bill to offect his object—which Bill stood for a second reading on Wednesday. He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not believe that there was one person in 100 in Ireland interested in this subject aware of his hon. Friend's intention to effect his object, if he could, by such an Amendment as he had proposed; and it appeared to him that it would not be fair for the House to decide in this sudden manner upon a point of such grave importance. He (the Marquess of Hartington) proposed by his clause to restrict the hours at which public-houses should be open on Sundays in Ireland. Those houses were now allowed to keep open from 2 o'clock until 11 o'clock on Sunday. Eleven o'clock being thought to be unnecessarily late, he should propose that in towns of over 5,000 inhabitants the closing hour should be 9 o'clock on Sunday, and in other towns 7 o'clock. Now, he believed that such an arrangement as that would be attended with beneficial results, because he was induced to think that the worst kind of drinking took place during the later hours of the Sunday. He could not, however, go so far as to say that the public-houses should be closed throughout the whole of the day. His hon. Friend had alleged that there was great unanimity on this subject in Ireland, and had appealed to him as to the representative character of the deputation which had waited upon him. He had had the honour of receiving deputations comprising persons of all creeds and politics in favour of the view of his hon. Friend, and he was aware that there was a very strong feeling in Ireland in that direction; but he was not prepared to admit that there was anything approaching to unanimity of opinion upon the subject—or that even a majority of the people of Ireland was favourable to this proposal. If it were generally known throughout that country that such a change as that suggested by his hon. Friend was contemplated, he was disposed to think that they would see as strong an agitation on foot in favour of the other side of the question as any that had already manifested itself in support of the closing of those houses on the whole of Sunday. The hon. Baronet had, no doubt, disclaimed any intention to effect class legislation by his Amendment. Nevertheless he (the Marquess of Hartington) thought, from the nature of his proposal, that it was impossible to avoid exposing it to the character of class legislation. He was quite aware of the distinction which existed between public-houses and clubs; but there was this analogy between them—that whereas in the case of the upper classes a club was a place to which a gentleman resorted if he wanted to take something to drink in the middle of the day or night, the public-house was almost universally the only place to which a member of the lower classes could resort. Consequently, if public-houses were closed the whole of Sunday, it might be said that the law left open to the rich man a place where he could obtain refreshment, while it closed the only place available for the poor man. He must say that Her Majesty's Government were by no means prepared to effect so important a change in the law.

said, he was much indebted to the noble Lord for his efforts to improve the morals of the people in connection with this question. He was nevertheless in favour of the proposal of his hon. Colleague, believing that if the people of Ireland were polled upon this question a large majority would be found in support of it. If the noble Lord would accept an Amendment which he had assisted in drawing up, by which the question of Sunday closing could be left for the decision of the great majority of the locality, then he would counsel the withdrawal of the Amendment; but if the noble Lord would not accept it, then he would urge his hon. Colleague to divide on the present Amendment.

observed that the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin had brought the subject before the Committee as if it had never been heard of before in that House, whereas a special Committee had sat upon the question of Sunday closing, and a Bill to effect that object had been before the House for three successive Sessions. It had, therefore, undergone thorough and repeated discussion. He would not trouble the Committee with any observation of his own; but he would call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the evidence given by one of his own constituents, as to the difficulty of preventing Sunday drinking, which was one of the special purposes which would, it was said, be effected by the passing of this clause. The secretary of the United Trades of Dublin, in giving his evidence before the Committee of 1868, said, that from what he had learned there was a strong feeling in favour of sobriety on Sunday, but that no steps they could take to put down drunkenness would be productive of sobriety, unless they secured the co-operation of the sober men in the attempt to check it; as when the public-houses were closed, those who wished for drink would run all risks to obtain it, and would seek for it wherever they could find it, which was chiefly in the low beerhouses in disreputable localities. It was, too, an extraordinary circumstance that the time when drunkenness was most observable in the streets of Dublin on Sundays was from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the very hours during which the public-houses were closed. They had already had the testimony of Mr. John Lewis O'Ferrall, who was most intimately acquainted with all matters of police in the City of Dublin, placed before them in respect to this question of Sunday drinking, which he attributed to the beerhouses and grocers' spirit licenses. The whole gist of the evidence before the Committee went to show how impossible it was to carry out practically the system of Sunday closing.

said, he was quite certain that if the public-houses which were under the control and supervision of the police were closed throughout Sunday, those who were desirous of obtaining spirits and other intoxicating liquors would seek for them in houses which were not under any such control, and, so far, the cause of public morality would be a loser. The stream blocked up would force its way through other channels; and the police, instead of being able to cheek and control drunkenness, would be powerless in the matter.

suggested that where a majority of one-third of the publicans in a district agreed to keep their houses closed on Sundays, it should be made compulsory on all others in the same district to do so likewise.

complained that on his introducing his own Bill last June the Home Secretary objected to it as piecemeal legislation, and advised him to raise the question in connection with this measure; whereas the noble Lord now told him he should have brought in a separate Bill. The Irish people had had six months' notice of his proposal, and meetings held in every part of the country had shown remarkable unanimity in its favour.

said, he wished to draw attention to the hours at which he thought it desirable that public-houses should be open on Sundays in Ireland—namely, from 1 to 3 in the afternoon, and then to close till 6; in other words, that they should adopt the English practice in Ireland, and for this reason—if whisky-houses were kept open the whole of Sunday the labouring classes would congregate in the towns; but if they were closed as in England, the labourers would go to their homes.

did not think that the suggested alteration would be an acceptable one in Ireland. In England the hours were regulated in reference to Divine Service, whereas in Ireland Divine Service was celebrated at different hours. As far as he was informed, those hours would be most inconvenient.

said, he was in accord with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin, and he had an Amendment to move—namely, that additional power should be given to magistrates in granting licenses at Quarter Sessions in Ireland. The magistrates there hold their sessions four times a-year; and, while he desired to give them increased power, he was not favourable to give the power to a majority of the magistrates. His opinion was that two-thirds of them might be entrusted with power and control. He would therefore move an Amendment to the proposed new clause as follows:—After the word "night," in line 10, to insert the words—

"Provided always, That it shall be lawful for the justices assembled in quarter sessions for any district of any county or riding, to make an order or orders directing that all houses and premises within such district, or within any portion thereof specially designated in such order, which are licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors shall be closed on Sunday, Christmas Bay, Good Friday, and every day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, at an earlier hour, or during the whole of such days; and they may also by such order direct all such houses and premises to be closed one hour earlier on the other days of the week."

The great advantage of such a law was that it would spread throughout the country; and he desired that a discretionary power should be given to the magistrates, on an application of the majority of the inhabitants of any parish that all public-houses should be closed throughout the whole of Sunday; that two-thirds of them shall so direct, if they think proper, after hearing every person for and against such application.

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. There could not be a doubt that a large number of people in Ireland wished for such a law, and he believed if the country were polled that the result would be in favour of the Amendment. He could speak for his district. No more carefully-guarded clause than this could be drawn, and he trusted that no one would vote against it for fear of introducing the permissive principle. Let them legislate for this part of the United Kingdom as it desired; and who could doubt that, if this matter were to be decided across the Channel, the permissive principle in this respect would be adopted. The demand made by his hon. Friend was very moderate. He simply proposed that the licensing authorities, after due notice had been given, and every opportunity had been afforded to the people of the district to express their views, might, if they found it was in accordance with the wish of the inhabitants, close public-houses on Sunday. It was not fair to say that this could be done now if the publicans desired it. They had no right to submit the virtue of those who desired to do it to the vicious wishes of an individual. In one district four out of five publicans might desire to close on Sunday; but it was not fair to put them in the position of losing half their trade if the fifth did not join. The proposal of his hon. Friend was guarded by requiring that two-thirds of the magistrates should be of one mode of thinking before this restriction could come into operation. He earnestly hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

thought the Amendment would be a most satisfactory mode of dealing with the question.

said, he would accept the Amendment, in lieu of his own, with great gratification.

said, it appeared to him that this proposition was only the permissive question in another shape. The object which the hon. Member had in view would be much better accomplished by the voluntary action of those who kept public-houses than by the Amendment which he proposed. What would be the effect of the proposition? It would cause canvassing and strife in every parish. Twenty-one days' notice must be given before any action could be taken. But on whose behalf and for what object was that notice to be given? Was it not that the ratepayers and consumers should have notice of the proposition? and it would not be difficult to foresee that in that district they would have all the excitement of a contested election. [An hon. MEMBER: The magistrates are not elected.] The object of the notice was that the magistrates should be informed by the inhabitants of the district what was their will and pleasure upon this subject. [Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING said, that this was not the case.] What, then, was the object of the notice? Would not everyone who was against Sunday closing he up in arms against those who were in its favour, and would not that give rise to canvassing and internecine strife in the whole of the district? He contended, also, that the Amendment would be unfair to the occupiers of the public-houses, because it would render their tenure insecure. There would be continual agitation for and against Sunday closing; there would be no finality in any rule that was adopted, and the question would give rise to vexatious strife.

said, there was a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for the county of Cork; but he doubted if it should be adopted when there were so few of the Irish Representatives present. He was the only Irish Member left on his side of the House. He would suggest that the proposition should be considered by the Government between that and the Report; but he did not think that there was a sufficient number of Irish Members present to decide a question which involved principles of such importance.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Murphy) had fallen into entire delusion and misapprehension. He did not know what he meant by saying that there would be canvassing. Would the magistrates at Quarter Sessions be canvassed? [Mr. MURPHY: The public opinion of the district will be canvassed.] Public opinion would, no doubt, be brought to bear on the magistrates, and it would be for the magistrates to consider how far they would be guided by that opinion. He had thought that he would not take a division on this question; but he found the opinion of hon. Members around him so strong that he should set aside that resolution, and take the sense of the House upon the question.

said, hon. Members were much mistaken in supposing that the people of Ireland were in favour of penal legislation of this kind. He was convinced that the majority of the people of Ireland, like the majority of the people of England, were against curtailing the luxuries of the poor.

said, that the proposal of his hon. Friend consisted of two parts—one to give magistrates the absolute power of closing public-houses on Sunday, and the other a power of curtailing the hours on other days. With regard to the absolute closing of public-houses on Sunday, that was not a principle or mode of legislation which he admired, for he thought that as far as possible Parliament ought to decide on these matters, and that they ought not to be left to the local authorities. There was, of course, a great difference between town and country; but the House was aware of that difference, and it could make one set of regulations for the town, and another set for the country. There was great force in the objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and if the proposal were adopted there would no doubt be an active canvass, with the view of eliciting the feelings of the inhabitants on the one side or the other; and that agitation might be renewed every three months. That was a prospect upon which he looked with no satisfaction at all. It would be an abandonment of the public functions if they placed such extensive powers as these in the hands of magistrates. It further appeared to him that this was something like the permissive principle without some of its advantages, for there was this advantage in favour of the permissive principle—that they did obtain, in some sense, the opinion of the majority of the ratepayers, whereas, by the proposal of the hon. Member, they would not have that advantage. Then, again, the magistrates to whom the power was to be granted might be all of one opinion, and that was that public-houses should be closed entirely; and if they were so minded they would be able to carry it out, irrespective of the opinion of the ratepayers, whether in a minority or a majority outside. He hoped that he should not be supposed to say anything derogatory of the character of the magistrates of Ireland, who, as a body, he believed, would not shrink in any case in doing their duty as between man and man; but that was a different question, and in dealing with such points as would be brought before them, if the Motion of his hon. Friend were agreed to, they would have to deal with opinions, not with facts. If they had strong opinions one way and decided accordingly, the thing would be done past the probability of recall, and great discontent might be thereby created among the population at large. He must say, therefore, that he could not vote for the proposal to give the magistrates the power, under the proposed conditions, of closing public-houses entirely on Sundays. He preferred to leave the regulation as it stood in the Bill. With respect to the optional and elastic power of varying the hours of opening and closing on week-days, he must say that he could not find that there had been any general expression of public feeling in favour of such a course being adopted in Ireland. He thought that what had induced his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to adopt the elastic principle for England was, that the people in the different towns and districts lived under such widely diverse circumstances; their habits and local wants were so different that it was necessary to make, as it were, a self-acting machine adapted to meet these different local wants. But as regarded Ireland, which was a more purely agricultural country, and where there was not the same diversity of local and social habits and wants, there was no need for ensuring the same elasticity. What he should propose was that on Sundays, in towns having 5,000 inhabitants and over, the public-houses should be open from 2 o'clock till 9, and on week-days from 7 to 11 o'clock; under that population, from 7 until 10. If he saw, before the Report was brought up, any strong reasons to alter those views, he should be happy to give them his best consideration. Meantime, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he wished to thank the Government for what they had done in the Bill, which he thought would greatly promote the cause of temperance in Ireland, and produce a great improvement on Sundays. As to closing the houses entirely on that day, he was sure that public opinion would be entirely against it in his part of the country, and he for one did not believe that there was any such desire on the part of the great majority of the people. Certainly he should not vote for such a measure unless such an opinion existed in its favour. He would suggest, however, to the noble Lord whether it would not be an improvement if the public-houses could be closed in towns earlier than 11 o'clock on Saturday nights. The younger portion of the working classes, with their week's wages in their pockets, were tempted into excesses by the houses being kept open late. He would not propose to close so early as 9, but he would suggest that 10 o'clock would be a fair hour for closing on Saturday, and believed that if that were done it would be of great benefit to the working classes and to the cause of morality.

said, the practical objection to the clause of the hon. Member was that it would be absolutely unworkable. Its phraseology would require no end of interpretations and definitions. It would cause a grand field-day every three months at Quarter Sessions, preceded by a general agitation throughout the division of each county, and he believed even the hon. Member for Carlisle would hardly like to place himself at the mercy of some 50 irate publicans dragged in that manner from their business and their homes. Besides that, who was to pay the clerks of the peace their fees for all this additional work? Who was to pay for the advertisements in the county papers? Who was to find the means for setting in motion a complicated and unworkable machinery? He strongly advised the withdrawal of the Amendment.

said, the only objections urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were legal objections, not based upon principle. If he chose to do so, he might amend the clause in such a way as to obviate his own objections on the bringing up of the Report. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that the proposed clause would prove unworkable. Now, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would undertake to produce on the report some clause similar in principle which would work, he should recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Downing) to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he was entirely opposed to the principle of the clause. So was his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington).

, on the ground that no opportunity had been afforded the trade in Ireland of expressing their views on the subject, said, he must oppose the clause.

maintained, in opposition to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that his clause was perfectly workable.

moved as an Amendment, that no renewal of a license should be granted, unless the spirit grocer produced a certificate from two or more justices who usually preside at the nearest sessions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland knew that in many places only one magistrate presided, and he believed his Amendment would remedy that inconvenience.

wished to be informed whether that meant all hours? Suppose a spirit grocer closed his shop, would those parties be entitled to demand admittance?

replied that the Bill gave them such a power, and did more than that. At present spirit grocers in Ireland could keep their houses open all day and night too; but by this measure they were subject to the same rule as publicans.

, in reference to the preceding clauses, said that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would find on inquiry of the Irish Members that they were in favour of diminishing the hours of sale on Sundays, and he hoped he would bear that in mind before the Report.

said, there was no question before the Committee, and therefore he could not make a speech; but he would promise his hon. Friend that the matter should receive his attention before the Report was considered.

moved a new clause to follow Clause 13—(Evidence may be given as to previous offences). The object of the clause was to remedy the difficulty of obtaining convictions for permitting drunkenness. That difficulty was so great that there were many towns in which there was not a single conviction during a whole year.

said, he would accept the clause, for he thought it was founded on a just principle. When evidence was given that drunkenness was continually taking place, it was equivalent to proving that it was knowingly permitted. It was, in fact, the same principle as was applied to the passing of bad coin.

said, he should not move the Amendments of which he had given Notice under the head of "Grant of orders of occasional exemptions;" nor that in Clause 30, which dealt with the question of appeal. The present appeal, as the House was aware, whether as to the removal or the transfer of a license, was to Quarter Sessions. He believed that the idea thrown out by the Government of creating a new licensing committee would have led to the formation of a valuable Court for dealing with appeals of that kind also, and had it been earlier in the Session he should have endeavoured to press the subject on the House; but under present circumstances he should not do so, as he would be very unwilling at so very late a period to entertain any new scheme with reference to appeals. He should, however, move according to Notice, the insertion of a new clause after Clause 40, providing that premises to be licensed must be of the following rateable value—namely, if in a town containing a population of not less than 100,000 inhabitants, £50 per annum, or for a beerhouse or eating-house license only £30 per annum; if in a town containing 10,000 inhabitants, £40 per annum, and for a beerhouse or eating-house license £25 per annum; if not in any town as above-mentioned £20 per annum, or for a beerhouse or eating-house license £12 per annum. He should also supplement the proposed new clause by providing regulations as to the structural fitness of the premises. He had evidence from almost all the large and populous districts of the country as to the rateable value of the houses in them; and the figures in the clause he proposed he thought would be found fairly to represent the value of houses employed in the trade throughout the country. At the same time, he was not prepared to adhere to the figures if the right hon. Gentleman felt that in any instance they were seriously too high. He believed they would work fairly. He attached great importance to the raising of the qualification of houses, for in their value was to be found a guarantee for their regular conduct and the maintenance of order in them. One of his reasons for raising the qualification from £8 to £12 in rural districts was that that was the qualification necessary for a vote in Parliamentary elections. It would be generally found that the value of public-houses was higher than that of beerhouses, and that where the rateable value of the latter was £10 the rateable value of the former was £15 or £20. He moved the insertion of the clause.

said, the principle of the clause had been already adopted in regard to beerhouses, but the figures it comprised were too high. The hon. Baronet proposed that there should be no licensed victualler in any part of the country unless he occupied a house of the rateable value of £20. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: No new one.] That would practically prevent the establishment of public-houses in rural districts. Small populations were springing up here and there, and the Return made in 1867 showed that there were some 30,000 public-houses under the rateable value of £15 a-year. He would undertake to say that they were by no means the worst-conducted houses in the country. They were village public-houses, decent and well-conducted places, against which no complaint could justly be made. Why should such houses be excluded from our rural districts? What he had endeavoured to do by this Bill was to secure good and responsible persons for the management of these houses, who would act under a sense of duty and with a regard to the public interests. The scale of his hon. Friend was really too severe.

supported the clause, because in his opinion it would do something to prevent the increase of public-houses.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, believing that if the clause were passed it would prevent many increasing districts from having houses of refreshment. The houses that were built in the villages were not of an expensive character.

thought the clause ought not to be lost, but that the figures should be reduced.

said, he would not oppose the second reading of the clause, on the understanding that the rentals mentioned in it should be somewhat reduced.

said, he could not object to any fair and moderate proposition. The facts obtained by the hon. Baronet were valuable, but they ought not entirely to guide the Committee.

suggested that the object which the Committee had in view might be obtained by substituting the annual for the rateable value.

said, that at the time he proposed his former Amendment he was not aware that the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex had a similar Motion on the Paper. His Amendment certainly did not provide for so large an advance in the rateable value as that of the hon. Baronet, but still he would be prepared to vote for it; and a great deal of difficulty would be got over, if Government would accept the advance. He was sure such a course would give very great satisfaction. It was really a preposterous arrangement that in small towns they should require as a qualification a rental of £8 per annum, in larger towns one of £11 per annum, and in the metropolis one of £15 per annum. If houses of such insignificance in value were licensed, the occupiers carried on a business which was of no advantage either to the owner or to the public. On the contrary, they led to a large amount of vice and immorality, and injuriously affected the houses of higher value in the same neighbourhood. Unless in this Bill they took some means to put an end to this state of things, it would not, when it became law, give satisfaction to the country.

then moved as an Amendment, to leave out the word "new" in the first line of the clause, in order to insert after "premises" the words "not licensed as a public-house or beerhouse at the time of the passing of this Act."

inquired what the hon. Baronet proposed to do after that?

explained that he proposed in the subsection to leave out the limitation of 10,000 inhabitants, and to make the public-house qualification £25 instead of £40, and that for the beerhouses £15 instead of £12; and for public-houses in rural districts £12 instead of £20, and for beerhouses in similar localities £10 instead of £12.

supported the clause, though the figures mentioned appeared to him somewhat too high. Their object was to restrict the trade; it was on all hands admitted that there were more licensed houses than were required by the legitimate wants of almost every locality. The clause was a direction to the licensing magistrate to require a higher class of house, a richer, and therefore more responsible tenant, before they granted a new license. It was of the first importance in large towns especially to have comfortable, well-ventilated houses, with sanitary conveniences, and large rooms for social and political intercourse. No new license in such a town should be granted to any house which not being of a rateable value of £50 or £30 would probably not supply these requirements. Gradually, the older houses, untouched by the clause, would, by building new rooms and additions, follow the rule thus laid down. He preferred annual to rateable value, as the system of rating varied in each town. In the country districts, he would advocate a lower figure, say, £15 and £12; a man not held fit to be a county voter should not, he thought, hold a beer license. It must be remembered that this clause was the minimum which the licensing magistrates might require; it left their discretion unfettered as to higher requirements. If the trade was to be as seemed the desire of the Committee, a close monopoly, let every guarantee be taken that those who henceforward engaged in it should be men of substance and capital, likely, according to all the rules which guided human nature, to conduct their houses respectably, and to aid the cause of law and order. He entered on this very restrictive policy with reluctance; but if they were not to enter upon a free trade policy—for which he was not prepared, at all events let them take every precaution that the new houses in large towns should be of proper size and value. As regarded the villages, he supported a lower figure than that proposed by the hon. Baronet.

said, the hon. Member for Stoke would shut up all the old houses.

thought the qualification in towns of over 100,000 inhabitants rather too high than too low, and would suggest that the rateable value should be fixed at £30 instead of at £50. In the outskirts of all the large towns there were a great many small houses springing up, as the building ground was cheap; and whereas £50 per annum might not be too high a qualification for houses in the centre of the towns, it would certainly be so in these localities. He must also say that he had no objection to the substitution of the word "annual" for "rateable," as suggested by the hon. Member for Great Marlow.

said, he was entirely in the hands of the Committee. He had personally no objection to lower the public-house qualifications to £40, and that for beerhouses to £25.

cautioned the Committee not to fix too high a rateable value. He did not see why houses of a lower rateable value might not be as well conducted as those of a higher, especially in new neighbourhoods where the house were let at low rents.

proposed as an Amendment in the fourth division of sub-section (A) by substituting £15 for £20, and £10 for £12.

said, he did not think that the figure "20" as the annual value would be too high, as it was desirable to raise the qualification for these houses.

said, on the contrary, he was not inclined to make the value too high in the country districts, and he did not see any necessity for raising the figure.

said, it would, in his opinion, be impossible to get a house under £20 value.

thought it would be a wholesome and wise thing that the annual value should be above £20.

expressed a hope that the House would pause before it agreed to sub-section (B) of the clause. He asked the House whether they were going to enact regulations which were more worthy of a Continental Préfect than to be embodied in a Bill? The clause provided that no house was to be licensed as a public-house, or a beerhouse, unless it should contain, exclusive of the rooms occupied by the inmates, for a public-house two rooms, and for a beerhouse one room. What would be the effect of such regulation? That the inmates would be packed into one room so that it might be said that there were two other rooms in the house for the use of the public. Then the clause provided that no house was to be licensed unless it had rooms nine feet high, and that there should be a separate entrance for those who consumed intoxicating liquor on the premises, and other conditions. He asked where they could make sure of finding this sort of accommodation in the rural villages; and they must remember that they were legislating for the rural districts as well as for the towns. He thought they might leave it to the common sense of magistrates to license such houses as were suitable.

said, that the virtuous indignation which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed was rather misplaced. He seemed to forget that they were dealing with houses which were to be created in the future, and that it was proposed to lay down certain conditions which they should fulfil. He believed that unless they laid down some rules they would be doing little good. The clause had been in force for many years in some of the colonies and had worked well.

thought that the justices should have some voice in deciding not only whether the rateable value of the house was sufficient, but whether it was properly adapted for a public-house. The first sentence in the sub-section therefore might be retained; but the remainder could be well dispensed with.

said, he wished to draw attention to the last words of the clause—

"And no house shall be qualified to have a public-house or beerhouse license attached thereto, if any part thereof or if any premises communicating therewith is used as a common lodging-house."

He supposed by this was implied a common lodging-house under the Act of Parliament, but as the clause stood, the effect of it would be that nobody could lodge at a public-house.

, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, moved the omission of certain words in the sub-section, but—

intimated that the question before the Committee was, that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill.

suggested that the Motion should be withdrawn in order that the clause should be amended.

moved the omission of all the words in sub-section (B) from the word "provided."

thought the provision with regard to the two and the one rooms should be left.

said, that surely that point might be left to the magistrates.

said, that one of the reasons for proposing the sub-section was, that in some beerhouses the family room of the inmates was used as a taproom. With regard to the objection of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the clause had been carefully drawn under legal advice, and the words of it would not prevent a traveller from lodging at a public-house.

supported the subsection as an indication to the magistrates of what should be required in public-houses.

thought that a room of 1,500 cubic feet—which was a room of 8 feet by 13—was a miserably little place for a number of healthy fellows to assemble in and drink their beer.

opposed the limitation of 1,500 cubic feet, not because it was too large, but because in many cases it would be too small.

moved after Clause 43 to insert as separate clauses 43 (A) (Application to remove license); and 43 (B) (Mode of removal). The one had reference to applications to remove licenses—the other to the mode of removal, and both were framed on the principle and sought to carry out the object of the Bill of last year, which had only been acted upon to a limited extent. The clauses he moved would extend the operation of the Bill of last year, and enable the holders of licenses to move from overcrowded or decaying districts into new and growing ones, to their own great advantage and to the advantage of the populations in the new districts whose wants they would supply.

said, the circumstances under which they stood now were very different from those when the Bill of last year was passed, and he did not see how the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would fit in with the provisions of a Bill framed upon a totally different principle. The manner in which new licenses were to be granted would, he believed, render such applications for removal or transfer to other districts very few; but he would have no objection if the clauses were amended so as to make the applicants pass the same ordeal as the applicants for new licenses.

supported the clauses, as being calculated to benefit the tradesmen in the over-crowded districts from which the transfers were made. The tradesman who removed to a new and growing district, and the public, which would be supplied by an experienced and respectable tradesman, would equally benefit by those clauses.

moved after Clause 49, to insert the following new clause:—

(Protection of licensed persons.)

"Where a licensed person is convicted of more offences than one committed on the same day, the convictions for which are by this Act directed to be recorded on his license, the court by whom he is convicted may in their discretion order that one or some only of such convictions shall be so recorded. Where a licensed person is convicted of an offence, the conviction for which is by this Act directed to be recorded on his license, or on conviction for which his license is by this Act declared to be forfeited, the court by whom he is convicted may, if they are satisfied that the act or default in respect of which he is convicted was committed by his servant or by any other person maliciously or for the purpose of procuring his disqualification or the forfeiture of his license, order that the conviction shall not be recorded, or that his license shall not be ferfeited, as the case may be."

said, he had no objection to the first portion of the clause down to the words "so recorded." He must oppose the remainder.

proposed a new clause, having for its object to empower local authorities to purchase all public-houses within their jurisdiction, and to work them for the benefit of the local taxpayers. In support of this proposition he would instance the success which had attended the experiment tried at Gottenburg in Sweden, where the public-houses worked upon this principle had been made to yield a net revenue of several thousands towards the reduction of municipal taxation; and drunkenness, in the first year of the experiment, had decreased to the extent of 33 per cent. Assuming the average price of the goodwill of a public-house in this country to be five years' purchase, he calculated that local authorities buying up the whole of the public-houses within their jurisdiction would be able to effect a reduction equal to 20 per cent in the amount of the rates.

said, that if it had been earlier in the Session he might enter into and discuss the subject proposed by his hon. Friend. If he should think it desirable to renew and elaborate the scheme next year he (Mr. Bruce) would give it his best attention; but at this time of the year he would recommend him to withdraw it.

moved in page 32, line 4, before "coculus indicus," to insert "salt," in addition to the deleterious articles used in the brewing of beer.

pointed out that the Schedule dealt with deleterious ingredients, and that salt did not, properly speaking, come under that head.

said, that salt in the operation of brewing was no doubt very generally used, and there was, he believed, no doubt that it was used for the purposes of adulteration after the beer left the brewery. He believed there was an ale well-known as Yarmouth ale, in the brewing of which salt water was much used. It would be better, he thought, to leave such matters to be provided for by an elastic regulation than to lay down any such precise rule as that proposed.

thought 30 grains of salt to every gallon was too great a proportion, and moved that the quantity should be 15 grains.

said, the danger was to define these matters too closely rather than too loosely. He thought the Committee would act more wisely in leaving the question to stand over for the present.

hoped the Amendment would he accepted, as salt was used to a very great extent in the manufacture of beer. Its use was not, he believed, necessary in the brewing of good ale, and it was employed principally to disguise unsound beer and to create thirst. He would propose in line 6, after "ingredients" to insert—

"And chloride of soda, commonly called salt, or any similar substance, if present in a proportion exceeding 30 grains in a gallon of liquor."

reminded hon. Gentlemen that this was not an assembly of chemists, to decide upon such a question. It was, in his opinion, better not to touch the subject at all, and he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Plimsoll) would withdraw his Motion.

replied that although they were not an assembly of chemists, they could at least stop the use of what was injurious to public health.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. He would undertake to have the matter properly considered by competent authorities, and at present it was better not to discuss it.

did not think the question a very immaterial one, for he had known cases where men were fined as much as £200 for putting bad ingredients into the manufacture of articles of consumption.

agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Sussex that this was not an assembly of chemists. He believed salt was used for purposes of fermentation, but did no harm to anybody. Salt being contained in the various kinds of malts, and also in the water used in brewing, a number of grains of salt from those two sources would be introduced into the beer, amounting in general to 14 or 15. It would be impossible, therefore, to limit the quantity to 15 grains, or even to 30. He admitted the desirability of diminishing as much as possible all pro-vocatives of thirst, but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better for him to consult competent authorities, and see what it would be possible to do in the direction indicated.

said, he was ready to withdraw his Motion. He was willing that there should be an investigation. What he disapproved of was that salt should be actually added, and his Amendment was to prevent that.

asked whether the Home Secretary proposed to bring up words on the Report to limit the quantity of salt in the beer?

said, that the Privy Council having the power of adding from time to time to the Schedule of deleterious substances, what he proposed to do was to consult competent authorities as to the manner in which salt should be excluded from beer, and according to their recommendations salt would be added to the Schedule by the Privy Council or not.

observed that in that case the shortest way would be to put salt in the Schedule of deleterious substances in the first instance, and to remove it if it should be found on inquiry that it ought to be omitted.

asked whether it might not happen that the 14th section of the Act of Will. IV., c. 64, not being repealed, might not be set up on the part of beerhouse keepers throughout the country, as defining the hours during which they might keep open?

said, that he assumed this Bill, when passed, would overrule the Act of William IV. But he would consider the matter before the Report.

hoped the Report of the Bill would not be taken to-morrow. The Bill could not be printed in time, and it would be a mere farce to bring it on before hon. Members had the opportunity of reading it and correcting any errors.

said, the Bill was already in type, and the Amendments in it could be printed in time to admit of the Bill, as amended, being in hon. Members' hands to-morrow at 12 o'clock. This would afford ample time for them to give Notice of any Amendments they desired to bring on at 9 o'clock, and to have these printed meanwhile. In point of fact, there were very few Amendments to be printed.

called the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the terms in which the Vote was described, terms which were calculated to create, and, in fact, had created, an erroneous impression. The Vote was described as required "to pay Grants in aid of the expenditure of certain Learned Societies;" but, in fact, out of the total amount of £12,000 only a very small proportion really fell under this head. £10,000 were spent on the Meteorological Department, conducted, it was true, through a committee appointed by the royal Society at the request of Government; but that really represented an important service rendered by the Society to the Government, and was in no sense a contribution by the Government to the funds of the Society. Another £1,000 was set down as intended "to enable the royal Society to carry on certain experiments for public objects." That also was a misdescription. The fact was, that under the old system when any person applied to Government for assistance in carrying out any inquiry of public interest, the Government were in the habit of consulting the Council of the Royal Society as to the desirability of making such a grant, and in almost all eases acted, he believed, on the advice so given. Some years ago, however, it was suggested that it would be simpler that Government should ask Parliament to vote a certain sum for scientific researches, and that the Royal Society should be requested to distribute the sums so voted. This had been done; but the experiments were not carried on by the Society, nor were the funds confined to members of the Royal Society. They were open, not only to all Englishmen, and he might add all Scotchmen and Irishmen, but also to foreigners; the one principle which guided the Committee being an anxious desire to render the fund as useful as possible for the advancement of science. Without troubling the Committee with further details, he believed he had shown that £11,000, at least out of the £12,000 were not in any way Grants in aid of Learned Societies. The scientific Societies of this country did not rest on the Government, as was the case with similar bodies on the Continent. Except that in some cases they were supplied with house-room, they provided for every penny of their expenditure by their own subscriptions. He made no complaint of this; the Societies preferred their independence, they had no wish to be subsidized by Government; but it seemed to them unfair that Parliament should be annually asked to vote a considerable sum for Learned Societies, when, as he had shown, the money was not really devoted to any such purpose. He hoped, therefore, that next year the Vote would be submitted to the House in a different form. He had mentioned that some of the Societies were provided by Government with house-room; but there were a considerable number which were not so fortunate. Nine of these had constituted a committee, with a view to the erection, if possible, of a suitable building. These were all societies of importance and standing. He need only mention the first on the list—the Statistical Society—whose journal was, no doubt, well known to many hon. Members, the value of which would be generally admitted. They applied some time ago to the Government offering to erect a building at their own expense, if Government could grant them a site on reasonable terms. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received them with courtesy, and expressed his desire to meet their views, if possible; but as they had heard nothing more on the subject, they were anxious to learn whether he had been able to arrange anything in the matter. Before sitting down, he wished to say a word on the subject of the annual grant of £1,000 allotted to the prosecution of inquiries of public interest. The Royal Society had never made any application for an increase of this grant, and the Council had not requested him to do so. Speaking, however, as an individual deeply impressed with the importance of scientific progress to the welfare of the general community, more especially in a thickly-populated country like ours, where the general well-being and comfort of the people depended so much on an acquaintance with the general physical laws by which the universe was governed, he confessed that to devote £1,000 a-year to such a purpose seemed to him hardly worthy of an enlightened people, and he believed that if the Government next year were to propose an increase in this grant, it would be a most wise expenditure of public money, they would receive the support of this House, and would give general satisfaction to the country.

said, he must admit that his hon. Friend's criticism of the wording of the Vote was just, and would take care to correct it before next year. The suggestion, however, as to the propriety of giving house accommodation to the Learned Societies had taken him quite by surprise, for he had not heard of the matter before. A deputation, he believed, had waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he could hold out no hope that the Government would entertain their request.

rose to call attention to the Petition of the Reverend Mr. O'Keeffe and his treatment by the Irish Education Commissioners; and to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000. He regretted that he should have to call the attention of the House to such a matter at so late a period of the Session, for he thought that if the House had not been jaded and exhausted with the business of a long Session, a subject of so much importance would have justified much more deliberate attention being paid to it than was now likely to be the case. Six weeks ago he presented a Petition from the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe, who had been, and claimed still to be, the parish priest of Callan, in Kilkenny. That gentleman was, he understood, a person of irreproachable private character, and of considerable literary distinction, and he complained of the treatment he had received at the hands of the National Education Commissioners for Ireland. Mr. O'Keeffe stated that he had been suspended by the Roman Catholic Bishop of his diocese; that that suspension had been confirmed by the Cardinal Legate in Ireland; and that the Education Commissioners, without hearing him or giving him an opportunity to state his ease, or express his views on the subject, dismissed Mm from the office of manager of the five parish schools which he held up to that time. Now, that was not merely a question of a squabble between a parish priest and his ecclesiastical superiors—it was no less a question than whether the civil authorities of this country were to be the instruments of a foreign ecclesiastical Power, and were to use the powers intrusted to them by the State for civil purposes, in order to enforce the arbitrary decrees of ecclesiastical rulers. Mr. O'Keeffe was suspended by Cardinal Cullen in November of last year. The decree of suspension was an elaborate document in indifferent Latin, and a copy of it was to be found in the Papers which had been laid before Parliament. In the middle of March the Roman Catholic Bishop of Ossory brought to the notice of the Commissioners of National Education the suspension of Mr. O'Keeffe, and requested that that gentleman might be pronounced incapable of discharging any functions in connection with the parish schools of Callan. He also informed the Commissioners that another gentleman, Mr. Martin, had been appointed parish priest in Mr. O'Keeffe's place. By a letter of the same date, Mr. Martin requested of the Commissioners that he might be substituted for the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe in the management of the schools. On the 9th of April, which appeared to have been the first day of meeting after the receipt of the letters from the Bishop and Mr. Martin, the Commissioners considered the application. A proposal was made by one of the Commissioners that the proceedings should be adjourned for a fortnight, to which an amendment was moved that a copy of Mr. Martin's letter should be sent to Mr. O'Keeffe, who up to that time was manager. The amendment was lost by a majority of 1, and the original motion was carried. On the 23rd of April, accordingly, the Commissioners again met, and it was then proposed by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and seconded by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—

"That the certificate of the Roman Catholic Coadjutor Bishop of Ossory (that the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe had been suspended) be received and acted upon by the Board, until the suspension therein contained should have been removed or declared invalid by a competent tribunal."

An amendment was moved by Mr. Justice Morris, and seconded by Mr. Waldron—

"That before any action should be taken on the letter of the Rev. Mr. Martin to the Board, or on the letter of Dr. Moran, Coadjutor Bishop of Ossory, to the Resident Commissioner, the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe get the opportunity of knowing the nature of the application made, and of offering an explanation."

Upon that there was a division. The amendment was put first, when there voted for it eight—namely, Mr. Justice Morris, Mr. Waldron, Chief Justice Monahan, Mr. Jellett, Mr. Morell, the Lord Primate, Judge Lawson, and Mr. Murland. Against it were—Mr. Gibson, Judge Longfield, Lord O'Hagan, Chief Baron Pigot, Mr. Lentaigne, Mr. O'Hagan, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, Viscount Monck, and Mr. Keeman. The amendment was therefore lost by a majority of 1. The consequence was, that Mr. O'Keeffe never had communicated to him in any manner or form the intention of the Commissioners to consider his dismissal. The first intimation he received was the letter dismissing him from his functions as manager. Without going into the particulars of this case, he ventured to say decidedly that this proceeding of the National Education Commissioners, great personages as they might be, was contrary to the very first principles of elementary justice, for it was a universal rule of justice that before dealing with any person to his damnification, either in character, person, or purse, he should have an opportunity of being heard in answer to the charge made against him. That rule was universally acted upon in English Courts of Justice, and he should have supposed that persons of eminence at the Irish Bar would have thought it right to have acted upon it in dealing with Mr. O'Keeffe. He heard a story from a gentleman who was present on the occasion, that upon a similar question being raised before Lord Chief Justice Campbell—as great a lawyer as ever sat upon the Bench—he said—

"This is contrary to every principle of justice. Why even at the commencement of the world the Lord God said to the woman—'What is this that thou hast done?' before she was turned out of the Garden of Eden."

But the Commissioners in this case took the certificate of the Bishop as absolutely conclusive evidence that the clergyman was suspended, and should, therefore, be dismissed from his functions as parish priest. But it was quite conceivable, without resorting to an extreme case, that a parish priest might be dismissed for doing what they should all consider his duty as a subject of this Realm. He could conceive, at least some time ago, a priest being called upon to announce from the altar that the Queen was not the legitimate Sovereign of these Realms, and yet it would be his duty as a loyal subject to disobey. It had been said that the Board acted in accordance with the precedents they had themselves created on similar occasions. All he could say was that if there were any such precedents they were bad precedents. But he had inquired into those precedents, and he found that none of them could be taken as an authority in point, inasmuch as in those so-called precedents there was really no one person found to question the authority or decision in his case. There was, however, another point upon which he wished to make an observation as involving a departure from the ordinary practice of this country. A great deal of the proceedings in which Mr. O'Keeffe was concerned had been in litigation in the Common Law Courts with his ecclesiastical brethren, and one of the Commissioners who voted for his suspension as manager of the schools was one of the counsel engaged against him. He did not know what was the practice in Ireland; but in this country no gentleman at the Bar who had been engaged in any case as counsel would think it right to take part for or against a litigant should he be brought before him subsequently in a matter touching such litigation. He must say, therefore, that Mr. O'Hagan, if he had been counsel against Mr. O'Keeffe, would have done better if he had taken no part when that gentleman's case was before the Commissioners. The facts of the case were these:—It appeared that Mr. O'Keeffe had got into some dispute with his Bishop, and in the course of the dispute one of his curates denounced him from the altar as a liar, as he said by order of his Bishop. Mr. O'Keeffe thereupon brought an action against the Bishop for slander; but the action failed, because it could not be proved that the Bishop had given the curate authority for what he had said. In the course of the action Mr. O'Keeffe received the two following letters from the Vicar General. The first was as follows:—

"St. Kyran's College, Kilkenny.

"Rev. Sir,—In punishment for the action-at-law taken by you against the Right Rev. E. Walsh, R. C. Bishop of Ossory, I, vested with requisite powers, do hereby suspend you from your office.—Your humble servant, E. M'DONALD, V. G."

"The Rev. R. O'Keeffe."

Two days afterwards, he received the second, from the same person, acknowledging the receipt of a communication from him (Mr. O'Keeffe), in the following terms:—

"St. Kyran's College, Kilkenny,

October 13,1870.

"Rev. Sir,—I have received and filed your communication. It is no part of my duty to argue with you. Whether you take my word for it or not, I am certain that I possess the powers necessary for dealing with your case; it is my fixed purpose to exercise them. Therefore, I repeat the sentence of your suspension.—Your obedient servant, E. M'DONALD, V. G."

"The Rev. R. O'Keeffe."

Indeed, Mr. O'Keeffe appeared to have been suspended five times. But he was suspended by the Vicar General for having dared to bring an action at Common Law against the Bishop for slander, a thing which he had a perfect right to do as a subject of Her Majesty. Mr. O'Keeffe having been non-suited in his action against the Bishop, brought an action then against the curate. In December, 1870, this action against the curate was tried, and in the course of the trial the following letter was handed to Mr. O'Keeffe from the Vicar General:—

"St. Kyran's College, Kilkenny,

Dec. 10,1870.

"Rev. Sir,—From a subpoena served on me and in other ways, I have become aware of your action-at-law against the Rev. John Walsh, to be tried before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. It is my duty to tell you that your proceeding is a grave offence against the sacred canons. Of course, I do not find fault with the eminent and impartial Judges who preside in the Court referred to, hut, in common with every other Catholic, I feel that respect for the discipline of your own Church should keep you from bringing a brother priest before any lay tribunal. Some communications already received from you leave me no grounds to hope that you will desist from your present proceeding by reason of mere remonstrance of mine. At the same time, it is my duty to employ the powers which I possess to stop it if I can. Therefore, I hereby command you to withdraw the case of the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe against the Rev. John Walsh from the Court of Queen's Bench under pain of suspension, at officio et beneficio to be ipso facto incurred the moment your counsel begins to state the case to the Court and jury.—Your obedient servant,

"E. M'DONALD."

"The Rev. R. O'Keeffe."

That letter was shortly after followed up by another to this effect from the Bishop of the diocese himself—

"Kilkenny, Jan. 11, 1871.

"Rev. Sir,—As you have disregarded the ordinary mode of procedure, I, after mature deliberation, send you hereby a suspension 'ex informata conscientia ab ordine officio ee beneficio.' You are aware that from this suspension there is no appeal; and that should you violate it, you will incur an irregularity. †EDWARD WALSH."

"The Rev. R. O'Keeffe."

Mr. O'Keeffe did not appear to have been at all satisfied with the result, and he continued to perform the functions of a priest, in spite of his suspension, greatly to the satisfaction of his parishioners. This conduct brought down Cardinal Cullen upon his head. Cardinal Cullen, in a letter to Mr. O'Keeffe, first expressed the distress felt by the Pope at the disturbances that had happened at Cullen. He was gratified to find that in the midst of his anxieties at home the Pope could take an interest in what was going on in a remote corner of an Irish county. The Cardinal then went on to say—

"I will not merely add that the present Pope, while limiting and abrogating other censures, confirmed all penalties of the canon law against those who drag ecclesiastics, and especially Bishops, before lay tribunals, and there charge them with canonical offences. The Pope's Bull regarding censures was handed to every Bishop in the Vatican (Ecumenical Council last December twelve months, and is now known over the whole world. While such penalties as those I refer to are hanging over his head, I cannot conceive how any priest can venture to charge ecclesiastics with calumny, lying, and drunkenness, and endeavour to prove such charges before a Protestant Judge, and in the presence of numbers of persons who must be sorely scandalized by what they hear in such a case. Moreover, I cannot understand how any priest, having once incurred the censures reserved by the Pope, can continue to officiate and to bring on himself innumerable irregularities."

After some further correspondence had passed, Cardinal Cullen proceeded to fulminate against Mr. O'Keeffe that alarming Latin document which had appeared in the Parliamentary Papers. This was not a new-fangled claim on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It was an old controversy which dated back almost to the earliest times of Christianity, when already the clergy claimed to be exempt from the control of the ordinary tribunals of the country, and insisted that no clerical person should dare to bring another ecclesiastic before the Courts of Law. Against that doctrine our forefathers had strenuously contended, and yet we now found it introduced into and flourishing in Ireland and favoured by the National Education Commissioners, for it was obvious that the only object that Cardinal Cullen had in view in this sentence of suspension, was to intimidate Mr. O'Keeffe and to prevent him from enforcing his common-law right against a brother ecclesiastic, and, when that course had failed in its effect, to punish him for having dared to disobey his ecclesiastical superiors. Not only that, but the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were essentially a civil body spending the money of the State and constituted by Parliament, and yet it turned out that they had been assisting and co-operating with the Irish Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities in intimidating and punishing an ecclesiastic for having sought to establish his right in a Court of Common Law. Under these circumstances, he could not help thinking that the rule of the Commissioners was a bad one. Had Mr. O'Keeffe been afforded a fair opportunity of stating his case, the Commissioners would have ascertained that there was a conflict of jurisdiction between the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities and the lay tribunal, in which they were bound to withhold their judgment until the question had been settled by the proper authority. The Commissioners, moreover, had proposed to suspend Mr. O'Keeffe only until his suspension by Cardinal Cullen was removed or declared invalid by a competent tribunal, for Mr. O'Keeffe, who appeared to be a very bold fellow, dad brought an action against the Cardinal for illegally suspending him, and a Commission had been sent out to Rome in order to ascertain what was the power of suspension under the Canon Law. Now, assuming that the result of the action against Cardinal Cullen to be that the suspension was decided to be invalid, were the Commissioners prepared to reinstate Mr. O'Keeffe as manager of the schools, although Cardinal Cullen would keep him suspended as a priest? It was clear that Cardinal Cullen would not be influenced by the decision of a lay tribunal against him. The Cardinal would still hold that he was right. Were the School Commissioners willing to confirm the Cardinal in his position? Would hey hold that Mr. O'Keeffe was properly suspended, if the Common Law Court decided that he was right? The act was, that the Commissioners appeared to have got themselves into a lice dilemma. He (Mr. Bouverie) did lot like to set up his judgment against that of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald; but he should lave thought that not only was it according to the first principles of justice to ask Mr. O'Keeffe what he had to say to his suspension, but that it was according to the first principles of prudence to do so. When Mr. O'Keeffe, if he had had an opportunity of stating his case, had informed them that the case was lis pendens, the natural course for the Board would have been, that while the case before the lay tribunals was in suspense, they themselves would likewise suspend any judgment with regard to Mr. O'Keeffe continuing to be manager of the schools. But that was not all Mr. O'Keeffe's case. Mr. O'Keeffe in his Petition said it was true with regard to four of the schools that they came to him as parish priest from his predecessors, but that with regard to the fifth, it was founded by himself, and with his own money, and that he had requested the Commissioners of National Education to adopt it. Yet, that school was one of the management of which he had been dispossessed by the arbitrary proceedings of the Commissioners. It seemed to him (Mr. Bouverie) that if the National Education Commissioners had been made aware of these facts, Mr. O'Keeffe could never have been dismissed from retaining the management of that one school; for the rules under which these schools were founded neither gave any explicit or implicit sanction to the idea that any manager or patron would be dismissed by the Commissioners on account of the acts of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the contrary, if a patron wished to resign his office, he had the power of appointing his successor, subject to the approbation of the Board. He wished to ask what chance a priest of independent character in Ireland would have of asserting his rights as a subject of Her Majesty, if the ecclesiastical authorities were to be thus assisted by the civil authorities? That was but a part of something they had heard of during the present Session—a system of priestly intimidation—intimidation by a class, of which it might be said that to whatever Church they belonged, they had never wielded their authority to the advantage of the human race. They had heard that the Rev. Mr. Walsh had been inhibited from performing some ecclesiastical function, because he gave evidence before the Galway Commissioners. ["No, no!"] He was glad to hear the statement contradicted. But he had a statement written by Mr. O'Keeffe, who seemed to be a gentleman of character, ability, and veracity, which was dated July 17, to the effect that the Roman Catholic police at the station at Cullen were prohibited from attending mass in his chapel, where he still celebrated mass as a Roman Catholic priest, by the authorities, and had been informed, under pain of removal, that they must hear mass in the Priory chapel although his chapel, where they were accustomed to hear mass, was not ten doors from the barracks. That was another instance in which the civil authorities appeared to have been called on to co-operate with the ecclesiastical Roman Catholic authorities in an act of oppression. As he had said, this was only a very old question revived. It was a struggle which he supposed would go on to the end of time; but it was a struggle in which they had always supposed hitherto in this country that the lay tribunals and the lay authorities had triumphed. Yet in the year 1872 they found the lay Board of Education Commissioners, composed of distinguished lawyers and laymen, co-operating with the ecclesiastical authorities of the Roman Catholic Church in punishing a poor priest for venturing to assert his rights before the lay tribunal of his country. Was that a condition of things to be tolerated? Was it right that the National Education Board should have done this? He said distinctly that it was not. He was sure it would not be tolerated in England or Scotland, or even in Ireland; for he believed the bulk of the Irish people would not approve of such proceedings towards a priest. It was repugnant to all our opinions of what was due to a fellow-subject. This gentleman had a perfect right to appear in the Common Law Courts to sue anyone whom he justly thought had given him offence; but for suing another priest he was punished by his ecclesiastical superiors, who suspended him from ecclesiastical functions; and for that the National Education Commissioners dismissed him from the managership, not only of the schools of which he was manager, but from the very school he had himself founded, and of which he was the patron. He could not imagine that anyone would defend the course which had been taken, for it was contrary to sound policy, prudence, and the first principles of justice; and he therefore asked the House of Commons to co-operate with him in expressing their sense of the conduct of the majority of the National Education Commissioners in the matter. He would move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000.

said, that was one of the most difficult cases that had ever come under his notice, and he hoped the House would give it their most careful consideration. He thought that when the House had heard what was to be said on both sides, it would come to the conclusion that it had not before it at present the materials for giving a decision on the subject, and certainly not such a decision as the right hon. Gentleman desired; for he supposed the reduction of the Vote was intended as a direct vote of censure upon the National Board for their conduct in the case. It would be well, in the first instance, to correct some misapprehensions. The right hon. Gentleman had raised a great prejudice in favour of Father O'Keeffe, and against his ecclesiastical superiors, and the Board of Education, by stating that the sole ground on which he incurred ecclesiastical displeasure was that he availed himself of his right as a British subject to appeal to the tribunals of his country. That might be so; but the rule or law mentioned was not confined to the Roman Catholic Church, for there were Protestant communities in this country of which it was equally a rule that one member was not allowed to take legal proceedings against another member of the community. [Cries of "Name!"] He was informed that such a rule prevailed in the Independent and Baptist Churches. ["No, no!"] At any rate, it was only fair that no prejudice should be created against the proceedings of the Roman Catholic authorities on that account. Another statement was not entirely accurate. The right hon. Gentleman stated that Father O'Keeffe had been removed from the managership of a school which he had actually founded at his own resources. That was not the fact. [Mr. BOUVERIE said, he made the statement on Mr. O'Keeffe's authority.] He was sorry to say, then, that Mr. O'Keeffe did not represent what was entirely the fact. Shortly after Father O'Keeffe succeeded to the parish he applied to the National Board for aid for the Cullen Infant National School. In his application he stated that the rooms of the school were provided by means of a public subscription, and he applied for and obtained the management of the school not as a private individual, but as the parish priest of Cullen. He (the Marquess of Hartington) had never heard before of the instructions said to have been issued to the constabulary force not to attend Father O'Keeffe's chapel, and until he had it from a competent authority he should be inclined to doubt whether such instructions had been issued. It was necessary to consider for a moment the position of managers, and especially clerical managers, under the national system of education in Ireland. Their position was defined by rules of the Board, one of which had already been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman; and the object and meaning of those rules was explained by evidence given before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the system of education. Sir Alexander Macdonald, when examined by the Commissioners, stated that, generally speaking, the person who applied became the manager of the school, and that they considered that the clergyman of the parish, or an owner of property in the parish, was the person whom it was intended should be the manager, for he, as a rule, represented the feelings of one portion of the locality. The system, therefore, was one partly of lay managers and partly of clerical managers, and the latter class had been as distinctly recognized as the former. It was not necessary now to discuss the merits of that system. Perhaps a good deal might be urged against employing clerical managers; but it was only fair to say that the system of employing them had greatly tended to give the National system of education in Ireland that degree of success which had attended it, and that if any other principle had been adopted it was probable that that system would not have commanded, as it had done, the confidence and support of the great body of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity. Practically, though not technically, according to the rule of the Board, the parish priest was recognized as an ex-officio manager, and more as parish priest than as an individual. Father O'Keeffe had been recognized as manager of these schools. With regard to the power of dismissal, the Board, acting, as he had explained, to a great extent through the agency of clerical managers, had from their first foundation adopted the system of acting in all matters affecting the status of the clerical managers through the recognized heads of the denominations to which they belonged, and upon that principle they had acted impartially. It was perfectly true that there was no rule of the Board which laid down in so many words this power of dismissal. That appeared to him, to a certain extent, to be an omission; but in practice the Board had constantly exercised this power. The practice upon that point had been very ably stated by Sir Alexander Macdonald in his evidence before the Committee of Inquiry. There had been numerous precedents where the Board had dismissed managers who had incurred the censure of their ecclesiastical superiors. In 1845 they dismissed the Rev. Dr. Keenan. Dr. Keenan appealed; but the Commissioners refused to enter into the merits of the dispute between him and his ecclesiastical superiors, and removed him from the management of the schools until his suspension should be reversed by competent authority. Again, in 1851 the Rev. E. K. Wilson was deposed by a General Assembly. He also appealed to the Board against his removal from the management of the schools, but the Commissioners refused to deal with the question. There were other cases—those, for instance, of the Rev. Mr. O'Farrell and the Rev. Mr. Sheridan—but they partook of no exceptional features. Now, there was only one point to which he need refer on the present occasion in explanation of the conduct of the Board. It must be quite clear—and he was sorry that his right hon. Friend had not referred to it in his remarks—that whether the Board had acted rightly or wrongly in this particular case, they had acted in no sectarian spirit. They had acted strictly in accordance with the usual practice, and in no undue subservience to the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the reports of the proceedings of the Commissioners had not been put upon record; but the Rev. Dr. Henry, who was unable to be present at the meeting, had sent a letter to the Commissioners stating the grounds of his decision, and so his letter fortunately appeared upon the minutes of the proceedings. Dr. Henry took the very strongest view that it was the duty of the Commissioners to remove Father O'Keeffe. Dr. Henry was a Presbyterian minister and the President of the College of Belfast—an institution not particularly patronized by Cardinal Cullen and the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Then, again, how was the majority of the Commissioners composed? Apart from the Roman Catholic Members, it consisted of Lord Monck, who was a member of the Church of Ireland, and who was appointed by the universal consent of that House a Church Commissioner; of Mr. Gibson, a Presbyterian, and who enjoyed the confidence of the Presbyterian Body; of Judge Longfield, who enjoyed the confidence of the Disestablished Church. These men were not influenced by unworthy sectarian motives. His right hon. Friend criticized the conduct of the Commissioners, because they had not given Father O'Keeffe the opportunity of stating the grounds on which he was prepared to protest against his removal. If the majority had felt that their opinion would be reversed by that course, they would have asked for a statement from him. But the majority, no doubt, felt that it was not their business to enter into the merits of the case, but to act upon the statement of the recognized head of the Body. It was stated that though Father O'Keeffe might have appealed to the legal tribunals, that would not have re-instated him in his former clerical position. If the majority of the Commissioners held these views, it would have been useless to have asked Father O'Keeffe to state his views. He now came to the other side of the question. It was urged that the precedents he had quoted did not cover the whole of the case, and that in those cases of suspension which had hitherto occurred, the person suspended, though appealing against the sentence, had acknowledged the competency of the authority by whom he was suspended. In this case, however, the competency of the authority was denied by Father O'Keeffe. He had the opportunity of seeing some of the pleas about to be laid before the Court of Law, and it was somewhat remarkable that Cardinal Cullen did not shirk the question, but was prepared to go into Court and to maintain that he was invested with the necessary authority for what he did, and that he exercised the authority in a legal and proper manner. He did not mean to say that Cardinal Cullen would feel himself bound by the decision of the Court, but the Cardinal did not shrink from arguing the question. Under these circumstances, it would have been better, in his opinion, if the Commissioners had waited until the question had been decided in a Court of Law. He thought that the Commissioners, when they came to the determination at which they arrived, were not so well informed as the Government as to the nature of the plea which Father O'Keeffe was about to make. If they had been, they might have modified their decision; but they appeared to look to precedents, and thought it highly undesirable to enter into the merits of a dispute between an ecclesiastical person and his superior. Under these circumstances, and looking to the perfectly bonâ fide manner in which the Commissioners had acted, he, on the part of the Government, was not prepared to censure them, or to ask them at present to reconsider their decision. What the Government was prepared to do was to wait until the action which Father O'Keeffe had brought against Cardinal Cullen was decided. It was perfectly impossible at present to say not only how the issues would be decided, but what issues would be decided in that action, or how far the decision might affect the position of Father O'Keeffe as parish priest of Cullen; but whatever the decision of the Court of Law should be, it would be carefully considered by the Government, with the aid of the legal advice at their disposal; but until then it would be unreasonable to expect that the Government should be called on to state what steps they would take. He knew that it would be said by some hon. Members below the gangway that the decision of a Court of Law, whatever it might be, could not alter the ecclesiastical status of Father O'Keeffe; but he was not prepared to give an opinion on that point until the issue before the Court was decided. He did not commit himself or the Government to an absolute agreement with the opinion of Dr. Henry. On the contrary, it appeared to him that no Government or Board could altogether ignore the decision of the Court of Law, but must be guided by that decision; which, again, so far as it affected Father O'Keeffe's position as parish priest, could only be based on the laws and rules of the Catholic Church, to which Father O'Keeffe belonged. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the House would not think it necessary to come to any decision on the question to-night, and, having regard to the perfect sincerity with which the Board had acted in this matter, would not deem it right to pass a vote of censure on the Board; and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Motion.

said, he agreed with the noble Lord that the Board had not had before them all the necessary information in this case; but the reason why they had not was because when Judge Morris, Chief Justice Monahan, and Justice Lawson pressed on the Board the necessity of making inquiry of Father O'Keeffe what he had to say for himself, the head of the law in Ireland, a Member of Her Majesty's Government, refused any inquiry whatever. That was the simple point. The Board said they had got the document of Cardinal Cullen; but what knowledge had the Board of the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church except what they chose to assume and adopt for themselves? The Board must have required some authoritative exposition of the law of the Church. In this case the discipline was the matter in dispute. What was the suspension sent to the Board? Solely and wholly Cardinal Cullen's. Now, the Cardinal's suspension was furnished by himself. Mr. O'Keeffe was in the diocese of Ossory, and the Archbishop could not issue that document except by way of appeal. By the canon law the Archbishop had no right to go into another Bishop's diocese, and assume an original jurisdiction; and Cardinal Cullen therefore recited on the face of the document that he was the Legate of the Pope, and commissioned in that capacity to inquire into the matter. This was not a question as to whether there was an authority from which the Commissioners could have been informed whether the document was valid or not; they took the document as valid, and acted upon it, though they knew that its validity was disputed. That document proceeded from an extraordinary preeminent over-riding authority, acknowledged to have been acting outside the ordinary rules of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Commissioners ought to have ascertained whether that authority had acted in accordance with the discipline of the Church; but instead of that, they assumed the validity of the whole proceeding, although two Roman Catholics sitting upon the Board refused to act upon it. The whole question resolved itself into this—was any body of men to act against an individual without asking him what he had to say in his own defence? It was a consideration of that kind that had led Chief Justice Monahan, and Mr. Justice Morris to decide as they had done in the matter. Mr. O'Keeffe had a right to believe that he had an independent position, and it was not just that an arbitrary rule should be laid down afterwards when there was no printed rule to guide him in his conduct. The clergy who were similarly placed ought to know whether they occupied an independent position or one which was dependent on their ecclesiastical superiors. This matter had attracted considerable attention in Ireland, especially as the Commissioners had not acted upon any of their printed rules in regard to it, but had made a new rule for themselves in order to meet the case—a proceeding which had necessarily given rise to great suspicion, especially as the Cardinal was concerned in it. Everyone knew that the Cardinal had enormous power, and the belief in Ireland was that he had a very illegitimate power, such as he ought not to have, in relation to the patronage and government of Ireland. The idea which was entertained in that country by many people was—"Of course, the Government officials voted for the Cardinal because they are all in combination—there is an agreement between them." It was a great evil that, in consequence of Commissioners having acted upon no printed rule, their action should be attributed to the relations which existed between the Cardinal and the Government.

said, that when Mr. O'Keeffe laid his case before him, he (Mr. Agar-Ellis) told him he would have nothing to do with it if it was simply a question between him and his ecclesiastical superiors, but that he had no objection to take it up in the light of a matter affecting a distressed constituent. It was very difficult for Protestants to know what was the actual position of Father O'Keeffe, and whether he was really suspended or not; but this much was certain, that a great majority of that gentleman's parishioners still followed him, and believed him to be their parish priest, and they had subscribed liberally—to the extent of £600—towards the expenses of his action against the Cardinal. The great feature of this case was, that it was different from any that had ever happened before; for though clergymen had been dismissed from the management of schools, the validity of such dismissals had never before been disputed. He thought that Father O'Keeffe had not had justice done to him, and he believed it would have been not only just, but politic in the Commissioners, if they had acceded to that gentleman's request, that he should be heard before they deprived him of his position.

said, that until he had read the Papers in the case, he could not have believed it possible that any public body could be so painfully subservient to priestly power as the Education Commissioners of Ireland seemed to have been to the ecclesiastical authorities of the Romish Church. The Papers disclosed another thing which was also far from pleasant, and that was that the priestly power of which he was speaking went out of its way to flaunt in the face of those with whom it was dealing that it was directly authorized by Rome. A good many hon. Members in that House had sworn a good deal about foreign Powers having no authority in this country; and they had been told by an eminent counsel that the law on the subject might be repealed, because the oath of allegiance was the same thing. The Papers before the House, however, contained, in his opinion, a warning which ought not to be lost sight of when Parliament came to legislate on what was known as the Prison Ministers Bill. Everybody had a great wish to do what was for the good of the people in that matter; but there would now be a strong reason, at all events, against giving the official status which was asked for. All he need add was, that if a public body living in this country had received such a notice from the Pope as that to which his right hon. Friend opposite had called attention, the probability was they would put it behind the fire. The House was, he thought, much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had brought the subject forward.

said, the debate was verging on a theological discussion. It would have that aspect if the subject of discussion was the ecclesiastical position of the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe. In his opinion, the Board of Education had no duty to inquire into the merits of the question whether the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe had been properly suspended or not, for the fact was they had recognized the ecclesiastical authority by which he was appointed to the office of parish priest, and they only recognized the same authority in taking notice of his suspension. Further than that, they could not effectually inquire into it, without assuming the right to revise what certain ecclesiastical authorities had done in a matter peculiarly within their own province. It was to be borne in mind, moreover, that there was no tribunal before which the legality of the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe's suspension could be tested, for although an action might be brought in a Court of Law for libel, no Court in this realm could deal with questions relating to the internal organization of the Roman Catholic Church. It had been said that the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe should have been heard before the Board of Education; but those tribunals only were bound to hear that had jurisdiction to try the question. The Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe was not like a lay patron—he derived his right to be a patron from his having been appointed parish priest of Cullen; he was so appointed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and the tribunal which appointed him was the same tribunal by which he was suspended, and upon due notice from that tribunal he was removed by the Board, as in the original instance it was upon the authority of that tribunal he was appointed to his office. To impose on the Board of Education the duty of investigating the canonical status of every parish priest in Ireland who sought to be a patron by virtue of his office, was imposing on them a duty which they were entirely inadequate to perform, and which it was not necessary for them to discharge.

The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) proceeds on the assumption that no Roman Catholic priest has personal rights, as an individual. [Mr. Serjeant SHERLOCK: No, not at all.] Such, nevertheless, I understood to be the basis of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. At all events, he approves of the deprivation of this priest on the sole dictum of his ecclesiastical superior. Now, I do not think that that is the understanding upon which this House voted the money for public education in the elementary schools of Ireland, nor is it the sense in which this House has voted money for the purchase of glebes, the erection of glebe houses, and so forth. In this country, we do not act upon the assumption that any subject of Her Majesty can be held devoid of civil rights as an individual. That is a fact, and the fault which the National Board of Education in Ireland has committed in this instance is, that it has hastily accepted the dictum of an authority which, according to the hon. and learned Member, denies the civil rights of the Roman Catholic priests as individuals, and denies the individual right of this priest to do anything connected with the parish in which he has served, even though it be with property which he himself has been the means of procuring. Well, Sir, there is nothing new in this. I hold in my hand a rather thick volume. It contains the evidence which was taken before a Select Committee of this House in the year 1853, on the law of mortmain, and before that Committee there appeared at the instance of Mr. Chisholm Anstey, a very learned Roman Catholic lawyer, the Rev. Mr. Trappes, a Roman Catholic priest, and other Roman Catholics, who declared that, by the Brief of 1850, and by the action taken upon it by the late Cardinal Wiseman, they had been, or would be, deprived of property as individuals; that the canon law under which their right in such charitable property—chapels and the like—had been changed, and that the manner of their trial for ecclesiastical offences had been altered; for that, whereas, up to the issue of that Brief they had a right, for all ecclesiastical offences, to be tried before 12 ecclesiastics of their own district by regular process, after the issue of that Brief, and by virtue of that Brief; it was to rest with the Bishops in Synod whether they were to have any regular trials at all, or whether they were to be condemned unheard by whoever might be their ecclesiastical superior. The evidence also goes to show that, at that time, this new system of ecclesiastical jurisdiction had not been introduced into Ireland. It now appears that, simultaneously with the introduction of a Cardinal Legate, the arbitrary system of which the priest here complains, and which the priests of a whole Roman Catholic deanery in the North of England in 1850 deprecated the introduction by the late Cardinal Wiseman into England, has now been introduced throughout Ireland. It is of this that Mr. O'Keeffe complains. He complains that an ancient canon law of Ireland, which would have ensured to him a fair trial before suspension, by the authority of the Cardinal Legate, just as the Roman Catholic priests of a Northern district in England complained that the ancient canon law prevalent among them here in England was superseded by the authority of Cardinal Wiseman; and I hesitate not to say that the Board of Education in Ireland has been guilty of a gross misfeasance in not giving this ill-used person the opportunity of stating before the Commissioners that he had been dispossessed by a process which was unusual, and which did not prevail at the time when he was instituted into this so-called benefice of Cullen, and that he had been deprived of property in which, according to the ordinary law of this country, he has an interest, by a foreign process which ignored and set aside the jurisdiction of the Courts of this country, and under which he was entitled to a regular trial or a hearing. I refer the House to the evidence taken before their own Committee on Mortmain, which fully explains the just cause of complaint which Mr. O'Keeffe has against his ecclesiastical superiors and the despotic system they now administer for having, in the first instance, condemned him unheard, and next against the Board of Education for pursuing that same system of condemnation, and carrying out his condemnation just pronounced by his ecclesiastical superiors without giving him a hearing.

said, he was anxious to remind the House that the Motion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) could afford no redress whatever to Father O'Keeffe, and was practically one of censure upon the Board of Education in Ireland. With regard to the case of Father O'Keeffe, his right hon. Friend had, in his opinion, done quite right in bringing the matter forward, and he had obtained from his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland a statement of the motives and reasons which had induced the Board to dismiss that gentleman. As regarded the case itself, however, he was not able to concur in the opinion which appeared to be entertained by the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock). That hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to adopt without any qualification the opinion given by Dr. Henry, a most eminent Presbyterian minister—namely, that upon receiving from the recognized ecclesiastical superior of a priest or clergyman who might be manager of a school a certificated statement that he was suspended from his office of priest, the Board was at once to act irrespective of any other consideration. That was a position which the Government were not able to accept. He must, however, own that he was surprised at the statement of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), when he complained of a great and incredible subserviency to an ecclesiastical Power, and went on to import the opinions he had formed in this case into a discussion upon the Prison Ministers Bill, proceeding distinctly upon the ground that the Board of Education in Ireland had shown a favour and regard to the Roman Catholic authorities which it had declined to show to others. Nothing could be more unjust. He would make no comparison of the modes of proceeding adopted in this and other cases by the Board. But when it appeared from the history of the precedents that the conduct of the Board had been uniform in all cases, he could not but express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought such a charge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) stated the case fairly, when he pointed out that it was necessary that the Board should proceed upon a distinct rule, and at the same time said that it was scarcely fair to managers that they should be brought into a position from which, without knowing it, they might at a subsequent period be dismissed. He would pass now from the case of Mr. O'Keeffe to the Motion before the House, which was entirely distinct from Mr. O'Keeffe's case, and had nothing to do with it. The Motion proposed to inflict a disgrace and dishonour upon the Board of Education in Ireland. Was it expedient or becoming that such a punishment should be inflicted upon the Board? It might be said that it was inflicted only upon its majority; but that was hardly a distinction which would be taken in this House. The majority of the Board was the Board, and must be looked upon as the Board. Was it desirable that this condemnation should be passed? What was this Board? It was a body which for 40 years had served most important purposes of State in Ireland. It was a body without which we could hardly ever have established National Education in Ireland. When the system was founded, it was extremely difficult to give to it anything like solidity or permanence. It was met by determined and angry hostility from various quarters, and much of character, much of ability, much of prudence and policy were required in order to obtain for that system anything like fair play. For that purpose, the best and wisest men that could be found in Ireland were selected by successive Governments; they had undertaken this most important, difficult, and invidious labour, and by that labour, which seemed almost hopelessly exerted for a long series of years, they brought the system to such a state that, instead of a condition of things in which the supporters of the National Board were continually threatened by their opponents—and it was hard to say which way the balance would incline; now, on the contrary, there was a competition between all parties of politicians in this country, each declaring that they were the most zealous advocates of the National system. This, too, was an unpaid Board—that was a point which ought to be mentioned; but the main point to which he wished to direct attention was the arduous nature of its labours, the difficulties it had had to encounter, and the success which had attended its patriotic efforts. He would, therefore, ask his right hon. Friend whether he would call upon the House to pass a Vote of Censure on such a body. Should his right hon. Friend succeed in getting the House to reflect this stigma on the Board after its 40 years' services, the only effect of such a decision would be to plunge into deeper confusion that difficult question of Irish education which was at all times in a condition sufficiently critical, but in respect of which, and especially its greatest branch—the popular part—if they made a good use of their opportunities he would say that he believed they would save it from danger, and secure to it still greater efficiency than it at the present time possessed.

, as a lawyer, felt bound to say that the Board had acted in a manner wholly illegal and altogether contrary to the principles of English law, and he thought that it was high time that the House laid down a rule for the future conduct of the Board, so that they might be set right, and that without any censure being passed upon them.

said, the question before the House was whether the Board of National Education had acted illegally with reference to Mr. O'Keeffe, and with respect to this he differed entirely from the last speaker. He could not agree that this was a question of law at all. He believed that it would have been better for the Board to have heard Mr. O'Keeffe; but their not having done so was, in his opinion, no ground for passing a vote of censure upon the Board, which might possibly lead to its being broken up. The Board were bonâ fide of opinion that the course adopted by them could not be influenced in any way by what Mr. O'Keeffe would say. The House might think that Mr. O'Keeffe should have been heard, but that was no reason why this Vote should be rejected. If Mr. O'Keeffe succeeded in his litigation, then would come an opportunity for the Board to reconsider its decision. In the meantime, things must remain as they were, which would be in accordance with the precedents followed by the Board in dealing with this case.

, in rising to move, according to Notice, the reduction of the Vote by £200, the amount of the allowance to Mr. Clarke Jervoise, for house rent at Rome, said: Sir, the Committee divided on the question which I am about to renew only on Saturday last, but it happened that on that day the House met at 12 o'clock, and a great number of Members believed that it would rise either at 4 or at 6 o'clock. On my arrival here, however, I found that there was no Standing Order to prevent the House sitting until Church time on Sunday morning. A great number of hon. Members were surprised at this. Several to my knowledge had given up the idea of coming down, being under the impression that the House would have risen before they reached it. The debate that took place on Saturday evening was signalized by a most surprising announcement from the hon. and learned Attorney General. The Diplomatic Relations Act, which we believe to have been violated by Her Majesty's Government maintaining at Rome a diplomatic agent in the person of Mr. Clarke Jervoise, prescribes distinctly that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to accredit a diplomatic agent to the Sovereign of the Roman States. By the Bill which afterwards became the Diplomatic Relations Act, and which was introduced into the House of Lords by the late Lord Lansdowne, it was proposed that Her Majesty should accredit a diplomatic Envoy to the Sovereign Pontiff; but in the Committee of the House of Lords the description of His Holiness as the Sovereign Pontiff was struck out of the Bill, because it was held in the House of Lords, before the Bill reached this House, that the title Sovereign Pontiff ascribed to the Pope his ecclesiastical character, his spiritual authority, and function. Well, it is almost needless for me to assert that His Holiness the Pope is no longer Sovereign of any portion of the Roman States. That is well known. The natural presumption, therefore, is that the faculty which the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1848 conferred upon Her Majesty was limited, and it was so argued in the debate, and that by the limitation of this particular faculty it was the intention of Parliament to limit the Prerogative of the Crown. It was maintained at the time that the Act passed that by that Act the Prerogative of Her Majesty was limited to this to sending a diplomatic Envoy to the Sovereign of the Roman States, and not, as appears in debates, to the Sovereign Pontiff. Parliament rejected the proposal that Her Majesty should enter into diplomatic relations with the Pope in any other character than as the temporal Sovereign of the Roman States; and Lord Palmerston, in moving the second reading of the Bill in this House, emphatically declared that the powers to be conferred by the Bill were to be limited solely to the temporal interests of the two countries, the smaller State, that of the Roman States and the great Empire of England. By a division in the House of Lords, it was decided that, by way of further marking the intention of Parliament, Her Majesty's Prerogative should be thus far further limited—that it should be incompetent in Her Majesty to receive in this country any ecclesiastical Nuncio, Envoy, or Ambassador from the Court of Rome. Therefore, the prohibition against that, which the opponents of this Vote hold to be the state of things now, attempted by Her Majesty's Government was doubly enacted in 1848. One question I desire to ask, and I ask it of the noble Lord the Under Secretary for the Foreign Department. It is this—whether Mr. Clarke Jervoise is in any way accredited to the Court of Rome? And when the noble Lord rises, this is the direct question, which I hope he will answer. There is nothing apparent to show that Mr. Clarke Jervoise may not be accredited in the fact that His Holiness the Pope has not sent an Envoy here; for Lord Palmerston, in the Committee of this House on the Diplomatic Relations Bill, when this Act was passed in 1848, declared that the same condition against the reception at their respective Courts of an ecclesiastical Envoy from Rome was enforced both by the Empire of Russia and the Kingdom of Prussia. Therefore, it is perfectly possible and consistent with these precedents that Mr. Clarke Jervoise may be accredited to the Court of His Holiness the Pope; and I humbly hold, that if Mr. Clarke Jervoise be so accredited he is so in direct contravention of the whole purport of the Act, for in the course of the debate upon the Diplomatic Relations Bill in 1848, Mr. Chisholm Anstey, whose knowledge of these matters was extensive, condemned the Bill for these reasons—that it was not only a declaratory Bill, declaring the law which had been supposed for 180 years to have prohibited diplomatic relations with the Pope; but because it would, if passed, become an enacting statute, whereby the Prerogative of Her Majesty would be limited to diplomatic relations, not with the Pope in his ecclesiastical character, for Parliament had decided against that, but only with the Sovereign of the Roman States in virtue of his Sovereignty over those States which has now passed away from the Pope. Well, the hon. and learned Attorney General has told us that, inasmuch as the Pope is the same person, therefore, although he may have lost his States, it is perfectly legitimate for Her Majesty to enter into diplomatic relation with him in the same manner as if he continued to hold them. Why, Sir, it would be just as reasonable for Her Majesty to accredit an Ambassador or an Envoy to the ex-Queen of Spain, or to the ex-Emperor of the French! The question which I have to put, then, is this—Is Mr. Clarke Jervoise in any way accredited to the Court of His Holiness the Pope? for, if he be so, I hold that his being so is not only illegal, but that it is a direct affront to the King of Italy, who is the present Sovereign of the Roman States, and is now the person to whom the Diplomatic Relations Act distinctly points as the only person to whom Her Majesty is, by law, empowered to send an Embassy. For these reasons, Sir, I propose the Motion of which I have given Notice, and unless the noble Lord the Representative of the Foreign Office can declare in this House that Mr. Clarke Jervoise is in no way accredited to His Holiness the Pope, I shall feel it my duty to divide the House by way of marking my sense and the sense of many others that by this Embassy, and through this Envoy Her Majesty's Government are distinctly contravening the avowed intentions of an Act of Parliament.

replied that Mr. Clarke Jervoise was not accredited to the Pope. The law of the subject he was very well contented to leave to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who had explained it fully on Saturday last.

asked what were the duties which Mr. Clarke Jervoise had to perform at the Court of the Pope? Was it to present to His Holiness ladies and others who desired it? If those were his duties, and the only ones he had to perform, he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire need divide the House.

After the answer I have received from the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I should be content to withdraw the Motion. ["No!" "Divide!"] My Motion, however, is in the hands of the House, though after the distinct assurance given me on behalf of the Government that Mr. Clarke Jervoise is not accredited to the Pope, I should not be disposed myself to divide the House.