vantage of the United Kingdom. The the vote of this evening will show to the right hon. Gentleman the other night, with Government that the scheme which he a mixture of pompousness and sometimes says-but which I certainly was not aware of servility talked at large of the interviews had been shadowed forth at an earlier which he had had with his Sovereign. I part of the Session for the endowment of venture to say that a Minister who deceives the Roman Catholic Church will find no his Sovereign is as guilty as the conspira- favour in the] House. ["Oh!"] Well, tor who would dethrone her. [“ Oh !"] I think the House will recollect what was I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman the decision at which the Committee has with deceiving his Sovereign; but if he just arrived, and how the hon. Member for has not changed the opinion which he held Birmingham voted upon it. The Amendtwenty-five years ago, and which he has ment moved by my hon. Friend the Memsaid in the main was right, then I fear that ber for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene) he has not stated all that it was his duty was a Motion which would, as far as any to state in the interviews which he had Resolution of this House could do, put it with his Sovereign. Let me tell hon. out of the power of the Members who took Gentleman opposite, and the right hon. part in it to vote any portion of the funds Gentleman in particular, that any man in of the Irish Church to the sustentation of this country who puts the Sovereign in the any other religious communion. How did front of a great struggle like this into the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birwhich it may be we are about to enter-mingham vote on that occasion? He voted who points to the Irish people, and says from the floor of this House "Your Queen holds the flag under which we, the enemies of religious equality and justice to Ireland, are marshalled "--I say that the Minister who does that is guilty of a very high crime and a great misdemeanour against his Sovereign and against his country. And there is no honour, and there is no reputation, there is no glory, there is no future name that any Minister can gain by conduct like this that will acquit him to posterity of one of the most grievous offences against his country which a Prime Minister can possibly commit. LORD JOHN MANNERS: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) is in the habit of praising his own patriotism, his own virtue, and self-denial; but, Sir, I think that when the hon. Gentleman relieves his mind with reference to those virtues which he thinks he possesses, he might have allowed to others some portion of those virtues which he ascribes to himself. And when the hon. Gentleman interprets, or rather misinterprets, the language in which the Prime Minister communicated to the House his interviews with the Sovereign, I, for one, cannot forbear to remind this Committee that the time at which those observations ought to have been made has long since passed. It is obvious that the observations with which we have just been favoured by the hon. Member for Birmingham were carefully prepared to suit that occasion, and had no relevancy to the occasion on which they were made. Sir, the hon. Gentleman says that the discussion and against the Amendment, and therefore he voted in favour of reserving to himself the power to vote hereafter any portion of the funds of the Irish Church to the sustentation of the Roman Catholic Church. ["Oh!"] That is the absolute fact of the matter; and, inviting public attention to that fact, I leave the issue with the greatest confidence in the hands of the House and the country. MR. GLADSTONE: I am extremely sorry, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has thought fit to provoke this discussion. We have been busied to-night upon practical matters; and, although towards the close of the evening we came upon subjects necessarily exciting some feeling, yet it was much to have been desired that we should have kept off the ground of mere party recrimination; and, undoubtedly, it is unfortunate that those who continually reproach us-a reproach which we, the majority, have, I think, borne with some patience with having no motive in this great cause excepting that of our own party advancement, could not suffer the formal Motion, Sir, which I submitted to you to pass without using language in regard to the votes arrived at deliberately by a great majority of this House, of which I will not say whether it is respectful or not to the House, but I will say that I never heard such language used by a Prime Minister. And then, Sir, after my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had felt himself unable to forego a protest against that language, the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners) rises in his place and confesses now we shall see the dispassionate imparto an innocent forgetfulness of the plans tiality of the noble Lord. We have passed which the Government shadowed forth for a vote with regard to the Established concurrent endowment in Ireland. The Church which excluded the word "disnoble Lord knows nothing of them, he endow," because we have reserved to ournever even heard of them; they were never selves the power to deal liberally on every mentioned, I suppose, in the Cabinet; and question of construction and interpretation that compels me to refresh his memory as far as the Established Church is conwith the words which have not perhaps cerned. And then the noble Lord, having been supplied to him by the noble Earl obtained from us our solemn pledge for (the Earl of Mayo) who sits next to him. that liberal mode of dealing in regard to I suppose the noble Lord knew nothing of the Established Church, endeavoured to the intentions of the Government at the obtain from us a vote by which, for every time, when that noble Earl rose in his other body, the strictest and most iron applace and on behalf of the noble Lord and plication of this most rigorous rule should in the name of the noble Lord no less than be secured, so that he should still be able in that of any other Member of the Ca- in some form or other to maintain in Irebinet, not in declaring his own opinion, land his beloved religious inequality. And not in dealing merely with the affairs of that was the system and method of prohis own Department, but in redeeming a ceeding against which my hon. Friend the formal pledge given in both Houses of Par- Member for Birmingham, with the courage liament that he (the Earl of Mayo), should of an Englishman, recorded his fair and declare the unanimous judgment and opi- manly vote. nion of the Cabinet, used these words, of which the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works has not, forsooth, the slightest idea "There would not, I believe, be any objection to make all Churches equal; but this result must be secured by elevation, and not by confiscation." And, Sir, upon this occasion I enjoy a rare advantage; for it is not often permitted to a humble Member of the Opposition to enlighten a Cabinet Minister as to the intentions of his own Colleagues, which have been declared in his name and in his hearing. So much, Sir, for that part of the noble Lord's speech. And now I come to his truly candid representation of the vote at which we have just arrived; and I think I shall contrive to put upon it a colour different from that which the noble Lord has attached to it. We have just voted, Sir, that we would not add, to a proposal that was before the House, words which forbade us to give any portion of any money that might be realized from the property of the Church in Ireland to any institution connected with any religious communion whatever. That is to say that, if there were a school in Ireland under the patronage and guidance of a particular religious community, to that school-and I believe even its mere connection with a religious communion, even if it did not teach their tenets, would have been enough to bring it under the prohibition-to that school we should be forbidden to vote a single shilling. But what would have been the case of the Established Church? And MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says that he heard from me language which had never before been used by a Prime Minister. Well, Sir, what was that language? I said — as a summary of the debate, the materials of which must be familiar to almost all now present-that when the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman were reported, it was my opinion that, from what had occurred to-night, we might judge what clements of confusion had been introduced into our proceedings. I will only say this, that if that be language which, under the circumstances, has never been used by a Prime Minister, a Prime Minister has never used for the occasion appropriate and sensible language. If anyone had been present at these debates, and had heard the various propositions that were made in consequence of the passing of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolutions, so contrary to one another, so considerable in their operation and in their influence, and indicating the opinion of various sections of this House, representing, I have no doubt faithfully, the opinion of large portions of the population of this country-I say, if anyone had been present, and had heard those propositions, and would not admit that they indicated the confusion of the public mind, in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, he would refrain from making an admission which I am sure every frank and candid nature would willingly allow. More than this, I say that what has occurred to night is an Church. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not believe they had any such intention. This, however, was now clear: the right hon. Member for South Lancashire himself proposed to take the property of the Protestant Church, and to give it to the Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene), because he might wish to apply part of the property of the Irish Church to denominational schools. There were schools in Ireland belonging to monastic and conventual establishments connected with the Church of Rome. It was probably for the purpose of endowing these Popish schools or establishments that the right hon. Gentleman sought to rob the Church of Ireland. House resumed. indication of still further confusion on the subject; and I cannot doubt that long before we can arrive at anything like a settlement of this question, we shall have among the propositions made in this House and made from different sides of the House some that will much affect the present discipline and disposition of parties, because they will more faithfully reflect the conscience and the convictions of the country. Sir, I shall not condescend to notice at length the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He says that when it was my duty to make a communication to the House, of the greatest importance, and which I certainly wished to make as I hope I did make it-in a manner not unbecoming the occasion-I was at once" pompous and servile." Well, Sir, if it suits the heat of party acrimony to impute such qualities to me, any Gentleman may do so; but I am in the memory and in the feeling of Gentlemen on both sides of the House-and fortunately there are Gentlemen on both sides of this House-they will judge of the accuracy of this representation of my conduct. It is to their feeling and to their sentiment on both sides of the House that I must appeal; and no words of mine, if the charge be true, can vindicate me. The hon. Gentleman says that he willmake no charge hon. and gallant Gentleman that the ResoMR. SPEAKER begged to remind the against me-and then he makes insinua-lutions had not yet been reported to him. tions which, if he believes, he ought to bring forth boldly as charges. I defy the hon. Member for Birmingham, notwithstanding his stale invective, to come down to this House and substantiate any charge of the kind which he has presumed only to insinuate. Let him prefer those charges; I will meet him; and I will appeal to the verdict only of Gentlemen who sit on the same side of the House as himself. MR. NEWDEGATE said, that he should not notice the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), nor the personalities which had been bandied about between the leading Members of the House. He desired to recall the attention of the Committee to the main issue-to the discovery of that night. From the statement last made by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), it was clear that, in his opinion, the difference between the two parties was this the right hon. Member for South Lancashire declared that Her Majesty's Government intended to endow the Roman Catholic Church and other denominations in Ireland, but not out of the property of the Irish COLONEL STUART KNOX rose, and asked Mr. Speaker whether, the last Resolution, as it stood, was within the scope of the Order of Reference which had been given to the Committee, the Resolution tablished Church? He put the question referring to other things besides the Esbecause the Chairman seemed to have some doubt on the point. the Resolutions, and the first three were THE CHAIRMAN then brought up agreed to without comment. On Question, "That the fourth and last Resolution be agreed to,' COLONEL STUART KNOX again appealed to the Speaker to say whether it came within the Order of Reference. MR. SPEAKER replied, that the Chairman of Committees was the proper judge of those matters which came under his notice while in Committee. He could not interfere with the decision of the Chairman at the suggestion of an individual Member. To authorize him to do so the Question must be brought before him by direction of the House. COLONEL STUART KNOX begged to move that the Question be raised, and that the Chairman be requested to state his opinion. ["No, no!"] Resolutions reported ; 1. "That it is necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an perty." of a Reform Bill for Ireland; but beyond that they were not inclined to go. The Bill was divided into two heads, that of the franchise, and that of the re-distribution of seats. As to the borough franchise, he admitted that there was much to be said in favour of the course that Govern Establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests and to all individual rights of pro2. "That, subject to the foregoing considera. tions, it is expedient to prevent the creation of new personal interests by the exercise of any public patronage, and to confine the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland to objects of immediate necessity, or such as involve individual rights, pending the final decision of Parliament had taken in availing themselves of ment." 3. "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to pray that, with a view to preventing, by legislation during the present Session, the creation of new personal interests through the exercise of any public patronage, Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament, Her interest in the temporalities of the Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices in Ireland, and in the custody thereof." 4. "That when legislative effect shall have been given to the First Resolution of this Committee, respecting the Established Church of Ireland, it is right and necessary that the Grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum be discontinued, due regard being had to all personal interests." Resolutions agreed to. Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to pray that, with a view to preventing, by legislation during the present Session, the creation of new personal interests through the exercise of any public patronage, Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament, Her interest in the temporalities of the Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices in Ireland, and in the custody thereof.-(Mr. Gladstone.) To be presented by Privy Councillors. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.-[BILL 71.] (The Earl of Mayo, Mr. Disraeli, The Attorney General for Ireland.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(The Earl of Mayo.) MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that he rose on his own part, and on the part of those who sat near him, to say that they had no intention of opposing the second reading of this Bill. At the same time, he wished to say that, in the opinion of most of those who sat on that side of the House, there were many important points in the Bill upon which it would be their duty in Committee to raise some serious discussions and propose some important changes. In fact, they took the Bill on its second reading as the foundation the line drawn by the existing law of rating under the Poor Law system, and fixing the franchise at a £4 rating. He must, however, say that he thought that it would be impossible to maintain the county franchise at the figure at which it at present stood-namely, £12. He admitted that when, in 1866, he himself introduced a Reform Bill for Ireland he did not propose to lower the county franchise; but the state of things had since then materially altered. After the great reduction which had been effected in the county franchise in England, and when it was proposed to reduce it in Scotland, it would be very difficult to persuade the people of Ireland to be satisfied with a Franchise Bill that left the county franchise at its present rate; while the reduction of the borough franchise would add but a very small numSo long ber to the total of the electors. as eighteen years ago, an £8 franchise was proposed for Irish counties by Earl Russell; and therefore it was hardly possible that now a £12 franchise would be agreed to. He did not believe that a lower franchise would produce a very different constituency; but, at all events, it would be a more extended and more popular franchise. As to the proposed re-distribution of seats, there was scarcely anything in that portion of the Bill to which he could give assent; and to the greater part of the proposals, he thought that there were most serious objections. It was quite true that the towns of Ireland were comparatively small in number of population, and were inferior in valuation to the counties; but he held this to be a sound principle for an Irish Reform Bill, that the transfer from the borough representation to the county representation should be confined within the smallest possible limits. The county representation of Ireland, however respectable and important, was of an extremely uniform and monotonous character; for the constituency consisted almost exclusively of landlords and tenants. On the other hand, the boroughs, though somewhat insignificant when compared with the great towns of England and Scotland, were important as centres of representation, equally dissatisfied with the Scotch measure. As regarded this Bill, it was a matter of perfect indifference whether the dissolution of Parliament took place before or after the passing of the Bill, for many of the Irish Members believe that a new Parliament would give Ireland a better Bill. It was remarkable that in this Reform Bill there was no reference to the county franchise. It was not even alluded to in the Bill. Was it to be borne that the English county franchise was to be increased by 170,000, and that not a single vote was to be added to the Irish county constituency; and that only 9,000 votes were to be added to the Irish borough constituency, when the English borough constituency was to be increased to the extent of 400,000 ? He believed that, if the Bill were thrown out altogether the House would be able to pass a really good measure with as much expedition as would enable them to pass this; but he would not make the Motion of which he had given Notice, but would rather ascertain the views of those who sat with and were the only means by which various | given by his hon. Friends from Scotland, interests could find representation in the in regard to the Scotch Bill, they were House. Further, as Irish prosperity developed itself and Ireland ceased to be an exclusively agricultural country, the importance of the towns would every year increase. He objected to the proposed re-distribution, because it was not founded upon any distinct rule or governed by any standard of population, of electors or of property; and not being founded upon any rule, the scheme would require justification in every particular instance. He held that if small Irish boroughs were to be disfranchised, the system should have been the one which had uniformly been adopted in former Bills, that of taking the boroughs smallest in population; but the Government had passed over some of the smallest boroughs, and had extinguished boroughs that had a far stronger claim for representation. He thought that there was a great deal to be said in favour of a system of grouping as applied to Irish borougbs. He further objected to the proposition to transfer the borough Members to counties; and it was, at all events, a new thing to divide a county into two unequal parts, and say that two-him upon the Opposition Benches. thirds of the county should return two Members, and that the other third part should be formed into a separate electoral district to return one Member to Parliament. Whilst they had not thought it right in the case of counties to give a third Member to the whole constituency, yet they did in this way give the third Member to the city of Dublin. These were the principal points which, so far as he knew, it would be their duty to raise in Committee. COLONEL FRENCH, who had given Notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months, said, that he thought that it was hardly in accordance with the rules of Parliamentary courtesy for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fortescue) to state his own opinions at that time, when he (Colonel French) had a distinct Notice in opposition to the Bill upon the Paper. The Government stated that one of the principal reasons for continuing in Office was their desire to carry out Reform Bills for Ireland and Scotland. So far as he and those who acted with him were concerned, the Government need not burden themselves with such an Office, for there was not a single portion of the Irish Bill with which they were content. The Bill was objectionable from the beginning to the end, and, judging from the numerous Notices MR. REARDEN, who had a Motion upon the Paper declaring that it was expedient that an Irish Reform Bill should provide for resident manhood suffrage and vote by ballot; that no borough should be disfranchised; and that the representation of Ireland should be placed on an equality with that of England and Wales-namely, one Member for every 40,000 of population said, he would not offer any obstruction to the second reading of the Bill by moving that Amendment; but would reserve to himself the right of moving Amendments in Committee. At the same time, he thought Ireland was not receiving equal justice with England in her representation; and he should be able to prove in Committee that, from her population, her imports and exports, and her revenue Ireland was entitled to 169 Members if she were put on a footing of equality with England and Wales in regard to her representation. MR. PEEL DAWSON expressed his disappointment that, in the portion of the Bill relating to re-distribution of seats, justice had not been done to the claims of the province of Ulster, whether on the score of numbers, assessment of property, or of the visible signs of progress and industry. The Census of 1861 showed that, out of the total population of Ireland, amounting to 5,790,000, the population of |