Commons Sitting of 20 May 1852

MINUTES.
NEW WHIT. — For Sandwich, v. Charles William Grenfell, Esq., Manor of Hempholme.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Metropolitan Burials; Inland Revenue Office; Hereditary Casual Revenues in the Colonies; Excise Summary Proceedings; Colonial Bishops.
2° Turnpike Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.
Reported. — Proclamation for Assembling Parliament.
3° Apprehension of Deserters from Foreign Ships.

RIBBANDISM IN IRELAND.
MR. ORMSBY GORE: Sir, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland for information respecting the arrest and committal to gaol of eight Ribbandmen, seized in their lodge at Granard, and committed to Longford gaol, and concerning their having been subsequently admitted to bail. These eight persons, when seized by a police officer, were in the act of writing threatening notices to individuals in the neighbourhood. They were committed to gaol, and subsequently brought before the magistrates. There was a division amongst the magistrates as to their being admitted to bail, and the majority agreed to admit them to bail. On one of those persons, named Brierley, there was found a death notice to Mr. Green, the clergyman of Granard, and on another of them, named Donnelly, was found a notice of death to be served upon a person of the name of
Fitzpatrick, a most respectable farmer, of the neighbourhood, he having been served before with a notice to the same effect. At the bottom of the notice was written, "This is the second time, and by God Almighty if this dost not do, you may have your coffin ready afore long." They have been admitted to bail, and there is a strong sensation in the country with regard to it. I this day received a letter from that part of the country, stating that on their being committed to gaol, a number of bad characters were missed out of the neighbourhood, but they all have returned since the principals were let loose. I have no other interest in troubling the House on the subject, than the security of my labourers in that part of the country. I beg, therefore, to know from the Attorney General for Ireland whether the crime committed was bailable, and what steps are likely to be taken for the purpose of restoring confidence to the loyal and well-affected individuals of the locality?
MR. NAPIER: It is quite true, as stated by my hon. Friend, that there have been eight persons taken up under circumstances which induced the magistrates to think that they were justified in committing them to gaol for the purpose of being tried as members of an unlawful confederacy. My hon. Friend must be aware that a change was made in the law some years ago—a change that is under the consideration of the Committee upstairs at this present time, and consequently the difficulty has arisen with respect to persons found in those lodges with papers. Formerly the possession of those papers afforded substantive evidence of the guilt; but the change of the law has caused embarrassment and difficulty to the magistrates and police in taking up persons under these circumstances. In regard to this particular case, there were eight persons discovered, but not exactly as stated by my hon. Friend. They were not discovered writing the notices, but they were discovered in a public-house, with pen and ink on the table, and the papers which are annexed to the informations were discovered in their possession. The offence would be an offence of being members of this ribband society, and it might assume the higher character of conspiracy to murder. The magistrates are intrusted by law with a discretion in cases of felony and misdemeanour to consider the circumstances, and, if they think proper, to admit the parties to bail, taking sufficient secu-

803
rity for their appearance. They must he tried in the county where the offence was committed; they cannot he tried except by a Special Commission, until the summer assizes, and the magistrates thought they were hound to admit them to bail. Two of them are still in custody, not being able to find sufficient bail; five of them have been admitted to bail; and one of them remains willingly in custody, and there is no question as to him. However desirable it may be to bring such parties to justice, we should not do anything that may appear to be a violation of the Constitution; and if the magistrates honestly thought they were bound to admit them to bail, we ought not to prejudge the case. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to use all the power they possess to have these and similar cases tried, and they will put all the power of the law in force to the utmost of their ability to bring the offenders to justice. I am not aware that there is any intention imputed to the magistrates of acting corruptly, and they thought that under the Act of Parliament they ought to admit them to bail. All I can promise to do is, to proceed at the next assizes with all the power of the Executive Government to put down this system. [Mr. O. GORE: The amount of bail is from 10 l. to 30 l.] I cannot say, for the magistrates decide upon that. It is stated that the sureties are respectable farmers in the neighbourhood, and have given such bail as the magistrates think sufficient, and it would be wrong in me to impute anything improper to the magistrates.

THE REV. MR. BENNETT—FROME VICARAGE.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that, in reference to the Motion of which he had given notice as to the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, that he thought it better to adhere to his original intention of bringing forward that Motion on an early day after Whitsuntide, than to press the Government to any immediate course with reference to it, which might result in an interference with the progress of public business. Having alluded to the subject, he would take the opportunity of putting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in reference to a misconception that had got abroad with respect to that right hon. Gentleman's statement of the law, or, to speak more correctly, with respect to his statement of the law
804
opinion expressed by the Crown officers, on the case submitted to them on behalf of the Government. The House had manifestly inferred from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, a few evenings since, what he was sure the right hon. Gentleman could never have intended—namely, that parties complaining of a bishop's having improperly instituted a presentee to a living, had redress for that grievance under the Church Discipline Act. This, he thought, could not have been the right hon. Gentleman's meaning, and, if not, he would give him an opportunity of correcting this misapprehension by now asking him this question, namely, Whether, in the case of any person complaining that a bishop had improperly instituted a presentee to a living, there would be redress for such a person under the Church Discipline Act?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not aware that I made use of the expression "improperly instituted" on that occasion. What I stated, or, at all events, what I intended to state, was, that any parishioner of Frome who complained of a grievance in the institution to a vicarage of a person, like the present vicar of Frome, alleged to have committed gross breaches of discipline and doctrine, might obtain redress through the interposition of the bishop of that diocese where the alleged breaches of discipline and doctrine were committed; and I also stated that he might obtain redress by appealing to the bishop in whose diocese the person accused of offending against the ecclesiastical law at present holds preferment. I stated that there were these two ways of redress open to the parishioners of Frome; and that it did not appear from all the inquiries which the Government had instituted on the subject that any parishioner or parishioners of Frome had as yet endeavoured to procure redress by either of these methods. If that was not precisely what I stated, it is assuredly what I intended to convey to the House. With respect to the other point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has slightly alluded, namely, as to the means of obtaining redress against these bishops, or either of them, in the event of they or either of them refusing to institute the inquiry provided for by the Church Discipline Act, I beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that what I stated was this, that Her Majesty's Government had such confidence in the discretion and sense of duty of the Pre-

805
lates of the Church, that they could not contemplate any such contingency. My words, as accurately as I can recall them now to memory, were these: "The law has provided the means of redress, and we cannot believe that the bishops, who are the means appointed by law to secure that redress, would offer any obstacle to the course of justice and the cause of truth."
MR. HORSMANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misconceived his question. His (Mr. Horsman's) Motion was to inquire whether the Bishop of Bath and Wells had acted properly in instituting the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome; and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer met that Motion by stating, in effect, that, if the Bishop had acted improperly, the parishioners had redress against him under the Church Discipline Act. Those might not have been the precise words used by the right hon. Gentleman, but the language he employed was thought to have that signification. He begged to be informed whether it was the opinion which was conveyed to the Government by the law officers of the Crown, that there was any redress against the Bishop under the Church Discipline Act?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My remembrance of what I stated is precisely that which I have already explained. I have a strong impression—an impression in which I am confirmed by hon. Friends who sat near me, and listened attentively to my words—that I never made any such statement as the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me. I spoke merely of the redress which the law had provided for the parishioners of Frome with respect to a grievance which they might suppose themselves to labour under; but I did not make any statement as to their redress against a Bishop.
MR. HORSMANwould be glad to be informed whether, in the case submitted by the Government for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, there was any inquiry whether, in the event of a parishioner complaining, without effect, to a Bishop of the improper institution of a vicar, there was, as the law now stood, any redress against that Bishop? — any right of appeal to an Archbishop for instance?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappealed to the House whether it was not irregular and highly inconvenient
806
that the Government should be called upon to state the precise terms in which a case had been submitted on their behalf to the Crown officers. He would, however, state this much, for the satisfaction of the hon. and learned Gentleman—for he wished to have no secrecy on the subject—that the Government did consult with the Crown officers as to the alleged irregularity in the institution of the vicar of Frome, and that the Crown officers gave it as their opinion that there was no irregularity.
MR. HORSMANgave notice that tomorrow he would ask Her Majesty's Government whether there would be any objection on their part to the laying on the table of the House the case submitted to the law officers of the Crown in the matter of the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome? On that occasion he would, with great deference to the Crown officers, take leave to state his own views as to the law of the question.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not put the hon. and learned Gentleman to the inconvenience of waiting until to-morrow for a reply to that question. He begged to say that he considered the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman as very irregular and wholly unusual. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had, on principle, the greatest objection to laying on the table any case submitted by the Government for the opinion of the Crown officers, and he hoped that the House would support the Government in that objection.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHwould take that opportunity to state the nature of the question he intended to ask in reference to this subject either to-morrow or on Monday. Entertaining a notion that this question had been very unfairly dealt with, and that assertions had been made with reference to it which could not be substantiated; he wished, before there was further debate on the question, to ask whether Her Majesty's Government were aware, or whether they had reason to believe, that the Rev. W. J. Bennett, who had been appointed to the vicarage of Frome, was or was not a clergyman in the holy orders of, and in communion with, the Church of England?

MILITIA BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 17 (General Meetings to apportion deficiencies among subdivisions and parishes).
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to know how the ballot was to be conducted, and whether the Government proposed to adhere to all the provisions of the 42 Geo. III. in that respect? If so, it would be necessary for every householder to make a return of all the men dwelling under his roof, describing the physical infirmities alleged by any of them as a ground of exemption; and then details were required to be publicly exhibited upon the church doors on one Sunday morning. Under the 42 Geo. III. also, a period of only three days was allowed after the publication of the lists, within which persons might appeal against being called upon to serve, and that period ought, in his opinion, to be extended. It was further provided by the same Act that the deputy lieutenants were to decide upon the appeals, and that their decision should be final. For his own part, he did not think that deputy lieutenants were proper officers to decide upon the civil rights and judicial questions which might be submitted to them under the Bill. He considered that the question arose, whether the Committee ought not to adopt rules and regulations for taking the ballot more in accordance with the feeling and spirit of the present day than those in use fifty years ago?
MR. WALPOLEwas understood to say that it was his intention to abide by the regulations of the Act 32 Geo. III., for he was not aware that any inconvenience had arisen under those regulations.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that it was required by the 42 Geo. III. that a list should be made and placed upon the church doors, describing the nature of the bodily infirmities which were alleged to incapacitate any persons from serving in the militia; and this proceeding would, he thought, be most painful to the feelings of many persons. It was provided that the lists to be published under the Act should be posted only upon the church doors, and therefore to that portion of the population who attended dissenting chapels, including one half of the persons affected by the clause, the notices would be of no avail. The lists were to be exhibited on "some one Sunday morning;" but he thought some particular Sunday should be specified for their publication. He affirmed, without fear of contradiction, that if the hon. and
808
learned Attorney General was drawing up a clause of that kind, he would not for one moment submit such a one to the House. The Act of the 42 Geo. III. was not before the Committee; and they were actually wading on in the dark among a mass of regulations of which they knew nothing. He intended, therefore, when they came to Clause 28, to propose that Mr. Bernal, as the Chairman, should take the 42 Geo. III., and should read the whole of the 150 or 160 clauses, in order that the Committee might know what they were enacting in this Bill.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sorry he could not congratulate Mr. Bernal upon the prospect of the duty he would by-and-by have to perform. With regard to the objections of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), he begged to say in the first place, that the hon. Gentleman was under a mistake in supposing it would be necessary for the parties to publish the particular description of bodily infirmity under which they laboured, and which incapacitated them for service in the militia. By the words of the 42 Geo. III. it would be sufficient to state the name of the party, and that he laboured under a bodily infirmity which exempted him; and the question whether that was such a bodily infirmity as to exempt him, would be the subject of consideration upon appeal to the deputy lieutenants, who would have to decide on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) was of opinion that the deputy lieutenants were not fit persons to determine these questions. Well, what were deputy lieutenants fit for? He (the Attorney General) rather thought he had seen the right hon. Gentleman himself decorated in the uniform of a deputy lieutenant. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had the honour of holding a commission as deputy lieutenant; and he confessed that for his own part he should feel that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly competent to decide such questions, and questions of much greater importance than would be submitted to deputy lieutenants under this Bill. Very generally the deputy lieutenants were magistrates of the county, and in that capacity they had much more important functions to perform than that of ascertaining whether a man was bound to serve in the militia, or ought to be exempted. He did not think, therefore, that there was any great weight in the right hon. Gentleman's

809
objection, that deputy lieutenants were fit for no other duty than that of wearing a red coat, and displaying themselves on those occasions when he had had the pleasure of seeing the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the time for the appeal, it was supposed to be indefinite; but that was not so, for by reference to a former clause of the 42 Geo. III., it would be seen that subdivision meetings were to be appointed at the general meeting on the 10 th of October; that those subdivision meetings were to be advertised, so that they would be perfectly well known; and then came the notice to be fixed on the church doors three days before such subdivision meeting. As to the other objection of the right hon. Gentleman, he agreed that it was only reasonable that the notices should be published on the doors of the chapels, as well as of the parish church; and, supposing his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) was of that opinion, a provision might be introduced to give satisfaction on that point.
MR. WALPOLEwas understood to say there would be no objections to the publications of the notices on chapel doors.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he could not concur in the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to the meaning of the clause referred to, for there happened to be a Schedule to the Act, in which there were these words: "Infirmities, if any, likely to incapacitate from serving." And again," Infirmities, if known." He would admit that deputy lieutenants were persons of average ability; but even if they were supposed to possess sufficient medical skill to determine whether an infirmity was sufficient to disqualify a man from service, there were a number of legal questions that might also arise. Suppose, for instance, that a man pleaded apprenticeship, the deputy lieutenant would have to decide whether it was a legal or a merely colourable apprenticeship. Or, again, a man might plead that he was a member of the Watermen's Company; or the deputy lieutenant might have to decide the meaning of that most remarkable exemption, whether a person was a poor man. The deputy lieutenant could not be expected to decide upon the points that might arise unless he had professional skill and experience; and he (Mr. M. Gibson) submitted that he ought to have assessors.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwould remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question of physical infirmity would be
810
settled by the surgeon of the regiment, who would have to examine each person before he entered the corps. The questions of whether a man was an apprentice or a member of the Watermen's Company, were questions of fact, and such as a deputy lieutenant was quite qualified to decide. But with respect to the right hon. Gentleman's last case, whether a man was a poor man, he should like to know what kind of assessors could assist him in determining a point like that? The right hon. Gentleman should remember that it was proposed to give no new authority to the deputy lieutenants.
SIR DAVID DUNDASconsidered that, from the words in the Schedule of the 42 Geo. III., it would be necessary to describe the particular infirmities under which persons claiming exemption laboured.
MR. MOWATTthought these discussions showed that the House was in a false position, dealing with an Act which it had not before it, and, by incorporating that Act in this Bill, giving powers with respect to the militia of which the country had no conception—powers barely tolerated in a former age under extraordinary circumstances.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the question was, supposing they had drawn up a Bill to amend the law relating to the militia, whereby they would raise men by voluntary enlistment, they would leave the law as it stood in other respects, as had been done on all former occasions. They did nothing by the present Bill to alter the law, except so far as they amended and mitigated it by some of the provisions of the Bill; and when any objection was made to a particular clause, the Government did not show any disinclination to consider any reasonable improvement.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he believed that when men enlisted in the regular Army, and were subjected to surgical examination, they were obliged to strip naked, and to undergo much more examination than any beast shown in Smithfield. Was this course to be pursued with regard to men drawn by ballot for the militia?
MR. WALPOLEshould conceive not. All that was wanted was a sufficient ex- animation by a surgeon to ascertain that the man was not incompetent.
MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he now begged to bring forward the Proviso of which he had given notice. He did not wish to vary the discipline of the embodied militia in respect to flogging from that of

811
the regular Army, for he thought there was great force in the objections of the right hon. Home Secretary made on a previous occasion, namely, that where the regular Army and the militia happened to be quartered together, it would be hard, and also impolitic, to subject the soldier to a more severe and degrading punishment than the militiaman; but his (Mr. Hard-castle's) opinion was, it would be cruel and unjust to inflict corporal punishment on militiamen, more especially those raised by ballot, during the period of training. He thought if Government adopted the Proviso, they would act wisely, and render their measure much more acceptable and popular.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 17, at the end of the Clause to add the following words: Provided always, that whereas by the said first-recited Act it is declared that the provisions of any existing Act of Parliament for the punishment of Mutiny and Desertion are to he in force with respect to the Militia during such time as they are assembled for the purpose of being trained and exercised, but so that no punishment shall extend to life or limb, and that whereas such provisions render Militia Men liable to corporal punishment, no such provisions shall he held to extend to any Militia Men not embodied so far as to render them liable to corporal punishment by the sentence of a Court Martial.'"
MR. BERESFORDconsidered that this question had been settled by the previous discussions; and that it was quite impossible to have two Mutiny Bills. Moreover, by the custom of the Army, corporal punishment was never inflicted except for disgraceful conduct, and therefore the object of the hon. Gentleman's Proviso was already met. He regretted that hon. Gentlemen had spoken of corporal punishment as degrading to those who received and to those who inflicted it. The degradation was not in the punishment, but in the crime for which it was administered. He was likewise very sorry to hear an hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Salwey) on a former debate, state that he had known instances in the Guards where a Court Martial had proved no safeguard to the soldier, because the commanding officer had interfered to bias the opinion of the Court. He (Mr. Beresford) could only say that during the period he was in the Army, he had never heard of such a thing; and he had since communicated with several officers of the Guards, who also declared that not an instance of such conduct had ever come to their knowledge.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Colonel Salwey), was worth a great deal more than that of all the colonels on the Treasury benches, for they had declared that they could not carry on their business, without the power of inflicting the lash. He (Sir G. Pechell) regretted to hear the manner in which the services of the hon. and gallant Member for Westmenter had been spoken of; nor could he forget that at the Westminster election fellows had been exhibited with their arms tied up to represent the flogging which it was insinuated had been inflicted by order of the hon. and gallant Member. He looked upon that as a most disgraceful proceeding to the parties who were responsible for it. With respect to the question before them, he thought that flogging in the Army ought to be abolished; but he doubted whether it could be dispensed with in the Navy, where there were not the means of ordering confinement. But he was happy to say that hardly a ship returned from foreign service now but what the list, as to flogging, was a clean sheet of paper. He should support the clause.
COLONEL ESTCOURTsaid, that he had served for a period of twenty years, and he had never known a case where the commanding officer had attempted to bias a Court Martial. He was convinced that such an idea would never enter into any officer's head.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he knew it was hopeless to appeal to the right hon. Secretary at War, who had broadly stated and reiterated his opinion, that the lash was not a degrading punishment, either to suffer or to inflict; but he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who had shown every disposition to modify the more violent portions of the Bill, would adopt the Proviso.
MR. GOULBURNthought that a Proviso should have some relevancy to the clause to which it was appended. Now as Clause 17 referred to meetings to be held by the lord lieutenants and the deputy lieutenants of counties, it would be supposed that the object of the Proviso was to exempt them from corporal punishment.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, there were occasions when flogging was absolutely necessary. A mutiny might take place, and how was it to be suppressed? In scarcely any case was there a disposition

813
on the part of the officers to inflict that punishment.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he could not see the difficulty of inserting the Proviso somewhere, after the statement of the right hon. Secretary at War that it was next to impossible flogging should be inflicted when the militia were under training. The supporters of the Proviso were only asking the Committee to carry a distinction already drawn a little further. He would have proposed this Proviso himself to make the measure less difficult to work, and less hateful to those whom it might affect.
MR. WALTERsaid, he had voted with the minority when the question of flogging was raised on the 7th Clause, and was strongly of opinion that the Government might have conceded that point. If you made all liable to corporal punishment, whether they were volunteers or men balloted for, you, in effect, put a premium to the ballot, and prevented volunteering; for who would volunteer if they were as liable to flogging as they would be if they were men balloted for?
MR. TUFNELLwished to know whether the volunteers as well as the balloted men would be subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the volunteers equally as well as the men enrolled by ballot would be liable to the Mutiny Act.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would beg to refer to an Act of 44 Geo. III., for regulating the punishment of offences in the yeomanry corps, which clearly enacted that volunteer bodies, as well as the yeomanry corps, were to be subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act.
SIR DAVID DUNDASsaid, he was anxious to say a few words on the present question, having had the honour for some time of helping in the administration of military law, as Her Majesty's Judge Advocate. He had, from time to time, heard a great many objections made to corporal punishment. He wished, however, to call attention to the fact, that within a few weeks the Mutiny Act had been passed without one word being then said with respect to corporal punishment. In passing the Mutiny Act they had not prohibited the infliction of corporal punishment in the Army, as they might have done if they had been minded so to do. But it being the law under the Mutiny Act that corporal punishment should be inflicted in the Army, he was of opinion that it ought
814
to apply to the militia also; and that, too, not merely when the enemy was in the field, but when the force was in garrison. It would be impossible, in the case of garrisons composed of militia and the regular forces, to have two different kinds of punishment existing. Not only would the regular troops resent any such difference, but it would soon be found impossible to maintain discipline among the men. That was the opinion of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. But he (Sir D. Dundas) was not so sure on the question of training and exercising the militia. He held, in common with every military man with whom he had had the honour of conversing on the subject, that corporal punishment could not be dispensed with for the embodied militia, if it were retained for soldiers of the line. But in the 5th Section of the Mutiny Act, provision was made that nothing in that Act contained should in any way be taken to extend to militia, or yeomanry, or volunteer corps, except in cases where by the Act or Acts for regulating such corps the provisions of the Mutiny Act for the punishment of mutiny and desertion should be "specifically" extended. He considered, and had always done so, and had taken leave to mention to a right hon. Friend of his, that the word "specifically" rather drew attention to the provisions of the Mutiny Act with reference to the question how far they should be extended to the militia (as we understood); and therefore, when Parliament came to legislate on that subject, he thought it an open question, and one which was well worthy of attention at a crisis like this, whether they were bound to continue the same punishment upon men who were called out by the ballot against their will, and upon men who were volunteers when the militia was enrolled for the mere purpose of training. He humbly thought it by no means a clear question whether you might not dispense with the punishment at the time of training. He wished to add a word on the question of punishment and corporal punishment. A great many things had been said on the subject unadvisedly, without knowledge, and against the real construction of the merits of the case. He thought it right that he should say so, who had had thousands of proceedings by Courts Martial passing through his hands. What did he find in the administration of the law with respect to corporal punishment? Corporal punishment was to be administered

815
only in cases to which that law restricted it, but these very grave. It had been said that there were but two cases to which corporal punishment applied. That was true, but one of them was neglect of duty; the other was misconduct. Who should decide the width and breadth of these two words by themselves? If this were their punishment for such offences, it was proper to apply them; and they ought to continue to apply them so long as they continued to have such punishment. But he was not quite sure whether he had not heard hon. Gentlemen speak unadvisedly and without knowledge with respect to the mode of the administration of punishment by military law. He took leave to say that he did believe there was no punishment among all the punishments in the Army which was laid on with more discrimination — he would say with more kindness, in consistency with duty—than corporal punishment. He did not know that there was a single officer with whom he had had the honour of communicating during the period of his tenure of office, that had not assured him, not merely by word, but by acts, that if there were a mode of escaping the infliction of that punishment, recourse was invariably had to that mode. There was another observation which he thought it his duty to make, that, under the Mutiny Act, there was a power in the confirming officer to consider whether the punishment might not be done away with. In the case of Her Majesty's confirming officer, in the case of the illustrious Duke at the head of the Army, in the case of the various officers who had to administer military law, there was an anxious and earnest desire to administer that law in mercy, and, if possible, to save the soldier from disgrace. In bringing it to pass that so much as might be what was necessary punishment should be inflicted, but no more, he should say there was at the Horse Guards a gallant officer at the right hand of the illustrious Commander-in-Chief, to whom any hon. Member might refer any case bearing on the subject, and he would find a gentleman capable of attending to him, taking the deepest interest in the private as in the officers, and seeing that no extreme punishment should be inflicted under military law, if equity, justice, and good sense could come in and stop the infliction. Though, perhaps, he (Sir D. Dundas) had gone a little more at large into the subject than it was usual to do on such occasions, he
816
came back to the point where he started, that he doubted whether discipline might not be exercised in training the militia without the enforcement of this hard passage in the law. The punishment being applied to the line, could not be dispensed with for the embodied militia. Therefore it was he thought his friends not well founded the other night in their argument; and, having expressed his opinion this evening, he should call on Her Majesty's Servants to give the subject their grave and serious consideration, and when the proper time came, he hoped that at the end of the 28th Clause, whereby was incorporated the 42nd Geo. III., c. 90, with the present measure, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be prepared to do an act of mercy; he (Sir D. Dundas) was not sure hut it was one of justice.
The EARL of MARCHsaid, he could not help thinking that the remark which had just been made by the right hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was one to which he could not subscribe. As the drilling of the militia was only to last three weeks, it would he absolutely necessary to have some severe punishment to keep the bad characters in order. It would be an encouragement to had characters to commit an offence, such as striking a superior officer, in order to obtain an imprisonment of ten days, thereby escaping the rest of the drill.
MR. O. STANLEYsaid, he believed that corporal punishment could be done away with entirely, except when troops were in the presence of the enemy. He had hoped that the Government would not subject militiamen, when called out for training, to corporal punishment. When hon. Gentlemen said that militiamen could not be exempted from corporal punishment if they were in garrison with troops of the line who were liable to such punishment, they must forget that in India corporal punishment had been abolished as far as the native army was concerned.
MR. HARDINGEstated that he wished, with the permission of the Committee, to set the hon. Member who had just spoken right on the statement he made respecting corporal punishment in the native army. Corporal punishment, at present, existed in the native army; it was abolished by Lord W. Bentinck, and restored by the Governor General in the year 1844.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was a fallacious assumption on the part of the right hon. Gentle-

817
man the Member for Sutherlandshire (Sir D. Dundas) to suppose that Her Majesty's Government had not taken the question into consideration. Of course they should not have recommended the clause to the Committee unless they had given it the gravest consideration. They had given it such consideration, and they had consulted all those who were competent to form an opinion on the subject. The subject was by no means of that simple nature which the right hon. Gentleman supposed, and its settlement would be much more difficult than was generally imagined. Until the whole question of corporal punishment in the Army was dealt with, it would be impossible to make exceptional cases. Her Majesty's Government, looking at the question in that light, had arrived at the conclusion that it was their duty to propose this clause. It was, consequently, their duty to oppose the Proviso. Under these circumstances, he was bound to take the sense of the Committee by a division.
Question put, "That those words he there added."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 87; Noes 132: Majority 45.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 (Men not liable to the Ballot after thirty-five).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the blank be filled with 'thirty-five.'"
MR. HEADLAMmoved that the limit of age after which men should not be liable to the ballot, should be twenty-five, instead of thirty-five years.
Amendment proposed, to fill the blank with "twenty-five."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, if the Amendment were adopted, instead of diminishing the hardship of the ballot, the Committee would he increasing it. The assumption was, that everybody who was able to serve would be liable to serve; and, as the area was increased out of which the men were to be obtained, so would the hardship of the ballot be diminished. Again, if they were to draw men entirely from those who were within the younger period, namely, twenty-five years of age, there would be a much greater interference with the recruiting for the regular Army; for these reasons he objected to the Amendment.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to diminish the burden of the ballot for men who were beyond twenty-five years of age, and he should therefore support the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentle-
818
man the Home Secretary could show that men who had been balloted once would be released from all future liability, then he might not object to the clause as it stood; but as the Bill was now framed, a man was liable to be drawn more than once.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he was willing to admit that by enlarging the area from which men might be drawn, the chances would be reduced in favour of the younger men; but there were great varieties in the physical and social positions of men, and while in one case the liability to be drawn might be perfectly right, in another it might be most inequitable. The very fact of drawing a line at the ago of thirty-five showed that there was a necessity to fix a limit somewhere beyond which men should not be liable to be drawn; and the question was, whether the Government had drawn that limit at the proper place by putting it at the age of thirty-five. Except in a case of emergency, when 500,000 men might be required to be raised, he was of opinion that the area within twenty-five years of ago would be ample for all the purposes of this measure.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that by the 43rd Clause of the 42 Geo. III. it was provided that no person who had served in the militia, either personally or by substitute, should be obliged to serve again until by further rotation it should come to his turn. [Sir H. VERNEY: We all know that. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Mowatt) was aware of it.
MR. MOWATTwould beg to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General to explain what was meant by rotation.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his notion was this, that everybody who was liable to serve in his parish, having once served, was not to be called upon to serve again. [Murmurs of dissent.] Such, at the moment, was his interpretation of the word.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that by limiting the area between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, there was no doubt a greater chance that a larger number of persons from that range would be called on to serve; but what he contended for was this, that if they got 50,000 men from that range, the hardship would be less upon them individually than it would be on those from twenty-five to thirty-five years of age. With regard to the interference with enlistment for the Army, he had to observe that one of the arguments which had been urged in favour of a militia was, that it

819
would train men for the Army. But if they took men at thirty-five, they would lose that advantage. So far, therefore, from this being an interference with the enlistment of the Army, he contended that his Amendment would have the effect of getting a better class of men for the regular Army.
MR. OSWALDsaid, he could throw out a crumb of comfort for hon. Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side of the House, namely, that if this clause should pass, it would be one of the compulsory clauses, which, he felt quite convinced, would never be carried into operation. If hon. Gentlemen wanted a topic for the hustings just now, they could make the compulsory clauses that topic; and if they did, they might rely upon it they would hear no more of those clauses.
MR. MILNER GIBSONwished to know the reason for reducing the age to thirty-five?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Government had first to consider the area, and then the capability of service. If they had taken men at forty-five years of age, they would have compelled them to serve up to fifty. By taking them at thirty-five, forty years was the utmost limit of age at which service would be required. The Government, therefore, had thought it best not to exceed that age for compulsory service.
Question put, "That the blank be filled with 'thirty-five.'"
The Committee divided: —Ayes 89; Noes 52: Majority 37.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 19 (Registrar General may be directed to furnish information to lieutenants of counties for their guidance in making appointments).
MR. OSWALDwished to point out a very curious anomaly which would exist if the Government inserted an exemption as they proposed to do in this clause. In England, where there would be something to do, the qualification of deputy lieutenants would not be required; but in Scotland, where there would be nothing to do, except to appear at Her Majesty's levees and State balls, a qualification of 300 l. a year in land would be required.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he was in favour of retaining the land qualification.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLIStrusted the Government would not lower the qualification for deputy lieutenants. He was sure the great principle ought to be retained,
820
that they should have an interest in the land of the country.
MR. WALPOLEwould remind the Committee that it was not proposed to lower the qualification, but only to modify it, so as to meet the altered circumstances of the present day, when so much more property was held for long terms of years, and so much less upon freehold. There was no fear of the lord lieutenants appointing any officers unless they were satisfied that they were persons living in the county, and all appointments would be subject to the approbation of the Crown.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 20 (Providing that Her Majesty may direct into what regiments, &c, militia shall be formed, and with what officers and staff).
COLONEL SIBTHORPcomplained that the lords lieutenant were to be deprived of their usual power of appointing the officers to the militia. He considered that such power could not be placed in more efficient hands; and he hoped Government would fall into his views, and allow them to retain the powers conferred on them by the Act of George III.
SIR CHARLES BURRELLhoped lords lieutenant would appoint the surgeons and other inferior officers, as they must be best acquainted with the qualifications of the candidates.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 21 (The Act of the forty-third year of King George the Third (chapter nineteen)—
"To authorise the training and exercising the Militia of Great Britain for twenty-eight days,' as amended by section five of the Act of the fifty-fifth year of his said Majesty (chapter sixty-five), 'to amend the Laws relating to the Militia of Great Britain," so far as the same relate to the Militia in England, shall be repealed, and the period of training and exercise shall, save as hereinafter provided, be twenty-one days in every year; and Her Majesty may, if She see fit, direct all or any part of the Militia of any county, riding, or place to be palled out for training and exercise more than once in every or any year, and at such time or times as Her Majesty may think fit, so as the whole period of training and exercise of any Militia Man do not exceed twenty-one days in any year, save as hereinafter provided.'"
COLONEL ESTCOURTsaid, he thought the period proposed for training would render the force very inefficient. He did not believe that a training of twenty-one days a year for five years would make a soldier. The period of training ought to be in the first year, and never afterwards,

821
the force being only mustered in after years. Instead of twenty-one days a year, he would say ninety for the first year, and six days as a mere muster for the remaining years. No doubt, if the ballot were to be continued, it would be a hardship to call out men for ninety days at a time; but, as he understood that the force was to be a volunteer force, this would not be felt as a grievance.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he feared that the period mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member would be productive of serious inconvenience to those who were called out, whereas he believed the force might be made effective without any such inconvenience to those who composed it. He would press upon the attention of Government the advantage of taking those periods of the year when the agricultural labourers had some difficulty in obtaining work—the month of November, and part of the month of December, and the month of May. Those were periods in which the men could serve without inconvenience, and they might be drilled in companies in the shorter days of November and December, and in battalions in the month of May.
MR. BERESFORDsaid, with regard to the time of drilling, he admitted that they could not make a good and perfectly trained soldier in twenty-one days; but there were powers in the next clause to increase this period, if necessary. He thought, however, that if men were drilled completely, and then left to rust without exercise in subsequent years of service, they would not remain in that efficient condition which the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Colonel Estcourt) would like to see them in.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that by the statute 42 Geo. III., c. 90, s. 100, if parties did not come to the training and exercise on the days appointed, the Government would be authorised to proceed after a certain time to ballot for persons to take their places. Now, if a good many of the volunteers, after having got the money, did not come to the training and drilling, the Government would be obliged, by this clause, to have recourse immediately to the ballot, for persons to fill their places; and this was to go on every year, ad infinitum, he supposed. The ballot had been suspended until 1853, and this clause ought, therefore, to have a provision introduced into it, by which the Committee would have an assurance that
822
the postponement of the ballot to 1853 was really to be carried out.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that when the right hon. Member talked of persons getting the money and not coming, it must be understood that he was talking only of Manchester; but in this case the old adage, "A bird that can sing and won't sing, must be made to sing," must be put in force; if the people of Manchester did not come forward, there was such a thing as bringing them forward. He had a better opinion of the people of England generally. He thought their fidelity to their Sovereign, their attachment to their country, and their desire to preserve the property of others from a foreign enemy, would induce them to come forward without regard to the paltry sum of 61. As to the period of drilling, twenty-one days a year was a mere flash in the pan. If an efficient body of men were wanted, let them be properly drilled, and to do this, not less than six weeks, or even a further period, would be necessary.
MR. J. EVANSsaid, his suspicion that we were about to establish an ineffective force, was very much strengthened by the opinion just expressed by high military authorities as to the period of drilling. Unless the compulsory clauses were struck out, he was afraid this Bill would turn out to be in its first part ineffective, and in its last oppressive.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he must repeat what he had said before with respect to the supplementary ballot, and he again begged for some explanation on the part of the Government.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that in the year 1831 there were 770 persons drawn for the militia in the city of Westminster. Of these 770 only 36 declined to serve in person, and they obtained substitutes for 3l. a piece. The next year every man of them appeared. There were also raised at the same time in the county of Middlesex 1,024 militiamen, of whom 1,018 appeared. The apprehension, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman, that men would not be obtained, was perfectly chimerical.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had already stated that it was not intended to have recourse to the ballot during the present year; and if there was any doubt upon that point, he was prepared to insert words in the 15th Clause which would make the intentions of the Government clear. The volunteers for the militia would be called out in the course of the autumn; and

823
under the section to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had referred, three months must elapse before the supplementary ballot could be taken, and consequently it could not come into operation during the present year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always argued as though the volunteers were to receive their bounty down; but that was not the intention of the Government, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War would take good care to pay it in such a manner as to afford a security for their reappearance.
SIR CHARLES BURRELLsaid, that a man who took the bounty swore to perform a service, and if he did not appear when called upon, he was a deserter, and might be proceeded against as such.
Blank filled up with the words "twenty-one days."
COLONEL ESTCOURTsaid, he should now move his Proviso, which was to the effect that Her Majesty should be empowered to direct that the drill and training of the militia in any one of the five years for which they were enrolled, should extend over a period of ninety successive days, but in that case the drill and training in the other four years should not exceed six days in each year.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwould suggest that the Proviso would be more advantageously attached to the next Clause.
MR. BERESFORDthought the power conferred upon the Government to call out the militia for fifty-six days in one year, if desirable, and for twenty-one days in the succeeding year, would be found quite sufficient to give a thorough drill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, Her Majesty, by the Act as it stood, had the power, with the advice of Her Privy Council, to extend the period of exercise from twenty-one days to fifty-six days. The Government, in fixing the latter period, had consulted the highest military authorities, and he considered it undesirable and unnecessary to prolong the period beyond fifty-six days; he must, therefore, oppose the Proviso.
COLONEL ESTCOURTsaid, he would not divide the Committee, and the Proviso was withdrawn.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that in moving the Proviso he held in his hand he was not going to say a word about morals, because he knew that in these matters these considerations were generally put aside, though he had heard it said that it was unwise to place young
824
men in beerhouses during the whole of the time when they were not occupied in training. If the training was to go on for fifty-six days, he doubted whether the country would think this arrangement likely to improve the morals of these young men. But he would not dwell on morals, as he knew they were not taken into military consideration; and he would merely point out the injustice of the regulation to the class who would be most affected by it. If a militia was considered necessary by the country, he must say that the country ought to be at the expense of finding a proper place for them. If the Government wanted to make these young men soldiers, why not encamp them under tents on some dry common? To be obliged to provide accommodation for them, was regarded as a great grievance by the publicans generally. It might be said that they had a monopoly, but they had no monopoly but that given them by their licence, for which they paid a high price. At all events there was no monopoly as far as the beerhouses were concerned, and he hoped the Government would take the matter into their favourable consideration.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Clause, to add the following words:—' Provided that notwithstanding any thing contained in the said first-recited Act, or any other Act, no Officer, Non-commissioned Officer, Drummer, or Private Man, serving in the Militia, when called out for the purpose of training and exercise, shall be quartered or billeted in any inn, livery stable, alehouse, victualling house, or in any house of any person selling brandy, strong waters, spirits, beer, cyder, wine or metheglin, by retail, without the consent of the respective occupiers thereof."
MR. BERESFORDsaid, the custom had ever been that licensed victuallers, who possessed a decided advantage and a monopoly in the exercise of their trade, should have troops billeted upon them. It was a mistake to suppose that soldiers were never billeted upon publicans except when on a march. They were often billeted upon them for weeks and months together; but the publicans took it in turn, and the billeting was made as little burdensome as possible. All that was asked by this clause was, that the same regulations should be in force for billeting militiamen as for the regular Army.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he supported the Proviso. There were barracks which had cost the country enormous sums of money that were now entirely unoccu-

825
pied, and that would form admirable places for the accommodation of the militia. Where there were no such barracks, he thought the men might encamp in tents, or might throw up huts, as the labourers did in constructing railways. This, he thought, would greatly promote the morality of the men, and he could not see any possible disadvantage in having recourse to such a practice.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, his right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. M. Gibson) had had been applied to by the licensed victuallers to represent their feelings on this subject. It was absurd to say that any privilege conferred by a licence upon a public-house keeper was any equivalent for forcing militiamen upon them. He apprehended that the State had no more right to throw this burden upon the publicans than upon the grocers or the country gentlemen. He should like to know what the process was by which these billeted parties were apportioned on the publicans. He presumed the matter was in the hands of the billet-master. It was monstrous to suppose that publicans derived any benefit from the system of compulsorily billeting men upon them, because, in the majority of instances, the publican paid the penalty to get rid of the soldiers. He objected to the system because it was a departure from the contract principle upon which Government had always proceeded in providing for the military. He should therefore support the Proviso.
CAPTAIN BOLDEROdenied that there was any surplus of barrack accommodation in the country. Within the last five-and-twenty years, the barracks at Colchester, Cheltenham, Yarmouth, and other places, had been converted to other purposes; and, in some instances, as in the case of Yarmouth, 140,000 l. had been saved to the country by converting the fine barracks there into a lunatic asylum. But even if there were, it was to be recollected that every county was called upon to furnish its own quota of militia, so that the barracks might be in places where they were altogether useless. Then, with regard to encamping the men, the Committee must remember that they would be called out either before the hay harvest or in the fall of the year, and at both these seasons it was not particularly desirable that men should be placed under canvas. The billeting would be no great severity upon the public-house keeper, for the militiaman,
826
after providing his food, would have 6d. or 7d. a day to spend, and in all probability it would be spent in the public-house.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was not correct to say that the keeper of a public-house had no monopoly: he had the valuable monopoly of being alone entitled to sell spirits by retail in less quantities than two gallons. The argument of hon. Gentlemen would go to doing away with billeting altogether; for if they were to have billeting at all, it was clear they must adhere to the ordinary course of billeting the men on public-houses, and he felt inclined the rather to recommend this, as the Committee had already expressed its opinion that it was not advisable to make distinctions between the militiamen and regular soldiers. The right hon. Mover of the Proviso had not suggested any feasible mode of lodging the militiamen in preference to that proposed by the Bill.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was not for him to make the suggestion, because he wished to get rid of the Bill altogether. The Government, however, ought not to shrink from proposing the expenditure necessary for the proper accommodation of the men they were about to raise. Besides, his Proviso only related to the period when the militia were called out for training and exercise, and not to the period when they might be embodied along with the regular troops. He again asked why country towns should be subject to the intolerable nuisance of having these raw young men—vagabonds of ever)' description— ["Oh, oh!"] — quartered upon them? Yes, he held they would be mere vagabonds, for it had already been admitted that nobody would enter who had anything better to do.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Committee would not forget that only a few nights ago the right hon. Gentleman attempted to force the use of the ballot upon the Government, and now he was trying to put the country to a great additional expense in lodging these men, so that the right hon. Gentleman, in his eagerness to oppose the Bill, had been betrayed into two great inconsistencies. With regard to the clause itself, he would remind the Committee that there were but three ways of providing for these men: either they must be accommodated in barracks, or they must be encamped, or they must be billeted in public-houses. Now it was shown that there was no surplus of barrack accommodation for

827
the regular Army, and there was nothing in the Act to prevent them from being encamped where it was advisable; but where it was not, there was no remedy but they must be billeted on public-houses.
MR. BRIGHTdenied that there was any wish on their part to increase the expenditure; but what they said was, that the Government ought to deal with publicans, with regard to billeting, just as they did with the people from whom they bought arms. The greatest amount of ignorance respecting this Bill Was shown by the Members of the Government who introduced it. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary talked of the billeting not being in all cases imperative; but in the 94th Section of the42 Geo. III., it was made imperative to billet, and monopoly had been pleaded for public-houses; but the hon. and learned Attorney General, with the ingenuity peculiar to his profession, had not said a word about beershops, which were equally liable, though nobody could say they had a monopoly.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Member for Manchester, who talked so much of the ignorance of the Members of Government, was, doubtless, himself well informed. Now, would he show the Committee where beershops were referred to under the Act of 42 Geo. III.?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: They are included under the class of houses that sell beer by retail.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No; I beg your pardon. [Mr. M. GIBSON: I beg yours.] The term used is alehouses— a term well known in law. In point of fact, beershops had no existence at the time of the passing of this Act; so that hon. Gentlemen who charge the Government with ignorance, would do well themselves to understand the subject they speak of.
COLONEL SIBTHORPcould only say this, that he would rather have in his parish a dozen militiamen than one member of the Anti-Corn-Law League.
MR. JOHN EVANSmust admit that beershops were not included in this Bill. Still he could not understand why licensed victuallers, livery-stable keepers, and others were made liable. Suppose it were enacted that all the lawyers in a parish should find lodgings for the militia, or all the parsons and dissenting ministers, or
828
all the bakers and grocers, everybody would see the monstrous nature of the proposition. He should vote in favour of the Proviso.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLwas also in favour of the Proviso, as he had long been of opinion that there never was such an oppressed class as the licensed victuallers of this country.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, all parties seemed to agree that these pet soldiers ought to be well accommodated. They, no doubt, required commodious dwellings and great conveniences, and he thought there could be no places so proper for them as the houses of the nobility. As Peers were exempted from the ballot, let them have the benefit of the billet. Many of the mansions of the nobility were very scantily occupied, and as they would have a militia, let them lodge the men in their houses. He thought it most unfair to fasten the militia on the publicans, whose burdens were sufficiently heavy already, and who, between the magistrates and the brewers, had a pretty hard time of it. It was highly improper that one particular class should be selected to bear a burden of this kind.
MR. MILNER GIBSONwished to know whether there was any objection to the insertion of words to render it quite clear that beerhouse keepers would not be liable to be billeted upon? If it was intended to render them liable, let words be inserted to that effect. If not, let the matter be set at rest.
The ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that if not liable under the old Act, they would not he under the present; and if, on the contrary, they were, they would be left in that position. This Act would not interfere with them.
Question put, "That those words be then added."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 54; Noes 105: Majority 51.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22 (Provides for the number of days on which men would be liable to be subjected to drilling).
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, alluded to his aversion to interrupt the course of regular industry throughout the country, and he led the House to believe that the number of days on which men would be required to serve under the Bill, would not, on the average, exceed twenty-one days in the year; but it would

829
seem that the Government wished to fill up the blank with a larger number.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was the intention of the Government to make the ordinary time of training twenty-one days; but it was proposed to insert a much larger figure in order to be prepared for any emergency.
SIR HARRY VBRNEY: Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that men could be made efficient soldiers by twenty-one days' drilling in a twelvemonth?
MR. WALPOLEdid not say anything of the kind. In fact, he believed that men to be trained as efficient soldiers would require about nine weeks' drilling in the year.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 23 (Providing that Lord Lieutenants of counties, with the approbation of the Secretary at War, might provide places for exercise).
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, the present mode of balloting was very expensive, and he believed it might be reduced considerably. Some of the expenses were charged in a manner different from the modern mode of charging. He did not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to look into all these variations at present, but he wished to obtain some information on one point, and that was the nature of the expenses which would fall on the county rate. This was a matter in which country gentlemen were interested, and he was somewhat surprised that they did not display some degree of interest on the subject. Had a simple project come from the late Government, no doubt they would have been overwhelmed with questions on the subject.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Militia Act was an annual Act, and the whole of the payments were provided for in that Act. The payments for the men were charged on the country; but he believed the payment of clerks, parish constables, overseers, &c, in respect to the militia, devolved upon the counties. There was a schedule affixed to the Act, which he would hand over to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the evening.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had been pleased to be facetious on the drowsiness of country Gentlemen; hut the behaviour of country Gentleman, so unpleasant to hon. Members opposite, might he explained by the circumstance that there was now in existence a Government from which the country
830
I Gentlemen did not expect harsh measures, while the late Government had declared that they would do nothing which would have an alleviating effect in respect to those calamities of which the country Gentlemen complained.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, it might be very consolatory to the hon. Baronet to think that the occupants of the Ministerial bench were men in whom he could confide; but he (Sir F. Baring) was afraid that his constituents — the payers of the county rates—would not feel much consolation in having the charges to be occasioned by this Bill imposed upon them. The late Government proposed to take care, in the Bill which they intended to bring in on the subject, not to let the expense of the militia fall upon the county rate. Now, he thought that it would have been more consolatory to the county ratepayers to have been benefited by such an enactment, than to reflect with the hon. Baronet that they had a Government for the country party, and to pay the heavy expenses that would be occasioned by this Act.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, it perhaps might be unsatisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman that he had not had an opportunity of stating what that great boon which they intended offering to the country would have been. Whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to speak omne ignotum pro magnifico, he (Sir J. Tyrrell) did not know.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that although hon. Gentlemen opposite, the supporters of the Earl of Derby's Government, were so drowsy, foreign Governments were awake to what was going on in that House; and if hon. Gentlemen had looked into the newspapers that day, they must have seen in the intelligence from France a strong confirmation of the arguments used against the Militia Bill—namely, that if an increase was made in the forces of this country, other countries would make that an excuse for keeping up, and even increasing, their armies. A proposition had been made for increasing the French army by precisely the ominous number of 80,000 men; and one of the reasons assigned by the rapporteur of the Bill for keeping up the French army, was, that the British House of Commons had voted money for the organisation of a numerous militia. In the course of a short time it was probable the country would be called upon to increase the standing Army, in order to be in a condition to meet that

831
enormous French army. The course now pursued was calculated to raise up danger which the country would afterwards have to provide against. Such a fact as he had stated ought to excite some reflection in the mind of even the sleepiest Member on the Ministerial benches.
MR. NEWDEGATEwished to call the attention of the Committee to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Baring) that if the late Government had passed a Militia Bill, the greater part of the expense would have been cast on the Consolidated Fund.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he had not stated anything of the kind. The charge would have fallen on the general revenue.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, in that case, if the expense was likely to fall heavily on the county rates, country Gentlemen had a right to expect that the Members of the late Government would support them, if necessary, in transferring a portion of that expense to the general taxation of the country.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he objected to charges of this kind being thrown on the Consolidated Fund, because the opportunity of an annual revision of such charges was not afforded. If ball practice was required, it could not be carried out without considerable expense, and he should like to know whether it was to be charged on the county.
MR. WALPOLEwas understood to say that on looking into the annual Act he had considerable doubt whether such a charge would be thrown on the county or not, but a clause might be introduced into the annual Bill to settle the matter.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 24.
Clause 25 (So much of the said first-recited Act as authorises Her Majesty to order and direct the Militia, or any part thereof, to be drawn out and embodied in cases of rebellion and insurrection, shall be repealed).
SIR HARRY VERNEYwished to know what good reason existed for the proposed repeal. It appeared to him that every loyal subject would be quite as ready to assist in suppressing rebellion as in repelling foreign invasion; and in all probability, if invasion were ever attempted, it would be combined with an attempt at insurrection.
MR. ORMSBY GOREcould not understand why Her Majesty's right to call out
832
the militia should be limited when disaffection and rebellion took place in the country. He recollected that when there was an insurrection in Ireland it was very much controlled by the appearance and activity of the natives of Dublin turning out in the shape of yeomanry. Insurrection was the very time when such a force as the militia was required, and he therefore hoped the Committee would take the question into serious consideration before they adopted this clause.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, no doubt the principle upon which the clause was framed was, that the princple of the Bill was confined to institute strictly a defensive force against foreign aggression; but as the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) and other hon. Gentlemen disapproved of it, he would leave it for future consideration.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman must not suppose because he (Mr. Bright) and his Friends had not risen to address the Committee, that they did not object to the withdrawal of this clause. With regard to Great Britain, there could be no kind of expectation that anything like disaffection was likely to prevail again. And, with regard to Ireland, he believed that that House might legislate in such a manner that there would be no more reason to apprehend insurrection in that country than in Great Britain. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman last night express his disapproval of the arguments and policy of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and that at the same time he made an explanation of the speech of the right hon Gentleman the Home Secretary which gave a very different colour to it from that which it had had before. [Cries of "Question, question!"] They were upon the question of insurrection, and he was saying they might so legislate for Ireland as to prevent its recurrence there. Insurrections here had generally been in times of scarcity; and seeing that a scarcity of food had been provided against as much as it was in the power of the Legislature to do, he believed that those periods of discontent and incipient insurrection would not come on this country for the next fifty years from any such cause as had constantly led to them during the last forty years. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had done wisely in introducing this clause into the Bill, and if it were with-

833
drawn, the Government would be departing from the ground and principle upon which the Bill was framed, and would not only make it more obnoxions than it was now, but would lay the Government open to the imputation that it was introduced on false pretences, passed through that House on grounds concealed, and palmed on the country, while the true reasons for its introduction were never fairly explained.
MR. ORMSBY GOREthought the clause should be omitted. He had no idea of legislating on suspicions. They ought to legislate on what they considered to be the benefit of the country.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYconsidered the clause one of the good clauses in the Bill. If the clause were not adopted, the Government would be armed with an excuse for keeping up the militia long after the necessity for that force should have passed away.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) was singularly unfortunate in his allusion to him (Mr. Newdegate), for he would remind j the hon. Gentleman that the only two per sons who had ventured publicly to recommend insurrection in case of invasion by way of inducing the Irish people to assist the invaders, was the Rev. Mr. Cahill and the Rev. Mr. Murray, two of the priests educated at Maynooth. He rejoiced to J hear that the Government intended to re- I consider this clause, for it was an exception to every Militia Bill this country had ever known.
MR. ORMSBY GOREsaid, he had no objection to postpone his proposition for omitting the clause, on condition that he should not be prevented from opposing the clause ultimately. The principal argument of Earl Grey in favour of his Militia Bill in 1831 was in case of disaffection showing itself in the country.
MR. J. EVANSsaid, there was a general feeling throughout the country that it was the intention of the Earl of Derby's Government to impose a duty on corn, and if it went forth that there was to be a force of 80,000 men officered by landed gentlemen, who were favourable to a change that was unfavourable to the body of the people, it would create very great alarm. He thought that this clause was perfectly consistent with the design of the Bill, and he therefore should support it.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, that the yeomanry were liable to be called out in the
834
case of disturbance, and he thought there ought to be no distinction between the militia and the yeomanry in this respect. The old militia had rendered good service during former riots, and he did not think it would be right to cast a slur, by a clause like this, upon a force which they wished to make popular.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYhad no doubt the Government had given, as they stated, great attention to this clause, as well as all the other clauses of the Bill; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not consent to withdraw a clause which would alter the whole tenor of the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that although the Government had certainly given this subject the best consideration that they thought it demanded, at the same time they were bound to listen to the opinions given on questions of detail by the Members of that House. It was not to be supposed, however matured the measure had originally been, that in matters of detail it was not capable of improvement; and in fact the object of going into Committee was to receive the benefit of the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen on both sides. He would express the determination of the Government not to press this clause on the present occasion, but to withdraw it for further consideration, in the hope that there would not now be any more discussion upon it, and that they would at once proceed to the other clauses.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, if he adhered to his first proposition, should have his support. There could be no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman stood by his own clause, the Committee would not allow it to be rejected. Before he talked of deferring to the sense of the Committee by agreeing to the postponement of the clause, let the right hon. Gentleman first take the sense of the Committee whether it actually wished the clause to be postponed or not. The right hon. Home Secretary obtained the assent of the House to the principle of the Bill, by representing that it was to be looked at as strictly and exclusively a defensive measure, and in no way intended for internal purposes. The Government had put forward this Bill with sham pretexts; and now they were about to withdraw this restriction in the same way as they had withdrawn the proposal for enfranchising the militia, which had been

835
intended to soften the unpopularity of the Bill.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart) had stated that an addition of 80,000 had been made to the French army in consequence of the measure that was now before the English Parliament. That, he thought, was the best compliment that had yet been paid to the militia, He was surprised to hear the statement of the President of the Reform Association (Sir J. Walmsley), that nothing would cause him so much regret and so much lamentation as anything that would have the effect of depreciating or deteriorating the value of this measure. With regard to calling out the militia to suppress riots, it was well known that the manufacturers of Manchester were always most anxious for the presence of troops during any disturbance.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he must protest against the hon. Member for North Essex putting words into his mouth that he had not used.
SIR JOHN TYRELLrose to order. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps be kind enough to state what words he had "put into his mouth."
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY: The hon. Baronet says I spoke of the merits of the Bill. I think it has many demerits, but I never allowed that it had any merits at all.
SIR JOHN TYRELL: The hon. Gentleman said he would lament anything that would depreciate the measure, and that this Amendment would have that effect. The hon. Member has plenty of prompters.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, that the use of the armies on the Continent was to put down the liberties of the people; and there would be a natural impression that the proposed force would be employed for a similar purpose in England.
MR. G. THOMPSONwould put it to Her Majesty's Government, whether it would not be a breach of faith, and a departure from what had been said at the introduction of the Bill, if the Government did not firmly resist the withdrawal of the clause? All through the discussion, attention had been rather directed to circumstances external to this country, than to the formation of an army of reserve. If the Government wished to be consistent, they would resist the postponement of this clause, or any alteration in it. They would consult their own integrity and good faith,
836
and their credit with the country by doing so.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he should vote for the postponement of the clause, in the hope that the result of the Government's consideration would he to withdraw it. He saw no reason in the world why, if there was any domestic convulsion, the militia should not be called out, because nothing was more likely to produce the danger of invasion than some domestic convulsion. The old Militia Law gave the Crown the power, by Order in Council, to call out the militia in the event of internal disturbances; and if this clause was not struck out, the position of the country would be weakened, instead of strengthened, by the present Bill.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be postponed."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 200; Noes 61: Majority 139.
Clause postponed. Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, this clause involved very important considerations, and would require much discussion. It would be better for the Committee not to proceed further till they heard the conclusion of the Government as to the clause that had been postponed, which, if omitted, would entirely alter the character of the Bill. This Clause 28 involved all the clauses of the 42 Geo. III., nearly 150 in number, and many of which were inconsistent with the clauses in this Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Home Secretary whether there had been any attempt on that side unfairly to delay the progress of the Bill. Most of the suggestions had come from friends and not from opponents of the measure.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think the hon. Member had made out a case for reporting progress. The Government did not wish to keep the House in suspense as to the postponed clause, and he hoped to communicate their opinion on it to-morrow. As the night was still young—and the House fresh, he hoped they should be allowed to proceed, so as to finish the Bill in good time to-morrow.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he must press for the postponement of the 28th Clause, but he would offer no opposition to the remaining four clauses. In making this proposal, it could not be considered that he was acting unfairly.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would accede to the hon. Member's request, on condition that the Government might propose amendments in the clause to-night.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, as so many doubts had been started as to whether the clause would not act cumulatively in reference to the 42 Geo. III., he should introduce an Amendment to meet that difficulty, as well as a Proviso that the Bill should not come into operation before the time already agreed on. He now begged to lay them on the table.
Clause postponed. Clauses 29 to 32 inclusive, were agreed to.
House resumed:—Committee report progress.

APPREHENSION OF DESERTERS FROM FOREIGN SHIPS BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a Third Time."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he was sorry to find that although he had understood that the Government had agreed to all the important Amendments to this Bill which were proposed on the second reading, the third clause still remained. By it every person who harboured or concealed a deserter from a foreign ship, was liable to a penalty of 10 l., to be imposed at the discretion of the justices. Now, under this clause, taken in connexion with the second, if a fugitive American slave were harboured in any of our ports, the United States Consul there might demand his extradition, not on the ground that he was a slave, but that he had deserted from some American ship, on which he had at a former time been entered. And in that case, if the Bill as it now stood were passed, not only must the slave be given up, but any captain who took him on board his ship, or any householder who received him in his house, would be liable to a penalty of 10 l. for harbouring a deserter. It would be next to impossible for our captains who employed American seamen in any of our ports to know whether they were employing American deserters or not; nor, if they offended unwittingly in this respect, would they be able to plead the defences which would be good under the Mercantile Act, for that measure did not extend to such cases. What should have been done was, to have extended the provisions of that Act to the case of foreign seamen. Think-
838
ing, moreover, that too much power was given by this Bill to the Orders of the Queen in Council, and that we had already gone too far in sanctioning the principle of extradition, he thought he was justified in recording his opposition both to the principle and the details of this Bill, by moving that it should be read a third time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day Three Months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. HENLEYsaid, that he had engaged to remove from the Bill all the provisions which rendered it applicable to any but merchant seamen deserting from foreign ships, and he believed that he had entirely fulfilled that engagement. The clause relating to the harbouring of deserters was merely an extension to foreign seamen of the same provisions as were already in force with respect to English seamen. The Bill could have no application whatever to the case of slaves.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that he objected to the principle of this Bill, for which he could not see the least necessity. Not only were there no petitions in its favour, but there were many against it; and although there were in that House many representatives of mercantile and shipping constituencies, he had not heard from them that this measure was at all requisite to meet the exigencies of British trade in foreign countries. Under this Bill great injustice might be done, and he would tell the Government that although they might carry it by numbers, they could not say that they had advanced even one single plausible argument in its favour.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; — Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3°.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
Order read, for resuming the further Proceeding on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [19th May],"That the Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [11th May], 'That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the system of Education carried on at the College of Maynooth:'—(Mr. Spooner:) —And which Amendment was to leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words * this House will resolve itself into a Committee,

839
for the purpose of considering of a Bill for repealing the Maynooth Endowment Act, and all other Acts for charging the Public Revenue in aid of ecclesiastical or religious purposes—(Mr. Anstey) — instead thereof,'—be adjourned till Wednesday the 16th day of June next:"—And which Amendment was to leave out the words "Wednesday the 16th day of June next," in order to insert the words "Wednesday next," instead thereof:—Question again proposed, "That the words 'Wednesday the 16th day of June next' stand part of the Question."
Further Proceeding resumed.
MR. REYNOLDSobjected to the postponement of the question to the 16th of June. The Motion had been introduced by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) in a speech—but he could scarcely call it a speech, because it was principally composed of extracts from certain works which had reference, he believed, to the Catholic religion. The speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman was a speech which, in his (Mr. Reynolds') judgment—and he spoke as a Roman Catholic Member of the House—was calculated to insult the whole Catholic body. It appeared to him to be a speech of unadulterated, malignant bigotry, and in the manner of the delivery, as well as the matter, was extremely offensive. When Gentlemen over the way were exhibiting symptoms of impatience, he begged to remind them that they had heard all the libels and filthy and abominable calumnies contained in that speech, not only with patience, but with smiles of approval. He had hoped that the discussion would have terminated on that day, or that night, or that morning, because if it had, he believed it would have terminated in affirming the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire; but it suited the taste of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a long speech upon that occasion, which he could only characterise as a No-Popery speech. Since then the House had been addressed by the right hon. Gentleman who had the honour to be the leader of the House, Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer, who threw the shield of his protection over the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and declared that he meant no offence against the Catholics of that House or against the Catholics of the United Kingdom. He (Mr. Reynolds) took it for granted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
840
understood the right hon. Gentleman better than he (Mr. Reynolds) did, because the construction he put on the speech of that high official functionary was this—that the country demanded an inquiry—that it would not be safe for the Government to refuse that inquiry—and that they should go with the current of public opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman went much further; he referred to what he called the conduct of the Catholic clergy and bishops since the year 1845, when this House affirmed the proposition of a great and liberal and enlightened statesman now deceased (Sir Robert Peel). The right hon. Gentleman said, on that occasion, that he doubted whether faith had been kept with that House by the Catholic authorities of Ireland; but he (Mr. Reynolds) would remind the House that the charge, if it were a charge, was not brought by the mover of this proposal, of their being any violation of the compact—if it were a compact, and he (Mr. Reynolds) denied that it was—of 1845. The hon. Mover of the Resolution referred to various matters connected with Catholic discipline, and entertained some, disgusted others, and pandered to the bigotry of a few, by reading several pages, or extracts of pages, headed "Instructions for the Confessional." Now, he (Mr. Reynolds) would remind the House that that was a matter with which the grant had nothing to do. He understood the grant to have been made for the education of Catholic ecclesiastics, according to the practice of the Catholic religion. But what was the Motion? "To inquire into the system of Education pursued at the College of Maynooth." He would remind the House that in the year 1827 a Royal Commission was appointed for that distinct and specific purpose. Seven Royal Commissioners were appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the system of education at that college, and at the head of that Commission was Mr. Frankland Lewis. The Commissioners proceeded to Ireland, in the fulfilment of their mission, and made an inquiry at Maynooth, which was spread over the space of two months. They examined every man connected with the college, from the highest professor to the humblest student, and they adjourned from the college to the city of Dublin, and continued their inquiries there. The evidence taken before them, together with the report they made, namely, the Eighth Report of the Commissioners of Education of Inquiry, was to be found in the library

841
of the House, and was spread over 486 folio pages. ["Question!"] The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Bro-therton) cried "Question!" he (Mr. Reynolds) did not hear him cry "Question" before he changed sides; but he had heard him often and often, and sometimes with pain, cry "Question" when he desired to cut short any hon. Member who was endeavouring to vindicate Irish liberties. If they agreed to the postponement to the 16th of June, the debate was not likely to come on on that day, because it was likely that Parliament would be dissolved before that day. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might have better official information than he possessed. The hon. Gentleman—and he might call him also gallant—the Member for Ennis, said "No!"— [The O'GORMAN MAHON: NO, no; decidedly not.] And he might be in the political baby-house, and might know of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government better than he (Mr. Reynolds) could pretend to know them. ["Question!"] The hon. Gentleman cried "Question!" and he (Mr. Reynolds) was speaking to the question. He believed that House would cease to exist before the time fixed, and he was desirous that the calumnies uttered against his creed and his country should not remain unanswered until it was impossible to answer them. [Laughter.] He was delighted to find that the loudest cheerers of that which was probably construed to be an Irish bull, were Gentlemen who had been born and reared in the same country. But, he would ask, was it fair towards him and those of his creed to ask for this debate to be adjourned until the 16th of June, believing that this Parliament would not be in existence on that day? Let it not be supposed that he shrunk from this inquiry. He believed there was nothing connected with the system of education at Maynooth, that the Catholic bishops, and clergy, and the Catholic people of Ireland, had a right to be ashamed of. They challenged inquiry, for they believed that inquiry must result to the advantage and honour of the college. But they believed inquiry was not the object of the Motion. They believed that party feeling was at the bottom of the Motion—that, because hon. Gentlemen opposite had failed in raising the cry of "Protection" for human food, they had raised the cry of "No Popery, and the College of Maynooth." He believed they had done so; and he founded his belief on the fact that on the 10th of February last a notice of Motion
842
was given to withdraw the grant, and that that Motion had been pared down and reduced to an inquiry into the system of education pursued in the College of Maynooth. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire was stated to be ill, owing to an accident; but why was he not here? He understood the hon. Member had been the victim of a cab establishment. He understood that the hon. Member had been run over by a cab, and some persons had been sufficiently ill-natured to say that he had been run over by an Irish cabman. But if he was sufficiently well, he ought to be in his place, because he had a great deal to answer for; he had to answer for opening wounds well-nigh closed, and for propagating feelings of ill-will, discord, and disunion among Christians of all denominations in this country, of which they surely had had enough last year. He was supporting the Motion that the question should be gone into on Wednesday next, and not on Wednesday the 16th June. He might be told that next Wednesday was the Derby-day; but he considered that the settlement of a question of this kind was of vast deal more importance than horse-racing. Therefore, if Gentlemen were in earnest, let them settle this question next Wednesday, or even to-night; but let them not be told that it should be brought forward on the 16th of June, when the parties promising it had not the shadow of an intention to bring it forward on that day. In conclusion, he would say that the Catholic bishops of Ireland were unanimously of opinion that they had nothing to fear from any inquiry that House might institute; but they totally denied that the House of Commons had any right to meddle with their system of instruction, and declared that they would never permit Parliament, directly or indirectly, to dictate to them as to the manner which might suit their ideas to educate the youth intrusted to their charge. He might say, as an individual, that whenever the proposal should be made to withdraw the Maynooth grant, he should vote for it upon one condition, and one only, namely, that every grant made by the State for the support of any particular religion or sect should be withdrawn also, and that they should abolish the temporalities of the Protestant Church in Ireland. Give them all a clear stage and no favour; then, and not till then, would he ever consent to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLwould confine himself to the question whether it was not

843
advantageous that this matter should be brought to a close in a fair manner and as speedily as possible. Did any man believe, if the inquiry were to be postponed till the 16th of June, that it could be brought on at all this Session? Next Wednesday was certainly an unfortunate day to be fixed on, being the Derby-day; but he would prefer even discussing the question on that day rather than postpone it to the 16th of June. Nay, he would rather than that there should be any delay, have the matter brought forward on a Saturday. It must have been the impression of the House that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in favour of the views of the mover of the original Motion; after that came the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, modifying that impression. Probably at some civic feast they would have a speech from the Prime Minister himself, in which he would comment on and correct the opinions of his two Colleagues; so that the Government would formally go to the country on these three explanations on the important subject of the Maynooth Grant. This was an unfair state of things, especially to Ireland, where he was above all things anxious that the spirit of religious warfare should not be revived. If in this country political rivalry drove men to extremities, what must be the destructive consequences of political and religious rivalries combined in Ireland? He was anxious that the House should meet on this question upon Christian grounds and as Christian brethren. He thought a Parliamentary Committee was not the mode for conducting an inquiry of this nature; still less did he think that the Committee proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) was calculated to produce any good; on the contrary, he believed it would produce much mischief, by introducing the odium theologicum into the question.
The O'GORMAN MAHONobserved, that the House, which had been listening to the hon. Member (Mr. Reynolds), who had been rambling over all manner of subjects, would do well to revert to the question before it. When he suggested that to the hon, Member (Mr. Reynolds), they all saw how he turned on him; and if he (The O'Gorman Mahon) was not endowed —as, thank God, he was—with an exceedingly complaisant temperament, and a large fund of good humour, which enabled him to endure every outrage—and the House would agree with him that these combinations were much required—he did
844
not know how he could have borne with the hon. Member's conduct; though, to be sure, his outrage was mitigated by the grace of his manner, the elegance of his language, the courtesy of his phrases, and the charms of a toute ensemble which would almost reconcile one to the reception of a wrong done with such good breeding, so much eloquence, and so much courtesy; and but for which the Speaker would have been the first to call him to order. However, the hon. Member had enjoyed and would continue to enjoy impunity so far as he (The O'Gorman Mahon) was concerned. As to the question before the House, he must first say he could not join in the sentiments which had been expressed with regard to the hon. Member who had introduced it; for he could not forget that when the hon. Member (Mr. Reynolds), and others, were ignorant of the feelings of English gentlemen, and while he (The O'Gorman Mahon), and a few Roman Catholic gentlemen, were struggling for their rights, the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) had always been a stanch advocate on their side, and had supported emancipation. His present course was not inconsistent; he believed that certain doctrines were taught at Maynooth, and he desired an inquiry. To that, he thought they could not object. Though he (The O'Gorman Mahon) was educated in a Jesuit college, he must say he never had heard of such doctrines; and he had no hesitation in saying, if they were circulated at Maynooth, it was an establishment fitter to raise a priesthood for such cities as Sodom and Gomorrah, rather than for a Roman Catholic people. If such doctrines were taught, the sooner so vile a system was exposed, the better; if not, the sooner the falsehood was exposed, the better too. He wished to bring the question to a speedy issue, and therefore he would support the Amendment. Let them be treated with candour by the British Parliament, and let them have a fair investigation and an immediate decision.
MR. H. HERBERTappealed to the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate), as an English gentleman, to say what good purpose he could gain by keeping the question open? It was evident that it could not be disposed of in the present Parliament. He knew, from his character, that he (Mr. Newdegate) would scout with indignation the notion of keeping such a question in suspense for the purposes of party, or to serve for a cry at the elections.
MR. NEWDEGATEhoped that the House would allow him to answer the

845
question of the hon. Member. The position of the question was this: whether the House would express an opinion on the necessity of inquiring into the system of education at Maynooth? A great body of the public was anxious to know if the House would, by a Resolution, declare whether they considered there was a necessity or not for an inquiry. He had not the least wish to postpone the solution of that question; and he was desirous of having a time fixed for renewing and concluding the discussion. But he and other hon. Members who took an interest in the question were bound to see, when the question came on for discussion, that it should come on upon a day when there would be a full House, not upon a day when there would be a scanty attendance, or the chance of a thin division. Acting in the spirit of fair play to the hon. Member whom he represented, and to all parties, he was bound to see that the discussion took place in a full House. He had no objection to Wednesday next beyond the circumstance of its being a day not usually devoted to discussion. It was that reason which had led him to fix the subject for the 16th June. He was well assured Parliament would not separate until that day, and he felt confident there would be a full discussion and a corresponding-division. He could assure the House his only desire was to see that the question received no unfair play. That was the reason of fixing upon the 16th June.
MR. GLADSTONEwas glad the hon. Member had responded to the appeal, though he could not say he was satisfied with his answer. No men were more interested in the rejection of the Motion than the hon. Member and those who acted with him. What was his reason for postponing the debate to the 16th June? Because he wanted the discussion to take place in a full House, and would not take Wednesday next. The hon. Member spoke as if Wednesday next was the only available day. He trusted that under no circumstances would the House consent to adjourn the debate to the 16th June; for, if they did, they would agree with what would go far to render the character of the House ridiculous. The Motion for such a postponement raised a question, not as to the sincerity of the mover, but as to the reality of his objects. Was it possible that he could think it consistent with the dignity of the House, and the respect they owed to the feelings of all classes of the people,
846
that on a matter deeply involving their interests it should be proposed that the House should assent to a Committee of Inquiry on a day which every one believed was not more than ten days or a fortnight before a dissolution of the Parliament. The hon. Gentleman had one of two courses open to him. He really wished that this inquiry should go on, or he did not; and he (Mr. Gladstone) was really doubtful, after what had occurred, whether the hon. Gentleman did wish for it. When first it had been brought forward, he (Mr. Gladstone) believed it to be a bonâ fide Motion; he expressed his opinions upon it with that feeling—knowing, too, that the question was one of the most serious character: if it was not a bonâ fide Motion, let it be discharged; but if it was made bonâ fide, it was their duty to find a day for it. The hon. Gentleman said there was a difficulty in finding a day upon which they could renew the discussion; but he (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to know when there was ever found a difficulty in discovering a day for the solution of a great question, upon which the feeling of the country was thoroughly aroused, and which occupied the most prominent position in the minds of almost every constituency throughout England. Upon such a question as this, was the House and the country to be told that no day could be found for its discussion? We were now probably within a month of the end of Parliament; and what had been the uniform practice of the House towards the close of the Session? Why, that about six weeks before that period they began to meet at twelve o'clock in the day, and met also on Saturdays. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Will you move that we do so now?] It was for the hon. Member to point out the course he would take, which was one of two things: either to consent to drop his Motion, and to agree that the order should be discharged; or, if he wished-—as he (Mr. Gladstone) wished—that the inquiry should proceed, then let the hon. Gentleman simply ask the House to meet either on a Saturday or on Tuesday next at twelve o'clock; and when the House had refused that request, let him talk of the "difficulty" of finding a day for renewing this debate. The House would be rendered contemptible in the eyes of the country if they attempted to escape by such pretexts from coming to a decision upon this important question.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, it was not the

847
fault of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that he was unable to fix an earlier day for this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he was quite unable to give a Government day, suggesting, however, that a Tuesday might be fixed; but it was perfectly clear that it would be useless to appoint Wednesday next, when there was sure to be a thin attendance.
MR. KEOGHsaid, the hon. Gentleman appeared to have misunderstood the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. That right hon. Gentleman had not proposed that the House should meet on Wednesday next to discuss this question; on the contrary, he was as well aware as any hon. Member in the House of the absurdity of their meeting to discuss the question on the day proposed by the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey). He observed numerous ambassadors from different parts of the House were recommending various courses to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. They were now at the close of a moribund Parliament, without having come to any decision upon a Motion which was put upon the books at the commencement of the Session. They were now in the penultimate month of the Session, having discussed only one night a question which had been two months before the House, and in which the country took the deepest interest. What the right hon. Gentleman for the University of Oxford had suggested was, that they should meet to discuss this question at a morning sitting. If the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was really anxious to have the question fully discussed, let him not propose to discuss it three or four days before the dissolution of Parliament. Even if the House should, on the 16th of June, consent to grant a Committee, the selection of the hon. Gentlemen who should compose that Committee, must necessarily give rise to considerable discussion. Let the hon. Member throw off the mask. Let him not fancy that he could delude the country by proposing to have a discussion when no real discussion could take place; but let him adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone), and ask the House to consent to a morning sitting. Let him ask the House to sit upon Saturday. Let them, after all the shuffling which had taken place on the other side of the House, really name some early day on which the question could be
848
fully discussed, so that they might arrive at a satisfactory conclusion; but he believed in his conscience that nine-tenths of hon. Members wanted to escape from any conclusion at all.
MR. WALPOLEthought it was of very great importance that the House should come to some practical decision on this question. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), that if the discussion were postponed until the 16th of June the proposed inquiry would be rendered entirely futile; but he also thought that the other day which had been suggested, namely, Wednesday next, would, for reasons which were apparent, render it much more futile, since it could not be expected that any serious discussion would take place on that day. What was the House to do, then? They were nearly approaching the end of the Session; ail agreed that a practical decision should be come to, and all agreed that no practical conclusion could be come to if the discussion were postponed until a few days before the Parliament was dissolved. In this position only two courses seemed open. The one was, either to discharge the order altogether, or to move the adjournment of the debate to the next day, for the purpose of giving the hon. Member for North Warwickshire an opportunity of considering what morning or what day he could select. [An Hon. MEMBER: No, no; fix a day.] As far as he (Mr. Walpole) was concerned, he had not the slightest objection that the hon. Member should fix a day, and he should be the last person in the world to wish that any further discussion on the Motion should be entirely prevented, because he saw that the opponents of the Motion were desirous of addressing some observations to the House upon the subject. He would take this opportunity of saying that his (Mr. Walpole's) speech on this question a few evenings since had been very much misrepresented, and he was convinced that those who heard it would not put upon it the construction which some hon. Members had given it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had correctly described the construction to be put upon it. He thought a day ought to be appointed for the renewal of the debate, and the earlier the day the better it would be.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him (Mr. Anstey) would withdraw his Motion

849
for resuming the debate on Wednesday next. It was very clear now, that the whole matter as regarded the choice of the day rested with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate); and he thought the very earliest possible day ought to be named. If the hon. Gentleman did not accept now the offer—for it was an offer —made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it would be said that there were two great questions upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed to make their appeals at the hustings—one the question of Protection, and the other that of the May-nooth grant. The one they had thrown over; the other they evidently desired to postpone. As far as they (the Opposition) could prevent that postponement they would do so, encouraged as they were by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole). The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day in that House that he had no intention to withdraw the grant to Maynooth; but the walls of Liverpool were placarded with the declaration of one of the Members of the present Government that he was prepared to vote for the withdrawal of the grant to Maynooth.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, he did not shrink from the opinion he had expressed privately to his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) that it was most important an early day should be fixed for resuming the debate. As this view also met with the concurrence of the Government, he hoped his hon. Friend would propose to resume the debate on Tuesday next, at 12 o'clock. He would only say, in conclusion, to hon. Members opsosite (the Irish Roman Catholic Members), that if it had not been for the unfortunate Papal aggression he believed hon. Gentlemen would not have heard of this Motion.
MR. GOOLDthought the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire not so unfortunate as his speech. He believed that the proposed inquiry into the system of education at Maynooth would raise a bad feeling and ill will in Ireland, and the question ought therefore to be decided at once.
MR. FORBESmoved that the adjourned debate upon the grant to Maynooth be resumed on Tuesday next, at 12 o'clock.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYconsented to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed his concurrence in the adjournment of the debate to Tuesday next, at 12 o'clock.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn; —Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next at 12 o'clock.

METROPOLITAN BURIALS.
LORD JOHN MANNERSmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws concerning the Burial of the Dead in the Metropolis. At that late hour of the night he would not enter into any details of the measure, but would merely say that it would provide, first, for the closing of the burial grounds within the metropolis, and secondly, for forming burial grounds beyond the metropolitan boundaries for the reception of the dead. At a future stage he would enter more fully into the details.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that as far as he could understand the Bill from the few words of explanation the noble Lord had given, the present measure appeared to be the same as the one which had been so unsatisfactory in its results. He hoped full information would be given as to the nature and provisions of the Bill before any stage in it were taken.
MR. STANFORDtrusted that the Bill would be laid on the table at a time when a full explanation of the objects and details could be given and discussed.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, it was not to be denied that the evils of the present system of intramural interments were notorious, but they were not more so than when the late Government with so much confidence brought in the Bill. It was true, that Bill had failed; but it was to be regretted that a full explanation of the causes of the failure had never been given; but he hoped there would be an opportunity afforded in the consideration of the present Bill to have those causes fully stated and discussed. He must say that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the conduct of the late Government in respect to that Bill.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he should be quite prepared when the subject came under discussion to defend the conduct of the late Government, so far as it related to the department with which he had been connected, in regard to the measure to which his noble Friend had alluded. That measure had failed without doubt, but it was because the Government were misled by the Board of Health. It was in consequence of reliance on their assurances that they could raise the money for carrying out the measure, when they had not the means of doing so. He hoped the

851
House would allow the Bill to be brought in, that it might be fairly considered.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord John Manners and Mr. Secretary Wal-pole.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.