Commons Sitting of 19 August 1846

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Kilkenny County, Richard Smithwick, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°. Railway Commissioners.
2°. Consolidated Fund; Public Works (Ireland) (No. 4); Public Works (Ireland) (No. 5); Poor Employment (Ireland); Constabulary (Ireland).
Reported. New Zealand Loan Act Amendment; Customs Duties (No. 2); New Zealand Government; Tithes Commutation; Private Bills.
3°. and passed. Income Tax Deduction; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Mark Philips, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Captain Layard, and Sir John Pakington, praying that the Spirit Licenses and Duties Bill may not pass into a Law.—By Mr. Henry Berkeley, from Members of the Bristol Auxiliary Peace Society, and Members of the Committee of the British Anti-War Association, and by Mr. Montague Gore, from Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Council of the Borough of Barnstaple, in the County of Devon, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Flogging in the Army and Navy.—By several hon. Members, from a great number of Medical Practitioners, in favour of the Medical Practitioners Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from Robert Scott Burn and John Howden, Patent Solicitors in Edinburgh, and Agents for the National Association for obtaining a Reform of the Patent Laws, praying the House to take into consideration the present Patent Laws of Great Britain, with a view to their Alteration or Amendment, their Assimilation to the Patent Laws of Continental Kingdoms, or to the Law of Copyright at present existing in this Kingdom.—By Captain Layard, from Members of the Relief Committee of the Hollymount Union, and from Members of the Gallen and Costello Relief Committee, County of Mayo, suggesting Measures of Poor Relief (Ireland).—By Sir John Pakington, from Inhabitants of Pershore, in the County of Worcester, and by Mr. Edmund Turner, from St. Austell, in the County of Cornwall, in favour of the Small Debts Bill.—By Viscount Ebrington, from Householders, Workmen, and Inhabitants of and in the Vicinity of Hampstead Road, in the Borough of Marylebone, for the Adoption of Measures for Redeeming and Extinguishing the Tolls upon Waterloo, Southwark, and Vauxhall Bridges.—By Mr. Hume, from James Hayman, for Alteration of Law respecting Weights and Measures.

THE CHIEF JUSTICESHIP OF INDIA.
On the Motion that the Orders of the Day be read,
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid: I beg leave to ask the indulgence of the House whilst I make an explanation to the House which is very painful to myself. It will be in the recollection, Sir, of the House, that in the course of the observations which I made yesterday, I was guilty of insinuating that in the job of which I was treating, in addition to all that had been done as regards the appointment to the office of Chief Justice of Bombay, a barter of patronage had taken place between Lord Lyndhurst and my Lord Ripon, Sir, I
876
made that statement on an authority on which I thought, and think now, I was entitled to place confidence. I made that statement on the authority of a gentleman high in his profession, who volunteered, on seeing the notice that I had publicly given, to write a statement which he requested might be laid before me; and who, from his close relationship with the living of Nocton, I thought could not by possibility be mistaken in the facts—the circumstantial facts—which he stated in that letter to me. Sir, acting in the perfect confidence of the truth of that statement, so circumstantial in respect to the living of Nocton, and so correct as I knew it to be in every detail as regarded all the other appointments, I ventured yesterday to state that such a report existed out of doors. I stated it as a report, though, on my conscience, I believed there was no doubt about the fact. In order that any such barter as that could have taken place, of course it was necessary that the presentation of the living of Nocton should be in the gift of the late Lord High Chancellor of England. My correspondent stated as a fact that the living was in the gift of the Lord High Chancellor of England; but having an opportunity of looking last night into a book called the Clergy List, I discovered to my amazement—and I will say, considering the charge I made, to my perfect horror—that the living of Nocton was not in the gift of the Lord High Chancellor at all; and therefore, that it was utterly impossible there could be any foundation for the charge I had made of a barter of patronage between Lord Ripon and Lord Lyndhurst. I thought it my duty to come here to the House; and in the face of the House and of the country, as publicly as I made the charge to retract it. I could not rest a moment under the feeling that I had been guilty of aggravating a charge against any persons. I have come here, therefore, in the fullest and the amplest manner to make the best amends in my power, and to offer an apology to both those noble individuals for having been made the means—the innocent means—of propagating a charge so discreditable to them. And, Sir, if I have hurt their feelings for the space of four-and-twenty hours, I can assure them that they will have ample compensation in the feelings of deep humiliation which I entertain for having brought forward such a charge against them.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. LABOUCHEREmoved the Second

877
Reading of the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill, the main object of which was to carry out the pledge given by Her Majesty's late Government, on the occasion of the discussion on the Corn Bill; and to take on the Consolidated Fund that portion of the charge of the constabulary force now paid by the counties in Ireland. He would add, that though he should be at any time reluctant to withhold a boon promised to the Irish counties, he would feel particularly so at the present moment, when they had just passed a Bill which threw on the property of Ireland the charge of relieving the distress consequent on the failure of the potato crop in that country. There was another point in the Bill to which he wished also to allude. The hon. Gentleman appeared to look on this measure as one of coercion. He had utterly to deny that there was anything of coercion in it, or that there was anything unconstitutional or anomalous in its provisions. It added to the Lord Lieutenant's powers of increasing the reserved force of the Irish constabulary; but whether that reserved force consisted of 200 men or of 400 men, involved no constitutional principle whatever. By the Bill as it now stood, if any district in Ireland became disturbed so as to require an additional police force, it was provided that the expense of that additional force, so long as it was required in the district, should be paid, as at present, at the expense of the county. Those were the main objects of the Bill; and he trusted that it would therefore receive the support of the House.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEhad to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He perfectly recollected that when the Corn Bill had been introduced, there was a pledge that the counties of Ireland should be relieved from the expense of the constabulary force in the event of that Bill passing. It was, he thought, quite right that that engagement should be carried out, as Parliament was pledged to it; but at the same time he must say, that a great constitutional principle was involved in the Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman had not at all alluded. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the reserved force was to be increased by 200 men; but he lost sight of the provision by which, in a district declared to be disturbed, the Lord Lieutenant should have a power to increase the police force to any extent that he should think proper. The right hon. Gentleman appeared not to have read his own Bill. It was not 200
878
additional men, but 2,000 or 50,000 men, that might be sent into any particular district by the Lord Lieutenant; and to increase in that manner such a force, which was virtually a military force, was, he maintained, unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional that the Lord Lieutenant should have the power of increasing a part of the standing army to any extent he thought proper, and of putting his hand into the public purse to support it. The Bill had been printed only that morning, when this unconstitutional principle was for the first time introduced into it; and he thought time ought to be given, both to the country, to Ireland, and to the House, to consider it fully. He would, therefore, move that the second reading be postponed for a week.
MR. PIGOTTsaid, this Bill did not alter the law as it at present stood, under the Constabulary Act, by which the number of the constabulary force to be permanently employed in every county was fixed; so that beyond a certain maximum the Lord Lieutenant could not go. But by the existing law, the number of the force employed in any county might be increased temporarily in the following manner. On the representation of two or more magistrates met at sessions for the purpose, the Lord Lieutenant might increase the number of constabulary in any district. That provision of the law was continued in the present Bill. The Lord Lieutenant could not increase the police force in any district, without such a representation being made to him. But besides that, the Lord Lieutenant had a power of augmenting the number of the constabulary in a district without the consent of the magistrates, to the extent of fifty men; but it was understood that any such augmentation was to be altogether of a temporary kind, and only to continue while the district remained disturbed. The present Bill altered that arrangement, because it might happen that fifty additional men might not be a sufficient number to effect the purpose required. He would remind the House that in the late discussions on what was called the Coercion Bill, it had been alleged that the county of Leitrim was quieted by an extraordinary application of the military and police forces; and those who opposed the Bill argued, and as he thought truly, that by similar means, namely, an augmentation of the forces in the district, and proper patrolling, similar results would be accomplished in the other disturbed districts

879
of the country. It was, however, thought that a limitation of the additional force to the number of fifty men, would not be sufficient in all cases; and it was accordingly proposed to put the necessary power into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, to exceed that number should he think it required. There was, however, no intention to make that power permanent. Whenever the necessity should cease, and the proclamation should be withdrawn or should expire, the entire of the augmented force should be withdrawn, and removed to the reserved depôt in Dublin. It was proposed that the disturbed district should pay the expense of the additional force while it would be required; and that provision would, he thought, afford a security against the force being continued in the district longer than the necessity required.
Amendment withdrawn. Bill read a Second Time.

CLAIMS OF THE ARMY.
SIR DE LACY EVANSrose to propose the Motion relative to rewards for the army of which he had given notice. In bringing forward this Motion, he believed he was justified in saying that the officers of the army were less considered and less fairly rewarded than officers in any other department of the State. That circumstance, coupled with the fact, that some years had now elapsed since any statement on behalf of the officers of the army had been made to the House, induced him at the present moment to press the subject upon the attention of the Government. The claims of the army were often met in that House in a very summary manner; the answer being, that the expenses of the army, navy, and ordnance departments were already so great, that nothing more could be done for that particular branch of the service. He wished the House to remember, however, that not less than 5,000,000 l. sterling of the amount voted for those services had nothing whatever to do with the personnel of the armed force—such, for example, as the packet service, the convict service, the building of ships and docks, and numerous other items, from which neither the army, the navy, nor the ordnance derived any benefit whatever. During the advocacy of the claims of the navy, constant allusion was made to the age of the officers holding the ranks of captains and commanders; and there could be no doubt, as stated in the Report of the Commission of Naval and Military Inquiry, that the ages of the naval officers generally
880
were so far advanced, as in many cases to preclude the possibility of expecting good and efficient service from them. But the Commission added—
"And doubtless an equal degree of inefficiency would have been shown in the army, if the statements had contained, as those from the Admiralty do, one general table of all ranks, either in full pay or in retirement, or who had at any time belonged to the service."
He believed that the colonels averaged forty-seven years in the service. To show that the power of giving promotion was more frequently used by the Admiralty than by the Commander-in-Chief, he would refer the House to the evidence of Lord Fitzroy Somerset, given before the Committee in 1833. Lord Fitzroy Somerset said—
"Perhaps it may not be generally known that the promotion of the army without purchase, which is the only promotion that affects the public purse, is much less than it is in the navy. In 1831, one major was promoted to be lieutenant-colonel, while seven commanders were made post-captains; seven captains of the army obtained majorities, and fourteen naval lieutenants were made commanders."
He did not wish to prejudice the claims of the navy — he considered them of the strongest character; but he contended that, neglected as both services had been, the army had been much more neglected even than the navy. He would now take the allowance granted to retired officers of both officers, and he would place them in juxtaposition. There were 619 naval captains on the half-pay list, with an allowance of 130,003 l. a year, and 669 commanders, with an allowance of 107,665 l. a year, altogether 237,668 l. Now, what was the amount in the army?—and the House must remember that there were in the army, of all ranks, 139,000, whilst in the navy there were only 29,500. In the army the half-pay list of officers of corresponding rank with captains and commanders in the navy was as follows:—

195

lieutenant-colonels

£41,155

a year

281

majors

48,754

a year

In all

£89,909

a year

as against 237,668 l. Again, the naval retired list was much higher than the army retired list. In the navy there were

52

captains

£10,110

a year

292

commanders

40,067

a year

Altogether

£80,177

a year

whilst against that, in the army were—

20

lieutenant-colonels

£6,205

a year

20

majors

5,840

a year

20 lieutenant-colonels, 100 l. a year each (30 years constant service)

2,000

a year

£14,045

881
It was stated by officers in the navy that the retired list at present was not adequate. But if 80,000 l. were not adequate for the retired list of the navy, how insufficient must 14,000 l. a year be for the retired list of the army! In advocating the claims of the officers of the army, they were sometimes met with the cry, "Oh but you have got the privilege of purchasing;" and a very pretty privilege it was! Instead of being a benefit or a privilege, he could not but characterize it as the most oppressive usury, and as highly dishonourable to the Governments which had sanctioned it for so many years. He did not hesitate to say, that no other profession in the country was so highly taxed as that of the soldier for the benefit of the State. The defence of the system of purchasing was, that it relieved the State from the necessity of purchasing retirement for old officers. Lot them take now the position of a general officer, of whom there were at present 265, having been reduced to that number from 576 in 1815, and from 419 in 1833. Let them see what was the condition of the general officer who enjoyed a regiment and a salary of 1,000 a year. About 100 of those officers had 1,000 a year; the rest of them had only 400 a year. Those 265 officers then received about 100,000 l. a year between them; 200 of them had purchased their commissions, and they would find that at the minimum infantry price they had paid about 800,000 l. before they had got their regiments. He would take now the case of the most fortunate class, of a lieutenant-colonel of the Guards. A lieutenant-colonel of the Guards paid 12,000 l., perhaps, for his commission: add to that the interest which he lost for twenty years, and, if very fortunate, at sixty years of age, he gets 1,000 a year. Evidently, pecuniarily, he must be a decided loser. The State had obtained his services for less than he was out of pocket. A few days ago a case was mentioned, which led to the Government being seriously reproached for taking advantage of a young recruit. Why, he doubted whether the young officer might not justly complain of being politically swindled by the Government in a still greater degree, for he heard of pensions and honours and medals granted with prodigious profuseness, and fancied perhaps some day to succeed to those rewards. Now, what was the actual debtor and creditor account of those 265 general officers to whom he had referred with the State? They had bought their commis-
882
sions at a cost of more than a million of money; and for that at an advanced age half of them received a life annuity of 1,000 l. a year. They were not allowed to sell their annuity; and the million which they had expended, with at least twenty years' accumulation, was inevitably lost to their families. What chance had the old officer of having his services adequately acknowledged? Lot them take as an example the following case, which resembled so many others: During a recent debate in that House, the name of a commanding officer of a regiment was introduced, whose exemplary conduct met the approbation of all sides of the House. That officer had served forty-six years, and had been twenty years the commander of a regiment. According to their present mode of promotion, in ten years that officer might be major-general, and in fifteen years he might perchance have a regiment and 1,000 a year. But thirty years before, he had paid 10,000 guineas for his commission. To that sum let them add the accumulated interest, and they would see what his family lost by his services to the State. He had no hesitation in saying that the officers of the army of this country were worse off than the officers in the French army; and this struck him as being particularly unjust, when it was known, as was stated in the Report of the Committee of 1833, that—
"Whilst the salaries and emoluments of most branches of the civil service have considerably increased since 1792, those of the superior officers of the army are, with few exceptions, the same as they were a century ago."
Upon some of these points to which he had alluded, he held in his hand a valuable communication from the Duke of Wellington to Lord Hill, dated "Strathfield-saye, March 7, 1843," and which was contained in the appendix to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons. It was as follows—
"The detailed effect of this purchase of commissions upon the payment of all officers for their service, will be shown presently. It is obvious that in calculating the remuneration which any officer receives for his service, the amount of the interest which he loses upon the sum paid as the price of his commission must be taken into the account—it is a direct deduction upon the pay of the officer. … This fact must never be lost sight of; and it will be of great importance in the comparison between the amount of the pay and allowances of the officers of the British army, and those of foreign armies, and those of the corresponding ranks of the British navy."
Here follows a variety of calculations in proof of the foregoing, showing the com-

883
parative disadvantages of the military officer who has spent perhaps all he had in purchasing. Then follows:—
"In point of fact (his Grace says) the promotion of the officers of the army by purchase is-a saving of expense to the public, and highly beneficial to the service, although it falls severely upon individuals (on the officers). … The permission to sell their commissions to younger, more active, healthy, and energetic, and better qualified men, relieves the service from a burden, at the same time that it throws none upon the State in the shape of remuneration, reward, or provision for men worn out by the length and arduous nature of the services required from all British officers."
He hold that it throws no burden upon the State; the burden was shifted to the shoulders of the officer.
"On the other hand, an examination of the detailed operation of the system of promotion by purchase, or the remuneration intended to be given by the public to the officers of the army for their service, will show that those who purchase their commissions, which are certainly three-fourths of the whole number, receive but little for their service besides the honour of serving the King."
The various, severe, irksome, perilous, and responsible duties required from the officer in all parts of the world, against internal and external enemies, &c., and the scanty pay afforded, are then gone into. And—
"This officer (the Duke says) has but little hope of promotion, unless he can purchase it, nor of rest nor relief from his exertions, if he should obtain it, as long as he has health and strength to serve. Surely (adds his Grace), men with such qualities, and so employed, cannot be allowed to believe the Legislature is unmindful of services."
It appeared very strange that one battle or two should be considered sufficient on a recent occasion to entitle those engaged in them to a medal; and that six years' constant fighting in the Peninsula should not be considered sufficient to establish a claim either to a medal or a ribbon. When they had seen medals recently given for so many shorter periods of service, it appeared inconsistent to refuse that mark of distinction to those who fought at Trafalgar or in the Peninsula. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would consent to grant to them the same boon which it had already conferred upon others. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving—
"That this House will, on Wednesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to order that some adequate measure of relief may be awarded to the old War Officers of the Army of various ranks, towards remedying the retardment of promotion in late years, and the consequent increasing privation, in advanced age, of professional
884
advantages or provision, and that the same may be commensurate with the important boon now at length proposed by Government to be granted to the Navy; also, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that a favourable consideration be granted to the humble and dutiful representations of the surviving Veterans of Trafalgar and the Peninsular War, for a medal commemorative of their faithful service in those great conflicts."
LORD J. RUSSELL: I find it extremely difficult to make a proper reply to the hon. and gallant Officer who has just sat down; for it is impossible to discuss adequately and properly all the various claims of the officers and men of our army and navy, and to point out in detail how their services ought to be rewarded. I think that the House acts wisely and consistently when, in voting sums for the maintenance of the army and navy, it leaves the distribution of those sums to the advisers of the Crown and the Naval and Military Departments. With respect to the elaborate comparison made by the hon. and gallant Officer between the army and navy, I must say I think he has underrated the advantages enjoyed by the officers of the army. We had a Committee to inquire into the subject; and it appeared, in relation to the command of regiments, that we have 98 regiments of infantry, and 26 of cavalry; and that officers in the army enjoy, in consequence, advantages which are not shared by officers in the navy—that, in fact, they have rewards to which there are no similar rewards in the navy. The hon. and gallant Member quoted the opinion of the Duke of Wellington on the subject of purchase. The Duke of Wellington, by an elaborate and detailed expression of opinion, made out a case for the maintenance of the present system of purchases in our army. I believe, however, if the system of purchase in the army were now, instead of being so long established, introduced for the first time, the arguments against purchase might preponderate; but, existing as it does, and conferring, according to the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, advantages both upon the State and the Army, I think it ought not to be lightly relinquished at an enormous expense. The present system of purchase affords to many old officers the means of obtaining certain sums by the sale of their commissions to younger officers, who thus fill their places, and are placed in a position, after the lapse of some years, to obtain similar sums if they wish to dispose of their commissions. The hon. and gallant Member proposes that there should be some rewards offered to

885
the army commensurate with the plan of retirement which has been proposed for the navy; but all I can say with respect to that is, that the Commander-in-Ghief does not think that such a course is requisite, and that such a plan as that proposed in the navy ought not to be proposed for adoption with respect to the army. The House will recollect that some years ago a question of the nature now before us was brought forward for its consideration; and I, being then a Minister of the Crown, stated it was impossible for this House to judge of the merits of the various Motions brought for-ward on behalf of the army, navy, and marines, and that I thought it better that a Commission should be formed to inquire into those claims, that Commission to consist partly of officers of the navy of high rank, partly of officers of the army of high rank, and partly of Members of the Legislature who usually occupied a prominent position in the consideration of public affairs. The Commission was appointed, and amongst its Members it numbered the Duke of Wellington, Sir George Cockburn, and other distinguished officers of the army and navy who recommended certain measures for the adoption of the House. Those measures were adopted, and I own after that I feel a difficulty in agreeing to other plans which may be proposed by hon. Members of this House. [Sir DE LACY EVANS: I proposed no particular plan.] That is true; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to make another observation. He says that officers of the army who have served a number of years suffer an actual loss of money in consequence of the small income which they derive from the State and the slowness of promotion. I do not see how, under the present circumstances, that can altogether be avoided. The House will recollect that we were some years ago engaged in a war which required prodigious exertions and a numerous army, in order to enable us to meet a formidable enemy. A state of peace followed; and when such a state of peace continues, as it has continued, for thirty years, when we have consequently a greatly reduced army and navy, promotion must necessarily become slow, and it is inevitable that a great number of officers cannot be advanced without putting the country to an enormous expense. That is a state of things which I do not see how we can avoid. With regard to granting medals to those who fought at Trafalgar and in the Peninsula, I must say that I
886
think it involves a question which ought to have been considered and submitted to Parliament at the end of the war. It is now forty years since the battle of Trafalgar, and thirty-two years since the last of the services of our army in the Peninsula ceased; and I think it is rather late to call upon the advisers of the Crown to bring forward the question of rewards for services which are so long passed. I have no doubt Lord Liverpool and the Duke of Wellington considered what ought to be done at the termination of the war, with a view to reward the services of those who were engaged in that war. I will not, therefore, venture to say now whether the course which was taken on that occasion was such as to place those officers who fought at Trafalgar, and who advanced against the enemy from Lisbon to Toulouse, in the position which they ought to occupy. It is too late, in my opinion, now to propose the adoption of a new course with respect to those officers, and I must therefore oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.
MR. HUMEchallenged the hon. and gallant Officer to bring this question before the House next Session in such a shape as would enable him (Mr. Hume) to bring forward detailed arithmetical statements respecting it, and he would engage to show that the expense for officers in the British army was threefold that of the officers of the French army; in fact, no State of Europe had to pay so heavy a charge for officers of the army as England. He believed we had more generals in England, with our 100,000 men, than they had in France with their 400,000 men. The principle of purchase was most objectionable, as enabling interest to gain rank over merit. He had been long enough with the army to have seen the ill-effects produced, when meritorious officers of experience found themselves superseded by more boys, as happened every day. If merit were more recognized, a class of officers would be obtained who would be more devoted to their duties and to the service.
CAPTAIN PECHELLhoped, that next Session, the House would take into consideration the questions of purchasing commissions, and the favouritism at the Horse Guards. Meantime, he thanked the gallant Officer, the Member for Westminster, for the honest and zealous intention he had shown to benefit the neglected condition of those who had rendered such distinguished services to the country.
CAPTAIN CARNEGIEthought the gallant Officer had completely succeeded in making out a case. The same question had been mooted in the House of Commons two and a half years ago. He (Captain Carnegie) was then absent, and had no opportunity of discussing the subject; but, on referring to the report of the debate which then took place, he found that the chief opponent of the proposal then made was Sir H. Hardinge—now very justly created Viscount Hardinge; but on that occasion, the gallant Officer could have little expected that in so short a period he should have himself to distribute medals to some of the very officers to whom he then denied them, for their distinguished services at the battles of Meanee, Aliwal, and Sobraon. He did not consider the paucity of their numbers, or the distance of time, any reason for withholding these medals still.
CAPTAIN LAYARDstated, without the fear of contradiction, that there was no service in England so ill requited as the army, and that without money or interest no amount of industry, ability, or assiduity could, taking the average of men, advance them in their profession. This was a question which had been too long neglected; but he hoped it would receive more attention in future. He feared that, at present, the system of purchasing commissions could not be done away with, because there was so much money invested in that way, and he suspected the House was not prepared to agree to grant compensation for that sum. But the system was undoubtedly a very bad one. On the subject of granting medals to the old veterans of Trafalgar and the Peninsula, he confessed he felt very deeply. He was delighted to hear the speech of the gallant officer opposito (Captain Carnegie), who had referred to Sir H. Hardinge, an officer for whom he (Captain Layard) entertained great respect, and he never felt so sorry as when he heard him oppose the proposition of giving medals to the old soldiers in question; but when that officer had himself received pensions and rewards from that House, and when he had found that, in India, the best and most proper way of rewarding the men whom he there commanded was by distributing medals against them, he confessed it did seem to him astonishing that those who had performed far more gallant deeds than the men who had been thus rewarded in India, should be refused a similar honour. He had seen last week, a
888
report of the address of Sir Charles Napier to the regiments of Kurrachee, on presenting to them the Meanee medals, in which he said—
"Thus soldiers medals are won—more by discipline than by any extraordinary efforts of individual courage. To reward this obedience medals are bestowed, so that every man who wears this honoured badge is known to the world as one who, in the midst of the noise, the danger, and the confusion of battle, had obeyed his orders and performed the three great duties of a soldier—first, not to fire without orders; next, when he does fire, to level low, so as to make sure of striking down an enemy; thirdly, to keep his ranks and dress upon his colours, The medal tells the world that he has bravely done these things, and no man can walk with one of these medals on his breast without feeling the conscious pride of an intrepid soldier."
But he would ask the House and the country what must be the feelings of those old Peninsular veterans, who by their skill and bravery had made themselves the wonder and admiration of the world, when they walked by with no medals to grace their breast, and saw those who, though they had done all that was demanded of them, had not been tried to one quarter the extent the Peninsular veterans had been tried? Look at the French army, where such honours were freely bestowed. France knew the cheap advantage of giving medals for great actions. It was no answer to say that the actions for which these honours were claimed occurred 30 or 40 years ago. If they had done wrong in withholding those honours, that was no reason why they should not now do right. He trusted that the heads of the army would yet be persuaded to take the subject into consideration. He hoped that the Motion which had to-day been so ably brought under their consideration would again be brought forward, and that the time was coming when they would not consider length of time any exoneration from doing justice to those who so well deserved it.
SIR W. VERNERregretted to perceive that the welfare of the army excited so little interest, that on a question of this importance there should not be twenty Members present. The gallant officer opposite (Sir D. L. Evans) was entitled to the thanks of the army for the manner in which he had brought their services under the notice of the House. He knew that the officers who had served in the Peninsula felt very much that they had nothing to show for their long services. He had heard that at one time it had been intended to give them medals, but it was said the die had been

889
broken after it was made. He had himself the honour to wear the only medal which had been issued during the war, except to those in command—he meant the medal for Waterloo—and he saw no reason why a similar honour should not be conferred upon those who had served in the Peninsula.
COLONEL REIDagreed most cordially in every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for Westminster; and he begged to tender the hon. and gallant Member his sincere thanks for the zealous way in which he had espoused the cause of the army. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that the State derived no benefit from the purchase of commissions. He maintained that it did. A short time ago, for instance, he, after being thirty years in the army, and having no chance of seeing foreign service, determined to retire upon full pay. He applied, and was told he could do so, provided he paid the whole amount of a full-pay commission. Well, he paid 4,500 l., which was the full-pay price for a commission, but this did not go into the pocket of the officer who vacated for him. Part of it went into the public purse, and he had been told that it was for the purpose of reducing the heavy amount of the half-pay list. There was one practice with regard to officers' commissions which appeared to him to involve much hardship to individuals. It was this, that if an officer died, his commission (even though it might have cost him 10,000 l.) was immediately given to another officer who had the privilege of selling it immediately. Thus the estate of the deceased officer was less by so much. A case of this kind happened to a brother officer of his, who was so attached to his regiment that he could not be prevailed on to sell out, and he died, holding his commission, which was immediately given to a riding-master in another regiment, who held the rank of lieutenant, and by whom it was at once sold.
MR. F. MAULEagreed with his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) that it was hard to call on the Government to give a specific answer to a question which involved, in the first place, a very considerable outlay; and, secondly, the substitution of a new system for the present system of promotions and rewards in the army. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) had designated the system of purchase as most oppressive. Although in some respects he might agree with his hon. and gallant Friend, still he could not concur in
890
so sweeping a condemnation. Under the present system there had been no difficulty in getting officers for the army, who were undoubtedly both brave and able, and ready and willing to discharge their duty under all circumstances. He was not sure if the same system were carried out among the regiments of the line as that which was followed in the artillery, whether they would not find, when regiments were ordered upon colonial and foreign service, that very great detriment would accrue to the army. It had been the fashion to accuse the Horse Guards of an improper distribution of patronage: so long as patronage vested in the hands of individuals, there would be no doubt cases of disappointment; but he was sure that patronage was administered by those at the head of the army as fairly as possible. His hon. and gallant Friend had stated that the very last thing that he would advise any man, whether in or out of the House, to do, would be to bring up one of his sons to the army as a profession. He could, however, assure his hon. and gallant Friend, that the number of applications for commissions, even under the present system of purchase, exceeded the vacancies that might be expected to occur in the course of twenty years. He did not think, therefore, that the service could be quite so unpopular as his hon. and gallant Friend represented it to be. After what had been stated by his noble Friend he need not enter into the general subject; but he would only say that it must be the wish not only of the present but of every Government to give every consideration to the claims both of the army and the navy with regard to rewards and promotions. When the proper time arrived, he trusted that the House would be ready to enter upon the consideration of the claims of old officers. With reference to the question of medals and decorations for services rendered many years ago, it seemed to him that the subject must have been fully considered by the Government of that day, and that it was now too late to make any recommendation to the Sovereign on such a subject.
SIR DE LACY EVANS, in reply, said that in bringing forward his Motion, it had not been his intention to press the House to come to a vote upon the question of presenting an address to Her Majesty, but simply to elicit the opinions of the Government on the subject; and he must say that the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not be satisfactory to the

891
army or to the country. With the leave of the House, he would now withdraw his Motion; but unless proper measures were taken by the Government, he would bring-forward his Motion again early next Session.
Motion withdrawn.

RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, pursuant to the notice which he had given, rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to enable Her Majesty to appoint a Railway Board. The subject was one which had been pressed on Her Majesty's Government by both Houses of Parliament. The Committee of the House of Lords which sat on railways had come to a resolution urging the appointment of such a Board; and the House of Commons had lately adopted a similar resolution. Fortified, therefore, with these resolutions, Her Majesty's Government had determined to come to Parliament and ask the House to pass a Bill which would carry into effect the object which those resolutions contemplated. He was well aware that at this period of the Session such a Bill could only be carried by the common consent of the whole House; but it was in reliance upon that common consent that the Government proposed to introduce this Bill. The Bill was very short in itself, and he would briefly state its main provisions. The Government proposed that a Board should be constituted, consisting of not more than five Commissioners, one of whom should be the president. It was proposed that the president of the Board should be paid for his services, and that he should be a Member of one of the two Houses of Parliament. It was also proposed that he should be connected with the Government so far as to be removable on any change of Administration. The other Commissioners were to be made up of two paid members and two unpaid members of the Board. The two paid Commissioners would not have seats in Parliament; and the object in appointing two unpaid members of the Board was, that there should be at least one Commissioner in either House of Parliament, to answer any questions that might be put with respect to the acts of the Board. The two unpaid members of the Commission would also be members of the Government, of course receiving emolument in that capacity, but not as members of the Railway Board. The result, therefore, would be, that in both Houses of Parliament there
892
would be a member of the Board competent to answer questions, and to take upon him the conduct of railway business in either House. It was further proposed by the Bill to enable the Commissioners, with the sanction of the Treasury, to transfer to their own office the clerks and other subordinate officers at present employed in the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. It was proposed also to transfer to the Board the whole of the powers and duties which now devolved upon the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. It was intended to give the new Railway Board what the Board of Trade had not at present—the power of enforcing the execution of the terms upon which Bills were granted to railway companies. Upon the new Board would be imposed the duty of seeing that every existing railway company strictly complied with the provisions of the Act under which it was incorporated. The Government further proposed to enable the Board to carry on any inquiry which might be referred to it by either House of Parliament. He would not then enter into a minute statement of the provisions of the Bill, but merely say it would be a great advantage that this Board should be constituted. There was one subject which, though not part of this Bill, he thought it would be desirable to revise during the recess—he meant the Standing Orders of the House relating to railways. One thing in particular he thought should be considered—whether a longer time should not be allowed to elapse between the first proposal to construct a railway and the bringing the Bill before the consideration of Parliament, so as to afford time to make such inquiries as might be deemed necessary during the interval. He believed there would be no objection to a measure which all admitted was necessary in the present state of the railway business of the country.
MR. MORRISONthought there ought to be something more than the mere transference of the present powers of the Board of Trade to the Commissioners, to do any amount of good. He wished to know if the proposed Board would have the power to send for papers and records, because without this, little good could be done.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that subject had not been considered by the Government, but it would be, and an answer would be given in the next stage of the Bill. The Government only proposed now that which the whole

893
House might consent to; and with regard to more extensive powers, the whole subject would be fully discussed and considered in the next Session of Parliament.
Leave given.
Bill brought in, and read a First Time.
House adjourned at a quarter to Four o'clock.