tary for War for an Answer to the Question he had just put to him; or perhaps he had better ask Mr. Speaker under what circumstances the arrangement had been agreed to? MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has called this proceeding irregular and unprecedented; but I have to inform him that there are very many precedents for the course that has been adopted, and therefore it cannot be irregular. There are some occasions when public convenience is promoted by the House permitting Bills of this sort to be read on their third stage at an early hour of the evening, and in accordance with many precedents that course has been taken in the present instance, under an Order made by the House last night. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Standing Orders of the House have been suspended in order to permit this Bill to be read a third time: but I am sure that, with his knowledge of the forms of the House, he must be aware that there are no Standing Orders on the subject to suspend. It is for the House-if it thinks that it will conduce to public convenience and promote Public Business-to make an Order of this kind; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House if they ever knew any inconvenience arise from the adoption of the course that has been taken in the present instance with regard to these Bills. This is no question of interference with the rights of private Members. Had it not been for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, the two Bills would probably have been disposed of by this time. My Answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman is, that the course taken with regard to these Bills is quite in conformity with precedent, and only for the promotion of the despatch of Public Business. Bill read the third time, and passed. MARINE MUTINY BILL. (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Corry, Lord Henry Lennox.) CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING, Order for Consideration, as amended, read. MR. BOUVERIE said, of course he had no desire to question the accuracy of so high an authority as Mr. Speaker upon the point to which he had just referred or to enter into any controversy with him; but he should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War his reason for taking these Bills out of the ordinary course. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he had no difficulty in replying to the Question of the hon. Member. In consequence of these Bills having been brought forward at a later period than usual, it became necessary to send them up to the other House of Parliament as soon as possible. It having been intimated to him last night that there would be nothing irregular in reading the Bills a third time at an early hour, he had adopted that course with the sanction of the House. MR. OTWAY said, he wished to say one word with reference to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He had had occasion to notice what seemed to be a considerable irregularity. Three Amendments had been moved in Committee, and in the records of their proceedings only one of these Amendments was taken notice of. Having made inquiries upon the subject, he was informed that it was not usual to put upon the record of their proceedings any Amendment upon which divisions had not been taken. The very next day, however, after he had received that information, he discovered that an Amendment upon which a division had not been taken was recorded, while two other Amendments which had been moved under precisely similar circumstances had been altogether omitted. This was an irregularity of no unimportant character. For instance, the noble Lord the Member for Kildare (Lord Otho Fitzgerald) moved an Amendment in Committee upon the Mutiny Bill; but of that Amendment no notice was taken, and yet last night that very Amendment was rescinded, and the words which originally stood in the Mutiny Bill were re-inserted. MR. SPEAKER: My answer to the Question of the hon. Member is, that those Amendments only upon which divisions take place are entered on the Votes. If every verbal Amendment, and everything which occurs, were ordered to be entered on the Votes, it would be almost impossible to print them. LORD HENRY LENNOX desired to move, with the permission of the House, the third reading of the Marine Mutiny Bill, so that it might at once be sent to the House of Lords. Motion agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed. INDIA-IRRIGATION.-POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION. MR. KINNAIRD said, that, in deference to the wishes of the House, he would postpone his Motion respecting Irrigation in India to the 28th of April. But he deeply regretted being called upon for the second time to defer the consideration of a question which affected a population not of a few millions only, but of 150,000,000 of our fellow-subjects, of whom, too, mainly through the neglect of irrigation, in one district alone, and in the course of only a few months, according to official Returns, nearly 1,000,000 of souls had recently perished of famine. ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND). Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [30th March], "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the said Acts," -(Mr. Gladstone :) And which Amendment was, To leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while admitting that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the United Church in Ireland may, after the pending inquiry, appear to be expedient, is of opinion that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of that Church ought to be reserved for the decision of a new Parliament,"-(Lord Stanley,) -instead thereof. Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed. MR. GATHORNE HARDY: There is no Member of this House who is more inclined to rate highly the gravity of the question now occupying our attention than I am. I quite admit that it is one of those questions which long ago it was thought must engage the attention of the House at no distant period; and, though we take exception to the particular period at which it is brought before the House, it is a question which we are prepared to meet on any occasion, and under any circumstances. It has been brought before the House in a speech of great power and eloquence, and by one who, from his position as a Leader in this House, and from his position in the country as a man of the greatest ability, has recommended the subject with additional force to the consideration, not only of the House, but of the country. But I cannot help observing that this question, which is of such momentous gravity, has been treated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by those who support the right hon. Gentleman, not merely as a question affecting the Church of Ireland, but with a degree of bitterness and acrimony against the Ministry who sit on these Benches which makes it at once an attack upon the Church of Ireland and upon the Ministry; and not only have we met with this reception in front, but even on our flank we have been assailed with incredible hostility. I will for a moment speak upon the subject of the Ministry that is attacked, and, if I am permitted, of myself, who have been personally assailed. I feel that it is one of the highest honours that I ever achieved to have sate in the same Cabinet with my noble Friend (Viscount Cranborne). No one valued more the resources of the genius, eloquence, and power which he brought to the Ministry of which he formed a part; and I acted with him with cordiality and sincerity in all the transactions of the Government. The noble Lord, in the position he has assumed in this House-that of speaking as the censor of the Ministry, and of attacking them one by one for the course they thought proper to pursue last year-has forgotten, I think, how far he himself proceeded in the path they followed. He has apparently forgotten that the course he finally took was not taken on account of the lowering of the franchise to the point to which it was lowered, but on account of the want, as he thought, of sufficient checks to moderate and to balance that enfranchisement; and he forgets, moreover, that we, entertaining the same view as he himself held, were defeated on it, not merely by those who sit opposite, but by the overwhelming feeling of Gentlemen who sat behind the Government. I do not mean to say that the Reform Bill of last year is in everything such as I could have wished for if I could have entirely controlled it; but I should like to know where is the man who, sitting, I will not say in the Cabinet, but in any Assembly whatever, has not been compelled in some respects to compromise his own opinions and give way to the feeling of those with whom he sits in order that they may all act together with uniformity and unity. That I consider is all I have done. I have sacrificed no principle. ["Oh, oh!"] I say I sacrificed no principle. I consider that | vernment was not adopted from mere motives of obstruction, from no conviction that there was nothing to redress, or nothing to reform in the Irish Church, for an admission to the contrary was made by the issuing of the Commission now sitting, which may be taken as an acknowledgment that there are reforms to be effected and Amendments to be made; and though some wish to go far beyond what I should desire, yet many, who think as I do, acknowledge, as I have already done before this time, that there are evils within the Church; that, as has been said by many of her Bishops, many of her clergy, and many of her attached friends, with a view to strengthening and giving more effect to the administration of that Church great reforms, great alterations, and, if I may, without offence to Gentlemen opposite, use the word, great "modifications" are needed. It would have been idle and absurd, after having assented to a Commission upon the Irish Church, if the Government had not been prepared to act upon the facts which may be proved before that Commission, and to ameliorate where it was found necessary. I do not mean to say that the present Parliament is not competent to deal with the subject, because it is obvious that so long as the House is in existence it must have all the powers and functions of a legislative Assembly. It is not a question of competence, but of time, occasion, and opportunity. The facts are these:-At a comparatively late period of the Session, with very little progress made in Supply; with Boundary Bills, involving the interests of eighty-one boroughs and of one or two counties; and with two Reform Bills-one for Scotland and one for Ireland-in which Amendments of great importance will be moved, and which must take a long time it is with these things before us, and with the necessity of calling for an early dissolution of the House and an appeal to the countryI say, with these things before us are we not right in saying that the House is incumbered with business, measures of great importance are pressing upon us, and therefore this is not the time to come forward with an abstract Resolution? The first Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman is distinctly and solely an abstract Resolution, which cannot pledge the new Parliament that will have to assemble in a few months, and which he himself admits cannot be carried into effect by legislation in the course of the present Session. I say, then, that this question is one which has been sudU denly started upon the country; it has taken the people by surprise. If it had not been started so suddenly, if it had not come but recently on the minds of those who produced it, why-when the opportunity was afforded by the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) to go into Committee on the state of Ireland of submitting this question of the Irish Church to the consideration of the House-why did not the right hon. Gentleman produce his Resolutions then, and ask the House to consider them in connection with the state of Ireland? If this had been done we should have had time to consider them, and they could certainly have been discussed at an earlier period of the Session than they have. Is it unreasonable that we should ask for time to consider so important a matter? Is it unreasonable to ask for time in order that the country should consider the question upon which it must eventually decide? Even within the short week we have had the rustle of petitions increasingly heard from both sides of the House day by day. As time goes on I venture to say that more and more petitions will be brought here, and as the question becomes more thoroughly understood in the country they will yet increase. Already, too, I notice that many of the Nonconformist body have petitioned against the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, so that the feeling against them is not confined to Churchmen. And, after all, the right hon. Gentleman himself stated last night he did not anticipate that this great measure which he had in hand could be carried into effect under much less time than thirty years, and yet now, forsooth, it is a question of hours; it is not to be adjourned for a few months in order that it may be placed in all its integrity before the country. I will show before I sit down that the proposition is one which evades the chief difficulties of the question, and only deals with those portions of it upon which unity of action can be obtained; whereas, if the right hon. Gentleman had developed his whole plan it would be certain to split his supporters into many sections. The Resolutions aimed a blow at the property of the Irish Church, which I, as a Churchman, maintain has, during the last 300 years at the very least, and indeed, as I believe for a much longer time, passed down in regular succession into the hands by which it is now held. If this be not so, where are the Acts of Parliament trans ferring the right to that property at any time before or during those 300 years? In what way has that transfer been made? I will not, however, enter now into that question, because if I did so I might possibly call up opposition on the other side. But I contend that when we are dealing with a mass of property of so much importance and of so long prescription it is not a matter for haste, and you have no right to force it upon the country until it has the whole case before it, and until we have an opportunity of consulting the constituencies upon it. Supposing we had met these Resolutions by a direct negative-which, as far as I am personally concerned, I should be, and am, perfectly prepared to do-and I think you will find that not only I personally, but all who sit on this side of the House will be ready to take the same course-but supposing, I say, that we had met these Resolutions with a direct negative, what would be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite? I know what would be said. It would be said that we object even to enter into an inquiry upon this question-that we object to go into Committee, and that we are not prepared to admit that there is any reformation needed in the Irish Church.-—Whereas, by the Amendment we propose, we say that if it were shown before the Commission that reformation was needed we are prepared to act upon such Report, and to show that when we assented to the Commission being issued we were prepared to receive its judgment with respect. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Moncreiff), in his speech last night, did me the honour of calling attention to something I said in 1865. I have only to say now that I have nothing to alter as to the opinions which I then expressed. I expressed those opinions in all sincerity and candour in favour of the Establishment of the Irish Church and the retention of its endowments. I do not mean to express a difference of opinion, and I speak now precisely as I spoke then. But I am told I am to renounce all the old arguments in favour of that Church. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire said yesterday that those arguments were of such a character that no one would think of using them now. Sir, I trust I shall be able to show that there are authorities which might even have influence with the right hon. Gentleman-authorities who have used these arguments, and who, like myself, are not ashamed to use them still, because they are just and apposite to the question we produce the document to which he refers if any doubt be thrown upon his statement. It is, I presume, very well known that many letters are published in newspapers anonymously-nay, it is the commonest thing, I believe, for gentlemen to have their letters published without their names being attached to them, at the same time to furnish their names privately to the editors, with the intention of coming personally forward to substantiate their statements in case they should be questioned. The right hon. Gentleman had said last night that in 1865 he looked for action in the coming Parliament; and therefore it was that he had made that speech. But did he look for action in the coming Parliament? Was there a hint of such a thing in the speech itself, however distinctly it made known his opinion on the Church in Ireland? Was not the speech of 1865 a statement that the difficulty was so great, the problem was so difficult of solution, that he could not make up his mind when the subject could be brought before Parliament with any chance of its settlement? But let us see what the right hon. Gentleman is said to have written at that very time, for if the statement is untrue it is most unjust; if true, however, it bears with remarkable force upon the question as to whether the right hon. Gentleman really gave warning in 1865, coupled with the expression of his opinion that this question of the Irish Church was a pressing subject immediately coming before the House. The writer of the letter I have referred to says that just before the Oxford University election of 1865, "one dignitary, a consistent supporter" of the right hon. Gentleman, made his vote conditional on his explanation of the doubtful point. The writer adds have in hand. I have on a former occasion |-who does not certainly sign his name called attention to a speech of the right hon.["Oh, oh"]-although he has not signed Gentleman in 1865. I should not enter into his name to this letter he undertakes to this matter now; but the right hon. Gentleman himself has challenged discussion as to the propriety of his bringing this question forward, and as to the consistency he has shown in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman said that for a period of twentyfive years his opinions have been forming on this subject, and that they have gradually arrived at the position which led him to assume the position which he now occupies. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the year 1846 it was impossible for him to pledge himself on principle to maintain the Irish Church. Now, I wish to ask him to whom he made that statement known? [Mr. GLADSTONE: To my Committee.] The right hon. Gentleman says it was proclaimed to his Committee; he must have had a singularly judicious Committee, for until the right hon. Gentleman rose last night the declaration was a secret that had never been revealed to the public. ["Oh, oh!"] Before I go further I think it but right to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to statements which have appeared in the public Press, so that if they be incorrect the right hon. Gentleman will be enabled to contradict them, or if not, how he can reconcile his statements last night with his former professions. I say nothing of the right hon. Gentleman's opinions now; but even in papers most earnest in his support there is manifest surprise at the announcement of a change of opinion in 1846 or 1847. The right hon. Gentleman now says, in his speech of last night, that in 1865 he gave a warning to his constituents of the course he was to take on the question of the Irish Church. The speech alluded to was no doubt a warning that the right hon. Gentleman saw something very unsatisfactory in the Irish Church; but it was certainly not a warning of the particular course which he has now taken. The right hon. Gentleman now states that this is not a question of surplus or of amendment; but a question whether the Irish Church Establishment should be disestablished and disendowed. In 1865 the right hon. Gentleman said— "It would be their duty to consider-whether surplus or no surplus-what obligations of the Act of Union remain to be fulfilled, and how they ought to be performed."-[3 Hansard, clxxviii. 434.] And now I find, in a letter published in the newspapers, it is stated by a gentleman "A mutual friend was the medium of communication, and the reply contained the following assurance, which was then deemed to be as satisfactory as it was intended to be. The document called in question. It may suffice, however, to itself is at your disposal if its authenticity be quote the following passage." Then comes the quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, as follows: - "The question of the Irish Establishment is remote, and apparently out of all bearing upon the practical politics of the day." Did the right hon. Gentleman write that to one of his Committee or to one of his supporters? If he did it seems to me wholly |