asked the Vice President of the Council of Education, Whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Principal of the Carnarvon Training College to admit a student (who had completed his term of five years as a pupil teacher at the Conway National School) on the ground that he had been baptized by a Nonconformist Minister; whether the Carnarvon Training College received last year a grant from Government of £2,070 towards an expenditure of £2,688; and, whether the Committee of Council on Education intend to take any action in the matter?

Sir, my attention has been called to this case. It appears that a pupil teacher in a Church of England school at Conway, who had been confirmed by the Bishop of the diocese and was a communicant, was refused admission to the candidates' list of Carnarvon Training College because he had been baptized in infancy by a Nonconformist minister. These facts becoming known to the Education Department during my recent absence, a communication was at once addressed to the Governing Body of the College to ascertain whether the action of the Principal met their approval, to which they have replied that the Committee have unanimously decided that the pupil teacher in question is eligible for admission to the College. Although this is satisfactory so far as this pupil teacher is concerned, the correspondence of the Principal of Carnarvon Training College with the Vicar of Conway is of so extraordinary a character that he cannot be regarded as a fit person to superintend the training of teachers who will have to deal in a spirit of courtesy and tolerance with the children of parents of all denominations. This circumstance, taken in connection with the general results obtained in the College in recent years, necessitates the consideration of the question whether, without considerable changes, it should continue to receive annual grants. The figures quoted by the hon. Member as to the amount of annual grant for 1881 are correct. I think I may venture to express the belief that what has happened at Carnarvon Training College—which I know has caused much pain and regret to some of the managers—could not happen at any other Church of England Training College in receipt of annual grants.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the murder of John Flanagan by his son Hugh Flanagan, as reported in the "Daily Express" of 19th April; whether it is true that Hugh Flanagan had been in a lunatic asylum in Glasgow and was brought over to Ireland in charge of two warders and placed in a workhouse from which he took his discharge and returned home to his father; and, whether, if the facts are as stated, he will cause a communication to be made to the Scotch Lunacy Board with a view to the prevention of similar unfortunate occurrences in future?

Sir, I have seen the report referred to. It is the case that Hugh Flanagan was in a lunatic asylum in Glasgow, and was brought over to Ireland last December and placed in Ballyshannon workhouse, from which place he was removed by his father on the following day. The Local Government Board will ask to see the warrant of removal from Scotland, and make inquiry as to the circumstances connected with the removal. Until I have the facts fully before me, it is impossible for me to say whether there is any ground upon which I could address the Scotch Lunacy Board on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the investigation held into the election of a Poor Law Guardian for the Killiskey Electoral Division of Rathdrum Union, as set forth in Parliamentary Paper, No. 17, of the present Session; whether he has observed that 47 invalid votes were put in by an ex-officio Guardian on behalf of a certain candidate, and received by the returning officer, the clerk of the Union; and, whether, as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, he has taken or will take any steps to signify his sense of the conduct of these parties on the occasion?

Sir, the circumstances are not quite correctly stated in this Question. It does not appear to be the case that 47 invalid votes were put in by an ex-officio Guardian; but 47 votes were erroneously recorded by the Returning Officer, as will be seen by a reference to page 32 of the Parliamentary Paper referred to. It will also be seen that in consequence of this error the Local Government Board, so long ago as August last, cautioned the Returning Officer to be more careful and correct in the discharge of his duties. The Board believed that he acted through ignorance, and not with any intention to do wrong; and there does not appear to be any necessity for taking further notice of the matter, which has long since been disposed of.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the facts in this case are not an additional illustration of the ignorance of Returning Officers as to any uniform rule by which only 18 votes can be given by one ratepayer?

The subject will be carefully watched.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that MR. Michael Fleming nominated MR. James Carroll as candidate for the office of Poor Law Guardian at the late election, Shillelagh Union, in opposition to MR. James Hopkins; whether the nomination was refused, and no voting papers issued by the clerk of the union, MR. Benjamin Hopkins, who is the returning officer; whether he is aware that the latter is a near relative of MR. James Hopkins, the sitting guardian; whether MR. Fleming is not a properly qualified elector of the county Wicklow, and on the register of voters; and, whether, as in the Killiskey case, he will order a sworn inquiry into the bona fides of the transaction for the satisfaction of the ratepayers of the district?

Sir, nominations were made as stated. The Returning Officer, Mr. Benjamin Hopkins, refused to accept the nomination of Mr. Carroll on the ground that his nominator, Mr. Fleming, was not a ratepayer. The Returning Officer states that he is not related to Mr. James Hopkins, the sitting Guardian. Mr. Fleming's name is on the Register of Voters; but whether or not he is a properly qualified elector does not appear to be yet certain. The Local Government Board are in communication with him on the subject; and if he can adduce any evidence to show that he is a ratepayer and paid a portion of the rates on the holding which he occupies they will take such further action in the matter as may appear necessary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Welch, who marks the jury panels for the Crown at the Green Street Commissions, is or was until recently connected with the Leinster Street Conservative Association; whether in the latter capacity it was his business, for the purposes of the revision sessions, to make himself acquainted with the religion and politics of the persons summoned to serve as jurors at these commissions; and, whether it is by the advice of this gentleman, or by the aid of a jury panel marked by him, that Catholic and Liberal jurors are persistently ordered by the Crown to stand by?

Sir, it is the Crown Solicitor who himself marks the panel, and not Mr. William Welch. As to the steps which the Crown Solicitor, for the purpose of the proper discharge of his duty, is obliged to take in order to obtain confidential information, the matter is one as to which I must decline to make any statement in the House. As regards the last paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have to state that it is not the fact that Catholic and Liberal jurors are persistently ordered to stand by. For instance, on the jury which convicted Brady there were, at least, four Catholic gentlemen.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to his statement as to the composition of juries, whether it is true that at the last trial of Timothy Kelly there wore upwards of 40 challenges by the Crown, and on the trial of Fagan 54; and will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Government prefers that kind of trial by jury to the trial by Commission of Judges authorized by the House?

Referring to my Question, whatever may be the duties of Mr. Welch at Green Street—[Cries of "Order!"]—a very important part of my Question has not been answered. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is or is not a fact that Mr. Welch is connected with the Leinster Street Conservative Association of Dublin?

I consider I have answered the Question of the hon. Member satisfactorily.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, in respect to the statistical abstract for the United Kingdom, issued last year, which returns £9,980,587, as the gross amount of occupation interests in Ireland for the year 1880, whether that amount has been computed on the same principle as that applied to show the sums in same abstract for England and Scotland, amounting together under Schedule B to £59,402,479?

Sir, the amounts stated in the statistical abstract are calculated upon the same principle; but the hon. Member is aware that the owner in England is assessed under Schedule A upon the estimated value; in Ireland the owner is assessed upon Griffith's valuation. The occupying farmer in England is assessed under Schedule B upon half the actual rent paid; in Ireland upon one-third of Griffith's valuation. I think it right to add that mainly in consequence of the exemption of incomes under £150 the net assessment charged with Income Tax under Schedule B in Ireland is only £2,722,000, as against the gross assessment of £9,980,587, as stated in the Question.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether inquiries have been made into charges against the sanitary condition of Nazareth House, Hammersmith; and, if so, with what result?

said, that he had ordered one of the Medical Inspectors of his Department to inquire into the subject, and an inquiry had accordingly taken place. He had also himself been over the premises of the Sisters of Nazareth House, Hammersmith. There were 175 children there, and about 130 old men and women. The attack of typhus was confined to the children and the Sisters attending on them, and had not reached the old people. There were 51 cases of typhus in all; but that extended over a long period—several months. The Medical Inspector's Report was not yet complete; but he had received from him an interim Report. As soon as the full Report was ready it should be laid before the House. If the hon. Member asked what was the character of the Report, he might at once state that it said that the rumour that the Sisters had disregarded cleanliness was quite unfounded. Further, it stated that the amount of space given to the children was ample and sufficient. The disease was brought in from without, and the Inspector was making further and full inquiries on that point. The spread of the disease was accounted for by the fact that it was in the house for a considerable time before the Sisters knew of it, as typhus was a disease which it was very difficult to recognize among children.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether two of the three men executed in Galway Gaol on Dec. 15th, viz. Patrick Joyce and Patrick Casey, had made declarations admitting their own guilt and asserting the innocence of the third man Myles Joyce; whether these declarations were made in presence of Mr. Brady the resident magistrate who first had charge of this case, and were deemed by him of such importance that he transmitted them by special messenger to the Lord Lieutenant with an expression of his own belief in the innocence of Myles Joyce, and caused the telegraph office in Galway to be kept open all night to receive the expected commutation of this man's sentence; if he will state whether he had been consulted and agreed to the reply transmitted at one o'clock on the morning of the execution that the Law should take its course; and, whether he will have any objection that Copies of these declarations should be laid upon the Table of the House?

Sir, the statements referred to were sent up to Dublin by order of the Lord Lieutenant, by whose order, also, the telegraph station at Galway was kept open until he had time to consider them. The statements did not say that Myles Joyce had no complicity in the murder. That complicity was distinctly proved, both by independent witnesses and by the approvers, and was not denied by the two other men who were executed. Mr. Brady gave no such opinion as is referred to in the Question. I must decline to answer the third paragraph of the Question. The Advisers of the Crown in the consideration of capital cases are never named; it is the Lord Lieutenant solely who is responsible. The Government cannot consent to lay on the Table of the House Papers relating to the consideration by the Crown of a capital sentence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government did not observe that rule in regard to Hynes?

That was an absolutely exceptional case, Sir; inasmuch as the characters of 12 honest citizens were attacked and impugned. The Papers were, therefore, laid upon the Table of the House in order to clear their characters.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the man Myles Joyce did not, on the day he was executed, declare his innocence as he left the cell, and whether he was not actually declaring his innocence at the very moment when the executioner drew the bolt, and launched him into eternity?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he considers the character of 12 special jurors in Dublin of more importance than the life of one Connaught peasant?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the following statement in the "Times" of the 23rd April, with reference to crime in the county Wicklow:—

"The County Court Judge, Mr. Darley, was presented with a pair of white gloves in the Court House of Wicklow yesterday, there being no criminal charges to be brought before him. He complimented the county on its peaceful state;"

if he has seen a report of the proceedings at Baltinglass Quarter Sessions, the other side of the county, on the previous Monday, in which the same Judge, addressing the Grand Jury, said—

"There is but one case to go before you, and that a very trivial one, for stealing a bottle of porter. I am sorry that the magistrates could not deal with this case, and thus save twenty-three gentlemen the trouble and inconvenience of attending here;"

whether the Grand Jury found "No Bill;" and, whether he can state if a stipendiary magistrate was present on the Bench when this extraordinary case was returned for trial to Quarter Sessions?

Sir, the circumstances are as stated in this Question. In the one case, which was for trial at the Quarter Sessions, the accused, when before the magistrate, had elected, as he was legally entitled to do, to be tried before a jury, and therefore the magistrates had no option but to send the case forward. There was no Resident Magistrate present. There does not seem to be the slightest reason to suppose that the remarks of the learned County Court Judge were intended as any reflection on the action of the magistrates.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's representative at Constantinople with respect to the successor to Rustum Pacha, late Governor of the Lebanon?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government do not favour any particular candidate. They are ready to consider the merits of any person that the Porte may suggest for the Governorship of the Lebanon in the event of the Sultan revoking the mandate of Rustum Pasha. In the case of Trenk Bib Doda, the Mirdite Chief, Her Majesty's Government thought it doubtful whether he was fitted by age and experience, and knowledge of the language, for the post.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has received a report from the Local Government Board Inspector, Mr. Hamilton, of the condition in which he found the Belfast Workhouse master's books, which, on the 10th April 1883, at a meeting of the Belfast Board of Guardians he declared had been cooked and falsified; if it be true that since this date the books and stores are still in charge of the same persons; and, if so, whether these officials will be continued in office?

Sir, the Local Government Board inform me that they have received a Report from their Inspector on this subject, and the explanation of the master of the workhouse. The result is to show that, although there has been some irregularity in the manner in which the master's books had been kept, there is no reason whatever to attribute fraud to that officer, and there does not seem to be any reason why he should not be retained in office. The Local Government Board will address the Guardians on the subject of the irregularity referred to, with a view to their taking care that they shall not be repeated.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that all the officials of the Donegal Workhouse, the master, matron, clerk, medical officer, sanitary officer, porter, &c. are Protestants, although 90 per cent of the inmates are Catholics; whether the guardians of the Donegal Union have refused to appoint a Catholic catechist, at the nominal salary of eight pounds a-year, to give religious instruction to the Catholic children in the Donegal Workhouse, and whether they have persisted in this refusal, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the Local Government Board; whether the Catholic chaplain has accordingly resigned, with the sanction of his Bishop, in consequence of such refusal to provide catechetical instruction for the children; whether he is aware that the Catholic ratepayers have called upon the four Catholic guardians to resign also, in consequence of the fruitlessness of all popular endeavour to oppose the Anti-Catholic policy of the majority of the board; and, what steps he proposes to take to obtain for the Catholic children and other Catholic inmates of the Donegal Workhouse the requisite protection for their religious convictions which has been refused by the majority of the guardians?

It is the case. Sir, that the officials mentioned are Protestants, and that over 80 per cent of the inmates of the workhouse are Roman Catholics. The Guardians of the Donegal Union at first consented to the proposed appointment of a Roman Catholic Catechist, and the Local Government Board was prepared to approve the arrangement; but the Guardians subsequently rescinded their resolution, and have since adhered to that decision. The Catholic chaplain has threatened to resign; but he has not actually tendered his resignation. I have no information as to the alleged communication between the Roman Catholic ratepayers and Guardians. The Local Government Board have no power to make the appointment themselves, and they regret that the Guardians should refuse to acquiesce in a proposal which appears to be reasonable.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the late sitting of the Land Court appointed to be held this month at Dungarvan for the hearing of cases in the Union of Dungarvan, 166 cases were listed for hearing; whether he is aware that in the cases of many of the applicants for the fixing of a fair rent their applications have been already before the court for periods of eighteen months and more; whether it is true that the court was postponed to July without hearing cases at Dungarvan; whether it is true that at the present rate of the disposal of cases at Dungarvan more than a quarter of a century will be required to dispose of the cases already on the list; and, whether arrangements can be made by which courts can be held more frequently and for longer periods until the cases in arrear have been disposed of?

Sir, 166 cases were listed for hearing at Dungarvan on the 9th of April. I have not been informed whether any of them had been before the Court for 18 months; but I am aware that nearly all of them had been adjourned from the previous sitting. The April sitting at Dungarvan only terminated on Monday last; and the Land Commissioners, when reporting to me yesterday, had not received the Returns necessary to enable them to say what amount of business was disposed of. They have furnished me with a conjecture on the subject; but, as it is only a conjecture, I do not wish to repeat it. A Sub-Commission will sit again at Dungarvan on the 30th of July.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, as the last mail under the present extended contract leaves for Zanzibar in May, any arrangements have been made, or are in progress, for the future mail service of the West Coast of Africa?

Sir, this subject has been under the consideration of the Government, and they have come to the conclusion that the reasons for which the agency at Zanzibar exist warrant the continuance for a limited period of a subsidy for a monthly service between Aden and Zanzibar. Tenders will accordingly be called for immediately for this purpose, the period fixed being five years. Although the subsidy is not for postal purposes, and will not be charged to the Post Office Votes, it will probably be desirable to have the contract confirmed by a Vote of the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any treaty is in course of negotiation for the cession to England of Whydah and its dependencies on the West Coast of Africa, a region including 600 miles of coast between Lon. 5 E. and 5 W?

The cession of the Portuguese fort at Whydah, and of the rights inherent to the sovereignty of it, have formed part of the negotiations between this country and Portugal, and were referred to in a speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in "another place" on the 9th ultimo.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the magistrates of the Petty Sessions district of Drumcondra have protested against powder manufacturers being allowed to erect magazines in their district; whether he is aware that the Grand Jury of the county of Dublin have petitioned the Lord Lieutenant against the order to remove private stores of gunpowder out of the Government magazines; and, whether, in the present state of Ireland, the Government intend to carry out an order which is causing so much alarm to the loyal and peaceful subjects of Her Majesty in that Country?

I am aware, Sir, that the magistrates of the Drumcondra district have objected to the establishment of a powder magazine at Santry, and that the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin have petitioned the Lord Lieutenant as stated. The decision as to the storage of merchants' powder has been arrived at by the Government after very careful consideration, and it is intended to carry it out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government adhere to their intention of requiring the manufacturers of gunpowder to remove, from the Government Magazines in and about Dublin, the powder which they have hitherto been compelled to store therein, thereby exposing the public to great alarm and danger by obliging large stores of gunpowder to be kept in unprotected places, where it is liable to be blown up by incendiaries, or to be plundered either in magazines or in transit from the stores to the retail warehouses?

Sir, this Question is put, I think, under some misapprehension. The hon. and gallant Member says that the merchants have hitherto been compelled to store their powder in the Government magazines. That is not so. They were allowed, as an exceptional privilege, in former times so to store their gunpowder; but, for reasons to which I need not further allude, it was thought that it was not desirable that persons should have access to the Government stores who are not Government servants, as that would put the stores in peril. Therefore, last year, the Government determined that the stores should be kept as Government stores alone. Since then the merchants have stored their gunpowder, as in England, in magazines set apart for that purpose. In reference to this part of the Question, the hon. and gallant Member will see, on looking at the Explosives Act of 1875, that persons who have a licence to store gunpowder are under an obligation to protect their magazines. Recently a Circular was sent out to the local authorities in England and elsewhere, calling attention to that obligation. The matter is now on the same footing in Ireland as in England and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government magazines are used exclusively for the storage of Government gunpowder, and the others are under the regulations of the Explosives Act.

inquired whether, under the provisions of that Act, merchants were bound to protect gunpowder in transit as well as in the stores?

I should not like to answer that Question off-hand without looking at the Act.

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at it.

I will, Sir.

asked the Judge Advocate General, If more than one day's pay can now be stopped from a soldier for an absence of less than twenty-four hours, when the soldier is not detailed for special duty; and, if so, if he will state what is the minimum time for which two days' pay can be stopped when the soldier is not for duty; and, whether any change has lately been made decreasing the minimum of the time for which two days' pay can be stopped.

Sir, in the case put—namely, that of a soldier not detailed for duty:—(1), one day's pay can be stopped for absence for six consecutive hours; (2), the minimum time for which two days' pay can be stopped is 12 consecutive hours, provided the absence is partly in one day and partly in another; and, lastly, the minimum of the time for which two days' pay can be stopped was decreased by Art. 166 of the Royal Warrant of 1882, framed under sec. 140 (2) of the Army Act, 1881. For instance, under the Act of 1879, a soldier absent from 10 p.m. to, say, after 10 a.m. the next day was liable to forfeiture of pay for one day only; whereas he is now, under the combined effect of the Act of 1881 and the Royal Warrant, liable to two days' forfeiture.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be true that arrangements have been made by which the obstructions in the channel at the entrance of the harbour of Alexandria will be removed, so as to admit of the entrance of large ships in any weather, and by night as well as by day; and, within what time it is expected this important work will be executed?

Sir, the Egyptian Government have in principle decided to adopt the scheme for deepening the entrance into Alexandria Harbour recommended by an International Commission of Engineers in 1881. They are now considering the mode of providing funds to carry out the works without throwing any fresh charge on the Egyptian Treasury. I am unable to say at present within what time it is expected that the work will be completed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact, as stated in a public telegram from Egypt, that Lord Dufferin has appointed Mr. Sheldon Amos to be the English Member of a Committee of three to arrange measures for giving effect to His Lordship's scheme for the establishment of a Constitution in Egypt; whether he has read an article in the October number of the "Contemporary Review," entitled "Spoiling the Egyptians, revised version," in which the writer applauds the "seemingly severe determination," in the days of the first control, "that the coupon must at all hazards be paid," and further states that such determination "was based on well founded apprehension for the country generally if the slightest show of indulgence was admitted;" and, whether Her Majesty's Government will sanction the appointment of a gentleman holding these views?

Sir, I have nothing to add to the reply to this same Question which I gave on Monday last, and sufficient time has not elapsed for inquiry to be made.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any machinery exists by which Corporations or the Town Commissioners of towns in Ireland can effect the enlargement of the borough boundaries without the expense of a private Act of Parliament?

Sir, under Section 5 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, Towns Commissioners may alter or extend the boundaries of their towns, with the consent of the Local Government Board. There is no such provision with regard to the boundaries of Corporate towns.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether James Kelly, one of the prisoners awaiting trial for the outrage at Weston House, was confined for some weeks in Ballinasloe bridewell during the month of February; whether he was during that time visited on five different occasions by a detective who was locked into the cell with him, contrary to the prison regulations; whether on each of these occasions the detective gave him whiskey to drink, and afterwards produced a purse of money, which he told him he would receive if he swore informations against certain persons named by the detective, and who were not at all in custody; whether, as a further inducement, the detective stated to him that the other men charged had offered to give information which would cendemn Kelly to penal servitude; and, whether this latter statement was a falsehood?

Sir, James Kelly was confined for a time in Ballinasloe Bridewell. He was not visited there by a detective, nor did he get any whisky.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether inquiry had been made of James Kelly himself; and said that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he should take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the gross inaccuracy of the information supplied to the Chief Secretary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the authorities at the Local Government Board were aware, when they refused to ratify the recommendation of the Belfast Board of Guardians in favour of appointing the Rev. Saml. M'Comb to the vacant Presbyterian Chaplaincy of the workhouse, that the Rev. Gentleman was a Conservative and an Orangeman; and, whether, when they ignored the recommendation of the Board of Guardians by nominating the Rev. W. Montgomery to that Chaplaincy, the authorities were aware that this Gentleman was a warm supporter of Her Majesty's Ministers?

Sir, the Local Government Board were aware of the political views of both the rev. gentlemen; but this knowledge did not influence them in selecting the Rev. Mr. Montgomery. That gentleman was unquestionably the most suited for the appointment, he having for some considerable time acted as locum tenens during the illness of the previous chaplain, and his church and manse being close to the workhouse, while the Rev. Mr. M'Comb's church was at the other end of the town and his residence still further away. Moreover, the balance of Presbyterian opinion among the Guardians appears to have been in favour of Mr. Montgomery.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With what object the police have been questioning the evicted tenants of Lord Cloncurry, at Murroe, as to the terms they were willing to offer for reinstatement; and, whether these inquiries have any connection with the reported transfer of the evicted farms to the Land Corporation of Ireland?

Sir, some inquiries were made for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the people, and aiding, if possible, a settlement of the dispute between the landlord and his tenants. These inquiries had no connection whatever with the Land Corporation of Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will state to the House the number of holdings subject to Clause 19 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1881, on which judicial rents have been fixed by the Land Commission; the number of these in which orders have been made for the building or improvement of labourer's cottages or the addition of allotment gardens; the number of holdings on which such orders have been complied with; and the number of cases in which the provisions of the Labourers' Cottage and Allotment Act of 1882 have been made use of to compel compliance?

It would be quite impossible, Sir, to state the number of holdings on which judicial rents have been fixed, and where applications for the erection or improvement of labourers' cottages might have been, but were not, made. The number of cases in which orders have been made for the building or improvement of cottages, or for the allotment of gardens, is 413. I am not at present able to say in how many cases these orders have been complied with, or the provisions of the Act of 1882 made use of to compel compliance. Inquiries on this subject were undertaken some time ago by my desire, and are still in progress. It was necessary, in the first instance, to ascertain from the Land Commissioners particulars as to all holdings in which such orders had been made. This stage of the inquiry has been completed; and the Constabulary will now be asked to ascertain in each case what has been done with a view to carry out the orders.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has had brought under his notice the report of a licensing case at Ballymena Quarter Sessions, in county Antrim, held in this present month, in which an applicant was refused a transfer of an existing licence because of his holding another licence in the same town; whether such ground of refusal is a good ground of objection according to the statute; is it not the fact that refusal of licence upon such a ground has been decided to be illegal by the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of Kinsella and Kavanagh against the Wicklow Justices; has his attention been called to another case of refusal of transfer at Antrim Quarter Sessions, in the same county, on the 17th of this month, of a publican's licence, and that the applicant in this case had succeeded in overturning a previous refusal by motion in the Queen's Bench; whether he is aware that the course of procedure pursued by the county court judge of Antrim, in licensing cases, is the cause of grave dissatisfaction to the publican interest in Antrim and Belfast, and has led to much expensive litigation; whether he is aware that another of the justices at Antrim was the Chairman of the Irish Temperance League, and that the other justices present are also contributors to the funds of the League, which are employed in feeing a solicitor to oppose licences; and, whether justices connected with the liquor business are disentitled by statute from acting at licensing sessions?

Sir, with regard to the first paragraphs of this Question. I have only to say that the Quarter Sessions is an independent Court, over which the Government exercises no control. If any party is dissatisfied with their decision in refusing a transfer of a licence, on the ground that such refusal is illegal, his proper course is to apply to the Queen's Bench; and I cannot enter into the merits of any particular cases upon which the Quarter Sessions Court has adjudicated. I am not aware whether the further statements made are correct, nor do I think that I am called upon to make inquiry on the subject. The Lord Lieutenant has no power to interfere with a County Court Judge, nor has he any right to interfere with a magistrate on the ground that the course pursued by him has caused dissatisfaction to a particular interest. If the hon. Member's informant has any just cause of dissatisfaction with particular magistrates on the ground of their connection with a Temperance League or otherwise, his complaint should be addressed to the Lord Chancellor. As to the concluding paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, I must refer him to those provisions of the Licensing Acts which deal with the subject of disqualification to act at Licensing Sessions.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that applications to have fair rents fixed, proceeding from persons resident in the Unions of Roscrea, Borrisokane, and Parsons-town, are appointed to be heard at Thurles by Sub-Commission 15 on its forthcoming circuit; whether he is aware that the Unions of Roscrea and Borrisokane, and that part of the Parsonstown Union situate in the county Tipperary, are at distances of not more than from seven to fifteen miles from the town of Nenagh, where Sub-Commission 15 is also fixed to sit, while the Unions in question are about three times as distant from Thurles, where cases of persons residing in those Unions are nevertheless appointed to be heard; and, whether, considering the heavy expense to which applicants would be put for travelling expenses for valuers and witnesses for long distances, and the heavy costs already incurred by many of these applicants through two postponements of their cases, arrangements will be made, either for Sub-Commission 15 to hold a session at Borrisokane, or to hear at Nenagh, instead of at Thurles, the cases from the three Unions before mentioned?

Sir, the Land Commissioners have altered the arrangements referred to; and cases from the Unions of Nenagh, Borrisokane, and that part of the Union of Parsonstown which is in the county of Tipperary will be heard at Nenagh. Applications from the Unions of Roscrea and Thurles will be heard at Thurles.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can now state when the sluices and other works on the Shannon will be in an efficient state to prevent the undue rising of the summer floods?

Sir, the Shannon sluices will, I am informed, be all available for the regulation of the coming summer floods, whenever they may occur.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If he will state, or furnish a Return showing, the proportion of the £242,500, for Surveys of the United Kingdom, which is spent in or for Ireland; if the Secretary to the Treasury will state or furnish a Return showing the portions of the sum of £1,006,785 taken in the Estimates as required to defray the Expenses of the Customs Department is spent in Ire- land; and, if he will state or furnish a Return showing what portion of the sum of £1,488,772 taken in the Estimates as required for the Inland Revenue Department is spent in Ireland?

A Return, Sir, has recently been ordered, on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for County Galway (Colonel Nolan), which will show, as accurately as circumstances permit, the sums expended in or for Ireland in the last financial year. If, when this has been circulated, any further information is desired, it will be open to hon. Members to ask for it; but, in the meanwhile, it would only be confusing to answer isolated Questions upon particular points. As regards the Inland Revenue Vote, I may at once refer the hon. Member to the Estimates, to the details of which he does not appear to have referred.

asked the Postmaster General, if he will state, or furnish a Return showing, what portions of the amounts taken in the Estimates for the Post Office and Post Office Telegraph Services are spent in Ireland?

Sir, if the hon. Member will refer to the Revenue Estimates, Votes 3, 4, and 5, which relate to the Post Office, he will find such detailed information given under separate heads of England, Scotland, and Ireland, as to the salaries of officers and other items of expenditure, that I do not think any useful end will be served by giving the Return suggested.

asked the Postmaster General, in view of the proposed alteration with regard to 6d. rates for telegrams, an alteration which it is computed will entail a loss of £170,000 a-year, What arrangements will be made in case of the rural post offices, where contracts have been signed under which the shillings at present paid in for telegrams are allowed to the guarantors of the annual sum paid to the Post Office Department; and, whether the guarantors of such sums will be secured from any share in the loss which it is calculated will be entailed on the revenues of the Department by the change in the telegraphic rates?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I may state that I think it will be only fair that guarantors should not suffer any pecuniary loss from the proposed reduction of telegraphic charges; and they will not, therefore, be called upon to pay any more than the payment made in the last year, or the average payment of the three last years.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the lodging money of married privates and non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines who have been sent to discharge police duty in Ireland has been stopped, and much distress thereby inflicted on their families; and, whether the Lords of the Admiralty will consider the propriety of the continuance of lodging money to such persons during their temporary absence in Ireland?

Sir, the lodging allowance granted to the men of the Royal Marines is in lieu of quarters for the man to whom it is issued, and is in no sense an allowance for the maintenance of his wife and children. The men now serving in Ireland are provided with quarters, and are, therefore, not entitled to lodging money. I cannot believe that any distress has been inflicted on the families, as the men's full regimental pay is issued to the wives and families at home, the extra payment made in Ireland being amply sufficient for the subsistence of the men themselves.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the officers of the 1st Battalion Manchester 63rd, and the 1st Battalion Seaforth Highlanders 72nd, having received six months' field allowance during service in Egypt, in common with officers of other Regiments, have since been called upon to refund the same; and, if so, whether any justification can be found for treating these Regiments specially summoned from India to serve in Egypt in a less generous manner than our English troops?

Sir, the officers referred to were not considered entitled to the advance of six months' field allowance because, up to the date of their landing in Egypt, they continued to receive those higher rates of Indian pay which include the provision of field equipment, to meet the cost of which the advance in question was made to officers proceeding on service from England. From the date of their landing in Egypt, however, they received the War Office daily rate of field allowance. The regimental authorities of the Sea-forth Highlanders drew the whole of the six months' advance, and have been called on to refund. The claim of the Manchester Regiment to the advance was disallowed. The India Office has now under immediate consideration the claims of the officers to the whole of the six months' advance.

said, the Question was based solely on the justice of the claims of these officers in comparison with the treatment of officers summoned from England. Could a positive assurance be given that these officers would not be placed in a disadvantageous position in a pecuniary sense as compared with the officers who went out from England? Unless he got a satisfactory answer, he should be obliged to bring the unfortunate matter before the House.

said, he had already stated that it was under consideration at the India Office; but the ceases named were scarcely parallel. Until the troops from India arrived at Suez they received higher rates of pay, which English officers did not enjoy until they arrived in Egypt. The cases were not parallel; but the matter would receive consideration.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that the Lord Chancellor has recently refused to confirm the nominations of Mr. Duncan, of Cardiff, and of Mr. Ramsden, of Halifax, to the Magisterial Bench, on the ground that those gentlemen were proprietors of newspapers?

said, he understood that the Lord Chancellor had not laid down any general rule that he would not, in any circumstances, appoint newspaper proprietors as magistrates; but, in deal- ing with applications for the appointment of magistrates, he had to consider the business position and general influence of the gentlemen nominated. It was true that in these cases he had not acceded to the application; but it was certainly not on account of any question of personal character. It was rather on account of general considerations applying to their position, and the influence they might exercise within the local areas, that it was thought best, on the whole, not to sanction the appointments.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any and what offers have lately been made to the Government scale for the removal of a very considerable number of selected families from the West of Ireland to be settled upon land in America?

Sir, the Government have been in communication with certain gentlemen interested in the development of the North-West Provinces of Canada on the subject of selecting emigrants for settlement there. The general wish of these gentlemen to whom I refer as to the comfort and well-being of the emigrants may be seen in the first paragraph of a letter which I think appears in The Times of to-day, and which shows that they are anxious that these emigrants should enter on a farm of 160 acres of good wheat land, with a comfortable house already provided for them, with a cow and the means of carrying on the labour of the farm, their subsistence being also thoroughly provided for them during the early period of their settlement. I do not say that is the exact offer which has been made, and which the Government will accept; but it is an outline of what those gentlemen propose to provide for the emigrants. The matter is one requiring much consideration, and the sanction of Parliament will have to be obtained before any such scheme is entered upon.

How is it proposed to provide subsistence for 50,000 persons from the day of their arrival until they reap their first crop?

The matter is still in an inchoate state. I have merely mentioned the general intention of these gentlemen; but, of course, it is obvious that 50,000 persons will not go out together.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the date at which the foot and mouth disease was last year introduced into Ireland, and from whence; whether he can furnish the number of cattle, of sheep, and of pigs that have been attacked since its introduction and up to the 24th March; also the number of diseased animals that have died, or been killed, or recovered, up to 24th March last; and, whether regulations similar to those enforced in England have been rigidly enforced in Ireland to check the spread of the disease?

Sir, there was no case of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland last year. The outbreak occurred towards the end of January in this year. The first case appeared in a bull brought from Westmoreland; but it is believed that the outbreak was caused by infection brought to Dublin by drovers who had attended markets in affected districts in Lancashire. The numbers of animals attacked up to March 24 were—cattle, 2,230; sheep, 311; and swine, 91. Up to the same date, 88 animals were killed, 15 died, and 1,732 recovered. The latest Returns show some diminution in the number of cases. Regulations intended to check the spread of the disease are enforced as in England.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that two years have been added to the term entitling Naval Artificers to pension, and that men who are invited to re-enter after ten years' service are required to engage for twelve years more, and suffer loss by deferred rise of pay owing to this extension; and, whether the new conditions, while favourable to new entrants, have proved so unsatisfactory that the men who have been ten years in the service are found unwilling to re-enter for the extended period?

Sir, the Question of my hon. Friend re- fers, I think, to engine-room artificers. The now terms of service, which may be accepted at their own option by men now serving, include a longer period of service for pension, the rate of pension being, of course, increased. The men have been called upon to elect whether they will accept the new conditions as a whole, setting their advantages against any drawbacks they may discern in them, or continue to serve on the old terms. Returns have not been received from all the stations, and it is, therefore, not yet possible to say definitely how far the new conditions are accepted by the men; but my hon. Friend will understand that men at present in the Service can in no way suffer by the new Regulations, as it is optional with them, if they prefer it, to complete their service for pension under the old conditions in every respect.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, considering that Sir Edward Clarke's Minute, on the Re-organization of the Public Works Department, of June, 1877, is in the hands of nearly all officials in India, and also in a public library in London, he will lay a Copy of it upon the Table?

It cannot be admitted, Sir, as a reason for laying a Paper on the Table of the House, that it has already been published, through what certainly seems to be some breach of confidence. If Sir Edward Clarke's Minute were officially published, it would have to be accompanied by other Minutes on the re-organization of the Indian Public Works Department, the production of which is not desirable, as the subject is still under consideration.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a measure is under consideration to so far assimilate the borrowing powers under the Lands Improvement Act and the Land Act, 1881, as to enable tenants in Ireland, to whom the latter Act does not apply, to borrow under the former sums less than £100; and, if so, who- ther he hopes soon to be able to introduce the Bill?

Sir, in the Consolidation Bill which I hope to introduce before Whitsuntide, the fixed minimum prescribed by the old Land Improvements Acts will not be re-enacted; and it will be possible to prescribe, by regulation, any other minimum that may be desirable.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is now able to state whether any permanent arrangement has been made with reference to the office of Under Secretary of State in Ireland?

Sir, Mr. Hamilton, the Accountant General of the Board of Admiralty, who, since the death of Mr. Burke, has performed the duties of Under Secretary in Ireland, has consented to hold that Office in permanence. I believe he has sent in his resignation as Accountant General of the Board of Admiralty to-day. The Government regard it as a high public advantage that they have been able to secure for Ireland Mr. Hamilton's great ability, and his long and varied experience in finance and administration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that the Land Commission has ordered that all cases arising in the King's County be heard at Tullamore on the 8th of May; whether, owing to the long distances, in some cases about fifty miles, that will have to be travelled by the poor tenants and their witnesses, living in distant parts of the county, in order to bring their cases before the Commissioners sitting at Tullamore, this decision will not prevent these tenants seeking the benefits of the Land Act; whether he will ask the Land Commission to sit not only at Tullamore, but at Birr and Edenderry, or other convenient places; and, if not, whether any other arrangements can be made to bring the benefits of the Land Act within the reach of the poorer tenants of the King's County?

Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that, in arranging the new Circuits, considering that there were only about 40 cases remaining for hearing in the King's County, they allotted but one week for that county, and fixed upon Tullamore as the place where the Court should be opened. The Sub-Commission has power to adjourn to any other town within the county to meet the convenience of the parties interested.

asked the Postmaster General, Why the Female Telegraph Clerks at Dublin, receiving thirty shillings a-week and upwards, are refused the annual holiday for three weeks enjoyed by Female Telegraph Clerks receiving similar rates of salary at London?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the difference to which he calls attention between the periods of annual leave in London and in Dublin appears to me an anomaly, and I will see whether steps cannot be taken with a view to its removal.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will state when the complete returns of the Census of 1881 will be presented to Parliament?

in reply, said, that two volumes of the Returns would be issued on Monday, and the third volume was in course of preparation.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the fact that the High Court of Madras has lately decided a Case on Appeal, to the effect that compulsory vaccination is illegal, the judges declaring that it is quite optional to a parent whether his children shall be vaccinated, and that it is not unlawful to dissuade others from suffering their children to undergo the operation?

Sir, my hon. Friend has furnished me with a copy of The Western Star of Cochin, from which I gather that the facts are correctly stated in his Question. Vaccination is not compulsory in the Madras Presidency.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the long continued complaints of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into their grievances, the Government recognise the extreme importance of at once giving effect to the recommendations made in favour of the Force; whether there is not much dissatisfaction at the long continued delay in dealing with this most pressing question; and, whether the Government, having regard to the extreme urgency of the question, will at once introduce their Bill on the subject?

Sir, I will not enter into the question of the time which has elapsed in dealing with this matter; and, while I will not deny that some dissatisfaction exists, the conduct of the Force, I am assured by those in authority, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would gladly admit, has been trustworthy and praiseworthy. But I am glad to take this opportunity of informing the House that on Monday I propose to introduce a Bill to amend the laws relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Police Force of the Dublin Metropolis.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Tier Majesty's Government can give the House any information with respect to the Triple Convention lately made between Germany, Austria, and Italy?

Sir, I observe in the Question the right hon. Gentleman has used the words "Convention lately made between Germany, Austria, and Italy." We are not aware whether any instrument of the character of a Convention or Treaty exists. With respect, however, to the transaction which in some form has taken place, I do not think I can do more than refer the right hon. Gentleman to the explanation which has been given of its general character by the Austrian, Hungarian, and Italian Ministers in their respective Chambers.

Does Her Majesty's Government know whether those explanations refer to the affairs of the East?

I do not believe, so far as our knowledge goes, that there is any reference to any particular question or class of questions.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Government will purchase the Irish manuscripts in the Ashburnham Collection, and cause them to be placed in some fit locality in Ireland for the use of scholars and students; whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the provisions of the Irish University Education Act of 1879, which provides that, within twelve months after the first appointment of the Senate of the Royal University, a scheme shall be prepared for the erection of buildings which shall include a library; and, whether Government will consider the propriety of commencing the realisation of such library by placing the Irish manuscripts of the Ashburnham Collection at the disposal of the Senate of the Royal University of Ireland for the use of scholars and students?

Sir, as to that part of the Question which refers to the Ashburnham Collection, communications are still passing, and I cannot say whether it will be in our power to obtain portions of it or not. With respect to the disposition of the Irish portion of it, if the Collection should be acquired, an intimation has already been given that the Government think the suggestion well worthy of consideration that Ireland should be the repository of that portion of the Collection. I am informed that a Library upon an approved plan is contemplated for the Royal University Buildings now in course of erection or adoption.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is correctly reported in Hansard of the 28th November 1882 to have stated with regard to the appointment of valuers in Ireland—

"The experiment was made, and what is the result? It is this—that we have completely failed in bringing about the expedition which was the capital object which we had in view;"

and, whether, bearing in mind the statement of the Chief Secretary on March 12th 1883, that—

"Under the new system the same number of Sub-Commissions with which the valuers produced decisions amounting to 77 a-day, were now producing 100 decisions a-day. The Government, therefore, watched the proceedings of the newly appointed Sub-Commissions with hope,"

he will take stops to remove the impression, of which he expressed himself unaware on Tuesday last, that pressure is being exercised by the Government on the valuers to expedite their decisions?

in reply, said, he was not aware of the existence of the impression referred to by the hon. Member; but was glad to have the opportunity of stating that there was not, and never had been, any attempt on the part of the Government to accelerate the proceedings of the Commissioners otherwise than by improving their means of action. That was the object which the Government had in view all along. Although there were now no valuers properly so-called—the valuation work being done by the non-legal members of the Commission—yet the instructions lately issued to these Sub-Commissioners were such that each Commission practically was able to do the work which was formerly done by two valuers. From that cause, and not from any pressure of the Government, came the augmented rate of progress.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If there is any truth in the report that the Viceroy of India in Council proposes to modify what is commonly known as "Mr. Ilbert's Bill;" and, if so, if he would state the nature of the modification?

Sir, we have had no information of any kind in the direction indicated by the hon. Member's Question. In fact, no communication on the subject has been received from the Viceroy since the despatch on the 13th of February, which despatch was included in the Papers laid on the Table.

asked whether Her Majesty's Government had suggested any modifications?

Sir, I am not aware of our having suggested any modifications. I think our course is to receive any propositions which the Viceroy may make; but I have no reason to suppose that it is intended to make any.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in view of the distress which will probably prevail in the West of Ireland during the next three months, he will be prepared to facilitate the construction of railways and other useful public works by guaranteeing a minimum rate of interest on the capital invested in such railways or tramways as the Government may approve of?

in reply, said, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury were carefully considering what they could do in the way of reducing to a lower standard the rate of interest on behalf of valuable and useful public works in Ireland, with a view to relieve the distress which might prevail; but he was not able to say that they were prepared to entertain the proposition to guarantee a minimum rate of interest on railways or such works.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of a rising of the Natives of South Africa in sufficient strength to imperil the safety of the Boers of the Transvaal, the Suzerain of that Country is in any way bound by the Convention of 1881 to interfere for their protection; since it appears that the Clauses of the Convention that have been framed for the protection of the Natives are practically inoperative?

Sir, the Question relates to a contingency that the Transvaal Government may be put in peril by an insurrection of the Natives, and is founded on the assumption that the clauses for the protection of the Natives have failed in their effect. I am not prepared to make any admission to that effect; because I do not think that our knowledge is such as to justify any statement of that kind on the part of the Government. But with respect to a condition of things in which the Government of the Transvaal would have occasion to apprehend danger from the Natives, that is an extremely remote contingency, in reference to which I am not aware that there is anything in the Convention which directly bears upon it. In such a contingency the conduct of the Government must be directed by general considerations and the principles of right and equity.

asked whether, as appeared to have been intimated "elsewhere," the Government had expressed any intention of revising the Convention?

I am not aware that such a statement has been made "elsewhere." If so, I think the hon. and learned Member must have referred to a statement by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) that this Convention is not to be regarded as an inviolable and unalterable document. The hon. and learned Member himself knows very well that at the time it was concluded the Transvaal Government pressed for certain changes in it, and Her Majesty's Government suggested that the Convention must first be fairly tried. In my opinion, a state of things is now ripening in which the Government can entertain proposals for altering the Convention.

asked whether, before any alteration in the Convention was concluded by the Government, the House would be furnished with an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject?

I think it would be premature to enter into a subject which must remain for future consideration.

Sir, I have received 150 Petitions from officers of the Inland Revenue with regard to the Circular issued by the Treasury; and I now wish to ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will guarantee that the parties who have signed those Petitions, which are perfectly in Order, and the form of which I may say was submitted to the Speaker before being signed, shall be in no way punished, molested, threatened, or interfered with, directly or indirectly, by the Inland Revenue Board?

The noble Lord asked precisely the same Question some short time ago. ["No!"] At all events, it was the same in spirit, if not in words. He was not satisfied with my answer, and appealed to you, Sir, on the subject, and you ruled that the Question had been answered. To that answer I have nothing to add.

Is the House to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give no guarantee that the Government will not interfere with public servants petitioning the House of Commons?

said: With reference to the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no reply, I should like to ask him, having regard to the very great importance of the Question, if he can give the House any assurance with regard to these Petitions that the Government would not take any course which must bring the Executive into collision with the Privileges of the House of Commons?

My simple answer to that would be that the Government will certainly take no course which would bring the Executive into collision with the Privileges of this House. But the Question was asked before, and you, Sir, gave such a plain answer as to the conditions on which Petitions should be presented, that I considered the matter had been fully determined.

Certain Members, Sir, are not aware of the exact nature of the statement you made; and I would like, therefore, to ask you, Sir, whether any interference by a Minister of the Crown with any person presenting a Petition to this House in regular form is not a high breach of the Privileges of this House?

I am bound to answer all Questions on points of Order as they arise; but I am not bound to deal with hypothetical cases.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he will communicate to the House what measures have been taken, if any, for carrying out the engagement entered into by the Government with regard to the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture?

Sir, the engagement we entered into was to make improved and, as we hope, efficient arrangements for the special and separate consideration of agricultural interests and affairs, and we have given effect to it in this way. An Order of Council has been sanctioned by Her Majesty, which will be presented, I believe, to-morrow; and when presented my hon. Friend and all other Members will have an opportunity of forming an opinion upon it. The general effect of the Order is to direct that certain Members of the Privy Council—being Members, of course, of the Government—be appointed a Committee of Council for the consideration of all matters relating to agriculture; and, in the words of the Order, these matters—

"Are to be and are hereby ordered to be referred to the said Committee, to consider the same, and report thereon to Her Majesty."

The head of that Committee will be the Lord President of the Council; and, in his absence, it is directed that all proceedings of the Committee shall be presided over by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

May I ask whether there will be any Order in Council with regard to a Minister of Commerce?

asked if it was intended that the new Committee should have an office and a staff for obtaining and recording the information, and collecting agricultural statistics?

Undoubtedly, Sir, we shall now proceed to consider whether a separate office will be required for the purpose, or whether the building of the Privy Council Office is sufficient. It is a question which I could not answer on the spur of the moment; but unquestionably sufficient means must be provided for dealing with the business relating to agriculture that will come before this Committee. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), I have to say that the President of the Board of Trade is, to all intents and purposes, a Minister of Commerce. The only question for consideration—a not unimportant one, I admit—is that of the division of business between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office with respect to communications and negotiations with foreign countries; but with regard to that I do not think that any dissatisfaction will exist. But that is a separate point, which may be decided without prejudice to the public interest. I may add that more than 40 years ago, when I was at the Board of Trade, the management of all these questions was in the hands of the Board of Trade; and it might, perhaps, be thought expedient in the public interest if it were so again.

Is it intended to present any Estimate for the purpose of carrying this arrangement into effect?

Certainly, Sir; that will be requisite. I think it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of considering the matter. Although we have been studious to incur no unnecessary expense, some changes in the existing Estimates will be necessary, and possibly some minute and insignificant addition; but that will amply suffice for the purpose of bringing the matter before the House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the close of the debate on the first Order, it was proposed to proceed with the Annuity Bill, or with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill?

I shall beg to postpone the Annuity Bill till Monday. It is intended to proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.

At what hour?

At any hour in case of public necessity.

asked whether the Prime Minister would consent to the adjournment of the debate on the Parliamentary Oaths Bill at a reasonably early hour, in order to give time for the discussion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill?

said, that he had | no reason to suppose that the debate on the Affirmation Bill would last beyond midnight, after which hour they could proceed to the consideration of the Bill mentioned by the hon. and gallant Baronet.

said, that a strong feeling was manifested the other night that a fair opportunity ought to be given to the hon. Member for Preston, who desired to bring forward an important Amendment to the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. If the discussion on the Parliamentary Oaths Bill were closed at a reasonable hour, there might be time for the discussion of the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

said, the discussion in which they were engaged was unusually important, because they were asked not only to pass a Bill which would enfranchise the junior Member for Northampton, but to agree to a measure which would admit into the House a class hitherto unable to take the Oath. They were asked, on the present occasion, not to extend toleration to persons of other creeds than that professed by the majority of hon. Members, but to divorce the House from the very elements of religion. The Attorney General had informed the House that Peers might be summoned to the House of Lords who were known to hold views not entertained by the Christian community, and that if they chose to take the Oath and their seats they could do so without hindrance. He should like to know upon what basis the hon. and learned Gentleman founded the dictum that the House of Lords could not prevent a Peer taking his place under circumstances similar to those in which Mr. Bradlaugh stood in relation to the House of Commons. For his part, he believed that if a Peer were summoned to the House of Lords, and were to inform the Clerks at the Table that he claimed exemption from the Oath on the ground that he could not admit its binding force, the House of Lords would be quite entitled to refuse to administer the Oath to him; and if he should take his seat without taking the Oath, although he would not expose himself to the penalty of losing his seat, he would render himself liable to the pecuniary penalties which could be recovered in such a case if the Attorney General decided to set the law in motion. That view of the law, he might add, was entertained by high authorities. The Attorney General represented Lord Campbell as laying down that the words "So help me God" formed no part of the Oath; but in the Statute which enacted the Oath the words "So help me God" were included within inverted commas together with the other words of the Oath. The House was discussing an Act passed in 1866; and how Lord Campbell, who died in 1861, could have uttered a dictum by which an Act placed on the Statute Book after his death ought to be interpreted passed his comprehension. If his hon. and learned Friend had referred to the Act itself he would have seen that the words in question did form part of the Oath, for they were distinctly included in the words which Members were required to subscribe on taking their seats. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor was opposed to that of the Attorney General, for the noble and learned Lord recently laid down that—

"All previous enactments relating to oaths were repealed by the Statute of 1866, which was, therefore, the only law now in force upon this subject. The question was considered in the Court of Appeal without reference to any repealed Statutes, and in the same way as if there had been no prior legislation on the subject."

The Attorney General went on to say that the disqualification of a Member in consequence of proceedings connected with the Oath ought to be direct, and that direct notice of it ought to be given to the constituency electing him. But he would point out that there was a great distinction between a man's right to election and his right to take his seat and vote. The truth of that was shown by what took place in 1864. In 1859 a law was passed in connection with the affairs of India for the purpose of limiting the number of Under Secretaries who could take seats in that House. By some oversight the number was exceeded in 1864, and a Committee was appointed to inquire whether the extra Under Secretary lost his seat in consequence or not; and it was decided that though the Under Secretary had been duly elected, and had not forfeited his seat, he could not vote. The disqualification under which Mr. Bradlaugh laboured must have been known to his constituents at the time of his election. Mr. Bradlaugh was a very intelligent man. He knew the law very well, and he must have known that the Common Law of the land did prohibit an Atheist from taking an Oath; and, being a professed Atheist, he must have been aware that unless he concealed the fact of his Atheism when he came to the Table of the House he would not be entitled to take the Oath, however often he might have been elected by the people of Northampton. The Evidence Amendment Act, it should be borne in mind, was not passed for the purpose of relieving Atheists, but for the purpose of furthering the ends of justice by exposing an Atheist who should give false evidence after having affirmed to the penalties imposed for perjury. But it was impossible to affix those penalties to the Oath that had to be taken before this House, which was merely binding on the conscience of the person taking it. Therefore, it was useless to take the Evidence Amendment Act as affording any sort of analogy to the Oath to be taken before the House. The case of the admission of Jews and Roman Catholics was not a parallel one, though often quoted, and no analogy was to be drawn from it to the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, because there it was a question between believers in a common God, while here it was one between believers and unbe- lievers. Neither Jews nor Catholics asked to be admitted to the House for the purpose of destroying the religion of others; they only asked, as believers, to be placed on the same footing as other believers, although there were some differences in their belief. At the present time the whole of the Atheists in this country were directing the most violent attacks against the dominant religion; and the hon. Member for Northampton was put forward by the school of writers to which he belonged as the champion of Atheism against Christianity and the belief in a God. On the 10th of February The Secular Review wrote that Christianity was about to fight one of the last of its pitched battles, and make one of the last of its struggles for the sanctity of its God, and one of its last efforts to impose its Oath upon the credulity of the ignorant. That was the prologue to the attempt now made by the Government in this Bill to enable Atheists to come into the House of Commons. It was perfectly plain, from the writings of Atheists, that they were not merely asking for equality with other persons, but that it was their desire to make use of their entry into the House to damage or destroy the existing religions of the country. He maintained that no arguments founded on religion, freedom, and toleration were applicable to the case of men who do-sired to enter the House only that they might do injury to religion, and carry on their attacks against religions and beliefs. Theists acknowledged a Supreme Power and a law greater than themselves; but the Affirmation under this Bill gave no security, for it was based on the denial of God, and, therefore, there was no guarantee that it would be carried out. He wished to call attention to the course of conduct which had been pursued by the Lord Chancellor with reference to these transactions. He did so with every respect for the Lord Chancellor's high Office; but the House would see that, by his acts and words, his Office as Minister had been brought into collision with the due administration of justice. In 1866 the noble and learned Earl, then Sir Roundell Palmer, was Attorney General when the Parliamentary Oaths Bill was introduced. It was brought in by the present Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Roundell Palmer defended it against Amendments brought forward by Mr. Disraeli and Sir Hugh Cairns. Sir Roundell Palmer must have known the effect of a Bill, of which he was one of the authors, being brought in by a Government of which he was the Law Adviser. When the Resolution allowing the Member for Northampton or any other Atheist to make Affirmation, subject to any legal liability that might attach to the Act, was brought in by the Prime Minister in 1880, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a sense of the stringency of the obligation which had induced him and his Colleagues to take that matter into consideration, and which then induced him to submit that proposal to the House. The question had, therefore, been then fully considered by the Prime Minister and his Colleagues, including the Attorney General of 1866, who had advocated and probably counselled the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister observed, in conclusion—

"It is well he should he left to be tried by the tribunals of the country, which have full means of conducting the trial, and which will acquit or condemn him according to law."

When a question was raised as to Mr. Bradlaugh's liability to be sued in a Court of Law, the Solicitor General made use of language which conveyed to the House the impression that there was a liability, under the Statute, to be sued by a common informer. If the Government had then considered the question, why did they allow the Solicitor General to make that statement? And if they had not considered it, surely the Lord Chancellor was not the proper person to judge between the country and Mr. Bradlaugh. Had the Solicitor General not stated that Mr. Bradlaugh was liable to be prosecuted by an informer, the House would probably not have agreed to the Resolution permitting him to affirm, because the House would not have considered that a Government which advocated the cause of Mr. Bradlaugh would be likely to prosecute him. At all events, Her Majesty's Government had no right to allow the House to remain under the impression, which was uncontradicted at the time, and had not been contradicted till the present time, that the statement of law by the Solicitor General was correct. But the Government had availed themselves of the misleading statement of the Solicitor General, and it was not the first time that the House had seen the Government sit quiet when misleading statements were made and take advantage of them. They knew what the Government did in the case of the Kilmainham Treaty. On the 30th of March the Bradlaugh case came before the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the judgment of Mr. Justice Mathow that an Affirmation could not be made. There was then no further appeal but to the Lord Chancellor, and he was, at the time, practically seized of the question from the fact that there was no other Court than that in which he sat which could possibly decide it. The Lord Chancellor took that opportunity of writing a letter to a friend, in which he said—

"I hare never had the slightest difference, or tendency to a difference, with my Colleagues in the Government on any question relating to Parliamentary Oaths or Affirmations, whether connected or not with Mr. Bradlaugh's case."

Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister had told them that he and his Colleagues had considered the question, and that the Solicitor General had stated that Mr. Bradlaugh could be prosecuted by a common informer, what were they to conclude when the Lord Chancellor said that he had never differed from his Colleagues on this question? Did he agree with the Prime Minister that the subject had been considered by the Government and by the Solicitor General, and that a common informer could prosecute? But when the case came on for judicial decision on a question in which the Government, of which the Lord Chancellor was a Member, was so vitally concerned, the Lord Chancellor ought, in his opinion, to have withdrawn himself from the trial of the case altogether. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was sorry to say he did not do so; and the noble Earl's example had been followed by another Judge, not Ministerial, whom he would not mention by name, but who had recently taken the opportunity to give utterance to political opinions in the midst of a great judicial judgment. The Lord Chancellor had, it was true, written to the papers to the effect that he would not be responsible for the publication of that letter. That reminded him of the doctrine put forward by Molière in Tartuffe—"Ce n'est pas pécker que pécker en silence." The doc- trine that a fault committed in silence was no fault at all might be suitable for Tartuffe; but it was scarcely worthy the adoption of the Keeper of the Queen's Conscience. One argument for the Bill was based on the fact that Affirmations were permitted to Quakers. Their Affirmation was accepted, because it was known that their consciences were governed by the same laws as governed the minds of others; but there was no security for the observance of Mr. Bradlaugh's Affirmation, because it was based on the denial of a God. The only security they had that the Affirmation would be carried out thus depended upon the arbitrary will of the person who made it. When this question first came before the House he ventured to oppose the entry of the hon. Member for Northampton on grounds very similar to those which he had now stated. The opposition then given to the introduction of Mr. Bradlaugh had now received the approbation of the vast majority of the people of the country—of the clergy as well as the laity. The Petitions which had been presented were certainly five against the Bill for every one in favour of it. They knew that the Wesleyan ministers and people were both, in a large majority, opposed to the Bill. ["No!"] He could not quite take the hon. Member's denial upon this point, because he himself spoke from statistics about which there could be no doubt, whereas the hon. Member spoke from personal feeling. In the same way, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had truly expressed the feeling of Scotland by instancing the opinions of the religious bodies, when he stated that Scotland was opposed to the Bill; whereas the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) had asserted that his country was in favour of the measure, not because of his own knowledge, but because he was in its favour himself. He had no hesitation in asserting that public opinion was generally against this Bill; and it was because he believed that public opinion was against the measure, and because he believed that it shocked the feeling of the greater portion of the population of this country, and certainly was contrary to the views and principles that had been inculcated in that House since it was a House, that he should give the Bill his most strenuous opposition.

Sir, strictly speaking, it is no part of my duty to do more than to follow, as well as I can, the arguments which have been used against this Bill. It appears to me, however, that while the real issue to be dealt with is not a very wide one, the debate has been extraordinarily prolonged by the introduction into it of extraneous matter. The debate has, undoubtedly, been an animated one. On the other side of the House all that sarcasm and invective could do, all the interest which could be supplied by assaults on the Government and by lengthened details of its iniquitous proceedings, has been called into requisition, I will not say with the purpose, but undoubtedly with the effect, of very greatly widening the field of contention, without, I think, the compensating effect of clearing the judgment of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a most temperate speech, and in consequence he cannot have failed to perceive that the portion of the discussion which was occupied with his speech was less animated than most of the debate during which Gentlemen on his side of the House were speaking. I may say, however, that I do not defend my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor against his invective. I leave him subject to the whole weight of the censure which has been pronounced by the hon. Member, although, being an argumentative censure, it might, perhaps, have not been difficult to defend the noble and learned Lord. The hon. Member has said but two things that really bear upon the question at issue, or which could possibly be held to be in the nature of an argument against the Bill. One is that the voice of the country, as shown by Petitions, is against the Bill, and the other is that by the law at this moment an Atheist cannot sit in the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: An avowed Atheist.] Of course, I do not speak of persons whose opinions are concealed. My contention is exactly the reverse of the hon. Member's. I will not say what is the intention of the law, because with that I have nothing to do; but I say that there is no legislative power whatever that can prevent Atheists duly elected from sitting in this House; and I think, moreover, that the hon. Member himself will meet me so far as to say that it was an acci- dent—for it is an accident relatively to this argument—that led to the disclosure of Mr. Bradlaugh's opinions, and 'which enabled the steps to be taken which excluded Mr. Bradlaugh from this House. But an Atheist, however notorious, who has published in the columns of the newspapers of the very morning that he comes to the Table of this House to take the Oath the fullest declaration of his Atheism, is not a person whom the hon. Gentleman, or this House, has any power whatever to exclude. If he—whether well-advised or ill-advised is not the question—chooses to take the Oath, there is no power whatever to prevent him. As I have said, there are many collateral matters which have been introduced into this debate, and some of them it is my duty to notice. The debate has proceeded so far that it has become perfectly practicable to understand, after the lucid statement of my hon. and learned Friend near mo (the Attorney General), what is the tone and what are the objections of those who are against the Bill. In the first place, it has been said that this Bill ought to have been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and the Government have been complained of for not having given it a place in that Speech. In our view, however, this was a Bill which ought not to have been mentioned in the Queen's Speech. It is the duty of the Government, before they advise Her Majesty as to Her Speech, to make choice, according to the legislative requirements of the country, of certain topics which they think it is within the power of the House of Commons and most for the interest of the country to deal with; and they should make their choice upon grounds of broad and general interest. This, Sir, is a question in quite a different category. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for War signified—and, I think, with perfect truth—that this was not a question to which, on general grounds of legislative urgency, it would be our duty to give precedence over the multitude of general subjects now standing in arrear. This measure is of a totally different character; it is a question upon which it was our duty to consider what was the position of the House of Commons, just as last year it was our duty to consider the position of the House with regard to the question of procedure, and to invite the House to deal with it even to the prejudice of the legislation of the year. We thought it did appertain, both to the dignity of the House of Commons and to the interest of the country, that this painful controversy which has subsisted so long should be brought to a close, and that there should be no longer the temptation which has existed in this House to deal with matters strictly judicial in a temper and with indications not always presenting the best features of the judicial character. We thought, Sir, that such scenes as have been witnessed here, when the dignity of the House and directions of the House have had to be supported by physical force, ought not to be repeated—and ought not to be repeated especially when we had reason to believe that increased pain and increased scandal might attend ^their repetition. It was, therefore, on grounds special to the position of the House of Commons in this matter that we thought this question entitled to take precedence of some others, and to be a primary one in regard to the procedure of this House, although it was a secondary one in its dignity so far as the order of legislation was concerned. And, Sir, I may just remind the House that a precisely similar occasion, except that it was, I admit, far less pressing, occurred in the year 1854. In that year Lord John Russell, as Leader in this House, on the part of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, introduced a Bill for the purpose of altering the Parliamentary Oaths Act, with a view to the further relief of Roman Catholics, and to the general simplification of the Oath. That, certainly, was a Bill of much wider scope than the present, for it went to re-cast the law with regard to the duties of Members generally; and it corresponded in substance with the Bill afterwards introduced and passed, and now forming the fundamental Statute on the subject—the Act of 1866. And yet that Bill of 1854 was never mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Well, Sir, I am afraid that, after what we have heard from some Gentlemen opposite, and, most of all, from the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), I shall make a very dull, unexciting, and uninteresting speech; for, unlike him, I do not mean to accuse anybody of anything. Nor shall I travel in detail over the numerous points of the vehement attack of the right hon. Gentleman. I will, however, refer to a single point. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had deprived our Bill of retrospective action; that the Bill introduced in 1880 included retrospective action, and that this change was, on our part, in the moderate language that the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to adopt, "a most despicable trick." Let me explain this "despicable trick." In the year 1880 the law had never been determined on the optional right of a Member to affirm. Consequently, Mr. Bradlaugh, who sought to affirm, had been returned by his constituents without any knowledge on their part that he was precluded from taking his seat by affirming. That being so, when we thought it expedient to ask the House to change the existing law, we thought it right also that that change should be made retrospective, so that his constituents, who have committed no offence against the known law of the land, might not suffer. But the case now is fundamentally changed. I am not finding fault with the constituency—it is no part of my duty to do so—but the case now is this—that the Courts of Justice have declared that Mr. Bradlaugh is not entitled to affirm. The constituency returned Mr. Bradlaugh a second time, with the full knowledge that that declaration of the law had been made; and we therefore considered that we should not ask the House to make the present Bill retrospective in its action. The constituency before was unwarned; the constituency now is forewarned. We deal in one way with the constituency unwarned. We deal in another way with the constituency forewarned; and that is what the right hon. Gentleman, in his moderation of language, thinks fit to characterize as a "most despicable trick."

I was referring to the Bill as brought in this year. I said after the constituency had learnt that Mr. Bradlaugh could not take his seat they elected him again, and that to bring in the Bill of this year, after that, was a despicable trick.

It seems to me that it is an extraordinary doctrine to hold, that if a Government, upon full and further consideration of the particulars bearing upon a point of this kind, sees cause to come to a certain conclusion, that that is a "despicable trick." The question is—Is the conclusion a right one or a wrong one? If the conclusion is a right one, I want to know what title the right hon. Gentleman has to characterize it, in his moderate language, as a "despicable trick?" The ground upon which we make, or propose to make, an alteration in the Bill is the ground I have stated. Now, it is said—"You ought not to alter the law for the sake of one person." But it so happens that these laws are commonly altered for the sake of one person. It is in the case of some one person that a principle is raised and a matter brought to an issue. Was not the case of Mr. O'Connell a case in point? ["No!" from some Irish Members.] I say, upon the Parliamentary history of the question, there is nothing more clear or better known than this—that it was the election of Mr. O'Connell for the county of Clare that brought the Roman Catholic question to an issue; and now the allegation is not that Mr. Bradlaugh has nobody behind him, but that his is the sole case presented. Certainly, I must say that this is a curious objection to proceed from the Party opposite, because it has had to deal with the question of removing religious disabilities. After having most stoutly opposed the admission of Jews to Parliament, upon principles quite as high, and with motives quite as conscientious, as those on which they are now acting, when they came into Office they introduced a Bill for their admission. And how did that Bill run? It ran in this precise form. It makes provision for altering the law and Rules of the Houses of Parliament upon the presentation of one person. I will not read the whole of the clause; but it runs thus—"When it shall appear that a person"—a person—[Cries of "Temporary."] It was nothing of the kind. If the hon. and learned Member opposite will have the kindness to wait a moment he will see from the following part that it is an act to be done once for all, and not an act to he done from time to time, and, consequently, an act to be done when the case should arise as to one person. The clause provides that—

"When it shall appear to either House of Parliament that a person is prevented from taking his seat," by the then condition of the law, "such House may resolve that henceforth any person"

may come and take his seat upon the conditions therein provided. So that the law was fixed by each House; and it was deliberately arranged by the action of a Government representing the views of Gentlemen opposite that when a Jew was found to be excluded by the state of the law, it was thenceforward open to each House, if it thought fit, to admit, once for all, that Jew, and every other Jew after him, who should apply to he admitted. Now, we are asked, what is to done about Peers? What is to be done about aliens and about felons? I am not sure the objection did not proceed from some legal authority, that if we pass this Bill, we should he in a difficult position with regard to the present disqualification of aliens, felons, or Peers. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The clergy.] No; I beg pardon. The case of clergymen I put upon an entirely different footing altogether. I gather from the interruption of the noble Lord that he thinks it is a matter of high and sacred duty to rigid Constitutional principles to exclude clergymen from this House. I hold it, on the contrary, to he a matter exceedingly open to discussion, and merely a policy of expediency, involving no Constitutional principle whatever. But with regard to aliens, Peers, and felons—though I am sorry to place the Peers in such company—their disqualification rests upon the ancient and well-understood principles of the Common Law of England. The disqualification of the unbeliever rests upon nothing of the sort. I think my hon. and learned Friend the other night distinctly demonstrated that by the Common Law of England there is no disqualification of this character. I know it is said that Christianity is part of the Common Law; but am I to be told that, if it is so, every man who is not a Christian is an offender against the Common Law? If so, it is an extraordinary mode of interpreting the law. But it has been shown that no Oath or religious test of any kind was ever used by this House as a condition precedent to entrance into it until the Reign of Elizabeth; and that, when an Oath was then introduced, it was not introduced in the slightest degree as a religious test. [Mr. NEWDEGATE signified dissent.] I will show my hon. Friend—if he will allow me to call him so, and I think, after having sat opposite to him for 40 years, I am entitled to use that term—I will show my hon. Friend that it is so. I will give a proof of that, and it is that the religious test was then applied to Commoners only and not to Peers, and the Act of Parliament declared the reason why it was applied to Commoners and not to Peers. "Because"—so ran the Act—"we are otherwise persuaded, by sufficient means, of the loyalty of the Peers." Therefore, it was a simple mode of ascertaining loyalty to the institutions of the country, and not of imposing religious disability. I venture to say, as a matter of history, that that was the principle of our law down to the year 1828. If that be so, I think it will be very difficult to maintain that there is any disqualification of the unbeliever by the Common Law of England. You may tell me that it was not then merely a question of the admission of Atheists to this House, but a question of permitting them to live. That was perfectly time, I think, at least down to the year 1614, for as late as that year the ancestors of those of us who are of English blood burnt a certain person for deficiencies in respect of belief. He was not, however, an Atheist; he was an Arian—so that people had better look out if this doctrine comes again into vogue. The fact is, that the State gradually adopted the principles of toleration, but, where it tolerated, it did not interpose barriers against access to this House. That is the historical principle which, I think, it will be found difficult to shake. In 1828 it appears to have been the view of the Legislature that no one should come into the House—however loyal, however competent—without being bound to profess the faith of a Christian; but it is a totally different matter for us to deal with a statutory disability created in 1828, or another statutory disability created a century before in the case of the clergy, and to deal with disqualifications like those of aliens and felons, which are founded on reason, and which are established by the ancient Common Law of the land. Well, some Gentlemen say there are a great many Petitions against this Bill, and that they are far more numerous than any Petitions in its favour. I think there may have been some exaggeration in this matter; but the late Home Secretary said—I presume by mistake—that the President of the Wesleyan Conference had signed a Petition on behalf of that Body against the Bill. That has been decidedly disclaimed by the rev. gentleman himself.

said, he was glad to have an opportunity of explaining that the Petition sent to him was signed on behalf of the Committee of the Conference, of which the President was Chairman; but the words were those of the Secretary, who sent it.

I understand it was a mistake. The impression has gone abroad that the head of the Wesleyan Body has signed a Petition against the Bill; but this gentleman himself has disclaimed having done so. I have received a letter myself, signed by Dr. Kennedy, hon. Secretary of the three denominations of Protestant Dissenting ministers, in which he says—

"I have the honour of forwarding for presentation a Petition from the general body of the three denominations of Protestant Dissenting ministers in and around the City of London and Westminster in favour of the Bill."

But I think it is only just to this gentleman and those on whose behalf he writes to read out some additional words. He says—

"The personal associations which are at present connected with the objects contemplated in this Bill are so painful and offensive to the body which I represent, that nothing but a strong sense of duty would induce them to send this Petition to the House."

These words have a very deep meaning. Do you suppose that we do not feel pain? Do you suppose that we are unaware how difficult—how all but impracticable—it has become to do what we believe to be strict justice in the face of such associations? If you do not know this, you ought to know it; and if you do know it, you ought not, from your place in this House, to deride us, and sarcastically to advise us to inscribe upon our banner "Bradlaugh and Blasphemy." Sir, I believe that every one of us intending to vote for this Bill feels that it is indeed difficult to do justice under such circumstances. But the difficulty is the measure of the duty and the honour; and just as if we were in the jury-box, and a person stood before us under a criminal charge, we will put a strong hand of self-restraint upon ourselves, and we will take care that full justice—nothing more and nothing less—shall be awarded to every citizen of England. In these considerations, as I believe and am persuaded, is to be found the reason why so many who feel it a duty to support this Bill have, notwithstanding, shrunk from exposing themselves to the odium so very freely cast on its supporters by those who oppose it. But I am bound to say a little more than that. The people who have subscribed Petitions against this Bill are very numerous. I think they may be four times the number of those who have subscribed in favour of it. I speak of their motives with the most unfeigned respect. I am persuaded that they have acted under the influence of what are called, and justly called, religious instincts. In my opinion, upon broad questions of principle, which stand out disentangled from the surrounding facts, the immediate instincts and sense of the people are very generally right. [Opposition cheers.] I am heartily glad to find that there is an echo to that sentiment from the quarter from which these sounds have just proceeded. But I cannot say that this is a uniform and unbending rule. It does, unfortunately, sometimes happen that, when broad principles are disguised by the incidents of the case, the momentary opinion, guided by the instincts of the populace—though I do not admit that it is at all proved that it is the vast mass of the population which has petitioned in the present case—is not a safe guide. If I were to make an exception to the general rule as to the justice of the instincts of the people—and it is an exception not dishonourable to them—I should trust them far more upon questions where their own interests are concerned than on questions where the prepossessions of religion are concerned. The latter is a class of questions on which we must be careful against taking momentary indications of public feeling for our guide. They express the feelings, as opposed, in many instances, to the judgment, of the people. This is no assumption of mine; and I would ask those who have studied the history of the year 1829, when the great Act of Roman Catholic Emancipation was passed—do they believe that that Act of Emancipation at the moment represented the feelings of the majority of the people of Great Britain? No, Sir; it was distinctly against them. It was a combination of the guides of the people, who took upon them the duty of instructing the people. It was the Leaders, not on one side, but on both sides, who, superior to the temptation of gathering momentary profit from an appeal to religious prejudice, took upon themselves the responsibility, in their capacity as legislators, of doing that which they believed and knew to be right, trusting to the people to do them justice and to recognize their motives. Am I to go back further into history? I might quote cases of popular risings under the influence of not untrue, though misguided religious instincts, which have disgraced the annals of this country. I will give an instance which I think a very fair one. It will be remembered that, about 130 years ago, this House and the Legislature passed an Act for the purpose of naturalizing the Jews. A great popular movement immediately took place against it. Are you to look back upon that movement, and say—"Poor, ignorant wretches, what compassion we feel for you?" No, Sir; these men, according to the knowledge and feelings of their day, were acting under the same impulses and upon the same principles as the Petitioners of to-day. They thought that to admit the professor of another religion, founded upon or absolutely involving the denial of Him who is the Alpha and Omega of our religion—they thought, or at least their instincts told them, that there was something in that Act which tended to impair the Christianity of the country; and there is precisely the same feeling now, only allowing for the difference that has since been made in the political education of the country, that is conveyed in these Petitions. It often happens that a private person is called upon to rule and overrule his impulses and feelings. So it must be in the State; and what the sovereign reason ought to do in the individual, the Leaders of Parties ought to do in the State. It is nothing but a combination of the Loaders of Parties that can direct aright questions of this kind, where religious prepossessions are involved, where the facts are but very partially known out-of-doors, and where the people have no means of sounding the difficult legal questions and complicated arguments that puzzle even many Members of this House. If these Leaders of Parties do not see their way to the performance of that duty, or think their duty lies in the opposite direction, then I, for my part, cannot be surprised that large numbers of the people should, under the influence of sentiments which I regard with the highest respect and honour, take a direction which I believe to be wrong, and which I am convinced is unjust. The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary the other night spent more than half an hour by that clock in detailing the guilty conduct of the Government in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh. [Opposition cheers.] I did not require the assurance that hon. Gentlemen opposite were pleased. They showed me on Monday night that they were extremely pleased. They would have been pleased if, instead of half an hour, he had taken an hour and a-half upon topics so inviting and racy in their character. But the question I humbly put to these hon. Gentlemen is, what in the world has that conduct to do with the matter? Supposing it were all true—supposing it were not half adequate, as a description of what they think the true guilt of the Government—it has nothing whatever to do with the question before us. If the Bill were the best Bill upon earth, it ought to pass if the conduct of the Government were over so bad; but if the Bill be a bad Bill, it ought not to be passed, though the conduct of the Government may have been ever so good. But I shall very briefly, and I hope in not more than one-tenth part of the time used by the right hon. Gentleman, reply that I do not resent the words that have been used, and I do it the more freely because it is the pleasure of hon. Members opposite to ascribe to mea peculiar sympathetic enthusiasm in this cause—to imagine that, by some latent affinity, or on some other inscrutable ground, I am possessed with a missionary zeal in driving forward with all my might the admission of Atheists to the House of Commons. What I wish to point out is this—we have rendered no assistance whatever to Mr. Bradlaugh. Did the House of Lords assist Mr. Bradlaugh last week? Did Lord Coleridge assist Mr. Bradlaugh last week? ["Yes!" and "Oh, oh!"] If you mean that the effect of what we have done has been in the direction of admitting Mr. Bradlaugh to this House, that I do not deny; but the House of Lords and Lord Coleridge have no more assisted Mr. Bradlaugh than the two Courts which declared one after the other that he had no title to affirm in this House have opposed him. Our contention has been all along that, from the first to the last, with much less perfect and available means of judgment than Judges in Courts of Justice, we have been under precisely the same obligations. We have endeavoured to keep the proceedings of this House within the bounds of law and of Constitutional order; and it is no secret to you that in our opinion they have not been kept within those bounds, owing to the voice of a majority which requires from us a respectful obedience, but which requires and is entitled to nothing more. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that three times I abdicated the position of Leader of this House. Sir, if the words are to be used at all, it is not a case of abdication, but of deposition. But I am astonished at the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows our ground. He knows that we were insisting upon what we thought our judicial duty; and yet he affirms that when a view of judicial duty opposite to ours has been taken, we, who had been acting in the name of judicial duty, were to become instruments to devise the means of giving effect to the judgment of our opponents. I repel and repudiate, with all my soul, that servile proposition. I am willing to part with the seat and with the place I hold; but I am not willing for one moment to give in to such a doctrine. We have endeavoured to support to the best of our power the Executive authority of the House. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] That cry of "No!" only shows that the facts have not been carefully watched; but to ask us to take upon ourselves the responsibility of applying votes of this House which we believe to involve radical injustice, and which, I believe, speaking for myself, without hesitation or scruple, to be such as, in the case of a minor authority, would be termed illegal—to ask me to make myself an instrument of devising means for carrying such votes into elfect—that, Sir, is a demand which I utterly reject, and which I hold to be totally unsupported by any fact that has occurred in the best ages of our Parliamentary tradition. I must say I think it is very strange that these accusations should be brought. It may be that hon. Gentlemen opposite have something to bias them towards a particular course, which brings political profit. I am making no accusation. I say it may be that they have something to bias them in that direction. But what could we have to bias us in the direction we have taken? Do you suppose that we are ignorant that, in every contested election that has happened since the case of Mr. Bradlaugh came up, you have gained votes and we have lost them? You are perfectly aware of it. We are no less aware of it. But, if you are perfectly aware of it, is not some credit to be given to us who are giving you the same under circumstances rather more difficult—is not some credit to be given to us for presumptive integrity and purity of motive? Sir, the Liberal Party has suffered, and is suffering, on this account. It is not the first time in its history. It is the old story over again. In every controversy that has arisen about the extension of religious toleration, and about the abatement and removal of disqualifications, in every controversy relating to religious toleration and religious disabilities, the Liberal Party has suffered before, and it is now, perhaps, suffering again; and yet it has not been a Party which, upon the whole, has had, during the last half century, the smallest or the feeblest hold upon the affections and approval of the people. Who suffered from the Protestantism of the country? It was that Party—with valuable aid from individuals, but only individuals, who forfeited their popularity on that account—it was that Party who fought the battle of freedom in the case of the great Roman Catholic controversy, when the name of Protestantism was invoked with quite as great effect as the name of Theism is now, and the Petitions poured in quite as freely then as at present. Protestantism stood the shock of the Act of 1829. Then came on the battle of Christianity, and the Christianity of the country was said to be sacrificed by the Liberal Party. There are Gentlemen on the other side of the House who seem to have forgotten all that has occurred, and who are pluming themselves on the admission of Jews into Parliament, as if they had not resisted it with perfect honesty—I make no charge against their honour, and impute no unworthy motive—as if they had not resisted it with quite as much resolution as they are exhibiting on the present occasion. Sir, what I hope is this—that the Liberal Party will not be deterred, by fear or favour, from working steadily onward in the path which it believes to be the path of equity and justice. There is no greater honour to a man than to suffer for what he thinks to be righteous; and there is no greater honour to a Party than to suffer in the endeavour to give effect to the principles which they believe to be just. Up to this time I have detained the House on what I take to be extraneous and collateral matter, but matter which has been largely introduced into the speeches we have heard in the course of this debate. Now, let us try to get at the heart of the argument, which, after all, is not a very complex, although I must say it is historically, and from every point of view, an extremely interesting matter. The business of every man in controversy is to try to find out what is the main and governing contention of his adversary. Sir, I have laboured to find that out, and I think I have probably found it: I hope so. As I read it, the governing contention is this—that the main question for the State is not what religion a man professes, but whether he professes some religion or none. I was in hopes of receiving some confirmatory testimony from the other side. I might dispense with proofs, but I will give them. The right hon. Gentleman who led the opposition to this Bill said that this was not a question of difference of religion, but that it was a question between religion and irreligion—between religion and the absence of all religion—and clearly the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that we were to tolerate any belief, but that we were not to tolerate no belief. I mean by tolerating to admit, to recognize, to legislate for the purpose of permitting entrance into the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), in an able speech, still more clearly expressed similar views. He referred to the ancient controversies as all very well; they touched, he said, excrescences, and not the vital substance. Now, Sir, I want to examine what is the vital substance, and what are the excrescences. He went further than this, and used a most apt, appropriate, expressive, and still more significant phrase. He said—"Yes; it is true you admit religions some of which may go rear the precipice; but now you ask us to go over it." Gentlemen opposite cheered loudly when that was said by the hon. Gentleman behind me. They will not give me a single cheer now. They suspect I am quoting this with some evil intent. The question is, am I quoting them fairly? or is it the fact that some Gentlemen have not sufficiently and fairly considered their relation to the present Bill, except that they mean to oppose whatever proceeds from the Government? But my hon. Friend has considered very well what he said when he used the remarkable simile about the precipice. I wish to see what is the value of this main and principal contention—this doctrine of the precipice—this question between religion and irreligion, between some belief which is to be tolerated, and no belief which cannot be tolerated—that is to say, so far as it relates to admission into this House. The lion, and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) held exactly the same language. He adopted a phrase which had fallen from the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), which he thought had been unfairly applied; and he said he wished that there should be some form of belief, and some recognition of belief—something of what is called in philosophical discussion the recognition of the supernatural. That, I believe, is a phrase which goes as near to what hon. Gentlemen opposite mean as anything can. It is the recognition of the existence, at any rate, of the supernatural that is wanted. That is the main contention of the Party opposite; and what I want to know is, whether that contention—that proposition—offers us a good solid standing-ground for legislation. Whatever test is applied—tho test of the Constitution, the test of civil and political freedom, or, above all, the test of religion, and of reverence for religious conviction, I do not hesitate to say that, confidently as I support this Bill, there is no one ground upon which I support it with so much confidence, as because of what I think is the utter hollowness and falseness of the argument that is expressed in the words I have just cited, and in the idea that is at the bottom of those words, and the danger of making them the basis of Constitutional action. Sir, what does this contention do? In the first place, it evi- dently violates civil freedom to this extent—that, in the words of Lord Lyndhurst—which are as wide as anything that any Gentleman on this side could desire—there is to be a total divorce between the question of religious differences and the question of civil privilege and power; that there is to be no test whatever applied to a man with respect to the exercise of civil functions, except the test of civil capacity, and a fulfilment of civil conditions. Those were the words of Lord Lyndhurst—those are the words on which we stand. It is now proposed to depart from this position, and to say that a certain class of persons, perhaps a very narrow class—I do not argue that now—because it is said to have no religion is to be excepted, and alone excepted, from the operation of that great and broad principle. In my opinion, it is in the highest degree irrational to lay down a broad principle of that kind, and after granting 99-lOOths of all, it means, to stop short, in order to make an invidious exclusion of the exceedingly limited number of persons who may possibly be affected by, and concerned in, its application. Hon. Gentlemen will, perhaps, be startled when I make my next objection to the contention of the opponents of the Bill. It is, that it is highly disparaging to Christianity. They invite us to do that which, as a Legislature, we ought never to do—namely, to travel over theological ground, and, having taken us upon that ground, what is it that they tell us? They tell us that you may go any length you please in the denial of religion, provided only you do not reject the name of the Deity. They tear religion—if I may say so—in shreds, and they set aside one particular shred of it, with which nothing will ever induce them to part. They divide religion into the dispensable and the indispensable—I am not speaking now of the cases of those who declare, or who are admitted under special laws, and I am not speaking of Jews or any of those who make declarations—I am speaking of those for whom no provision is made, except the provision of the Oath, let that be clearly understood—they divide, I say, religion into what can be dispensed with and what cannot be dispensed with, and then they find that Christianity can be dispensed with. I am not willing, Sir, that Christianity, if an appeal is made to us as a Christian Legislature, should stand in any rank lower than that which is indispensable. Let me illustrate what I mean. Supposing a commander has to despatch a small body of men for the purpose of some difficult and important undertaking. They are to go without baggage and without appliances. Everything they take they must carry on their backs. They have to dispense with all luxuries and ail comforts, and to take with them only that which is essential That is precisely the same course which you ask us to take in drawing us upon theological ground. You require us to distinguish between superfluities and necessaries, and you say in regard to Christianity—"Oh, that is one of the superfluities—that is one of the excrescences, that has nothing to do with the vital substanco—the great and solemn name of the Deity—which is indispensable." The adoption of such a proposition as that—and it is at the very root of your contention—seems to me to be in the highest degree disparaging to the Christian faith. I pass to another point. The hon. Member for Finsbury made a reference to Mr. O'Connell, whom he stated that he knew well. I will not say, Sir, that I had as much personal knowledge of Mr. O'Connell as my hon. Friend may have had, though I did know something of him personally, as well as politically; but, when I was a very young man, in the second year of my sitting in Parliament—in the old House which was burned down half-a-century ago—I heard a speech from Mr. O'Connell, which, although at that time I was bound by Party allegiance to receive with misgiving and distrust anything he said, made a deep impression upon me, and by which I think I have ever since been guided. It is to be found, not in Hansard, but in the record which, for a few years, was more copious even than Hansard, and which went under the name of The Mirror of Parliament. On the 18th February, 1834, Mr. O'Connell used these words in a speech on the Law of Libel; and I echo every word my hon. Friend said with regard to the deep religious convictions and the religious consistency of that remarkable man,—he used, Sir, these words—

"When I see in this country the law allowing men to dispute the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Divinity of the Redeemer, I really think, if I had no other reason, I should be justified in saying that there is nothing beyond that which should he considered worth quarrelling for, or which ought to he made the subject of penal restrictions."

I am convinced that upon every religious, as well as upon every political ground, the true and the wise course is not to deal out religious liberty by halves, by quarters, and by fractions; but to deal it out entire, and to leave no distinction between man and man on the ground of religious differences from one end of the land to the other. But, Sir, I go a little further in endeavouring to test and to probe this great religious contention of the "precipice," which has been put forward, amidst fervent cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. W. M. Torrens); and I want to know, is your religious distinction a real distinction at all? I will, for the sake of argument, and for no other purpose whatever, go with you on this dangerous ground of splitting religion into slices, and I ask you—"Where will you draw the line?" You draw it at the point where the abstract denial of God is severed from abstract admission of the Deity. My proposition is, that your line is worthless. There is much on your side of the line which is just as objectionable as the Atheism on the other side. If you call on us to draw these distinctions, let them be rational distinctions. I do not say let them be Christian distinctions; but let them be rational distinctions. I can understand one rational distinction, that you should frame the Oath in such a way that its terms should recognize, not merely the acknowledgment of the existence of the Deity, but the providence of the Deity, and man's responsibility to the Deity, and in such a way as to indicate the knowledge in a man's own mind that he must answer to the Deity for what he does, and is able to do. But is that your present rule? No, Sir. You know well that from ancient times there have been sects and schools that have admitted in the abstract, just as freely as the Christian admits, the existence of a Deity, but who have held that, though Deity exists, yet of practical relations between Him and man there can be none. Many Members of this House will recollect, perhaps, the noble and majestic lines—or such they are—of the Latin poet—

"Omnis enim per se divôm natura necesse est,

Immortali ævo summa cum pace fruatur;

Sejuncta a nostris rebus, semotaque longe.

Nam privata dolore omni, privata periclis,

Ipsa suis pollens opihus, nihil indiga nostri,

Nee bene promeritis capitur nec tangitur ira."

"Divinity exists"—as these, I must say, magnificent words set forth—"in remote, inaccessible recesses of which we know nothing; but with us it has no dealing, with us it has no relation." Sir, I have purposely gone back to ancient times, because the discussion is less invidious than the discussion of modern schools of opinion. But, Sir, I do not hesitate to say that the specific evil, the specific form of irreligion, with which in educated society in this country you have to contend, and with respect to which you ought to be on your guard, is not blank Atheism. That is a rare form of opinion, and it is seldom met with. But what is frequently met with are those various forms of opinion which teach us that whatever there be beyond the visible scene, whatever there be beyond this short span of life, you know and can know nothing of it, and that it is a visionary and a bootless undertaking to endeavour to establish relations with it. That is the specific mischief of the age; but that mischief you do not attempt to touch. Nay, more; you glory in the state of the law that now prevails. All differences of religion you wish to tolerate. You wish to allow everybody to enter your Chamber who admits the existence of Deity. You would seek to admit Voltaire. That is a specimen of your toleration. But Voltaire was not a taciturn foe of Christianity. He was the author of that painful and awful phrase that goes to the heart of every Christian—and goes, I believe, to the heart of many a man professing religion who is not a Christian—écrasez l'infâme. Voltaire was a believer in God; he would not have had the slightest difficulty in taking the Oath; and you are working up the country to something like a crusade on this question; endeavouring to strengthen in the minds of the people the false notion that you have got a real test, a real safeguard; that Christianity is still generally safe, with certain unavoidable exceptions, under the protecting agis of the Oath within the walls of this Chamber. And it is for that you are entering on a great religious war! I hold, then, that this contention of our opponents is disparaging to religion; it is idle; and it is also highly irrational. For if you are to have a religious test at all of the kind that you contemplate—the test of Theism, which the hon. Member for Portsmouth frankly said he wished to adopt—it ought to be a test of a well-ascertained Theism; not a mere abstract idea dwelling in the air, and in the clouds; but a practical recognition of a Divine Governing Power, which will some day call all of us to account for every thought we conceive, and for every word we utter. I fear I have detained the House for a long time. But after all that has been said, and after the flood of accusation and invective that has been poured out, I have thought it right at great length and very seriously to show that, at all events, whether we be beaten or not, we do not decline the battle, and that we are not going to allow it to be said that the interests of religion are put in peril, and that they are to find their defenders only On the opposite side of the House. That sincere and conscientious defenders of those interests are to be found there I do not question at this moment; but I do contend with my whole heart and soul that the interests of religion, as well as the interests of civil liberty, are concerned in the passage of this measure. My reasons, Sir, for the passing of the Bill may be summed up in a few words. If I were asked to put a construction on this Oath as it stands, I probably should give it a higher meaning than most Gentlemen opposite. It is my opinion, as far as I can presume to form one, that the Oath has in it a very large flavour of Christianity. I am well aware that the doctrine of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is, that there are other forms of positive attestation, recognized by other systems of religion, which may enable the Oath to be taken by the removal of the words "So help me God," and the substitution of some other words, or some symbolical act, involving the idea of Deity, and responsibility to the Deity. But I think we ought to estimate the real character of this Oath according to the intention of the Legislature. The Oath does not consist of spoken words alone. The spoken words are accompanied by the corroborative act of kissing the Book. What is the meaning of that? According to the intention of the Legislature, I certainly should say that that act is an import of the acceptance of the Divine revelation. There have been other forms in other countries. I believe in Scotland the form is still maintained of holding up the right hand instead of kissing the Book. In Spain the form is, I believe, that of kissing the Cross. In Italy, I think, at one time, the form was that of laying the hand on the Gospel. All these different forms meant, according to the original intention, an acceptance of Christianity. But you do not yourselves venture to say that the law could be applied in that sense. A law of this kind is like a coin spick-and-span brand-new from the Mint carrying upon it its edges in all their sharpness and freshness; but it wears down in passing from hand to hand, and, though there is a residuum, yet the distinctive features disappear. Whatever my opinion may be as to the original vitality of the Oath, I think there is very little difference of opinion as to what it has now become. It has become, as my hon. Friend says, a Theistic test. It is taken as no more than a Theistic test. It does, as I think, involve a reference to Christianity. But while this is my personal opinion, it is not recognized by authority, and, at any rate, does not prevail in practice; for some Gentlemen in the other House of Parliament, if not in this also, have written works against the Christian religion, and yet have taken the Oath. But, undoubtedly, it is not good for any of us to force this test so flavoured, or even if not so flavoured, upon men who cannot take it with a full and a cordial acceptance. It is bad—it is demoralizing to do so. It is all very well to say—"Oh, yes; but it is their responsibility." That is not, in my view, a satisfactory answer. A seat in this House is to the ordinary Englishman in early life, or, perhaps, in middle and mature life, when he has reached a position of distinction in his career, the highest prize of his ambition. But if you place between him and that prize not only the necessity of conforming to certain civil conditions, but the adoption of certain religious words, and if these words are not justly measured to the condition of his conscience and of his convictions, you give him an inducement—nay, I do not go too far when I say you offer him a bribe to tamper with those convictions—to do violence to his conscience in order that lie may not be stigmatized by being shut out from what is held to be the noblest privilege of the English citizen—that of representing his fellow-citizens in Parliament. And, therefore, I say that, besides our duty to vindicate the principle of civil and religious liberty, which totally detaches religious controversy from the enjoyment of civil rights, it is most important that the House should consider the moral effect of this test. It is, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) is neither more nor loss than right in saying, a purely Theistic test. Viewed as a Theistic test, it embraces no acknowledgment of Providence, of Divine Government, of responsibility, or of retribution. It involves nothing but a bare and abstract admission—a form void of all practical meaning and concern. This is not a wholesome, but an unwholesome lesson. Yet more. I own that although I am now, perhaps, going to injure myself by bringing the name of Mr. Brad-laugh into this controversy, I am strongly of opinion that the present controversy should come to a close. I have no fear of Atheism in this House. Truth is the expression of the Divine mind; and however little our feeble vision may be able to discern the means by which God will provide for its preservation, we may leave the matter in His hands, and we may be quite sure that a firm and courageous application of every principle of justice and of equity is the best method we can adopt for the preservation and influence of truth. I must painfully record my opinion that grave injury has been done to religion in many minds—not in instructed minds, but in those which are ill-instructed or partially instructed, which have a large claim on our consideration—in consequence of steps which have, unhappily, been taken. Great mischief has been done in many minds through the resistance offered to the man elected by the constituency of Northampton, which a portion of the community believe to be unjust. When they see the profession of religion and the interests of religion ostensibly associated with what they are deeply convinced is injustice, they are led to questions about religion itself, which they see to be associated with injustice. Unbelief attracts a sympathy which it would not otherwise enjoy; and the upshot is to impair those convictions and that religious faith, the loss of which I believe to be the most inexpressible calamity which can fall either upon a man or upon a nation.

complimented the right hon. Gentleman on the pulpit character of the oration he had just delivered; but whether it was of the character which qualified the right hon. Gentleman for the pulpit of the Hall of Science, of the Tabernacle, or of the Abbey, he would not at that moment inquire. The reasons which actuated the supporters of the Bill were of two kinds. Some wore avowed and some were concealed, and the former were false and hollow, and the latter only were true. The chief argument for the Bill was that a constituency had a right to elect whom it chose. That was an untrue argument; a constituency had not the right to elect anyone whom it might choose, inasmuch as many people were undoubtedly disqualified from sitting in that House by the law as it stood. Among those whom the law of Parliament disqualified were Atheists; their disqualification was made patent on their coining to the Table, and saying that they could not acknowledge the binding force of the Oath. When hon. Members opposite said that every constituency had a right to elect whom it chose, they really meant that a constituency ought to have the right to elect whom it chose, which was a very different thing. The question of the abolition of all tests was one well worthy of reconsideration. At the proper time, he would be perfectly willing to discuss the whole issue. But that was not the issue before the House. They must not overlook the fact that, in the very Affirmation which they proposed to substitute for the Oath, tests were retained. The Affirmation was, in the first place, a test of whether a Member was literate or not, for he must subscribe it. In the second place, it was a test in the sense that it implied that the person who subscribed it possessed a conscience; and, thirdly, it was a test of allegiance. Why should hon. Members opposite, who were anxious to abolish the test of Theism, be willing to retain those three other tests? The arguments carried their supporters too far. The last motive for the Bill of those which were avowed was a pretended desire to save the Oath from profanation. They might as well abolish stealing by abolishing the rights of property, But all those reasons were founded in insincerity. The true motive and real reason for this Bill wore these. There was a Convention of Northampton as well as a Treaty of Kilmainham, and it was in order to carry out the agreement of the Northampton Convention that the House was asked to pass this Bill. Mr. Bradlaugh had in effect, at the last General Election, said—"I will manage Northampton for you, if you, the Government, will manage the House of Commons for me." Whether the agreement was reduced to writing, he was not able to say; but he felt sure that there were at least nods and winks between the Government and Mr. Bradlaugh. There was, moreover, a material as well as a moral consideration for the Bill; and it lay in this—that the right hon. Gentleman and his Party had been assisted at the General Election to a degree not generally recognized by the votes of the disciples of Mr. Bradlaugh, who were scattered throughout the constituencies of England; and it was the necessity of self-preservation, not the spirit of self-sacrifice, that had compelled the Government to bring forward this Bill. The Bill was nothing more nor less than an electioneering job of the lowest and basest sort. It would have been at least honest if the Government had brought in a pure and simple Bradlaugh Relief Bill. The Bill might have had a Preamble like this—

"Whereas Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, Poet, Philosopher, Economist, Patriot, Arc, has been duly elected for the town of Northampton, and would add weight, dignity, and respectability to this House of Commons; and whereas the said Mr. Charles Bradlaugh is prevented from taking his seat by certain Rules and Orders of the House; therefore, it is hereby enacted that these Rules and Orders shall be suspended."

He should be very glad to support such a Bill if he could be assured that such a description could be truly made regarding Mr. Bradlaugh. He knew nothing of Mr. Bradlaugh personally; he had not, like the Prime Minister, learnt his poetry by heart in order to quote it to Greenwich audiences. He thought it rather unfair that even while they were asking the House to pass the present Bill, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to cold-shoulder Mr. Bradlaugh as if there were something repulsive about him. He thought the country had a right to complain that the Government had not treated this question in an honest and straightforward manner. The Prime Minister reminded him of Mr. Facing-both-Ways of The Pilgrim's Progress. Mr. Facing-both-Ways walked down the street arm-in-arm with Mr. Bradlaugh and a Baptist minister. To the one he said, "The backbone of Liberalism is Nonconformity;" to the other, "But Atheism is one of its vertebra."

I wish, Sir, to make an explanation. I stated an inaccuracy to the House in a matter which I am anxious to set right. I was under the impression that the Bill introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had been introduced before the re-election of Mr. Bradlaugh. I find it was introduced after his reelection; consequently, the only explanation I have to give in lieu of what I gave before of our wish not to make the Bill retrospective is that, on the whole consideration of the rights of the case, we think it ought not to be retrospective, especially as the precedent of Mr. O'Connell and the principles applicable to the case point to the duty of submitting it as a non-retrospective measure.

said, he wished to make some observations upon this question, because it was one which was regarded with very grave and prominent interest by the constituency he had the honour to represent. He had listened with the greatest attention to the eloquent speech of the Premier, but had failed to glean from it one single reason for the promotion of this Bill. The Premier had referred to the Bill introduced in 1854 by Lord Russell, to the emancipation of the Catholics in 1829, and later on to the modification as regarded the entrance of Jews into the House. But he (Mr. Daly) had failed to see the relevancy of all those instances. The object of the Bill was to enable any person at option to make an Affirmation instead of taking the Oath, and the necessity for that was essentially based on the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh, or of persons who thought with him. The question of the modification of the Oath did not apply to this matter at all. The earliest instance of the non-necessity for persons to take the Oath was that of the Society of Friends; but in the Affirmation they had to take there was a distinct announcement that they made the declaration in the presence of Almighty God. It was true those words were expunged later on, but that arose from the dislike on the part of the members of that Society to have the name of God introduced. Neither was the modification made in favour of the Jews a case in point, because, if the Jews denied the Messiah, they agreed in the existence of a Divine Being. The Premier had also referred to the case of 0'Connell; but there was no earthly parity between his case and that of Mr. Bradlaugh. Could it be said that Mr. Bradlaugh represented millions of Atheists? O'Connell was a Catholic, a great and good Catholic, and would the Premier attempt to say that Mr. O'Connell did not more represent millions of Catholics in Ireland than did Mr. Bradlaugh Atheists in the United Kingdom? The present question was not in any sense a question of religious liberty. The Bill was plainly introduced to facilitate the entrance into Parliament of persons who did not believe in a God at all, and he thought that such a sentiment as that would be most dangerous to faith and morals. He did not wish to make any personal allusion as regarded Mr. Bradlaugh, but he must consider him as not fit to be in Parliament. This Bill, if passed, he could assure the House, would be more dangerous to faith than to morals. He could understand the abolition of the Parliamentary Oath altogether. He could understand Parliament saying to persons elected by constituencies—"We, having confidence in your loyalty and religion, take your seats." But there was so large an element of unbelief in this country that provision should be made for persons who, like Mr. Bradlaugh, declared that the Oath was an unmeaning form of words. Mr. Bradlaugh had vaunted his Atheism before the public, and never lost an opportunity of doing so; and if this Bill were passed it would be regarded by the mass of the people as the triumph of Atheism and the triumph of Bradlaugh. Was it, then, prudent of the Government to give such a stimulant and encouragement to such a person? He (Mr. Daly) represented the views of a very large number of persons, not only in his own constituency, on this subject; and one of his principal reasons for objecting to the Bill was that, rightly or wrongly, he considered that all legislation should be based upon religion. He had no desire to apply a religious test to any man coming to the Table, nor to penetrate into the recesses of his mind if he made any profession; but he held that a great wrong and a great injustice would be inflicted upon the community if the House decided by solemn vote that room should be made for Mr. Bradlaugh and his apostles. He would ask the House why he had never seen a Speech from the Throne prepared by Cabinet Ministers that did not contain a reference to the Divine Power? If, therefore, they implored the Divine Power to guide them, why did they admit Mr. Bradlaugh, who denied the existence of that Divine Power? The name of religious liberty had been invoked and introduced into the subject, but such an introduction was a prostitution of the name. Here they had an indignant community protesting against the introduction into an Assembly which made the laws and guided the morals of the people of a man who denied the existence of a God. The effects and consequences of the Bill would be most dangerous, and his own conviction was that had it not been for mob terrorism and the physical discomfort of the presence of mobs in Trafalgar Square they would never have heard of it. It was impossible to conceal the fact that the movement had been fomented by the lowest and worst of the working classes in the United Kingdom, and should it pass it would be regarded as the triumph of Atheism over religion and law.

said, that although he had voted against Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take the Oath, he had, nevertheless, no hesitation in supporting the Bill that was now before the House.

resuming, said, a great deal had been said in the course of the discussion about the claims of religious liberty. He had always been a staunch friend of religious liberty, although he sometimes feared that the idea of religious liberty was in danger of being, so to speak, vulgarized, by its being thrust forward into places where there was no legitimate room for it. Endeavours had been made by some of his hon. Friends upon that side of the House, and by a portion of the public Press that was patronized, and he believed in some eases inspired, by them, to show that those who wished to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath were enemies of religious liberty. That was their idea, but it was not his. After all, it was not very easy to get a clearly-cut definition of religious liberty which all must accept. It must be, to a great extent, a matter of opinion what did, and did not, constitute religious liberty. In the case to which he had alluded, the question before the House was, not whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be refused admittance because of his religious or irreligious opinions, but whether, being an avowed Atheist, he ought to enter the House by way of the Oath. He (Mr. Courtauld) held very strongly that the Oath was not the way by which he ought to enter; and that for any man to take the Oath, ending, as it did, with words solemn and sacred, while avowing, at the same time, that those words were to him idle nonsense, would be nothing more nor less than what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon had pronounced it to be—a profanation of the Oath. But the question now before the House was a very different one; and, with respect to that question, the principle of religious liberty came, in his judgment, prominently and distinctly to the front. The ground of opposition to the Bill, cleared of technical matters of no importance to the principle of it, was that Atheists, because they are Atheists, should not be allowed to sit in that House. Now, he held that to keep any duly-elected Member out of the House because of his religious or irreligious opinions, whether those opinions ran to Infidelity on the one hand, or to superstition on the other, was an undoubted breach of the principle of religious liberty. It could not be pretended that any danger was likely to accrue to the State from the introduction of an Atheist into that House. While regarding Atheistic views as most deplorable, yet he saw no reason why an Atheist might not be, in spite of his Atheism, a loyal subject and a good citizen.

said, that no one who had watched the course of the debate could have failed to be struck by the want of argument displayed by those who supported this measure. They dealt little, if at all, with the principles that were involved, and certainly the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was no exception to this. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given the House a most interesting history of successive Parliamentary Oaths; but the history of Parliamentary Oaths had little to do with the question before the House. This Bill differed entirely from its predecessors, for their object was to remove the religious disabilities of those who had conscientious objections to taking the Oath; but this Bill would make a similar change for those who had no religion at all, and could not have a religious objection to taking an Oath. He was surprised to hear the Prime Minister place Jews and Quakers in the same category as Atheists. That was an insult to the faith of both the Jew and the Quaker. The Affirmation was described as "solemn," and that implied that it was something more than a mere Affirmation; it involved the acknowledgment of a Supreme Being, who was able to punish in the event of the Affirmation being made falsely. The Quaker, believing that God was displeased with an Oath, reverently affirmed; and his fear of the Almighty was, to use a legal expression, the sanction of his Affirmation, just as it was in the case of the man who took the Oath. The Quaker's Affirmation was really an Oath in another form; but that could not be the case with the Atheist, who believed in no Supreme Being, nothing superior to himself, and therefore could not fear his displeasure. He might affirm deliberately, he might promise, but he could not solemnly affirm, and therefore his Affirmation was not a substitute for an Oath. The Affirmation which Mr. Bradlaugh was prepared to make was that he would bear "true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors, according to law;" but he (Lord Algernon Percy) found that Mr. Bradlaugh, in one of his speeches, had some time ago said—

"We hope the Prince of Wales may have fair play: if he does, he will never be King of England."

And in some poetry written with his approval these lines appeared—

"We are sworn to put Tyranny down,

We strike at the Throne and the Crown;

To arms, Republicans!"

He (Lord Algernon Percy) would leave the House to reconcile these two facts. It was said by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) that the existence of Mr. Bradlaugh was an accident, and no doubt it was an unfortunate accident for the Government; but, as it existed, it could not be overlooked. So long as the union of Church and State existed it was absurd to deny that the government of the country rested on religious foundations. Lord Eldon said that that union was meant, not to make the Church political, but to make the State religious. The religious character of the State was attested by many things—by the motto of the Royal Arms, by the words "Dei Gratia" on our coins, by the Oath, and the Bible on the Table of the House, and by the Prayers with which the proceedings of the House were opened. All showed that we acknowledged the supremacy of the Almighty. This Bill was for removing an obstacle which no one felt but an avowed Atheist, and one who had been foremost in his attacks on the Christian religion and the religious feeling of the country. It was said that tests wore inoperative; but the very attack made upon this test proved the contrary. At present, if Atheists obtained a seat in the House of Commons, they did so by making an outward acknowledgment of the Supreme Authority upon which all our governing institutions were based, and the responsibility of so doing rested with them and not with the House. But this was a Bill to admit Atheists as Atheists to have a seat in the House; and, if the Bill passed, the responsibility would be removed from them and thrown on the House of Commons, and through them on the country. There could be no doubt that the Bill was simply an Atheists' Relief Bill, and that it had been forced on the House by Mr. Bradlaugh and the mob which, came down to the House with him at the opening of Parliament; and, twist and turn as the Government might, or raise any number of clouds they pleased, in that light the Bill would be regarded by the opponents of the measure and by the people of the country. If this measure should pass, there would be no logical argument against abolishing the Coronation Oath or the "Prayer for the High Court of Parliament." The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) was honest enough to say so, for he had welcomed this measure as a step towards the abolition of the unnecessary invocation of the Supreme Being from all our public acts, and especially the proceedings of this House, remarks which met with signs of approval from the Members of Her Majesty's Government. The word "unnecessary" was capable of very wide interpretation. It was not long ago that the cry "A bas Dieu!" was heard in the streets of Paris. That cry was raised by an ignorant and revolutionary mob; but the spirit of that cry was contained in the Bill which had now been brought forward by what had been called the best Government that ever occupied the Treasury Bench. When elected in 1880 this question did not enter into their programme; they dared not now appeal to the country upon it, because, if they did so, they knew that they would have a very large majority against them, as in pressing forward this measure they represented, not the best feelings of the nation, but the interests of Atheists and Socialists.

said, that the noble Lord had adduced no argument that had not been repeated ad nauseam. His own purpose in rising was to meet the statement made by several Members as to what were the indications of public opinion in this country in the matter, and especially as reference had been made to the public opinion of Scotland. It was a very curious phenomenon to see Scottish Tory Members referring to public opinion in Scotland, as their defence for the action they were taking against the Bill. Those hon. Gentlemen were not often guided by public opinion in Scotland. They were, in nine cases out of ten, distinctly opposed to the public opinion there. There was no such thing as a public opinion in Scotland against this Bill. The public opinion of Scotland was unmistakably for the Bill. There had certainly been more Petitions against the Bill than for it; but they must look, not only at the number of these Petitions, but to the nature of the Petitions. He ventured to say that the Petitions which came from Scotland did not at all express the public opinion of Scotland. There were many of them, certainly, from Churches, but certainly not from all Churches, and the Churches which were most advanced in intelligence had not sent a single Petition against the Bill. From the United Presbyterian Church, which was the most advanced and intelligent in the country, not one Petition had come against the Bill, but one had been presented in favour of it. There were Petitions from the Church of Scotland, which was the proper ally of the Tory Party, and the rest of the Petitions were almost entirely either from Orange Lodges, which were the most insignificant bodies in Scotland, or, curiously enough, from the county of Banff, which seemed to be behind the rest of Scotland in intelligence, for it had sent up 27 Petitions against the Bill. The true test of the opinion of Scotland was the opinion of her Representatives. In every division on this question, from 1880 to the present time, the vast majority of Scottish Members had been found voting for the provisions which gave access to the House, not to Mr. Bradlaugh, but to all men, whatever their religious opinions might be. There could be no worse index to the opinion of any country than the opinions of the Churches. On religious matters they could be looked to as guides, but on political questions they were very unsafe guides indeed. The right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) the other night spoke of the opinion of Scotland as being for this Bill, and spoke of even "bigoted Scotland" appearing in that attitude. If bigotry consisted in strict adherence to religious principles, Scotland was bigoted; but if it consisted in intolerance towards others, Scotland was not a bigoted country. He had heard more bigotry from the other side of the House than he had heard in Scotland in his whole life. Scotsmen said in this case that the rights of citizenship should not be made to any extent to depend on religious opinions. If the holding of religious opinions was necessary to a Beat in the House, he did not see why it should not be necessary in the case of those who voted in sending Members to the House. The great majority of the Scottish people, notwithstanding these Petitions, agreed with the Prime Minister that the retention of the Oath, as now understood, was dishonouring to Christianity itself as well as irrational. He could assure the Government that whatever support they might get from other parts of the Kingdom, they would get from Scotland not only a unanimous support, but the support of the vast majority of the coun- try in passing this Bill. In conclusion, he had to thank the Prime Minister for several statements of principle made in his speech which would not be forgotten by Nonconformists. Amongst others, that in which he had laid down in the most emphatic way at the end of his speech that in the eye of the law, whatever religious opinions a man might hold, it should make no difference with him.

said, that, however anxious they might be to keep Mr. Bradlaugh out of the controversy, it was unfortunate that in whatever way they looked at the measure he was the principal figure before them. He would like to ask the Prime Minister why, if this measure was of such importance, and Mr. Bradlaugh had had nothing to do with it, he had taken no steps to introduce it before? If, on the other hand, the measure were not of such importance as to require to be brought in earlier, why were other measures, admittedly of great importance, and which were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, now set on one side for it? He wished to say that the impression conveyed to the mind of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber) by the words of the noble Lord the Secretary for War was the same as that conveyed to his own mind, and that impression was confirmed by what appeared in the report of The Times. The noble Lord was understood to state that the reason why this Bill was not alluded to in the Royal Speech was because it was not usual to include any measures in the Queen's Speech which were not considered of the greatest importance. Very scant courtesy was shown to hon. Members on that side of the House on the first introduction of this Bill, by its being brought in without a word of explanation. But after listening to the speech of the Attorney General on the second reading of the measure, it was easy to understand why the Government said so little. Their arguments were so flimsy that they were anxious to postpone explanations as long as possible, and he had no doubt that if Mr. Bradlaugh had not forced the hand of the Government the Bill would never have been introduced at all. The demonstration of Mr. Bradlaugh passed off quietly when it was notified to two meetings at which Ministers were present that some measure was to be introduced. Could it be doubted that the introduction of the Bill, following immediately after that demonstration, would be most likely to give the notion that it was in consequence of that demonstration that the Bill had been brought in, seeing that it was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech? In this matter, as in many other matters, the Government had followed the fatal policy of concession to mob agitation. The Conservative Party had been accused of putting a false issue before the country. He did not say that false issues had not been raised; but they had not been raised by the Conservatives. One false issue was put before the country, when it was said that the Tories were fighting against religious freedom. Why, not only the Tories, but many more Liberals throughout the country than the right hon. Gentleman imagined, were fighting against the tyranny of irreligion which the Government was endeavouring to force upon them. It had been said that all who took the Oath without believing in a Supreme Being violated it; that was most regrettable; but the weak part of the present measure was the support given to the denial of a Supreme Being. The alterations which had been made permitting persons of various religious beliefs to affirm seemed to him no precedent for passing a Bill to admit Atheists who believed in nothing but themselves. If the Prime Minister had no doubt of the feeling of the country on this subject, why did he not give the country an opportunity of showing it? Hitherto the feeling of the country had only been shown by the Petitions sent in. Large as the Liberal programme was at the last Election, it was not large enough to admit an Affirmation Bill; and, therefore, before the Bill passed, the country should have an opportunity of declaring its opinion. They had been told—he believed it was by the Home Secretary—that the Conservative Government came in on beer, and went out on water, and that was to a certain extent true; but let hon. Members on the other side take care that as they had came in on brag, they did not go out on Bradlaugh. He should do his best to oppose the Bill whenever and wherever it was brought under his notice.

said, hon. Gentlemen opposite had described this Bill as a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. Well, he admitted it did partake in a great measure of that character, because Mr. Bradlaugh was probably the first person who would have the benefit of it. But it mattered not whom it benefited, if it was right and proper that we should remove every restriction on the right of those who had been selected by the constituencies to take their seat in that House. It would, he thought, have been better if the Government had seen their way to introducing a Bill substituting for the Oath a simple Declaration of Allegiance by every Member. The incidents connected with Mr. Bradlaugh's personal character had been unfairly imported into this debate. Although he could not sympathize with Mr. Bradlaugh on many points, he did not think that the incidents to which he had referred ought to affect the question before the House. At any rate, under the present law, Mr. Bradlaugh, who had denounced all that most of the hon. Members of that House deemed sacred, was at perfect liberty to come up to the Table of that House and take the Oath. It was said that the Oath of Allegiance had not been intended to be a religious test; but it operated as such. On this question we had lagged behind every other country in Europe. This country prided itself on being the land of civil and religious liberty; but the fact was that in respect of the subject with which the Bill dealt it was behind almost every other State in the civilized world. In Belgium a Member of the Legislature held up his hand and said, "I swear to preserve the Constitution," there being no allusion to the Deity. In Italy the Members swore also, without naming the Deity, to be faithful to the King and Constitution. In the Netherlands and Switzerland the Oath or Affirmation was taken at option, as also was the case in the United States of America. In Austria no Oath was taken, but each Member made an Affirmation of loyalty to the Sovereign; while in France, Germany, and Sweden no Oath of any kind was required as the condition precedent to a Member taking his seat. Within the last 10 or 20 years we had abolished a vast number of promissory oaths which used to be enforced on the holders of almost every responsible position. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had asked what guarantee we should have for the safety of the Throne and the Constitution if the Bill were passed. The Throne and Constitution must indeed be in a bad way if the Parliamentary Oath was all which lay between them and destruction, and that Oath would certainly not prolong their existence. He thought a general impression existed in the country that there was a great deal too much of the taking of Oaths in Parliament, and in our civil and judicial systems. He supported the Bill, though it did not go so far as he was inclined to go, as being, at any rate, a step in the right direction.

I think there is no one in this House who will rise to take part in this debate without some degree of anxiety. It is impossible not to approach the consideration of the topics involved in a spirit both serious and painful. It must have been obvious to everyone who listened to the speech of the Prime Minister that that was the conviction of the right hon. Gentleman; and all who had an opportunity of listening to his elaborate and carefully reasoned arguments must have been conscious that the Prime Minister realized to himself the great difficulty of his task and the obvious perils which beset this Bill. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, powerful, vigorous, and effective, as they were, were arguments more against the Bill than for it, because they went infinitely too far. They were against all Oaths everywhere, and involved in that condemnation the utility of all Affirmations. The method adopted by the Prime Minister in his speech, however, is a contradictory one. At one time the question is treated as so small and so bereft of general importance that it was not worthy of being mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. But it was indicated, both to-night in the speech of the Prime Minister, and in replies to Questions previously put from both sides of the House, that the question was considered so large and urgent as to take precedence of every single measure that was mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Sir, what has caused this change of plan on the part of the Government; this immense and supreme change? The cause and object and whole motive power of the Bill is to be found, not on the Treasury Bench, or even in the genius of the Prime Minister, but in Mr. Bradlaugh. I ask anyone who listened to the speech of the Attorney General, also an able and closely reasoned speech, whether, from beginning to end, he mentioned the name of Mr. Bradlaugh? In the long speech of the Prime Minister, which lasted an hour and a-half, there was certainly not much of Mr. Bradlaugh as contrasted with other topics, yet it is as plain as a proposition of Euclid could be that Mr. Bradlaugh is the cause, not only of this Bill, but of its now being pressed upon Parliament and the country. Does any man believe that this Bill would have been put forward, even when it was introduced, but for the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh had organized a mob of considerable dimensions in Trafalgar Square? And then the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, having announced, considerably under that pressure, that this Bill would be introduced, and when it was introduced and apparently meant to lie in the Order Book without any great urgency, what is it that suddenly brings it from its repose in the Order Book to its present urgency? On Sunday week Mr. Bradlaugh made a speech, in which he said that if this Bill were not expedited he would take steps to come here and take the Oath. The very next day the Prime Minister announced that this Bill would be taken with all the prominence that was given to it on Monday last; and when the Prime Minister was asked what chance the Tenants' Compensation Bill, the Municipal Government of London Bill, and other measures promised in the Queen's Speech had of being brought forward, the answer was that they would not be proceeded with until this Bill had been passed into law, and the House was told that that answer applied to all Government measures of importance. Let it be known that the motive power of this Bill is not abstract justice, nor a consideration of Constitutional reform, but the incidence and pressure of Mr. Bradlaugh on the floor of this House. This plain and simple object is sought to be obscured by the interesting but misleading historical narrative of the Attorney General; nor was the long, interesting, and elaborate speech of the Prime Minister calculated to bring into prominence the obvious fact to which I have referred. The nation, with that unerring instinct which the Prime Minister recognizes as being in the main correct on most subjects, have seen clearly what is the grave issue involved; and whatever abstract logic may say, the nation recognizes that both in respect of time and occasion this Bill does violence to many of their most cherished and hallowed feelings, and outrages some of the sentiments which are most deeply established in our nature. They feel that to please Mr. Bradlaugh and to buy off his terrorism every effort has been made during the past three years to profane the Oath; and that now, when that has failed, in consequence of the opposition of the House, a further attempt to appease Mr. Bradlaugh is made by repealing, destroying, and removing from our forms that Oath which heretofore he has in vain sought to profane. Such a Bill might be excused by an ingenious Minister upon two broad arguments. It might be put as a calm effort of thoughtful statesmanship, not suggested by an occasion like the present, and it might also be put that it was supported by the general opinion and the general conscience of the nation. But I would ask any Member of this House whether he believes, from his own experience of the feeling of the nation, that the public opinion of the country, and the public conscience of our people, approve this Bill? I venture to say that there is not a single Member of this House who will bring himself to vote for the Bill that is not conscious in his heart that he is opposing the deliberate convictions of millions of his fellow-countrymen. Petitions are not matters on which I am in the habit of placing any great stress, but the significance of the Petitions in the present case is obvious and most suggestive. The Prime Minister did not exaggerate, but rather minimized, the number on our side, when he said they were four to one. If a Dissolution wore to be taken upon this question, does any hon. Member believe in his heart that the Members returned would not hurl out this Affirmation Bill by a vast majority? We have heard much in these discussions of the analogy of the present case with the Roman Catholic Relief Act and the Act for the Relief of the Jews. But where is the analogy in the matter of public opinion? The Roman Catholic Question was only decided by Parliament after it had been brought before previous Parliaments, and after the constituencies had been thoroughly familiarized with the topic; whereas any man who has watched the progress of events must be almost startled to find that the feeling in ! the present case, after the lapse of three years, instead of getting stale, I is fresher, stronger, and more vigorous. You refer to the analogy of the Jews' Question. That, again, was a question on which the constituencies had an opportunity of expressing their opinions; but what opportunity has been given to them in this case? They have been put aside by the Prime Minister on this occasion on the ground that they were wrong, being four to one against the Affirmation Bill. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister allude to the case of Mr. O'Connell, who would surely turn in his grave if he hoard a comparison instituted between himself and Mr. Bradlaugh. Mr. O'Connell came at the end of the Catholic movement which had been agitating the country for many a long day before he was elected for his constituency in Ireland. He was the termination of the Catholic agitation; but Mr. Bradlaugh is the object of this agitation and of this Bill. I ask, is the Bill supported in any part of the country? Is it supported by a majority of Scotch Members? [Cheers.] Well, I hoard a sickly attempt to cheer. Is it supported by the Members from Ireland? There are 103 Irish Members, and I affirm, as a piece of political prophecy, that there will not be found three Irish Members to go into the Government Lobby. Even of that chosen band, the Ulster Liberal Members, on whose consciences, I am informed, great pressure is being brought to bear, I do not think any will be found in the Government Lobby. My proposition is not an extreme one. Of the 103 Irish Members, although some may be induced—shall I say cajoled, I will not say bullied—into abstaining from voting, I repeat there are not three who will be actually brought to the Government Lobby. The Prime Minister in his long speech failed to use one short sentence for which all of us were on the look out. The Government were asked more than once in the progress of these discussions what was to be the position of the House of Commons and of the Government Benches in reference to this question. To-night we have heard very great phrases about civil and religious liberty, and many suggestions have been made to our con- sciences. But is this a question which is going to be left to the consciences of individual Members? Is it to be an "open question" for the House to exercise its own independent judgment upon? Is it to be left to the conscience of each individual Member, or rather to be influenced by the conscientious pressure of the high-minded Gentlemen who wield the Government conscience, the Government Whips? The Prime Minister was not prepared to avoid hinting, or suggesting, or stating that considerations of political profit might possibly bias to an extent some hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. That, if not a charge, is certainly a suggestion. I pass it by with the criticism that it seems to have been framed almost verbally on a sentence in Lord Coleridge's Charge in the recent Freethinking case against Foote, when he said he did not make any reflection whatever upon the prosecutor. Now, Sir, is it wise to outrage, to ignore, or even to outrun the general opinion of our people on a question which so deeply stirs all their strongest feelings? The Prime Minister has substantially acknowledged that the feelings of the majority of the people are against him, and, therefore, that he is ignoring them. Is it wise, on a question of this kind, for the sole sake of Mr. Bradlaugh, to ignore the conscientious and religious convictions of the majority of the people? If there be abstract reasons which satisfy the Prime Minister of the soundness of his views, which I do not dispute for a moment, is it wise, statesmanlike, and judicious to outrun and go far ahead of the judgment and instinct—the usually safe instinct—of the people, on a question on which they must be powerfully swayed by instinct? The Prime Minister said that instinct was usually a safe guide; and therefore, being a safe guide, it required grave arguments to show that upon this question, where instinct and intuition must have powerful sway, it should be treated in an exceptional way. The Prime Minister guarded himself by saying that instinct was usually safe unless the question were disguised, as it might be in a case involving difficult legal arguments and Constitutional considerations. Hardly any man of ordinary understanding could be misled by that statement. What have we heard to-night of difficult legal arguments and Constitutional considerations? I admit that the Attorney General used difficult legal arguments in order to obscure the question. The Prime Minister entered upon elaborate, complicated, Constitutional questions so as to keep the real question out of view. The question involved is clearly shown by the clauses of the Bill. It requires no lawyer and no experienced politician to understand the words of the Bill; but it does require a learned lawyer and an experienced politician to prevent people understanding it. The Prime Minister said that people might be led by their feelings more than by their judgment; but feelings are not a bad thing to go along with the judgment. On some points you have to reach the understanding through the heart; and this may be one of them. The Bill works a vast change. It omits words, few, simple, and solemn, sanctified by the reverence of mankind, and enshrined by tradition in the heart of the whole nation. The structure of the Oath is simple, clear, intelligible. Divested of all needless words, it embodies the Apostolic precept to "fear God and honour the King." Can any man doubt that if, at the bidding of Mr. Bradlaugh, you get the fear out of the Oath, the honour will not be in long? What is the meaning which the Prime Minister attaches to the word "solemnly" in the mouth of an Atheist? Is that intended also to mislead and deceive the people, who, on this occasion, are led by their feelings as well as by their judgment? Will it not be keeping up a delusion to say that in the lips of Mr. Bradlaugh and others the Affirmation is to be pronounced solemnly? The Prime Minister said this was simply a residue of a once large question. A master of words, he kept gradually minimizing the question, until you looked in the air for what was left. It was a "narrow ledge," a "shred," a "slice" —everything to indicate smallness. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to treat the Oath as being practically nothing; but, in the popular mind, does it not make all the difference between a recognition and a denial of the Supreme Being? In this part of his speech, which was most misleading, the Prime Minister said that the opponents of the Bill were seeking to throw over Christianity. Could any statement be more absolutely removed from even a vestige of connection with this question? We deal with the Oath as it is, and as it has been for years on our Statute Book, where it has long been with the sanction of the Prime Minister. It contains a clear recognition of the Deity. We take our stand on the recognition of God; and it is proposed to throw over that, and take our stand upon nothing. How will this question be regarded, not by the professors, the logicians, and the philosophers, but by the great majority of the people, with their quick feelings, ready instincts, and rapid intuition as to what is right and wrong? Will they not believe in too many places that the passing of this Bill is very like driving out of the English House of Commons the name of the Supreme Being in order to let in Mr. Bradlaugh? Will not the common people feel that the House of Commons regard the presence here of Mr. Bradlaugh as being more important than the recognition of the Supreme Being? Again, how will this Bill be regarded by Atheists? Will it not be regarded by them as an unmixed triumph? They will be blind not to see that at the bidding of Mr. Bradlaugh you are opening the door of the House to all avowed Atheists. By a rhetorical device, the Prime Minister suggested that the opponents of the Bill were seeking an illogical change in our laws; but it is not we who are proposing any innovation. It may be there is some sentiment and feeling about this question; but how few questions are decided by pure logic. I am thankful there are many that are not. If the world were ruled by logicians, it would be a most unlivable world. In legislation, as in the ordinary transactions of life, you must give some effect to the feelings, sentiments, and even the prejudices of the bulk of mankind. I oppose the Bill not only on account of the shock which it must give to the religious opinion of the country, and the outrage it must inflict on many of the most sacred feelings of the human mind, but also because it is contrary to the traditions, the practices, and the methods of our whole English public life. The Sovereign on Her Throne, every one of the Ministers on the opposite Bench, every Judge in a Court of Justice, every juryman who goes into the box, every soldier and sailor who serves his Queen and country, enters upon his duties under the most solemn sanctions. What are the objections to this principle? It is said that Courts of Justice allow an Atheist to make an Affirmation; and, undoubtedly, so they do; but why? Because it is necessary in the interests of justice that no evidence shall be lost. Still, an Atheist is compelled, before making an Affirmation, to declare that an Oath is not binding upon his conscience. The present Bill contains not only a form of Affirmation, but a form with an alternative, so that an avowed Atheist, without saying whether an Oath is binding on his conscience or not, may either take the Oath or make an Affirmation as he pleases. We are told that there may be Atheists and Agnostics already in the House, and that Voltaire, if he were alive now, might also be here. But surely that is not an argument; and I think that everyone must have noticed how the Prime Minister laboured in that part of his speech to derive arguments from that which scarcely bore to be presented seriously. We are asked now that the whole nation shall assume the national responsibility of opening the door of the House to every avowed Atheist. That is the point at issue, and it is far removed from the argument of the Prime Minister. I will not combat the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney General, that you have admitted Roman Catholics and Jews, and why stop there? It is an insult both to Roman Catholics and Jews to place them for a moment in the same category as Atheists; and I think that before using this argument the Prime Minister should somewhat have considered the feelings of those who must have been hurt, if not outraged, by his suggestion. Then, again, it is no question of civil and religious liberty; that is merely a grand phrase for the groundlings. Every man in this country is free to believe what he pleases he can exercise his right of private judgment, and upon him rests the dreadful responsibility. Nor is it a question of the rights of constituencies. No one denies that a constituency in this country may elect anyone who comes under the legal definition of fitness; but a constituency, after full notice—and in this case there was notice after notice, the notice of notoriety—should not elect one who cannot be admitted like other Members. However, I do not rest my case on this narrow ground; I do not call in question the rights of constituencies. They exist; but we, the Representatives of the entire nation, cannot but consider what is best for the national interests, even though they may run counter to the prejudices of one isolated constituency. Both in this debate and in 1880 some words of the Prime Minister's were quoted, which I must quote again, as they were very simple and very eloquent. The whole gist and effect of the Prime Minister's speech this evening was that the Oath was not now of very much avail, though it may once have been valuable; that it had served its purpose, and that it was not desirable now to take one's stand upon it. But what were the words of the Prime Minister; what was the way in which he put it? He said that there was no advantage in retaining any Oath at all. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say that] I am very glad to hear that disclaimer; but I am bound to say that any one who heard the Prime Minister's speech would have come to the conclusion that he had very little to say in favour of the Oath for any purpose whatever. However, I desire to quote the words of the Prime Minister in 1854, when he occupied a position of great responsibility in the House. They are words that should sink deep into the heart of every Member—

"I Know that there are some hon. Gentlemen hero who think we should come to the discharge of our duties without any oath. I do not happen to he one of that opinion. I revere the principle of the oath. Our oaths ought to he brief—ought to be simple …they ought to be divested of all needless and useless words, in order that the words we use by solemn sanction in the presence of God may be used with a sense of the presence of God, and in a temper which befits men doing a solemn act."—(3 Hansard, [133] 900.)

Those are eloquent, simple, and touching words. They should govern the course of this debate. Our Oaths now are brief and simple, and are divested of all needless words. The nation, guided by its feelings, desires no further change, and I refuse to vote for the second reading of a Bill which treats the recognition of God as needless, as inconvenient, and therefore to be got rid of; and I will give no countenance or support to a measure proposed in deference to the claims of Atheistic clamour—contrary, as I believe, to the public opinion of the country, and' hurtful as I know it to be, to the consciences of millions of our people.

Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) who has just sat down, in his eloquent speech—more remarkable for pure rhetoric, than for that "pure logic" of which he has expressed such a horror—has challenged any hon. Member, who is unfortunate enough to follow him, to point to a single portion of the Kingdom, the inhabitants of which are not almost unanimously opposed to this Bill. I rise to answer that challenge. I have no mandate to speak for Ireland, or for Scotland; though I suspect that, as regards the latter country, the Division List, when it appears, will tell a different tale. But I have a right to speak for another part of the country—for a country as religious as Scotland, a country in which the Sunday schools are always full, and in which the places of Divine worship are always crowded—I mean the Principality of Wales. I do not believe that there are two Atheists in the whole of my constituency. If, therefore, the majority of my constituents are in favour of this Bill, it is not because they hate Atheism the less, but because they dislike tests the more. Now, I assert that the great majority of the Welsh people are in favour, not certainly of Mr. Bradlaugh, but of this Bill; and as a proof I say that, looking around me, I can only see one Welsh Member—the noble Lord whom I hope I may, without offence, call the accidental Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn)— who will be found voting against this Bill. And now I come to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) who moved the rejection of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that he would deal with this question as a question of principle, and not as a question of persons. But he had hardly uttered half-a-dozen words, when he proceeded to drag in Mr. Bradlaugh by the head and shoulders at every sentence; and I am bound to say that every speaker on the other side has followed his example, and we have had nothing but "Bradlaugh, Bradlaugh, Bradlaugh." Now, I do not intend to follow in the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, I will only say one thing about Mr. Bradlaugh—and then I will pass from that, to me, not very inviting subject—and it is this. The speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite have been the best advertisement for Mr. Bradlaugh that he could have desired. Just contrast his position now with what it was three years ago. Then he was an obscure individual who bad figured in a police court. Now he is the renowned champion of freedom of election—the man who has beaten Sir Hardinge Giffard all along the line. It is you who have put him on the pedestal, who have enabled him to pose as a martyr and a hero; and, if he is a fourth time reelected for Northampton, it is you whom he will have to thank for the result. Now, Sir, I have been asking myself during this whole debate, "What is it we are really fighting about?" Hon. Gentlemen opposite will say, "We are fighting for that religion which is part of the law of the land;" and my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard) has told us, in solemn tones, that Christianity is part of the Common Law of the country. My hon, and learned Friend's law has been somewhat knocked about of late, and, therefore, I am extremely glad to be able cordially to agree with him upon this one point. But if by that he means that, by the Common Law, Christianity is a condition precedent to a man's taking his seat in this House, then say that that contention has been entirely disposed of by the opening speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, which is a complete answer to that contention. But if, for argument's sake, we admit its truth, have there been no statutory inroads made into that maxim of the Common Law? Why, the presence of the hon. Member behind him (Baron Henry de Worms) is a living contradiction to the assertion of my hon. and learned Friend. That hon. Gentleman, in his speech the other night, re-produced the exact arguments by which hon. Gentlemen sitting by his side strove for years to keep his co-religionists out of this House. Happily those arguments were unsuccessful, or we should not now have had the pleasure of listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. And exactly the same thing may be said of the Roman Catholic Members of this House, and of the arguments against Catholic Emancipation. Well, it only shows how easy it is for the victims of persecution to become persecutors themselves. As we used to see at school, it is the boy who has been bullied himself, who is apt to turn the greatest bully when he gets a chance. But, says the right hon. Gentleman, "What I object to is not any particular form of belief—it is the negation of all belief; in other words, a man may believe anything, provided he believes something — provided he believes in some Divinity or other." Now, lot me test the value of that proposition by asking the House this question—Whom would this Oath as it stands exclude? It would not have excluded Voltaire; it would not have excluded Robespierre; it did not exclude Gibbon; and, I believe, it would not have excluded Hume. It would certainly not exclude a Mahomedan or a Brahmin; I am not sure about a Bhuddist; it would most assuredly admit a Fire Worshipper; and, I think, it would admit a Devil Worshipper—"devils believe and tremble" —to say nothing of a whole army of hypocrites and humbugs. For the whole gist of your objection to the proposed change is, that it would only admit an Atheist who is honest enough to avow himself as such. If you must have a lock, at least have a good one, and not one which can be picked by the first comer. Now, I believe I have taken as many of these oaths as most men. When I was at Oxford, we lived in a perfect atmosphere of tests. A man could not get a twopenny half-penny exhibition without having to go on his knees to call down all sorts of imprecations upon the head of the poor Pope and the unfortunate descendants of James III., the last of whom died exactly 95 years ago. Did that make Oxford more religious? Why, these oaths were the subject of the most profane and irreverent jests. I well remember an old Fellow, of Brazenose, who used to go about boasting that he would like to see the oath he would not take to keep £600 a-year. Is the spectacle which this House presents at the opening of Parliament a more edifying one? I have seen hon. Members come up in gangs of 30 at a time to the Table, and the Holy Book tossed from band to hand with an irreverence which was perfectly shocking, until I have felt inclined to cry out with. Coleridge—

"Oh, blasphemy! The Book of Life is made

A superstitious instrument, on which

We gabble out the oaths we mean to break,

For all must swear, all— and in every place,

Merchant and lawyer, senator and priest,

Until faith reels. The very name of God

Sounds like a juggler's charm."

And now one word about Scotland. I, this morning, read a most able and temperate article from the pen of one of the most religious Scotchmen in the Kingdom—the Royal Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Scotch Church (the Earl of Aberdeen)—from which I will read one extract—

"If we turn from the question of the efficiency of indirect as compared with direct methods, and glance at the general effects of the whole system of religious tests, what do we find is the teaching of history regarding the general utility of such provisions? With respect to England during the past three centuries, it would hardly be too much to say that the religious life of any particular creed appears to have been in an inverse ratio to the rigour with which that creed was artificially protected."

Do not these words apply with peculiar force to the past and present condition of the Church of England? Will anyone say that that Church possessed a greater hold over the lives and consciences of men, in the days of drowsy sermons and sleepy congregations, when she was hedged in on every side by oaths and tests? Why, what a puny thing must our religion be, if it requires to be propped up by such a miserable crutch as this! I should be ashamed of my Christianity if I thought that it needed to be galvanized into life by such a process as that which you are now defending. For my part, I have the most perfect faith in the vitality of our national belief. I believe that this wave of infidelity, of which we hear so much, is but the breaker dashing itself upon the rock. But I have also faith in the common sense and common justice of my countrymen. I have heard that this Bill is a perfect godsend to the Opposition. Well, they must be thankful for small mercies, if it is. I believe, however, that a reaction is not far distant, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well to remember Goldsmith's lines about the dog which went mad and bit the man, and everyone thought the man would die—

"But soon a wonder came to light,

Which showed the rogues they lied!

The man recovered from the bite:

The dog it was that died.

For depend upon it the day is not far distant when some such Bill will be passed, and when men will reflect with amazement, that a Member of this House, as duly elected by his constituents as you Mr. Speaker — ["Oh, oh!"]—or any hon. Gentleman opposite who jeers at me, should be debarred from doing his duty to that constituency —not because he held, but because he avowed, religious opinions which were disliked, or even which were detested, by the immense majority of his Colleagues and his countrymen.

said, he hoped the Government would consent to adjourn the debate at an earlier hour than usual, so as to give time for the discussion of the subject to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Preston. After the remarkable speeches of the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), he thought the House ought to be given time for reflection. Judging from certain manifestations of levity during the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, the House appeared to be hardly in a condition to discuss with adequate propriety a subject of such great importance as the Bill before them. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he could not accede to the Motion without expressing great regret that it should be found necessary to prolong the debate. It was part of the new habits and views that had taken possession of the House that it should be thought necessary to occupy, in debates on Motions for second readings, twice or three times as much time as was once thought sufficient. He regretted they were not able to follow the practice of a former period— namely, of 1854—when a comparatively short time was devoted to the discussion of a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Oaths Act. As, however, he knew there was a strong desire to continue this debate for at least another night, he would offer no resistance to the Motion.

said, he could not allow the observations of the Prime Minister to pass without saying that in former times there were much longer debates than the present on questions of less importance. The importance of the present question could hardly have been exaggerated, even before the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but since that speech its importance had increased. As an example of a longer debate on a less important matter, he might refer to the debate on the Repeal of the Corn Laws, which lasted for 13 or 14 days. Surely a change in the commercial policy of the country was not of so much importance as the question, whether they were to retain in their proceedings the recognition of a God.

said, he desired to take the present opportunity of saying that the Bill, in his opinion, was not the climax of toleration which the country expected; and that in view of what was usual in all cases in which religious matters were dealt with by the House, the request for an adjournment was one which the Prime Minister could hardly with decency refuse.

remarked, that whatever might be the small importance which the Prime Minister attached to it, the whole Irish nation, without distinction of political Party, was unanimous in recognizing the vast importance of the proposal to abolish the religious character of the constitution of this Assembly. Among the 103 Members who represented Ireland in the House, he did not believe that three would be found to support the proposal of the Prime Minister.

said, he protested against the observation of the Prime Minister in regard to what he (Mr. Hicks) believed to be the gravest issue ever brought before the House of Commons.

in rising to move, as an Amendment —

"That, in view of the growing injury inflicted upon our industries by Foreign tariffs, and the consequent importance of more rapidly developing the resources of India and the Colonies, it is expedient to free ourselves as early as possible from the restraints of Commercial Treaties; to abolish the Duties upon tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits imported from British possessions; to levy specific Duties (in no case equal to more than ten per cent, upon ordinary average values) upon the like articles, as well as upon wheat, flour, and sugar imported from Foreign Countries; and also to impose an Import Duty upon Foreign manufactures, with the notification that it should cease to operate, as against each Nation, from the day on which such Nation should admit British manufactures duty free,"

said, he occupied the time of the House on that occasion with very considerable regret, because he could not but feel that, to some extent, he was impeding a measure which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to expedite. He would, however, endeavour to confine himself to that which bore directly and closely upon the question before the House. Had he taken the opportunity of introducing the Motion which stood in his name on a Tuesday or a Friday evening, he should have laid himself open to the charge of seeking to introduce a merely academical discussion. He had chosen, therefore, to do so upon the second reading of this Bill, because the most important question he desired to examine was the wisdom and desirability of raising so much revenue from tea as they did at the present time. He should not examine at any length the effect of foreign tariffs upon the manufactures and trade of this county. That question was debated last year upon a different Motion, brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), and he (Mr. Ecroyd) should, therefore, confine himself to saying that those engaged in the manufactures of the country had found that the pressure of such tariffs had been in no way relieved during the past year, and that the outlook, as regarded future openings for the export of the productions of our industries, was regarded as gloomy in the extreme by those who were most competent to form an opinion. He could not apologize for occupying the time of the House on a matter so closely connected with the agriculture and industries of this country, because it must be admitted that, during the present Session, very little time had been devoted to questions of that character. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had introduced a measure of great interest to those who were engaged in commercial pursuits; but it was somewhat ominous that that measure was a Bankruptcy Bill. If they regarded the present position of the cultivators of the soil, and the condition of many of outmost important industries, they would only be too ready to fear that a Bankruptcy Bill might, indeed, be the measure most urgently required. He should, no doubt, be attacked upon the ground of political economy. He (Mr. Ecroyd) thought, however, that he had more occasion to fear the adverse criticisms of right hon. Gentlemen upon his own side of the House than of those who sat on the Benches opposite, since that important but somewhat loosely defined science had been solemnly banished by a high authority to two distant planets. He could not conceive that anything he might have to propose ought to be regarded as infringing the true principles of political economy. After all, political economy, as he had said, was a very loosely defined science, and must always be subject to the prevalence of exceptional circumstances. Political economy was made for man, and not man for political economy. Many of the arguments which had been brought forward in opposition to facts adduced to prove the somewhat insecure position of the industries of this country were such as he believed would not bear a close or even a cursory examination. He remembered that, during the debate last year, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), to whom they always listened with very much interest and attention, told them that if it were the case that we exported little to countries like the United States in return for our large imports from them, we might regard it as a fortunate circumstance, and asked if we really wished to pay them more in exchange for our imports than we did at present. He (Mr. Ecroyd) should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, if he really thought that we were paying our Australian Colonies three times as much for what we imported from them, because they took from us three times as much value of our manufactures, in proportion to our imports from them, as did the United States? Such arguments as those could not be defended for one moment. Again, great stress was laid on the prosperity and continual extension of our shipping. To some extent, however, the increase in our shipping trade had been owing to the depression of our industries. For instance, if we had a failing harvest and brought more food from foreign countries, that necessarily gave employment to a great deal more shipping. Again, if manufacturers were driven abroad by hostile influences, and we received from abroad things which our own industries ought to produce, that was an employment of shipping which, as far as it went, was a proof, not of prosperity, but of adversity. What he should like to know were such points as these. What was the progress of incomes derived from the industries of this country, as compared with that of incomes derived from foreign property of various kinds? What was the income derived from foreign property of all kinds, and did it bear a fair share of the taxation of the country? What was the increase or decrease of the total amount of wages actually paid, for instance, in the textile industries of the country, compared with the amount paid seven or eight or tea years ago? What was the burden of local taxation upon land, buildings, and works in this country, compared with that borne by foreign property of similar kinds? These were questions which very closely touched the interests of our great productive classes; and he could not but see the necessity of drawing a distinct line between the prosperity of the productive industries of the country and the prosperity of the possessors of foreign incomes who only resided in England, and who might at any moment, by the simple process of going on board a steamer, take themselves and their wealth away from all responsibility for the debt, the taxation, or the interests of this country. British manufacturers had been more and more driven back upon our own Possessions, not only by adverse changes in foreign tariffs, but by the continually increasing effect of the old tariffs. The Colonies and India were our prosperous and growing markets. The French, German, Spanish, and other foreign markets had been more and more closed to us. They had not, in all cases, shown a positive falling off; but they had shown a falling off in proportion to the growth of population and the general commerce of the country. And the future, too, was extremely uncertain. He should like to know what was the prospect of our future commercial relations with such countries as Italy, Turkey, Japan, and even Switzerland, which had hitherto been regarded as almost a Free Trade country? We had also recently heard of a Convention concluded between the United States and Mexico, to the detriment of British industries. When we thus looked round, and saw one opening after another closed to British industries, and that in other directions political movements were threatening our legitimate interests, as in the case of Central Asia, the Congo region, and Madagascar, we should be very foolish people if our minds were not filled with alarm and anxiety in regard to the future. Again, Commercial Treaties had not proved the harbingers of Free Trade. Our Treaty with France could only be regarded as calculated gradually to stifle three-fourths of our export trade to that country. He agreed that Treaties were needful under the present system; but he maintained that the present system was a vicious one, which, by the force of altered circumstances, had become adverse to the prosperity of this country. The negotiations, which had to be continually repeated, and which extended over considerable periods of time, were most adverse to the interests of trade and commerce, and introduced elements of uncertainty and unsettlement which stood in the way of the steady prosecution of business. A firm and defined policy of our own would be infinitely better than a Micawber-like waiting on the caprices of other nations. The present system was most unjust to the labouring classes as compared with mere consumers, because, under a system of free imports and restricted exports, the producing class were exposed to the full competition of foreign industries, while the mere consumer reaped the advantage of that competition, and bore a very small share of the local burdens. The first had the competition of the world against them; whilst the second had the competition of the world in their favour. Then, again, the extremely heavy load of taxation which fell upon land and buildings, which were the instruments of productive industry in this country, acted as a complete protection to the foreigners who brought their products, agricultural or manufactured, into our markets. We were not by any means delivered from Protection, for we thus maintained a system of Protection for the foreigner against ourselves; and it must be observed that whatever detriment arose to our industries, whether agricultural or manufacturing, in the long run must fall upon the labouring class. It might touch profits in the first place, and rents in the second; but if anything in this world was certain, its full effect must come eventually upon the labouring class, to their detriment and prejudice. The present system was also grossly unjust to the owners of property anchored to the soil in England, as compared with the owners of other property. Therefore, we saw, as a result, an increased tendency towards foreign investments, both in arable land, in manufactories, and in other industrial undertakings which competed with us to a considerable extent in our own markets. He had said that our great and growing markets were those of our own Dependencies and Colonies. India, we had recently compelled, probably against the wish of her people, to receive our manufactures, duty free. But what had we done for India in return? Had we removed those duties upon Indian productions which were hindering the development of Indian agriculture, and of those resources the unfolding of which would bring an increase of welfare and contentment to her thrifty population? No. We still, at this moment, imposed the heaviest duty on an article of food which came into this country from India, and the growth of which constituted one of the most promising of Indian industries. He spoke of tea. Had we, holding India thus passive in our hands, adequately discharged the duty of developing her resources and her means of transport, and so enabled her to supply our corn as well as receive our manufactures? He held that we committed a grave injustice to India in the distribution of these duties which, to a large extent, formed the subject of the Bill now before the House. We had not developed the resources of India as we ought to have done. At the present moment there were perhaps 10,000 miles of railway actually in work in the Indian Peninsula. What length of railway had been made by the people of the United States during the last four or five years? They had constructed almost as much in one single year as was to be found in the whole of India. What was the reason of the rapid rate of progress in the United States and the slow rate of progress in India? Why did not English capital find its way on a larger scale to India? Why, being the richest nation in the world, and in full possession and control of India, had we not developed it more completely and at an earlier period than the United States had developed her resources? We had been in possession of much cheaper money than the United States. We had an enormous commerce with India long before the manufacturing and agricultural resources of the United States were developed at all. Why was it that the United States had made that rapid and continuous progress, whilst India in our hands moved so slowly in comparison? It was even true that India's best harvests were her misfortune. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) knew that if India was in possession of a bumper harvest the price of wheat came down to a excessively low point, and the only valuable article the poor inhabitants in certain districts had for sale wherewith to purchase clothing became almost unsaleable, so that they were absolutely unable to pay their way. Was not that an unnatural condition of things, and a condition of things that ought to be remedied? Why was it that all this corn was lying unsaleable in India at a time when we were making such enormous purchases from the United States, who, instead of, like India, receiving our manufactures duty free, tried to keep them out by excessive import duties? The reason was simply this—that the Americans had adopted a plan of giving an initial impetus to the development of their resources, which we were precluded from adopting by a pedantic adherence to the principles of Free Trade, or what we deluded ourselves by choosing to call Free Trade. We had ad- hered to the name of the thing without the substance; and that had prevented the due advancement and development of our great Indian Empire. Our policy and that of the United States had had this effect—that, instead of our own Eastern Empire and our own Possessions constituting our granaries at the present moment, we went to the United States for our chief supply of food. All this had been the consequence of the adoption by the United States of a plan for stimulating the development of her agriculture, which we had altogether foregone, and the rapid growth of the agriculture of the United States, and her means of internal communication, compared with the feebler growth of agriculture and of the means of transport in India, bore witness to the fact that we had adopted an unsuccessful policy; whereas the United States had adopted a successful one. He had no doubt, whatever, that the imposition of a small differential duty upon foreign wheat, of say, 3s. or 4s. a-quarter, whilst the wheat of India was allowed to come into this country free, would give a great impetus to the construction of railways and roads in India. He said this on a very high authority, which he thought he might quote with all the more effect, because it was an authority hostile to his own views and principles. A few weeks ago, he had read with interest in The Economist newspaper an article on the Indian wheat trade, and it was there stated that the cost of transport from the interior Provinces to the sea board per quarter per mile was so much higher than it was in the United States as to constitute a real obstacle to the development of the corn-growing power of India. The remedy that was recommended by the writer of that article was the reduction of freights on the Indian railway lines; but it must be borne in mind that the condition of the two countries was by no means similar. In the United States they had great centres like Chicago, connected by two or three lines of railway with the ports of shipping; and the traffic over long distances, and on a very large scale between two definite points, was such as could be conducted at a much cheaper rate than a traffic over a network of railways like that which gathered up the different products from the interior Provinces of India. We should, therefore, not attain this end by any practicable reduction of the freights on the Indian lines; not indeed without such a reduction as would seriously check the further devotion of English capital towards the construction of railways in India. We could, perhaps, by such a sacrifice as that bring down the cost of transport to the necessary point; but we might very seriously interfere with the future construction of railways in India. What would be gained by affording a stimulus to the growth of corn in India for the English market? In the first place, the Indian cultivator would be thereby assured, of a steady and increasing market for his wheat in this country, with which he was already connected by the closest commercial ties; and, in the next place, the flow of capital into India for the next 10 or 20 years, for the construction of railways and public works, would be on so largo a scale that it would relieve, to a considerable extent, the rate of exchange. Again, they would gain a new means of remittance from India to this country, in the shape of a largo export of wheat which at that moment, either rotted in the internal Provinces, or could not be grown for the want of means of transport. If they wished to hasten the development of the resources of India, and to place her in her proper position as an integral portion of the greatest and wealthiest Empire in the world, just as completely under the control of this country as the Western States of America were under the control of the American Government—if they wished to accomplish this great work, they must for a time impose some disadvantage upon American wheat growers as compared with wheat growers in India. He was not wishful for a moment to conceal the fact that such a step, if it were the only one taken, must impose some slight burden upon the people of this country; but he hoped to show that, taken in conjunction with the rest of the policy he had to propose, it would bring no increased expense whatever upon consumers of the working class. He believed they went upon an entirely wrong system when they abolished the last remains of the differential duties on sugar, as between the produce of our own dominions and that of foreign nations. He believed that our earlier movements in the direction of Free Trade were perfectly sound and conducive to the advantage of this country; but he felt confident that we made a fatal mistake when we took away the last remains of those differential duties. But if we had entered upon a wrong course, depend upon it it was never too late to change; and if he could show that the change of which he spoke would not disturb the finances of this country, that it would impose no additional burden on the great body of the consumers of food, whilst it would have the effect of opening out, at a much more rapid rate, the resources of India and the Colonies, he thought he should have made out at least a fair case for examination by that House. He did not propose to deal in mere generalities. Those who thought as he did had been accused of finding fault with the present system, which they called one-sided Free Trade, but of proposing nothing definite in place of it. At all events, he did not intend to err that evening in that respect. He would endeavour to give a clear and definite view of the changes he advocated. He did not pretend to an exact acquaintance with every detail which had to be considered in regard to each article of import. He would, for example, be very presumptuous if he pretended to say what would be a fair and just proportion between the duties which ought to be levied on foreign raw sugar and the various classes of foreign refined sugar; but it was not necessary, for the purpose of his argument, that he should enter into details of that kind. The revenue which we at present derived from what might be called "breakfast-table articles," amounted lo about £4,850,000. The broad principle upon which he went was this. That they were to levy duties producing an equivalent amount of revenue on those articles, but that they were to alter the distribution of the duties. At the present moment the duties were so imposed as to operate greatly to the disadvantage of the productions of our own Empire as compared with those of foreign countries. Excluding altogether spirits, wines, and tobacco, which had nothing to do with the matter, and dealing with food products only, he found that, dividing our imports into two classes—taxed and untaxed—of the taxed products, 60 per cent came from foreign countries, and 40 per cent from British Possessions. Of the untaxed imports, however, 84·5 were from foreign countries, and only 15·5 from our own Possessions; so that it would be seen that of taxed imports, our Colonies sent us 40 per cent, while of untaxed imports they only sent us 15·5 per cent. Now, it appeared to him altogether unwise and unjust and impolitic, when we had a certain revenue to raise from articles of food which appeared on the tables of all classes in this country, that we should levy it in such a manner as to press with extreme severity on our own Colonies and India, and to prevent their development, whilst, on the other hand, we dealt very favourably with the United States, Russia, and other foreign countries, who crushed our manufactures out of their markets by the enormous duties they levied upon them. It was no increase of taxation that he had to propose. What he wanted was simply a re-distribution of this amount of £4,850,000, which we already raised by taxes on food. He had taken some pains to ascertain what would be the effect of such a re-distribution as he desired upon an ordinary family of factory workers in Lancashire. He had got, through the kindness of a great many heads of families of factory workers, men of considerable intelligence and observation, who had been in the habit of keeping an account of their weekly expenditure—exact details of the way in which their weekly wages were spent. He found that if they were to abolish the duties upon tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits now received from all parts of our own Empire, and to impose a very small duty upon those articles when received from foreign countries, a duty to the extent only of 1d. per lb. upon tea, and duties, amounting in no case to more than 8 or 10 per cent on the ordinary value of the article, upon coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits; and if they were to impose a duty of 10d. per cwt. upon foreign wheat, and of 1s. 3d. per cwt. upon foreign flour, but none upon wheat or flour imported from British Possessions; a duty of 1s. 8d. per cwt. on raw sugar, and 3s. 4d. per cwt. on refined sugar, from foreign countries, and none on that received from our own Possessions—the effect of these changes on the breakfast table of the working man would be so small as scarcely to be perceptible. He found that, taking an average family—and he confined himself to families in narrow circumstances, who really spent the whole of their income upon necessaries—the income was £1 11s. 8d. per week, for a family averaging six persons—the man, his wife, and four children averaging nine years of age. Of this sum of £1 11s. 8d., 15s. was spent in other ways than food, and the remaining 16s. 8d. in food. Four shillings was spent in bread, flour, and oatmeal; 5s. 9½d. in butter, eggs, milk, and cheese; 2s. 10d. in meat and fish; 1s. 2d. in sugar; 11d. in dried fruits; 10½d. in potatoes, vegetables, and fresh fruits; 8½d. in tea; and 4½d. in coffee and cocoa. He would not trouble the House by giving in detail the change which would be effected in the taxation levied upon each of these various items by the alteration he proposed; but he might say that the reduction of the duty upon tea from 6d. to 1d. per lb. and the admission of Indian tea duty free would alone almost compensate such a family for the proposed duty on foreign wheat and flour, whilst, upon the whole, he believed there would actually be a small fraction less charged in the shape of taxation on the 16s. 8d. the working man now spent weekly upon food than at the present time. And even were he to make important concessions for the sake of argument which he could not make in fact; were he to admit that duties such as he had described—of 10d. per cwt. on foreign wheat, 1s. 3d. per cwt. on foreign flour, 1s. 8d. per cwt. on raw sugar, and 3s. 4d. on refined sugar—would raise the price on Colonial and home-grown articles to exactly the same extent; and, in the next place, that there would be no increase in the proportion of Colonial produce, which would come in absolutely free as compared with that from foreign countries, which would be subject to taxation—even in that case the fractional increase of charge to such a family would not, he was confident, amount to 1d. a-week. He might just say, in passing, that he had never, in the whole of his life, been engaged in a more interesting task than the examination and analysis of the statistics which had been so kindly given to him; and he thought that no Member of the House could go through those statistics, which were in the handwriting of the men themselves, without feeling the deepest sympathy with people in that condition, on obtaining an insight into the minute economy which had to be practised in all their household arrangements. He would instance one case, and he did it in order to show the confidence which might be placed in the statistics of which he had been speaking. He would take an instance—No. 7—a husband and five children; the wife died recently, so that this poor man had to watch over his weekly expenditure with the most anxious care, and to act both as father and mother to his little family. He (Mr. Ecroyd) confessed he was unable to look through this account of weekly expenditure without being deeply touched. He saw that the man expended 1s. 5d. for education, and 3d. for books and stationery, and all the personal indulgence he allowed himself was 3d. for tobacco. He had been accused, and those who thought with him on this question had been accused, of disregarding the interests of people in this condition of life. It was his good fortune to have been brought up amongst them, and to have spent his life amongst them. He knew their daily habits, he thought, as well as any hon. Member of that House, and he should deem it an utterly unpardonable crime to put forth any proposal which would trench in the smallest degree upon their little comforts and indulgences; and if he had not believed that the policy he advocated would have an almost immediate effect in increasing the demand for the productions of their industries, and enlarging the markets for them—in making those markets more secure at present, and more certain of extension in future—he would never have devoted a single hour to this question. The result of the changes he had described would be to leave the Revenue in exactly the same condition as at present, and to leave the position of this class of consumers also the same as at present. No doubt, he might turn to other classes of society who would not reap so great an indirect advantage as the class of which he had been speaking. It was perfectly clear that the mere consumer, who was not engaged or interested in any of the industries of the country, who produced nothing, but only ate and drank and wore, or the person who derived an income from foreign property, would reap no advantage, and might indeed incur some slight disadvantage, from such a change of policy. But he (Mr. Ecroyd) held that the vital interests of the country were best promoted by maintaining the interests of the industrious producer. We were not at all concerned in making this the easiest country in the world for idle people to live in. The only other change he had to propose was that we should levy a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem on foreign manufactures imported into this country. In doing this, he would be prepared to exclude every article that could fairly be reckoned as only half-manufactured. Some people believed that what might be properly classed as foreign manufactures imported into this country amounted to some £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 sterling, per annum. He had no sympathy with these extreme and exaggerated estimates; he would not try to stretch the net too widely, and would content himself with taking articles completely manufactured, and levying a duty on them of 10 per cent. He would impose such a duty, for one reason, as a means of making a better bargain in our commercial negotiations with such countries as France. He believed if we were to put an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent on French manufactures when we next come to negotiate with France, we should have something to offer on our part, and thus there would be a prospect of increasing the future freedom of trade between that country and England. He estimated that, taking the most restricted list of completely manufactured foreign articles, a 10 per cent duty would produce a revenue of about £2,500,000, and he thought this would be the most unobjectionable and acceptable way of providing a fund for the relief of local taxation. He knew that there was in the minds of many hon. Gentlemen a sort of holy horror of Protection in any form, as a thing of which our hands were at present absolutely clean. But our hands were not clean of the principle of Protection. It had a place in our existing system, as he thought he could very easily prove. What was Protection? Protection was the artificial shielding, by law, of some class of the community from the full and natural pressure of competition, internal or external. That was what he understood by Protection. Now, the Irish Land Act was a distinctly protective law, enacted on behalf of one class in Ireland—and that not the poorest, for the labourers were excluded—and completely shielding that class from the pressure of competition in the matter of rent. The Radical Party were continually demanding the wider application of this principle, and the further limitation in various directions of the freedom of contract. He wished to point out that whatever might be the merits of such proposals, they were every one of them of the full and complete nature of Protection. He might give another notable instance of the prevalence of the principle of Protection in this country. The whole system of the Factory Acts, so far as they limited the freedom of contract in regard to hours of labour, was protective. He would give the testimony of a Member of that House, contained in a speech delivered on the 10th of February, 1847. An important debate took place upon the proposal to limit the hours of labour in factories by law, from 69 to 63; and an hon. Gentleman of great authority in that House, at the present time, said in the course of the debate—

"For his part, he regarded it as a question of as great importance as that which had been settled last year under the auspices of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel)." [He was referring to the Repeal of the Corn Laws.] "That was a question of protection; and in this case the protection was to raise wages at the expense of capital. It was precisely the same principle that was involved in both cases."

Those words were spoken by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright.) He therefore had the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman, clearly and distinctly expressed, that it was precisely the same principle that was involved in the Corn Laws, and in the limitation of freedom of contract as regarded the hours of labour. It appeared to him (Mr. Ecroyd)—and it always had appeared to him—grossly unjust to the British manufacturer, to impose this restriction upon his freedom of contract, unless they balanced it by an absolutely equivalent tax on foreign goods, the manufacture of which was in many cases practically free from such restrictions. There were some instances in which the cost of labour amounted to three-fourths of the cost of the production of manufactures; and could they call that freedom of trade which, whilst leaving the manufacturer at liberty to purchase in the lowest market his raw material, his stores, his coal, his oil, and other articles which entered into the working of the factory, still placed an absolute and protective restriction upon free competition for the sale to him of that labour which might well constitute three-fourths of the value of his production? That was a distinct act of Protection. If they were left free to fix the question of wages, but not to make the best bargain they could with regard to the length of hours of working, the cost of their production was still clearly raised by law. Now, when they had done that—he admitted for the most humane object, which he approved as strongly as any man in the Kingdom—when they had raised the cost artificially by law, was it not an act of grave injustice to allow to come into London from France, from a distance no greater than Lancashire and Yorkshire, goods produced by that more rapid wear and tear of women and children which was forbidden in this country by a wise and humane law? The fact that our policy had not been followed by our neighbours across the Channel, had made that policy no longer conducive to the best interests of the British workmen, but positively destructive of their industries. There were two alternatives in regard to this question, one of which they would at no distant period be driven to adopt. They could either take away the whole fabric of the Factory Acts, and leave the hours of labour open to free competition—if there were any hon. Member in that House who dared to propose such a course—or, if they could not do that, the second alternative was to impose upon the foreign manufactured goods, which were brought into competition with our own in this country, a duty equivalent to the increased cost of production which they had artificially imposed by law on the English manufacturer. He proposed an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent on foreign manufactures; and he thought that would fairly compensate manufacturers in this country for the disadvantage under which they were suffering. But it was said that we should thereby raise the cost of all articles of clothing to the people of this country. Now, he wanted to examine that assertion. He wanted to know, if they were to impose a duty of 20 per cent upon the calicoes imported into this country, how much they would raise the price of English shirtings in the Manchester market? And he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) would acknowledge that it would not raise the cost of those shirtings a single farthing, because the internal competition would suffice to keep it down. But there were articles of which the market price would be raised to the extent of the whole amount of duty imposed upon them. These were articles of pure luxury, such as French millinery and fashionable goods which were brought into the Metropolis and other great towns, articles not used by the working classes, by the country farmers, nor by the small shopkeepers in the country districts; they were articles used by that class of persons who did not care what they spent. He thought such articles of luxury, perhaps, formed the most legitimate objects of taxation which any Chancellor of the Exchequer could pitch upon. He believed that, by the imposition of this duty on foreign manufactures, the cost of clothing to the lower and middle classes in the country would be in no respect raised; but the cost of articles of luxury required by the upper classes would make up the £2,500,000 increased revenue. He would now speak of some of the effects which might be expected to follow from the adoption by this country of the policy which he advocated. In the first place, it would furnish a means of controlling foreign tariffs, and of insisting on our right to bargain for free exchange of manufactures; and if it did not afford us access to the markets of France and other such countries, it would al least have the effect of reserving to our own industries the manufacture of many articles which we now imported from them. In the next place, it would check, to some extent, the rapid decline of the wheat-growing industry, and the consequent depopulation of our rural districts. As a manufacturer, connected not only with the export, but the home trade, he looked with the gravest apprehension on the present condition of affairs in the agricultural districts. He had spoken with many gentlemen on the subject of the decline of our wheat-growing industry, who treated the matter very flippantly, and spoke of the change from arable to pasture and meadow land as an easy operation. But he (Mr. Ecroyd) thought these gentlemen knew little of the difficulties of that change; and, further, that they did not understand the effect which it would produce in the country. One effect would be that for every 1,000 acres of arable converted into pasture and meadow land, at least 30 families would be displaced, and that displaced population must cither emigrate or be driven into the large towns, where their presence would seriously lower the rate of wages, and add to the distress of the inhabitants. But, again, a change of this kind, which would depopulate the rural districts of the country, could not take place without producing, in the end, an injurious effect upon the stamina and physical and moral soundness of the English people; for it was well known to how large an extent the town population was strengthened by the existence of a large rural population. For these reasons, he was unable to look upon a change of this nature without very great apprehension as to its future effects. Another effect of the operation of this policy would be to divert capital and enterprize to our own Colonies and to India, instead of allowing them to flow so much as they did at present towards the United States of America, Russia, and other foreign countries. It would give India a vastly increased market for her products in England, and would equally enlarge our market for manufactures in India. Then it would provide a large fund for the relief of local taxation, which was pressing with great severity on our overborne agriculture and manufactures; and it would inspire new hope and enthusiasm amongst our manufacturing population. But it was not only on economical, but on political and social grounds that he believed its effects would be unspeakably good; and they had already had a foretaste of what those effects would be. The principles he had been endeavouring to explain and advocate had already penetrated the minds of scores of thousands of our working people; they had been discussed in their homes and workshops; and, wherever these ideas had entered, they had given to the people a more vivid impression of the extent and resources of their own Empire, and of the importance of its strength and unity to themselves. Moreover, they had inspired them with confidence in place of that despondency which had been caused by the effects of foreign tariffs in many important manufacturing districts of the country. It had taught them that the prosperity of the owners of land and other fixed property in these Islands was an inseparable accompaniment of the prosperity and growth of our industries; that if rents declined, it was because profits had begun already to decline; and that although wages might be sustained for a brief period, they must from the same cause inevitably fall. By the entrance of these convictions into their minds, thousands of working men in this country bad been delivered completely and for ever from the possibility of becoming victims to the demagogues who set class against class, and whose only idea of fiscal reform was the lowering of rent. These men were unfriendly to no class; but if they saw injustice or danger to their own interests in the position of any, it was in that of owners and mortgagees of foreign property, lands, and factories resident hero and competing severely with, our farmers and manufacturers, and consequently with their workmen, but not contributing a tenth part of their fair share towards the great national object provided for—that of local taxation, which was overweighting the farmer, the manufacturer, and the workman in his cottage. Finally, he said that the entrance of these ideas into many a working man's home had quickened and deepened the loyalty of that class to their Sovereign, and to those long-tried institutions of their country, which made her in days long past great and famous, and gave her the wide dominions she possessed. Perhaps, in doing that, it had made some of them Conservatives. Who could tell? He did not profess to say, but he rejoiced to have been able to take any part in this movement; and he trusted it would live and grow under the guidance of abler and stronger advocates than himself, not only because he believed that in its future success was bound up the prosperity, comfort, and social well-being of the people, but because he was well assured that the effect of it, so far as it had gone, had been to knit together all classes in that bond of sympathy, the absence of which in any country always constituted a great danger. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, with reference to the proposal of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Ecroyd) to levy a tax upon manufactured articles, as distinguished from partially manufactured articles, he did not think that, in practice, any such distinction could be applied; and that, even if his proposal were adopted, only a very small amount of duty could be so levied. With regard to the proposal to reimpose a duty on wheat and flour introduced into this country, he pointed out that that subject had often been discussed in the House. It had been debated at considerable length last Session, and he (Sir John Lubbock) remembered that even from hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House the suggestion had met with very little support. The propositions put forward by the hon. Member were of such a character that anyone of them would require a whole evening's discussion, and it would, therefore, be impossible to do justice to them at that hour (12.35). But there was a point in the Bill on which he should like to say a few words. If he understood it correctly, the proposal was to make a very important alteration in the mode of collection of the Income Tax, and one with reference to which scarcely any notice had been given to the country. Hitherto, it had been a vital principle in the system of collection that it should be, to a great extent, intrusted to independent officials and their agents; and that, he believed, had, on the whole, worked very much to the satisfaction of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to abolish the system, so far as concerned Schedules D and E, with reference to which the officers were, in future, to be appointed directly under the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; but to leave it in force as regarded Schedules A and B, in which the appointments were much less remunerative. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would have the effect of setting up two separate bodies of collectors, which seemed to be undesirable; and it should be born in mind that the present collectors had, in many instances, given up other occupations in order to undertake their present duties. He was not aware that the present system of collection had given rise to any dissatisfaction in the country, or that any representation had been made upon the subject to Her Majesty's Government; and, therefore, although he did not wish to express any decided opinion on the point, he ventured to hope that, on going into Committee, or upon some other occasion, the right hon. Gentleman would state to the House the reasons which had induced him to make a proposal for which at present he saw no efficient reason.

said, he wished also to give his reasons for objecting to the proposal relating to the change in the system of the collection of Income Tax. In the first place, it was of so sweeping a character that, when introduced, it should be supported by very substantial arguments. It had been mentioned in the Budget speech, but merely incidentally, as a proposed change of an administrative nature; but it was, in his opinion, one of a very serious character, involving the interests of a large class of respectable and hard-working public officers. As yet he had not been made acquainted with any economic reason for this change; and, so far as the public were concerned, he believed they were wholly without evidence that any dislike existed to the present system of Income Tax collection. The tax itself was, no doubt, objected to as obnoxious and inquisitive; and he looked with hope upon the hint given by the Prime Minister, that one day or another it might be got rid of altogether. One of the allegations, however, in favour of the present system had always been that it was collected by men who knew the people whom they lived amongst, and, being conversant with their cases, could therefore exercise great discernment and discrimination in the collection of the tax. But it seemed that that idea was about to be thrown to the winds; and they were now introduced to a new system of taxation, which on the face of it appeared decidedly objectionable. He had taken pains to inquire amongst persons in his own constituency, who contributed largely to the Income Tax, as to their views on the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. He found that no support whatever was given to it; on the contrary, the evidence he had obtained was entirely in favour of the existing system. But he objected to it from an economical point of view. He had not yet met with any reasons of an economical nature which would justify the course proposed by the Government. On the contrary, it appeared to him, judging from past experience, that the change would involve the country in a very serious augmentation of expense. With regard to the question of pensions and compensation, it appeared to him also that we should be confronted shortly not only with a very augmented expense, but with a fresh army of pensioners. Then there was another feature of the proposal, which to him was distasteful; it was the effort on the part of the Government to secure in this matter centralization. Any steps in that direction certainly did not commend themselves at first sight to him, and more sufficient reason ought to be given for the present step than had as yet been afforded. The Department seemed to be animated by a sudden ambition to acquire for itself a vast accession of power and patronage, and he did not see any reason to satisfy them. But there was another strong argument against the change. It was intended to put the collection of the tax into the hands of a number of permanent officials receiving fixed salaries. The expense of doing so would be augmented considerably by the fact that, for the convenience of the new staff, new offices, and new appurtenances of every kind would have to be provided; and by the fact also, that pensions would have to be granted to the officers when their term of duty had expired. At present, a per centage was only paid on the collection, so that the cost fluctuated with the amount realized, and they received no pensions. He should move an Amendment upon the point in Committee on the Bill; and he thought he should be able to show that the cost of collection by the present collectors was very much smaller than it would be under the system now proposed. He should not trouble the House with any further details on the subject, but reserve them until the Bill reached Committee.

said, the question of the collection of the Income Tax had been brought prominently under his notice by people at Birmingham, and in the populous district he represented; and he could assure the hon. Member for the City of Manchester (Mr. Slagg) that when his Amondment came forward, he (Mr. Newdegate) should be very happy to support it. The change was objectionable upon all the grounds stated by the hon. Gentleman. The House, however, was losing sight of the Amendment which was really before them—namely, that proposed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). Without delaying the House unnecessarily, he (Mr. Newdegate) wished to say that he agreed in the substance of that Amendment. But he agreed also with the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that the Amendment contained matter which deserved much more attention than it was likely to receive from the House at the present moment. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered the time when even to venture to look at the sources of Revenue in the sense in which the hon. Member for Preston had treated them, or to venture to mention the commercial connections of the Empire as worth preserving, was treated as an indication of mental blindness. He remembered, too, that when he supported the "Ten Hours Bill" he was resisted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright); and he remembered the speech—the eloquent but violent speech—in which that right hon. Gentleman resisted that which he called a Protectionist measure. He had since heard the right hon. Gentleman retract the expressions he used in his opposition to the "Ten Hours Bill." Nay, more than this, he had seen a Member of the present Government carry the system of protecting juvenile labour further than it was carried in 1847. He (Mr. Newdegate) was asked to propose to the House the "Nine Hours Bill;" but he replied that he dare not in the face of the bigotry by which the then novel system of modern economy was assailed. It had since been carried by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he (Mr. Newdegate) rejoiced that it had been adopted. He voted silently with the right hon. Gentleman when he carried the protective measure further than he (Mr. Newdegate) dared to propose. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) was before his time. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered being told, in 1847, that 40 years must elapse before the commercial policy of the country would be reconsidered. There were only three years to expire before the 40 would have expired; and, if he was not blind to the signs of the times, this question of Fair Trade, of Reciprocity, of Moderate Import Duties would shortly have to be considered. If this nation did not pay in manufactures, or in produce of some kind, they must pay in gold; and in proportion as the production of gold diminished, they would find the pressure increase. As he said before, however, it was idle to press upon the House at present the reconsideration of a system which was founded on the bigoted and one-sided view of international exchange which had been carefully fostered for years. Too many of the population had been deceived into believing that it had been from the commercial measures of 1846, 1847, and 1860 only, that they had derived prosperity, no allowance whatever having been made for the increase of the circulating medium of the world, which had been caused by the discoveries of gold.

said, the debate, which had been proceeding for some little time, might be divided into two parts. The larger question was raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), and the smaller one by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would deal with the smaller point first. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of London said that in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill there were certain provisions respecting the collection of Income Tax under Schedules D and E to which he took exception, and he and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had said the changes proposed in the Bill were not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Manchester said the Government recommended very sweeping changes, and wished to get in their hand vast power and patronage. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would state to the House, in a very few sentences, what it was the Government proposed to do. At present, in Scotland and in Ireland, and in some districts of England, the Income Tax under Schedules U and E was collected by public officers on a very economical system. Under an old Act, the collection in some places, not of the Income Tax, but of the Laud Tax and other taxes, had been made, not by public officers, but by persons who were merely collectors of taxes. The Income Tax under Schedules D and E had been collected by tradespeople—tailors, hairdressers, auctioneers, grocers, stationers, brushmakers, and the like—who were appointed by the Local Commissioners. These people had collected the tax from their brother tradespeople; and he was bound to say that, as far as the Revenue was concerned, the tax had by no moans been collected as expeditiously as it ought to have been. It was also held to be objectionable that one tradesman should know the income of his neighbours; and he had received, during the time that had elapsed since the change was proposed, many very strong and urgent requests that the reform would be carried out, simply because it was obnoxious to men of business that their rivals in business should know what their income was. It must be borne in mind that the Bill provided that no change in the mode of collection should be made, unless in each individual case the Treasury was satisfied it would result in economy. He believed the proposed change would lead to economy. He would not, however, say more about the matter at the present moment, because when his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) moved the rejection of the clause in Committee, he should have a good deal more to say, and he should be able to show the House how entirely justified the late Government were in their proposal on this head. He must now pass to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). He listened with great attention to every word the hon. Gentleman said, and he must say there was a great deal in the speech of the hon. Gentleman which appeared to him to be of much interest to the House. The most interesting part of the statement of the hon. Gentleman, if the hon. Gentleman would allow him to say so, was the detail which he had collected as to the expenditure of the working classes upon dress, food, and other necessaries of life, and upon amusement. The House ought to be extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having devoted so much time and attention to a matter which was of so much interest to them. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted, however, that, so far as his proposal was concerned, the inquiries he had made had no particular bearing; that the changes he proposed would only result in a fractional advantage to the class about whom he had made the inquiries.

said, his remarks went to show that, according to the best information he had been able to obtain, the alterations he proposed in the mode of raising revenue, would only affect their expenditure in quite a fractional degree.

said, that was exactly what he stated. The hon. Gentleman said, for he took his words down, that whatever effect his proposal might have on other charges, the effect would be extremely small—the precise words were "the advantage would be fractional"—in regard to the expenditure of the working classes concerning which he gave such very interesting details. The question raised by the hon. Member, of course, had a very much wider bearing than the mere result upon the expendidure of the particular class of people he referred to. The object of the hon. Member was perfectly plain. Parliament was engaged between 1842 and 1866 in an entire reversal of the former systems which were known either as the Commercial, or as the Colonial, or as the Protectionist systems, and in a substitu- tion for those systems of taxation of what was called Free Trade. The hon. Member's proposal, practically, was to return to those systems. The hon. Member had stated his objections to what was commonly understood as Free Trade; he had given his reasons for giving advantages to the Colonies, by means of differential duties, and he had given his reasons for wishing to enforce Reciprocity with respect to foreign produce. He had explained his reasons with great clearness; and no one could mistake his object, which was simply to go back from all that had been done in getting rid of the old commercial or Colonial system to a system of Reciprocity or Protection. He proposed, in a mitigated degree, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted—not nearly to the extent to which those systems were formerly carried out—to land the country once more in the difficulties of those systems. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think anyone would expect him to discuss the abstract question of Free Trade. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he firmly believed the great majority of the House would not feel prepared to reverse the policy which had now been pursued with great success for a quarter of a century. But there were one or two points in the hon. Gentleman's speech to which he thought he ought to refer. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great vigour as to the prospects of India, should Free Trade, so far as that country was concerned, be reversed, and Indian trade with us encouraged. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought the fact as to India would show that during the last few years trade there had been by no means stationary. On the contrary, under the system of Free Trade, India had advanced with rapid strides, particularly during the last 10 or 12 years. The hon. Member wished to protect Indian tea, by putting a differential duty on China tea; and perhaps he did not know that the export of tea from India since 1872 had increased threefold. Probably, also, the hon. Member was not aware that under the Free Trade system the exportation of wheat had increased during the period he mentioned tenfold, the exports of seeds twofold, and that, in other respects, the export trade had doubled, and even trebled. It was, therefore, the fact that under Free Trade England was most flourishing as to her exports. There was no stagnation in trade so far as Indian produce was concerned; therefore the hon. Member's statement was entirely unfounded, as the figures he had quoted showed. But that was not the question they were discussing now, and he would come to the hon. Member's proposal, rather than dilate upon the grounds upon which he had based it. The hon. Member, first of all, proposed in his Amendment that this country should give up all Commercial Treaties. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was surprised to read those words. He had taken down the hon. Gentleman's proposal afterwards from his speech; and it seemed that he wished to enforce a new plan of taxing the exports coming to us from foreign countries in order that we might be able to make Commercial Treaties with those countries. It was hard to see, therefore, how, when Commercial Treaties were abolished, the hon. Member's object could be carried out in taxing manufactures in such a way that Commercial Treaties might be entered into with foreign countries. Then the hon. Member proposed that there should be no duty on tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits, and that British wheat, flour, and sugar should be protected by a 10 per cent duty upon the like articles coming from foreign countries. The hon. Member had not used a single figure to justify his conclusion that the change he proposed would produce a Revenue equal to the present.

said, that he had spared the House a great array of figures in consequence of the lateness of the hour. He should be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman statistics which he held in his hand fully justifying this assertion, if he desired to have them.

said, that when an hon. Member spoke for an hour and a quarter on a subject of that kind, it was a singular thing that the very figures he should leave out were those of the first importance. The hon. Member made this proposal as an Amendment to the Budget Bill; and he asked them to accept, in lieu of the present duty on tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits, Free Trade with our own Possessions, and increased imposts upon the produce of foreign countries. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it would be impossible to produce the duty, raised under the existing rates, by the process alluded to, let the articles come from wherever they might. The first necessity was that the hon. Member should show that there would be no reduction of Revenue by following out his plan. He had failed altogether to make out that point in his speech, which was very full of detail upon other matters. Then the hon. Member proposed—after suggesting that they should abolish Commercial Treaties—that they should have a series of Treaties with all countries who were willing to admit our manufactures free; the conditions of those Treaties being that we should also receive their goods free. Well, he would point out to the hon. Member that his proposal would bring about a very curious anomaly. The hon. Member said that all articles coming from the Colonies were to be froe. There were many of the Colonies where the tariffs were based upon Protectionist principles, where the duties were as high as those in any foreign country—where, in fact, they were from 25 even up to 30 per cent of the value of the goods. There were some foreign countries whore the tariffs were very much lower at the present time than they were in some of the Colonies; and the hon. Member proposed, as a weapon to induce foreign countries to admit our manufactures free, that we should put a duty upon their produce, whilst he would not use any force at all against the Colonies. Surely, if that principle was to be applied at all, it should be equally applied in all quarters. If we were to endeavour to bring about a system under which other countries would accept our manufactures free, we undertaking to accept theirs free, surely our Colonies, with whom our relations were much more easy than they were with foreign countries, should be put in the same category. Yet the hon. Member, in spite of the fact that the Colonies might be Protectionists, proposed to give them a great boon and advantage over other countries. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) pointed to that as an illustration of the inconsistency of the hon. Member's proposal. It was not the only objection to the hon. Member's Motion. He would refer to another. He objected to that plan, as did all hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, because they were attached to Free Trade, and did not believe it right to go back to Protection, Reciprocity, Colonial, or any other system of that sort. Under the system of Free Trade this country had become the greatest exporting country in the world; and they believed that the adoption of Protection, in order to increase our exports to a certain extent, would have precisely the opposite effect. Believing thoroughly as they did in Free Trade, he hoped the hon. Member would excuse him if he did not discuss the abstract question at great length. He trusted the House would reject the proposal.

said, he regretted that this discussion had not taken place at an earlier hour, when more justice could have been done to the able and admirable speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). So far as he could gather from the speech of the hon. Baronet who sat on the other side of the House (Sir John Lubbock), and from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Childers), neither of them had been able, or if they had been able they had not attempted, to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston in any detail. That fact in itself, together with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that the hon. Member's speech was interesting in the highest degree, and especially in regard to some details to which the right hon. Gentleman particularly alluded, showed that the speech was one that, to do justice to which, under ordinary circumstances, at such an hour as that, they should have an adjournment of the debate. He (Mr. Chaplin) thought it was a most important subject to discuss—indeed, it had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that was the case. They had endeavoured, on more than one occasion, to press the Motion on at an inconvenient hour of the night, and it had been left over until tonight, in order that it might be taken at an hour when it could be discussed. There had not been, however, a full opportunity to debate the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had taken some exceptions to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, because he had omitted some details; and the hon. Member had explained that the reason he had done so was, that the hour was too late for him to give the House all the special particulars as to the mode in which he proposed that the Revenue, which would be lost in the changes he suggested, could be made up to the Exchequer. He (Mr. Chaplin) thought he could supply the deficiency on the part of the hon. Member. The hon. Member, so far as could be gathered from his speech, proposed to abolish certain duties, which would result in a loss of something over £4,000,000 to the Revenue. That might be supplied by levying a duty of 1s. 8d. per cwt. on foreign unrefined sugar, which would produce £1,165,000, by levying 3s. 4d. per cwt. on refined sugar from foreign countries, which would produce £439,000, by a duty of 10d. per cwt. on foreign wheat. [Ironical cheering from the Ministerial Benches.] He could quite understand that cheer from hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side of the House, and he should be ready to reply to it in due time; he should be ready to submit why he, for one, was perfectly prepared to support such a Motion as that. Well, 10d. per cwt. on foreign wheat would produce £1,853,000; and, in addition to that, 5d. per cwt. on foreign barley would bring in £670,000, making £4,130,000. The duty on dried fruit, &c. would realize £820,000, makinginallnearly£5,000,000 sterling, which would be more than a substitute for the reduction which the hon. Member proposed to bring about. As a Member representing an agricultural constituency, he (Mr. Chaplin) received, with great satisfaction, a Motion of that kind, coming from an hon. Member representing an urban constituency. He had long entertained the opinion that agriculture was in an extremely critical position; and he was one of those who believed that the prosperity of our commerce and our trade depended to an enormous degree upon the prosperity of agriculture, and that it would be hopeless to expect agriculture really to prosper unless it were possible to grow corn at a profit. That being his view, when it was proposed by a Representative of the working classes of the country—by a Gentleman coming from a large urban constituency—that that change should be made, he welcomed the suggestion most heartily. He doubted whether any hon. Member sitting on that (the Conservative) side of the House was better able to judge of the interests of the working classes than the hon. Member for Preston; and he supposed that no one had devoted more thought and more care to the collection of details on the subject than that hon. Member. When he (Mr. Chaplin) met a proposal of that kind, it clearly became his duty, and also the duty of hon. Members who were placed in a similar position, to give all the support in their power to it. He did not know what course the hon. Member proposed to pursue with regard to his Amendment. He did not know whether it would be desirable, at such an hour of the night, when the supporters of the policy advocated in it were not numerous, and the Conservative side of the House was thinly attended, to take a division, as it would give a false impression in the country. He did not know whether the hon. Member meant to go to a division or not; but, if he did, he (Mr. Chaplin), for one, should certainly go into the Lobby with him.

said, that if to vote for the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill meant the expression of an opinion that it should pass in its present shape, he should be unable to vote for it, for the reason, as explained by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), that a portion of the Bill differed from its general tenour, and was most objectionable. It was intended to make a most serious change in the collection of taxation. The administration of the Income Tax was full of imperfections and inequalities, which were avowedly the result of its hasty imposition for a limited period, and the language of the Act might be interpreted as claiming a right to tax every imaginable kind of property. The Act referred not only to property and incomes in that country, but to property in other countries, where manufactures were carried on under the encouragement and protection of other Governments, who taxed the profits with their own Income Tax, and with all the charges legally leviable. Such incongruities as those were most grotesque; and, knowing the exceeding hardship that would ensue from the literal application of the stringent clauses of the Act, the original compilers of the measure took care that there should be between the Inland Revenue Department and the taxpayer an administrative body, partly unofficial Commissioners, partly collectors of their appointment, who should mitigate, in some degree, the inequalities of the Act, and the hardships attendant upon the collection of the tax by purely official collectors. It was through this unofficial administration that the Act had hitherto been applied with far less friction and difficulty than might have attended it. He (Mr. Hubbard) must protest against that mitigation being removed before the Act itself was subjected to the adjustment which was so desirable. When the Act was reformed its administration might be left to the officials of the Inland Revenue; but, until it was reformed, he must object to the proposed alteration, which would do away with all the mitigating circumstances of the collection.

I only desire to say a few words with regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, at this hour of the night, and under these circumstances, it is impossible to discuss such a proposal as this in all its bearings; and I think my hon. Friend himself will feel that it is quite out of the question for us to give it anything like a serious consideration to-night. But he is at liberty—and I am extremely glad that he is—to state at full length the plan which he himself wishes to adopt. He has, for a considerable time, paid great attention to this question. I cannot say that I myself altogether share his views; but I greatly respect the energy and intelligence with which he has studied the question, and I am quite prepared to admit that the proposals he has made are of an ingenious character, and so arranged as to afford ground for discussion and examination; but that discussion and examination it is quite impossible for us to give to-night. As I understand my hon. Friend's argument, he proposes to us to refer to the effect of these changes on the expenditure of the working men, and also to that argument which he has only given shortly, but which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has given more fully, with regard to their effect on the Revenue. His object, as I understand, was to show that if, according to his proposal and theory, import duties were imposed to the extent he contemplates, they would not bear heavily on the working men; but, on the contrary, would leave them in the same position—or, if anything, in a better position—as regards the actual taxation on the articles taxed at this moment. According to his theory, the working men, not being damnified by the imposition of the duties, are to be benefited by an increase of work and employment which, he contemplates, would result from his system. And so with regard to the Revenue. All that he considered he was bound to do was to make out a primâ facie case that this change of taxation would not injure, but rather advantage, the Revenue; but, of course, it is impossible for any private Member to enter into any such matters with any confidence or certainty, without having the advantage of consulting those who are exports and officially connected with the management of these Departments. Then my hon. Friend has made an important and ingenious proposal for the development of a sort of Zollveroin between England and her Colonies; but his proposal is not complete, because he does not provide for securing the admission into the Colonial markets of English goods on corresponding terms with those upon which Colonial goods are to be admitted into the English market. That is a matter which I think my hon. Friend will see requires careful consideration. There are other points, upon which I cannot enter at the present moment; but which, in the same way, require much fuller development and examination than we could give to-night. I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a division. He has had an opportunity of making his statement. He has made his statement carefully, and in an interesting manner, and I recognize the spirit of his proposal; but I am unable to agree with the proposal, and I hope he will not think it advisable to bring about a division on the subject.

said, he was satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and he had never been so presumptuous as to expect to obtain a majority on this question. He was fully aware of the disadvantage under which any private Member must lie, in such a case, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) had pointed out; and he should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.