Commons Sitting of 3 March 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Education (Scotland).
2oConsolidated Fund (£8,000,000); Commons Inclosure.

PRIVATE BURIAL-GROUNDS— QUESTION.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether proprietors of private burial-grounds recently closed by the peremptory orders of the Government, are entitled to compensation, and, if not, what are the reasons for refusal? Whether any and what steps have been taken to secure the books of registry of the names of persons who were buried in private burial-grounds prior to the passing of the Act 6 & 7 Vict.? Whether the remains of the deceased, now lying in private burial-grounds, will have a legal guarantee against disturbance or removal?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: With respect to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, as to whether the proprietors of private burial-grounds are entitled to compensation, I have to say that the Act of Parliament, under which public or private burial-grounds are closed, does not provide any compensation, and it does not occur to me that any should be given, because the only ground upon which those places were ordered to be closed is, that they have become public nuisances and dangerous to the public health, in consequence of the multitude of dead bodies deposited in them. I cannot, therefore, see that these parties, whether parishes or private individuals, who have so managed their graveyards as that they have become public nuisances can be entitled to compensation. With regard to the disinterring of bodies, I have taken the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the subject, and they have informed me it would be a misdemeanor for anybody to remove the remains of a person buried in a grave without the consent of the relatives and the parties interested, and in one case where it has been attempted to remove the remains from one graveyard that had been closed, steps had been taken to obtain an injunction to prevent such removal. With regard to securing the books of registry of the names of persons buried in private grounds, I have
276
to remind the hon. Gentleman that, since the passing of the Act of William IV. called the General Registration Act, the death is registered, and not the burial. Previously to the passing of that Act, the registration of burials in private grounds was not received as evidence in courts of law, the registration of parish burials alone being admissible in court as evidence; but since that Act the registry of death, no matter where the burial takes place, whether in public or private ground, is evidence of the death, and not the registry of the burial. No steps have, therefore, been taken with respect to the books of registry of burials in private graveyards, because before the passing of the Registration Act they are of no value as legal evidence, and since that time they have not been required as evidence.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEasked if the noble Lord intended to bring in a Bill to prevent the forcible removal of bodies from graveyards without the consent of the parties interested; and, also, whether he would bring in a Bill to prevent the proprietors of those graveyards from building upon them after they had been closed?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had already stated that, in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, the forcible removal of the remains of persons buried in these graveyards was a misdemeanor, and, therefore, he did not conceive it was necessary for him to bring in a Bill on the subject. With regard to the second part—the ultimate disposal of the ground—that was a matter still under his consideration, and, if he should find it necessary to frame a Bill, he should do so at the earliest opportunity.

SALVAGE BY H. M. SHIPS—QUESTION.
MR. SANDARSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what orders had been issued to the captains of Her Majesty's vessels in respect to the assistance to be rendered to British vessels in distress at sea; and whether the masters or seamen who do render assistance to such vessels are allowed to make any charge beyond the expenses incurred by them in rendering that assistance?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the general order of the Board of Admiralty respecting salvage on the part of the Queen's ships was laid upon the table of the House last Session. Under that order, officers and seamen of the Queen's ships

277
were directed to render every assistance to distressed merchant vessels. By an Act passed last Session, all claims on the part of the officers and men of the Queen's ships for rendering that service must first receive the sanction of the chief officer on the station, and be confirmed by the Board of Admiralty, before they could be prosecuted in a court of law; and this sanction was never given unless, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the services rendered had been really important, and had been attended with danger to life. As an instance of the views which the Board of Admiralty entertained on the subject, he might state that within the last three months a claim had been put forward for having towed a disabled steamer belonging to the port of London a distance of 1,200 miles, on the coast of Africa. Although there could be no doubt that this was an important service rendered, still, as it was not attended with danger to life, the Admiralty had refused to allow the claim for salvage to be instituted.

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION BILL—

  POSTPONEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT MEA- SURES.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in making the very usual Motion that the order of the day for the Second Reading of a Bill be read, for the purpose of its being postponed, I am about to adopt the unusual course of making some explanation of the reasons why I propose to take this step. It is due to the House, after what has taken place upon the subject of the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People in England and Wales, and due especially to those hon. Members of the House who are earnestly desirous of a further amendment of that representation, that I should explain the reasons why I am about to propose to postpone the second reading of that Bill, which stands for the 13th of March, to another day. The House will recollect, that when Parliament assembled, it was considered as most probable that we might soon be involved in hostilities, though no certainty upon that subject could be affirmed. Her Majesty was pleased, in addressing this House, to recommend to our consideration the further amendment of the state of the representation of the people, and Her Majesty was graciously pleased to say, "In recommending this subject to your consideration, my desire is to remedy every cause of just complaint, to increase general con-
  278
  fidence in the Legislature, and to give additional stability to the settled institutions of the State." It was in conformity with that recommendation of Her Majesty that on the 13th of February I moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of amending the representation of the people. I will not enter now—it is no part of the subject of to-day—into the merits of that Bill; but I may say that, having introduced it, I fixed a day for the second reading of that Bill at an interval when I thought the House might be able to give its attention to the subject. I did not say, however, that that day was positively fixed for the second reading—of course I reserved to myself the discretion of naming another day; but soon after that day was fixed, the hon. Baronet the Member for East Kent (Sir E. Hering) gave notice of a Motion for an Amendment on the second reading of the Bill, to the effect that in the present state of our foreign relations the proceeding with that Bill for the Amendment of the Representation would be inopportune. I did not know at the time what was the hon. Baronet's object in giving that early notice, but it certainly seemed as if his notice was rather in hostility to the Government than to the Bill itself, for there was nothing in that Amendment which seemed to imply a disapproval of the Bill. However, Sir, after a short time had elapsed, Her Majesty's Government had seriously to consider what their own course should be, and whether it would be convenient for the House to proceed with that Bill upon the day which I mentioned. Now, Sir, there are two considerations upon this subject to which I beg to call the attention of the House—one is the state of public business, and the other the state of our foreign relations at the present time. With regard to the state of public business, I conceive that it is our duty, the duty of the Government, after the announcement we have made, and in the state of our foreign relations, as shown by the despatches which have been laid before Parliament, to ask, in the first place, for all the supplies which we might think necessary for the public services at the present time; and, in the second place, to obtain those ways and means by which we should ascertain how the State will be best able to defray the expenditure which may be called for. With regard to the first of those requisites, the House has shown such willingness to vote the supplies which have been stated to be required, such a devotion to the public ser-

  279
  vice, that there has been no difficulty on that subject, and no time has been taken up greater than is necessary for that purpose. With regard to the second point, it has yet to be ascertained—for it will only be on Monday night next that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will state the views which the Government entertain of the present state of the finances of the country, and the measures which he thinks are necessary to the public service and the maintenance of public credit. Such, therefore, will be, next week, the state of public business; and it seems to imply that the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People could hardly come on on the 13th of March, consistently with the object of obtaining both the supplies necessary for the public service and the ways and means necessary to defray the increased expenditure. But, although the Bill might not come on upon that day, it would be certainly in our power to fix a day somewhat later upon which the second reading might be proceeded with. But here I have to ask the attention of the House to that which must, in all probability, be our position with regard to our foreign relations when that day should arrive. I can hardly think I am revealing any secret to the House—for it has been announced in the public papers these two or three days—that, at the end of last month, a messenger was sent to the Court of St. Petersburg with despatches from the Governments of England and France, relating to the occupation of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia by Russia. For a very long period that occupation has been acquiesced in, with a view of carrying on negotiations by which their evacuation might be made a stipulation of a treaty of peace. These negotiations, unfortunately, after a very long period during which they have been carried on, have led to no result; and the Conference at Vienna has positively declined the only terms upon which the Emperor of Russia declares himself ready to treat. We could, therefore, no longer permit this wrongful occupation of the territories of Turkey by Russia to be continued; and the Governments of England and France have therefore signified to the Emperor of Russia that they shall consider his continued occupation of those Principalities beyond a certain period, necessary for carrying that evacuation into effect, as equivalent to a declaration of war. Calculating, then, the time which is necessary for the trans-
  280
  mission of these despatches to St. Petersburg, and supposing that the Emperor of Russia, having already declared that he will listen to no terms other than those which he himself has laid down, continues firm to that determination, his negative answer will reach this country in about twenty-five days from the time when the message was sent; and, therefore, towards the end of this month it would be the duty of the Ministers of the Crown to bring down a message to the two Houses of Parliament from Her Majesty, declaring in the usual terms that the relations of peace between this country and Russia no longer exist. If such be the probable, and, I am afraid I must say, the almost certain course which events will take, I think Her Majesty's Government cannot be wrong in deciding that, at this particular moment, when such a message is either on the eve of being brought down, or is under discussion, or has been actually delivered, it would be hardly possible to deliberate with due consideration on a measure relating to a question of such extent and importance as the amendment of the representation. I cannot but think that, such being the case, it will be better to postpone the consideration of the Reform Bill to a future day:—but when I say to a future day, I entertain a hope that, when that day comes which I shall propose to fix for the second reading, there may then exist such a state of affairs as will enable the House calmly and deliberately to consider the Bill. On the other hand, it would be the height of imprudence if I were to say that, on the day which I shall name, the business must infallibly come on, even though a state of things were to arise which would make it highly desirable again to postpone the Bill to a further future day. I, therefore, Sir, can only ask this House to give me the power of fixing a day on which I can proceed with the Bill, of course leaving it still in the power of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Kent, or any other Member of the House, then to interpose any objection to its further progress which he may think fit. I have already stated I do not think that a condition of war should, in itself, be a sufficient reason for not proceeding with the consideration of any subject of this sort. I will only say that the postponement which I shall propose will enable the Government to mature and introduce the Bills for the amendment of the representation in Scotland and Ireland before the second reading of the Bill for England. The day on which I propose to

  281
  proceed with the Bill for England and Wales is the day immediately following the Easter holidays—for it would be obviously inconvenient to take up such a measure only a few days before the Easter holidays, for it to be laid down again and the discussion interrupted during that interval—and I propose, therefore, now to fix the second reading of the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People in England and Wales for Thursday, the 27th of April next.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYrose to express his deep regret at the course which Her Majesty's Ministers had thought proper to pursue upon the present occasion. He thought it was right the House and the country should know the precise position in which they stood with respect to this great question. The noble Lord had referred to what had taken place in an earlier part of the Session; but he (Sir J. Shelley) also begged to recall to the recollection of the House what the noble Lord said on a former occasion, when he was subjected to a pressure in reference to this question. The House would recollect that the noble Lord then stated that the best time for introducing a measure to amend the representation of the people was when the public mind was quiet, and not agitated upon the subject; but on the night on which he introduced the Bill, in answer to what fell from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Liddell), the noble Lord declared that there was nothing in the present state of public affairs, even supposing we were at war, which should serve as a reason for postponing a measure of this kind. Well, then, he wished to know what had occurred since to induce the noble Lord to postpone the Bill? But that was not all; last year the noble Lord pledged his word that Her Majesty's Ministers, in the course of the present Session, would introduce a Bill for the reform of the representation of the people. That promise, coming as it did from a man of character and consistency, was believed and confided in by the country; but now the noble Lord came forward at the last moment, within seven days of the day on which he had originally proposed to proceed with the second reading of the measure, and informed the House that its further progress must for the present be postponed. What had occurred since the introduction of the measure to induce the noble Lord to break the promise of himself and his Colleagues? He (Sir J. Shelley) feared that the professed postponement of the Bill till
  282
  after the Easter holidays really amounted to a virtual abandonment of it. Such, at all events, was his opinion of the course which the noble Lord had pursued; and he did think the House and the country had some right to complain, and were entitled to ask the noble Lord whether it was really his intention to take the sense of the House upon the Bill in the present Session. Nobody seemed to object to the principles of the measure. The noble Lord had very truly said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Kent did not refer to the merits of the Bill itself, but merely set forth that the present was not a proper time for going into the question of Parliamentary reform. There could be only one reason, therefore, for the refusal of the noble Lord to proceed with the Bill, and that was, because he was afraid of being placed in a minority if he pressed the Bill to a division. Now, he would take the liberty of saying that it was the duty of the noble Lord, after the pledges he had given, to proceed with the Bill, let the consequences be what they might; but should the noble Lord persist in breaking all the promises he had made to the House and the country, it would be difficult to believe that the whole thing had not been a sham from the beginning to the end, and that the reformers of England had not been completely bamboozled by Her Majesty's Ministers. He was afraid there was no one now on the Treasury bench who felt so strongly upon the measure as to be willing to run the risk of being put into a minority. For one, he could only say that the decision of this question now rested with the people of England. There were principles in the Bill which the reformers of the country had hailed with great satisfaction. It did not, indeed, go far enough for some of them; but it was—not a step—but a stride in the right direction, and those who had advocated the cause of an extension of the franchise for years, could scarcely, he thought, be satisfied with what would be universally regarded as a virtual withdrawal of the measure. When he was told that there had been no excitement in favour of this Bill, his reply was that the excitement and agitation should have come from the other side. If it was true, as avowed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a large portion of the nation objected to the principles of the Bill, why did they not get up public meetings against it? He could tell them, that if they had done so, they would have seen plenty of excitement displayed in its

  283
  favour. It seemed to him, however, that the country, unlike the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Ministers, had pursued a straightforward and dignified course. The people had shown confidence in the Government, and had never doubted for one moment that the noble Lord would fulfil the pledges he had given. For his own part, up till yesterday, he firmly believed that the noble Lord would move the second reading of the Bill on the 13th instant, and he never supposed for an instant that the noble Lord, after all that had occurred, would give up the measure, in order to avoid being placed in a minority in that House. Did the noble Lord imagine that the country would be satisfied with so trivial and paltry an excuse as that? If the noble Lord was afraid of being placed in a minority by those Members whom the Bill deprived of their seats, why did he hesitate to appeal to the country, and ask their opinion upon the subject? The mere circumstance of a majority of the House being opposed to the Bill, if that should prove to be the fact, ought not to be a sufficient reason for the noble Lord refusing to press the Bill to a division, because he could appeal from the majority of the House to the majority of the country. It could not but be supposed that there were hon. Members in the House who had spent a great deal of their money and their time in obtaining their seats in the House, who, seeing that the Bill proposed to disfranchise their constituents, would oppose it with all their might; but their opposition ought not to make the noble Lord waver in the performance of his solemn pledges to the subject of Parliamentary reform. He (Sir J. Shelley) was assured that the conduct of the noble Lord on this question would have a tendency to shake the confidence of the country in Ministers of the Crown, whoever they might be. In the name of the reformers of England, he wished some Member of the Government to say whether or not they really intended to proceed with a measure for reforming the representation of the people? Was it their intention, in fact and in truth, to proceed with this Bill immediately after the Easter holidays, without setting up any excuse about war, or any other subject which had nothing to do with this question? The country anxiously awaited an answer to that question.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, it was not his intention to have trespassed upon the attention of the House, but he must
  284
  ask leave to make a few remarks, in consequence of the observations which have fallen from the noble Lord. The noble Lord, in the explanation which he had just offered to the House, stated that he did not know what intention he (Sir E. Dering) had in placing the Resolution of which he had given notice upon the paper. Now, he was extremely anxious that the object of that Resolution should be clearly understood. So far from having any desire to obstruct the progress of reform, there was no man in that House who was more ready or more willing than himself, at the proper time and opportunity, to consider in a liberal spirit a large and—provided it be sound—he cared not how comprehensive a measure of Parliamentary reform. But the object of the Resolution of which he had given notice was this—to draw the attention of the House to the time at which and the circumstances under which that question was about to be introduced to their notice. The objections which he entertained to the Bill would be equally applicable to any other large measure, of whatever character, that would be likely in its progress through the House to give rise to serious and violent differences of opinion. He should bring forward his Resolution upon public grounds alone; and he wished it to be distinctly understood that he brought it forward as an independent Member, totally unconnected with either of the great political parties in that House. He might add that he felt greatly encouraged to persevere in the course which he had considered it his duty to pursue in consequence of having ascertained beforehand that that course was strictly in accordance—whatever his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) might say—with the voice of public opinion both within and without the walls of that House. It might, perhaps, be convenient to the House that he should take that opportunity of stating, that when the noble Lord moved the second reading of his Bill, it was his intention to move as an Amendment a Resolution to the same effect as that of which he had already given notice.
  LORD ALEXANDER LENNOXapprehended that the statement of the noble Lord the Member for London would be received in the country with mingled feelings of satisfaction and regret. With satisfaction that the country would be saved the irritation and discord which must necessarily accompany the discussion of a measure so important as Parliamentary reform; for,

  285
  although he believed it was generally admitted on both sides of the House that the greatest apathy existed on this subject, yet it was idle to suppose that a subject so closely affecting all classes and all interests could fail to produce that excitement which we all professed so much to deprecate:—with regret that the Government of this country, with all the importance and dignity which ought to belong to it, should so trifle with Parliament and the country. For it must be remembered there was a wide difference between an agitation produced by itinerant demagogues and an agitation of which Her Majesty's Ministers condescended to place themselves at the head. This Reform Bill was the result of that compromise of principles which, in Government phraseology, was termed coalition. The tone of the speech of the noble Lord in introducing his Reform Bill was almost that of a funeral oration. The Bill had lain in State now for nearly three weeks. Its obsequies had taken place that night. The noble Lord the Member for London had attended as chief mourner, and probably the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton would assist as mute at this mournful ceremonial. The only way of accounting for this new system of postponement was, that the Government were aware that, like a spinning-top, if they stood still they must fall. If their proposing the most important measures, and proposing them advisedly, and then withdrawing them on the most trivial grounds, were the principles upon which Her Majesty's Government intended to proceed then no wonder that in their projected Reform Bill they had endeavoured to make appeals to their constituents few and far between, and to make themselves as irresponsible as possible to public opinion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, I am induced to trespass upon the attention of the House for a few moments, in consequence of the speech which has been addressed to it by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley). Sir, I believe I have been a reformer quite as long its lie. I believe I have had opportunities of observing the conduct of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London much more nearly, and much more closely, than the hon. Baronet ever had; and if he will permit me to use the privilege of age and experience in giving him any advice upon the present occasion, I would say that if he values the cause of reform—if he really wishes practical success to reform measures, and not merely to make them themes
  286
  for declamation and agitation—if he wishes to see those measures carried into effect, let him follow the guidance of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who has been our captain, and has led us to victory in many a well-fought field, and who I believe to be not wavering or dissenting on the present occasion, but cautious and judicious. I confess, for my own part, so far from agreeing with the hon. Baronet that the cause of Parliamentary reform has suffered by the course intimated by the noble Lord, my belief is that no policy could have been imagined more fatal to that cause than if the question had been forced upon an unwilling House of Commons, or forced prematurely upon an indifferent and reluctant public by the noble Lord on the present occasion. Sir, the people of this country are desirous at the present moment of uniting heart and hand in prosecuting a far greater struggle than any in which England had yet been engaged; and, I must add, that I believe this House, faithfully representing the feelings of the country, is not disposed to seek for occasions of party differences which might weaken the Government in the great struggle in which we are about to engage with a foreign Power, but at the outset of this formidable contest is inclined to believe that the duty devolves upon it of presenting united counsels, and a serried front to the nations of Europe, which are closely watching our actions. I have seen it stated in the newspapers that, in conversation upon one occasion, the Emperor of Russia said he had no fear of the power of England, because he believed that what he was pleased to call a bourgeoise House of Commons would never support the Government in a great and patriotic course of action in foreign policy. I think the demeanour of this House and the country will soon convince him of his mistake. Sir, upon that ground I heartily rejoice at the course which the Government have pursued with reference to the question of Parliamentary reform. I think they are right not only to postpone the Bill upon the present occasion, but I think they would act extremely wrong if they pledged themselves to bring it forward at any time, or under any circumstances, when their sense of public duty may tell them that, as conscientious men, they would not be discharging their duty to the Crown and to the country by introducing it to Parliament; and I hope that no taunt or sneer will drive them from that which I hold to be the

  287
  course of public duty—namely, not for any minor considerations—not for any considerations of an unworthy description—in the least to waver from the position of judging of events as they arise, and not to commit themselves prematurely to any course which, when the time came, might be contrary to their sense of public duty. We are told we are on the eve of a war. It is true there is yet a possibility that war may be avoided, and if so, one or two months hence may be a very proper time to proceed with the consideration of the Reform Bill; but my anticipation is very different. I am afraid that before the 27th of April we shall be involved in an arduous and severe contest; and therefore my opinion is that it would be a most unwise course to urge the Government to proceed with the Bill at that time. One word more, and I have done. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster seemed to call upon the country to agitate upon this question. My belief is, that the country is too sensible and patriotic to adopt any policy of the sort. Sir, they know very well that this is not a time for internal dissensions of any kind; and I will say that, although I believe there is a great body who would like to see a practical and well-devised scheme for improving the representation of the people, yet this House, as at present composed, is, I believe, in the opinion of the country, a fair representative of its opinions, and fitted to be entrusted with the conduct of its affairs, either in peace or in war. There is, therefore, no reason whatever why we should, at all costs and hazards, urge upon Government this question of Parliamentary reform. I will conclude, Sir, by saying, that I, for one, am content to leave the question with entire confidence in the hands of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. I think the course he has recommended is a wise and patriotic course; and I hope that neither he nor any other Member of the Government will be induced to give a pledge of any kind which may in the slightest degree embarrass that free action and that liberty to judge of events as they arise, which Ministers of the Crown ought always to possess, but especially at such a time as the present.
  COLONEL SIBTHORPobserved, that, whatever might be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), and whatever disappointment might be felt by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J.
  288
  Shelley), he told both hon. Gentlemen, and the House as well, that the course taken by the noble Lord was no more than he expected. He had witnessed so much vacillation on the part of the noble Lord, that he had no doubt, though the noble Lord would not tell them so, that he had now only carried out the intention he entertained from the very first day of introducing his Bill. He believed, though of course the noble Lord would not tell them so, that the measure was nothing but a hoax—
  "Parturiunt montes; nascetur ridiculus mus."
  There sat the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who had, in the course of his political career, promised a variety of things, though no one as yet had ever witnessed anything he had done which had been of the slightest good. The country would feel gratified in one respect with the statement the noble Lord had made tonight, inasmuch as they would feel convinced that he was afraid to bring his measure forward. The noble Lord's own seat depended upon it; and, however he might be supported now by hon. Members opposite, should that day arrive—though he (Colonel Sibthorp) believed it never would—when the Bill of the noble Lord should pass, then would come the time for those whom the noble Lord thought his friends to stick it well into him.
  MR. PHINNsaid that, representing as he did a constituency which, he believed, no one supposed to be backward in the cause of reform, he felt it his duty to state his belief that the country would be gratified at the course the noble Lord had taken; and he must further say, that he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (though he was sure the hon. Baronet did not intend it) had used language in reference to that noble Lord which was most ungenerous, and which must have occasioned pain not only to the noble Lord, but to those reformers who had been so long accustomed to confide in him. He thought no one could have looked at the noble Lord while he was speaking without observing that there was a struggle going on in his mind between what was due to his personal honour and the pledges he had given to the House, and what he must necessarily yield to a stern sense of public duty. The noble Lord had been blamed in former times for exhibiting too much moral courage, and a famous person had said of him that he was at all times ready

  289
  to undertake anything at a moment's notice. But in the present case, however much the noble Lord might feel that his personal honour was engaged, He could not control the force of circumstances, nor urge public opinion beyond a given point. If the Government had said that in spite of all resistance they thought they could bring the Bill to a fair and successful termination, he should have been prepared to give them a humble but hearty support; but, unless they were prepared to say that, he thought they did wisely in postponing the Bill. The House ought to feel that the noble Lord, in postponing the Bill to the period he had named, was influenced by this motive—that, when the united efforts of the four Powers had failed to curb the ambition of Russia, and vigorous action became necessary, the great duty of the country was first to accomplish that object, and afterwards to turn its attention to such internal reforms as might be necessary. In and out of the House he found this opinion prevailing, and for himself he should be exceedingly sorry to use one language there and another out of doors in order to pander to some low feeling of popularity. It was all very well for hon. Members to wish to stand well with their constituents; but they had a higher duty to perform, and they must be prepared occasionally to sacrifice something of popularity to what they felt the great interests of the country demanded. They must not forget—and it was an important point in the consideration of the question—that in asking Members to agree to the second reading of this Bill, they were calling upon many to sacrifice themselves upon the altar of public duty. Some Members were asked to agree to the disfranchisement of boroughs with which they had long been connected; others, to the partial disfranchisement of the places they represented; and there was a third class, and these might be said to be on a bed of down, with whom the only difficulty would be as to the election of a third representative. Upon these, and other points, Members would be called upon to express their opinions on the second reading of the Bill, to which opinions they would stand committed, and this, if the measure was not to pass, for no practical object. For his own part, he should have no hesitation in tomorrow tendering his resignation to his constituents and asking them to re-elect him, even after the expressions he was now using; but this was not a desirable
  290
  position to place either hon. Gentlemen or the country in, Reformers had also to consider, if the Bill was forced on, what was the chance of carrying the measure? There was a powerful minority against it on the other side of the house, and it would doubtless meet with much resistance in the other House. They had the declaration of the noble Lord who ranked very high as a reformer, that the present was a most inconvenient time to proceed with a measure of this kind. The chances were, then, that by pressing on the measure, as his hon. Friend (Sir J. Shelley) suggested, they would only be forcing a delusion on the country. The question was, not whether they should have a Reform Bill or not, but simply whether this was the proper time for bringing it forward. Under these circumstances, he thought the decision to which the noble Lord had come, was wise, correct, and expedient.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONHe did not object to the postponement of this Reform Bill—in his opinion, to have persevered in that Bill at the present juncture would have been dangerous and unwise—but he did object to a course of conduct on the part of Her Majesty's Government by which the country had been excited and misled. He thought the explanation they had that evening heard from the noble Lord was humiliating and discreditable to Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord had said nothing which, in his mind, could save himself or the Government from this dilemma—namely, that if the Reform Bill ought not to be persevered in, it ought not to have been introduced. Her Majesty's Ministers had laid on the table a Bill which had excited the hopes and the fears of large classes of the people, and he held that they were not justified as a Government in so submitting that Bill to Parliament unless they had been prepared to press it forward with all the weight and with all the influence which the Government of the Crown could use. The noble Lord had told them that night that he postponed this Bill on account of a message which had been sent to the Emperor of Russia. Would the noble Lord tell the House that on the clay when he moved for leave to introduce this Bill he did not contemplate sending that message to the Emperor of Russia? Was there any one respect in which the position of Parliament, the position of the Government, or the position of the country was different that day from what it was on the day upon

  291
  which this Bill was introduced? The noble Lord had said that this Bill ought not to go forward, because we are on the point of war. Had the noble Lord forgotten what he himself said on a former evening upon this very subject? Had he forgotten that he told the House that the very first effect of an approaching war would involve increased taxation—that increased taxation required increased confidence on the part of the people towards their representatives—and that, therefore, this was the time above all others pre-eminently fitted for a Reform Bill. How did the noble Lord reconcile the language of that day with the language which they had now heard? He was sorry to say that he thought the conduct of the Government had been such as greatly to impair in the eyes of the country the position which it was most desirable they should occupy at such a moment of public excitement and at such a critical conjunction of affairs. He believed that by the weak and vacillating conduct of the Government they had involved us in a war with Russia. [Hear, hear!] He would not shrink from adopting the opinion which he believed could be demonstrated and proved, that the timidity and vacillation of the Government had mainly led to the war with Russia. That was proved by the papers which had been laid upon the table of the House; but the Government must admit—the noble Lord himself had this night admitted—that they (the Opposition) who dissent from the policy of the Government, had met them in a patriotic spirit. They thought them right in the vigour at which they had at last arrived, and they were willing unanimously to support them in the war they were about to enter on. But this policy required unanimity, and made it most important and desirable that they should act as one man in facing their enemies; and he thought it rendered the conduct of the Government gravely reprehensible, that they had endeavoured to agitate the country and Parliament by a measure upon which they knew it was impossible for unanimity to exist. The Government had only proposed two measures of importance this year. One of these measures they had now postponed, and with the other it appeared they dare not proceed. The one was this Bill to amend the representation of the people, and the other a Bill affecting deeply some of the most grave constitutional questions and some of the most important constitutional guarantees for the religious liberties of this coun-
  292
  try. Such was the present position of the Government. He repeated, he did not object to the postponement of this Bill; on the contrary, he thought the Government would have been deeply reprehensible had this Bill been persevered in; but he could not refrain from expressing his strong and emphatic condemnation of their conduct in bringing forward a measure which, if it ought not to be persevered in, ought never to have been introduced.
  MR. HUMEsaid that he, for one, had heard with deep regret the determination of the Government to postpone this Bill, because he feared it might excite in the minds of the people a suspicion that they wished to give up the measure altogether;—but he had sufficient confidence in the noble Lord and the Government to which he belonged, to think that they could not be guilty of that which was charged against them. They could not, consistently with their character as public men, ever again hold up their heads if they had introduced this Bill as a mere sham and delusion. He believed they were sincere, and it was because He believed that they were sincere that he had given them his hearty support in the measure they had introduced. He would not say that the reasons they had urged for postponing this Bill appeared to him to be sufficient; but he was not on that account to declare that they were not at liberty to determine the period at which, in their opinion, it was most convenient to proceed with the measure, provided they allowed plenty of time, in dealing with it before the end of the Session. It was to be expected that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side should rise and say they approved of the postponement of the Bill; but for progressive reformers—for those who desired to see the grounds of discontent removed from among the people of this country—for such men to throw doubts into the public mind with regard to the intentions of the Government, was really too bad. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster spoke of the reformers of England. What did he know of the reformers of England? He (Mr. Hume) thought He knew as much of them as he did; and he could only say that every communication he had had from the country spoke favourably of the Bill as a whole. There might be points which, when it came into Committee, might be modified; but, looking to it as a measure which gave a share of representation to large classes of the people, which—bringing them with-

  293
  in the pale of the Constitution, tended to remove discontent—he said, this appeared to him to be a large and comprehensive measure. Every man who sat in that House as a reformer ought to embrace, and not find fault with it. He would not form so base an opinion of the Government as to think they would not apply their whole force to carry it through a second reading. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that if they were not determined to go through with it, they ought not to have introduced it. Having introduced it, with all the obligations which the Government had incurred, and after the speech of the noble Lord upon that occasion, he never could form such a base opinion of them as seemed to have been formed by some who called themselves reformers. He advised all such men to pass from the ranks. He could guard against those who called themselves his enemies, but not against those who called themselves his friends. Though it should be lost—though the Government should be placed in a minority upon this question—it would only tend to rouse the spirit of the country in its favour. He wanted no agitation. The people had perfect confidence in the Government, that after two years' promises, after having brought in a measure so beneficial and so good, they would give a fair chance of carrying it through with success.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had risen after the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) to express his entire dissent from the conclusion which, with great self-complacency, but, as it seemed to him, without any sufficient reason, the right hon. Baronet had formed of his own conduct and that of obis party under the present circumstances of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman had claimed for himself and his Friends credit for the highest patriotism; and on what grounds? Because, he says, he and those who act with him had offered no opposition to voting large and increased estimates to carry on a war into which, as he (Sir G. Grey) believed, the Government had been inevitably dragged—not by their vacillation, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, but, as he (Sir G. Grey) thought, by the determined ambition of the Emperor of Russia. What, then, was the patriotism of the right hon. Gentleman? Was it that he and his party were willing to put these additional ways and means to carry on a war which he believed would be a struggle of a most serious character, and
  294
  the termination of which no man could foresee, into the hands of a Government which, he says, is weak, timid, irresolute, and vacillating? And did the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, think that he and his party are patriotic in allowing this Government to continue in power and to carry on the war. Why, if the right hon. Gentleman and those who sat near him really entertained that opinion of the Government, it was their duty to take the sense of the House of Commons, and to use their best endeavours to place those means in the hands of men not characterised by those grave defects which would incapacitate a Government from carrying on a war with effect. But, if the right hon. Gentleman did not entertain these opinions, or, if entertaining them, he shrunk from this test, then he (Sir G. Grey) thought it anything but patriotic to get up night after night to make insinuations against the Government, the only effect of which would be to depreciate its efforts, to weaken its hands, and to lessen it both in the opinion of this country and of Europe. He believed that these opinions were not shared by the country; that, on the contrary, they thought the Government had acted with caution and prudence, and with a sincere desire of avoiding war and maintaining peace in the negotiations which they have carried on; and he further believed that they were prepared to confide in their ability to act with vigour and efficiency in carrying on the war if they are forced into it. He thought that the Government had taken a wise, prudent, and judicious course in postponing this measure. He did not concur with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that, after the pledges given by the Government, and after the general expectation that they would introduce a measure for the improvement of the representation, it would have been wise in them to have refrained from laying such a measure before the country. He could understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to see no change in the representation, and that they regretted the Government should have brought in a measure of this character. But he did not share those feelings and objections; and, he said, that any Government would have been to blame which had pressed such a measure upon the consideration of the House, and had refused to postpone any measure pending in Parliament which could interfere with the vigorous prosecution of the war. He was content, for one, that

  295
  the decision upon this subject should rest in the hands of the Government. He asked for no pledge that this measure shall be forced on during the present Session, irrespective of any circumstances that might arise. He thought that the course which the Government had taken upon this subject deserved the increased confidence of the country, for it proved that they would not prejudice the real interests of the country by pressing on the Bill at a moment when those interests might be thereby damaged. They had been told that his noble Friend had pursued a course injurious to his personal honour. He could not see that his noble Friend's personal honour was in question. Any pledge given by bins or by the Government to bring in a measure on this subject could not have been given in such absolute terms, either as Ministers of the Crown or as Members of this House, as to debar them from the exercise of the duty of considering whether and at what time they ought to submit a measure of this importance to Parliament. He could only say that, in his opinion, the personal honour of his noble Friend had been best consulted by his taking that course which, as a Minister of the Crown and as a Member of this House, he believed to be most conducive to the interests of the country. That course had been taken by his noble Friend, and his conduct would entitle bins to the renewed confidence of the country.
  MR. SPEAKERhaving read the Motion,
  Mrs. DISRAELIsaid: Sir, I wish to make an observation or two before this Motion is agreed to. I do not clearly understand the reasons of the noble Lord in favour of this Motion, which, however, I shall certainly not oppose. I understood the noble Lord to say that the supplies had been granted by all parties in this House with a facility and spirit very commendable; and therefore I conclude, when the noble Lord made his statement in introducing this Bill of projected Parliamentary reform, he had, of course, calculated all the circumstances connected with supply which could affect its second reading. But though the noble Lord had taken into consideration the time necessary for granting supply, I now understand him to say that he had not taken into consideration the time necessary for voting the ways and means. That appears to be one of the reasons why the noble Lord thinks it expedient to postpone the consideration of the second reading of this Bill of Par-
  296
  liamentary reform, which was fixed for the 13th of this month. It certainly appears somewhat strange that the noble Lord should have omitted to take into calculation the time necessary for voting ways and means, as well as granting supply; yet that appears, so far as I could follow the noble Lord, the most efficient argument adduced in favour of his change of operations. The noble Lord, in estimating the time for these financial operations, could hardly have supposed that so small a space would have been required for supply as turned out to be the case; for I think the noble Lord himself voluntarily expressed his satisfaction with the conduct of the House of Commons in this behalf, and I am sure every Gentleman present will agree that supply was never voted with more alacrity. I know I myself attended yesterday morning at an unusually early hour for supply, in order to lay one or two matters before the consideration of the Committee, and I found half a million had been voted in the time I was taking off my great-coat and walking to my usual seat on this bench, by which I lost the opportunity of making those remarks. Therefore, when the noble Lord made up his mind to come down to the House and propose a great project, when he estimated the time which must elapse before the decision of the House upon its merits could be taken, he could hardly have supposed that voting supply would have taken so short a time as it did; and it therefore would appear that the noble Lord did not take into his calculation the necessity of the House considering ways and means as well as supply. I do not know whether the noble Lord will find as great facility with the ways and means as he has with supply, but I own I am rather alarmed at the intimation the noble Lord gives us of what awaits us next Monday.
  But a second reason given by the noble Lord is also, in my mind, of not so satisfactory a nature as, for the sake of the noble Lord, I could have wished. The noble Lord says we are still negotiating with the Emperor of Russia. The noble Lord was, of course, aware of that when he introduced the Bill on the 13th of last month. The noble Lord then, of course, calculated the time which would necessarily or probably elapse before these negotiations could be brought to an issue, as well as the time that would be required by the House of Commons to vote supply and ways and means. Now, I want to know

  297
  why the noble Lord having these means of forming an estimate of the time necessary, and having for its purpose more experience than perhaps any Member of the House—why the noble Lord took the step he did, of introducing this measure, of fixing a day for the decision of the House on the second reading when it appears, from the reasons which the noble Lord has offered us to-day, he was not justified in the course which he then took, and is, consequently, obliged to postpone for a considerable period the time when the decision of the House of Commons can be asked on this measure, and when he declines—very wisely declines—to pledge himself that even on that distant day the decision of the House of Commons shall be demanded. I cannot help thinking, looking to the very great importance of the subject—looking also to the peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves involved—it would have been better if the noble Lord, having come to the decision that it was advisable to postpone this measure, had met us openly at first, and told us that circumstances did not justify him in bringing forward so soon as he intended a measure of Parliamentary reform; that he felt himself pledged to introduce a measure of that kind as soon as circumstances admitted it—but that, until he clearly saw he had the power and opportunity of proceeding with the measure, he would not detail to the House the scheme of reform which he meant to introduce. I think that would have been the wisest and most discreet course for a Minister to have taken, because, Sir, we must remember that this is a question which has not been hastily taken up by the noble Lord and his Colleagues. It is mow for several years that the noble Lord, as Minister, or in a position almost as eminent, has been announcing to the House and to the country that he intended to propose a further reform of the House of Commons. The noble Lord had the advantage, as First Minister, of proposing a measure for the reform of Parliament. It was laid on the table—not a single objection was ever made to it by any Gentleman who sits on this side of the House—indeed no opportunity was ever given to us of discussing that measure. Well, a considerable time has now elapsed, and we have on the table another measure of Parliamentary reform which has no resemblance to the one introduced two years ago; though the noble Lord cannot allege that, in consequence of the opposition at
  298
  that time, or the criticism which it elicited, the measure he now offers is so different in character from its predecessor. Again we are in a position in which there is at least a prospect of the second Reform Bill of the noble Lord not being proceeded with. It is postponed to a distant day. Its projector announces that even he will not pledge himself on that distant day to bring it forward. Its projector may be perfectly justified in the course which he has taken, but in my opinion he ought never to have brought forward the measure in detail, if he did not see a fair prospect of advancing it. The House should consider this point—Is it for the public advantage that a Minister of the country should always be laying siege, as it were, to its constitution? It is a very fair thing for a Member of the House of Commons, who thinks there ought to be great changes in the State, to bring forward his ideas by way of Motion in this House. He generally gets defeated by a considerable majority. He renews his efforts from time to time. If public sympathy is sluggish, his project sleeps; if circumstances allow him to bring it forward with more advantage, his project advances; it may in time be crowned with success. He carries on a constitutional and not a dangerous agitation. The greatest evil which he has to encounter—the very greatest misfortune he has to experience—is, perhaps, for the House to be counted out, as it once was counted out on Parliamentary reform itself. Such a course operates in no manner injurious to the public; but it is a very different thing when a Minister announces that he is an agitator against the institutions of the country. The noble Lord may be perfectly right in his views on this question—not that I am entering now in any way into the merits of his measure—but it is a great disadvantage that a Minister of England should be avowedly one who disapproves of the institutions of the country, and does not change them only because he has not the power. Whatever may be the merits of the measure of the noble Lord, or of any other measure on the subject which may be introduced by any other Minister or Gentleman, one great advantage in the Constitution is, that it is a thing settled. We live under a Constitution, of which the essence of its excellency is, that it is something which is established. Now, I want to know what has been the position of the House of Commons—of the reformed House of Commons—when for the last four

  299
  or five years the most eminent man in our assembly, justly possessing the confidence of a great party in the nation, has announced that he disapproves of the character of this institution of the State; that be disapproves of its elements, of the materials of which it is formed; that he thinks measures should be passed which should greatly change its character, which should greatly affect its influence—who yet is unable to pass his measures, and nevertheless remains Minister of the country. There are a great many Gentlemen in this House who, like the Member for East Kent, who addressed us to-night, are, they tell us—and we have no reason to doubt them—sincere and conscientious reformers, but who think it an inopportune season to deal with the reconstruction of Parliament when we are engaged in a war which may be a war of magnitude. I will not now discuss that topic. If ever there should be an opportunity, we shall discuss it on the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, though I confess I am not very sanguine that the speeches intended to be made on that subject will ever, Sir, be addressed to you. But consider the effect. If the policy recommended by the hon. Member for East Kent be right—and unquestionably it is one supported, if not by a majority, by large numbers in this House (that is evident from the tone of this discussion)—look at the position in which the noble Lord has placed the House, by introducing his measure in detail to us, and, at the same time, not being able to carry it forward. Now, Sir, our supplies have been voted with a feeling of unanimity to which the noble Lord, I think in a very proper tone, did justice, but which the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House cavilled at, with, I think, less correct feeling. But, Sir, whatever may be the fortune of this war, we shall not be wise men if we suppose, as in some quarters is flippantly supposed, that it is to be a brief war—that its end is to be accomplished in a moment. It is more prudent to suppose that we are about to embark in a severe, and even a protracted struggle. All men agree that it is wiser to prepare for such a contingency. Well, Sir, no Ministry, not even a Ministry as favoured as those who sit on the bench before me, can suppose that year after year they can proceed with a war of this character always with success, always with enthusiasm on the part of the people, always with ready and generous sympathy on the part of the House of Commons,
  300
  even on the part of their opponents. There will be moments of gloom, despondency, and discontent. There may be—which God forbid!—there may be disaster. There may be moments when it will be difficult to appeal to the House of Commons for support. You may not have political parties with the same spirit which now animates them. You may have near divisions on questions of increased or new taxation. The Ministry may carry an unpopular tax, or continue an unpopular war, by a very narrow majority; and then, when the people of this country come to look at the majority of twenty, perhaps, which doubles the income-tax, or reimposes the soap duty, they will say, "Here are twenty fellows, eighteen of whom ought not to have seats in the House of Commons; here are twelve in schedule A, here are six in schedule B; these are the supporters of the Government;" the very men whom they have denounced, and marked, and branded as persons unworthy of public confidence; and it would be added, "Yet these are the men who are carrying on war with the Emperor of All the Russias; these are the men who are inflicting these colossal imposts on the people of this country." The weight of such circumstances should alone have made the noble Lord hesitate before he introduced his measure in detail, and should certainly make him hesitate before he makes up his mind to relinquish it for ever. In my mind, it would be of advantage that the House of Commons should decide upon this scheme. I know the noble Lord has already stated that he himself sees no objection to proceeding with a measure of Parliamentary reform in a time of war, and of all wars, the one most opportune for Parliamentary reform is, according to the noble Lord, a Russian war. Those are admissions which have been generously and voluntarily offered to us by the noble Lord. I am, therefore, to suppose that the noble Lord will find it his duty—difficult as it is to imagine such an event—some day to propose the second reading of this Bill.
  But the noble Lord will, of course, be in some degree influenced by the sentiments of his chief supporters. I have listened to them to-night with some dismay; and if the noble Lord can extract from the expression of their opinions any harmony of feeling to guide him in what, I admit, is a most difficult conjuncture—and if any man in the House is equal to the task, the noble Lord is he—he will accomplish greater results

  301
  almost than he has ever yet achieved. For contrast the support which he has received to-night from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), with that which has been authoritatively pronounced, on the part of English Radicals, by the patriarch of reform, the hon. Member for Montrose. The right, hon. Member for Taunton tells us he is for postponement, but the only thing he more particularly wishes is entire withdrawal. That, I infer, would be the policy recommended by the right hon. Member for Taunton. The Member for Morpeth, who read an unnecessary lecture to my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), has sung in the same note as the Member for Taunton—that there is nothing in the world more prudent than postponement, except giving up the Bill's altogether. What says the hon. Member for Montrose? If the Bill is given up, he exclaims, its projectors are abased—they cannot hold up their heads on the Treasury bench again—their character is lost for ever; but he knows them so well, his confidence in them is so unbounded, that he is an certain, come what will, on the 24th of April we shall have the second reading of this Bill, as that he is now sitting in his wonted seat in the House of Commons. But these very expressions of the hon. Gentleman must prepare the Government for what awaits them, if on that day, which he deems impossible may occur, the Reform Bill should not be read a second time. Sir, I cannot congratulate the Government on the prospective condemnation of the hon. Gentleman's amiable credulity. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth has just, according to his wont, delivered some sententious dogmas to the House for the guidance of their conduct. The right hon. Gentleman will not hear of statesmen placed in the situation of the noble Lord, as leader of the House, being influenced in these great matters of State by what are called feelings of personal honour. The right hon. Gentleman says, "A statesman is to do that which he believes best for the country, and he is not to be hampered by feelings of personal consideration, arising out of pledges which he may have given, and representations which he may have made;" and the right hon. Gentleman reproved those Members of the House who referred to a feeling of private honour as one which ought to bind the noble Lord
  302
  in the circumstances in which he stands. I will not enter into a controversy upon one of the finest points of ethics; but when the right hon. Gentleman lectures the House so freely, has he forgotten that only within, I may say, a few days the Prime Minister of England, in another place, excusing and apologising, as it were, for the conduct of the Government in introducing this Bill, said it was impossible not to introduce it, for the Ministers were bound to do so as a matter of honour. Sir, I am always ready to recognise the eminent position of the noble Lord, and ready to defer to his opinion, as that of one of the guiding spirits of the Ministry; but, if only as a matter of courtesy, some credit is due to the public declaration of the First Minister, and when I read, authoratively declared to us, the declaration, that the Government, in introducing this Bill, were influenced by a feeling of personal honour, I think the lecture which we have received from the right hon. Member for Morpeth is both unauthorised and misplaced. This declaration, Sir, made by Lord Aberdeen in another place reminds me of one point which I cannot leave untouched, because it has considerable reference to the subject before us. What were the conditions upon which the present Government was formed, according to the present Prime Minister? What was—to use a word which is not English, and is, perhaps, used too often here—what was the political programme of the existing Administration? The noble Earl, when, a little more than a year ago, he acceded to office—it is very remarkable, and this is an occasion on which the country should be reminded of it—announced that his Government was formed on four great principles—the extension of free trade, which has not been extended; the maintenance of peace, which has become a state of war; the principle of public education, to be secured by the production of a great legislative measure, which great legislative measure we have not had; but this we have received from Her Majesty's Government—opposition to the only educational measure which has been introduced into the House; and lastly, and above all, a large measure of Parliamentary reform. When that large measure of Parliamentary reform may be carried, I pretend not to foresee. Some may be as sanguine as the hon. Member for Montrose; others, on the contrary, may be as hopeful as the right hon. Members for Taunton and Morpeth. But one thing, I think, is pretty well as-

  303
  certained, that, notwithstanding the Emperor of All the Russias, before April elapses the question will, at least, be set at rest, and we shall know whether the House is to be reconstructed, or whether we are to continue as at present, assisting in the government of the country with nearly a sixth of our Members held up to the public by Ministers as men not entitled or qualified to exercise the office of representatives of the people. So much for the great principles on which the Government of my Lord Aberdeen was founded, and so much for the four large measures that were to be introduced. This, the Reform Bill, was the last to which the supporters of the Government seemed to cling; and they had a right to believe that this was a promise which would be fulfilled, because representations were made to their followers not in slight and ordinary terms, and because expectations were held out to the country not of a trivial character. We are told now that wars and rumours of wars are the sufficient causes for the present Government not fulfilling this their positive and most important pledge. But, remember, at the time when war, and even invasion, was deemed to be instant and impending, this promise of reform was repeated, this pledge was renewed, and Members of the present Cabinet even went to the hustings when appointed to office, and at the same time dilated on the terrors of invasion and the blessings of reform. Remember, also, that at the time when the present Government was constructed, we were told that it was framed on a principle of enormous personal sacrifice—that men descended to occupy posts inferior to their previous situations, and even inferior to their own opinion of their own talents. We were told then that there were extreme difficulties in bringing together a band of highly-gifted patriots, sacrificing all selfish considerations on the altar of their country—so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, and the President of Public Works could meet together in council to consult for the welfare of their country. But a great principle did bring them together—Parliamentary reform—so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned, in a Conservative sense, and so far as the President of the Board of Works was concerned, in a form that would satisfy the disciples of Bentham and of Grote. This was the talisman that bound them all together; this, the pervading influence, which allowed elements, apparently so dis-
  304
  cordant, to work in harmony for the advantage of the country. But the spell seems to have evaporated, though it is the only condition to which we are indebted for enjoying, at this moment, the administrative abilities of the First Lord of the Admiralty. At a time when we have two considerable fleets, when we have penetrated the mysteries of the Euxine and are about to break the ice of the Baltic, it is a satisfaction to recollect that, if Lord Aberdeen had not agreed to bring forward a large measure of Parliamentary reform—not a wise measure, not a moderate measure, but a large measure of Parliamentary reform—then, for aught we can see, the energy, the experience which distinguish the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would not have been enlisted in the service of his Sovereign and his country. Sir, these considerations I offer for the consolation of Parliamentary reformers. I fear they can hardly hope to have their measure, but there has been some magic in the name. Under that standard, at least, those have enlisted who, I have no doubt, will contribute to the greatness of the country and the glory of Parliament, They, at least, have been led by that phrase to form a coalition Government, and their supporters must he satisfied that, though the "large measure" which they looked forward to with so much eagerness cannot be passed, still if the phrase had not been circulated, the Ministers who have disappointed them would not now be sitting on those benches.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, it is not necessary for me to add anything to the statement which I made before, with a view to explain that statement. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does seem to call for some observations from me, because it was a criticism, ingeniously framed, which yet left himself entirely uncommitted—it had no sort of bearing upon the question before us. And it seems really to have been intended for no other purpose than to display his own ability. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) may, I think, gather a lesson of wisdom from the performance of his right hon. Colleague. The right hon. Member for Droitwich was far too explicit. He said that Her Majesty's Ministers were unwise in bringing forward the question of Parliamentary Reform at all, and he condemned them entirely for so doing; he declared also that their weakness in

  305
  negotiation had brought on war, and that they had thus proved themselves unfit for conducting the affairs either of our foreign or domestic policy. In answer to this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) says, promptly and naturally, why do you not move a vote of want of confidence? But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire avoided any such difficulty—he avoids the humiliating confession that he thinks Ministers utterly unfit for conducting either our domestic or our foreign affairs, and yet that he is afraid to brave the risk of moving for their exclusion from the posts they now occupy. No, Sir, the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire has treated this question with more skill. He indulges in general comments upon the observations which have fallen from different Members, but he satisfies himself with flowing periods—with the utterance of sarcasms, which please his supporters, and leave him and them altogether unfettered. The right hon. Gentleman somewhat resembles the poet of whom it is said that—
  "He fagotted his notions as they fell,
  And if they rhymed and rattled, all was well."
  The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth stated, that I need have no regard to my personal honour on this question, and that the noble Lord at the head of the Government declared, on the other hand, that this was entirely a question of personal honour. Sir, I conceive that both meant the same thing. My right hon. Friend said that I should not oppose any regard to my personal honour to the well-understood interests of the country—my noble Friend at the head of the Government declared that not only was this a question connected with personal honour, but that it was also connected with the interests of the country. Sir, I should be ashamed of myself if I were to prefer a concern for my own personal reputation to that which I understood to be for the interests of my country. But it seems to me that the character of the men who rule this country—whether they be at the moment in office or in opposition—is a matter of the utmost interest to the people of this country, and that it is of paramount importance that full confidence should be reposed in their character. It is, in fact, on the confidence reposed by the people in the character of public men, that the security of this country in a great degree depends. In treating of this question, the right hon. Gentleman alluded to
  306
  an opinion of mine, that the fact of the State being at war was not in itself a decisive reason against the consideration of measures relating to the representation of the people. Sir, I conceive I am fully justified in that opinion, because there have been two great measures connected with representation—connected with disfranchisement—conducted by two great Ministers in the midst of two great wars. In 1706 Lord Somers, a statesman of the highest and most deserved reputation, introduced a measure which was not only a measure of disfranchisement—which not only disfranchised 107 out of 152 Members returned for Scotland—but he thereby excited the utmost provocation in a whole nation, and caused for a time a state of great discontent throughout a great portion of the United Kingdom. A century later, Mr. Pitt, then Prime Minister, introduced a measure by which, out of 1300 Irish representatives, 200 were disfranchised, and he also thereby caused great discontent in that portion of the United Kingdom. At the former period, Marlborough was conducting his campaigns in Flanders; at the latter, Napoleon was fighting the battle of Marengo. Yet these great Ministers did not think these wars a sufficient reason for not introducing those great measures affecting the state of the representation. Sir, the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) asks me to give him some further explanation as to what will be the course I shall take in the month of April. Sir, I shall give him no other explanation than I have given. The hon. Gentleman shall not hear from me any attempt to explain to him further, or to satisfy him in respect to my intentions or my views. The hon. Gentleman says that this proposition of Parliamentary reform may have been, and that he believes it is, altogether a sham on my part. Sir, if that declaration had come from my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose—the true representative of those reformers who agree with him in opinion—I own I should have felt deep mortification; but, coming from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, who has no right to speak in the name of the reformers, I feel utter indifference towards such an imputation. The hon. Baronet, perhaps, does not know that I conducted propositions for reform a long time before he could take any part in public affairs; that for ten years I proposed reforms of the representation in opposition to a man of no less genius,

  307
  and eloquence, and varied powers than Mr. Canning; that, in 1831, the Government to which I belonged were twice defeated on their propositions of reform; and yet, in 1832, a large measure of reform received the assent of Parliament and the Crown, and was accepted by the country. Why, Sir, after having fought these battles of reform, does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster think that he has a right to treat me—[Cheers]—or that my conduct will, in the slightest degree, depend upon any question he may put, or on any taunt he may throw out? I can assure the House that I approach the subject now—that I shall approach it at any future time—with the deepest anxiety to promote the welfare of the country at large. I believe that the addition of large masses of intelligent, independent, and honest men to the constituency of this country will be a great strengthening of our institutions. When I opposed the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose in 1848, thinking that that was not a fit time for proposing large plans of reform, I thought, at the same time, that the temper, the moderation, and the good sense which were shown by the people of this country in the year 1848, demonstrated to the conviction of any man who attended seriously to the spirit of the people at that time—demonstrated that large classes of the people who yet had no votes were fit for the franchise, and that by being brought within the pale of the representation they would confer a benefit upon our institutions, whenever the House of Commons should set itself seriously to consider the question of adding to the electoral body. Those views I still entertain, and, entertaining them, as I said before, it will be with the deepest sense of their importance that I shall proceed to resume the consideration of this measure.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he should deeply regret if the House did not afford him an opportunity to explain. He begged to assure the noble Lord that he had expressed himself very ill if he had been supposed to impute to the noble Lord in any way that, in introducing the Bill, he had intended a "sham" upon the country. What he said was this, that unless Ministers persevered with their measure, he feared the impression would go abroad that it was never anything else than a sham, but he added that he himself did not believe that, and he would now entreat the noble Lord to persevere with the second reading.
  MR. DISRAELIAllow me to ask one question. Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord—but is it intended to proceed with the second reading on the very day the House meets after the Easter holidays, for that would be exceedingly inconvenient?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: No; if the House meet on Monday, the second reading will stand for the Thursday following.
  Motion agreed to.
  Second reading deferred from Monday, 13th March, till Thursday, 27th April.

SPIRITS FOR THE USE OF THE ROYAL NAVY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. P. O'BRIENmoved, as an Amendment, that, prior to any future contract for the supply of spirits for the use of Her Majesty's Navy being made, tenders for the supply of home-made spirits be admitted. The hon. Member observed that he had no desire to trespass at any length on the attention of the House, but he thought that this was a fitting occasion to consider the propriety of admitting into competition with rum, as the beverage for the Navy, another description of spirits, which would probably prove quite as acceptable on board Her Majesty's ships of war. On reference to the London Price Current he found that the price of rum fluctuated very considerably in the month of January last, and that on the 27th of that month it had reached 3s. 11 d. a gallon. He was informed, too, that such was the scarcity of the article that the Government had found it necessary to accept, even at that high price, all the tenders—four in number—which had been offered, and that, too, for the full quantity. The Government contract had, in fact, been concluded at a rate which would raise the price of rum, 25 per per cent over-proof, to 5s. a gallon, which was 50 per cent in excess of what Irish or Scotch spirits might be had for. Such was the difference in the price of the two articles, and that difference, regarded even in an economic point of view, became important, when the quantity consumed was, as in the case of the Navy, very large. He held in his hand an extract from the trade circular of Messrs. Ridley and Co., of London, which contained the following statement:—

309
"Within the last month the rum market has witnessed the greatest rise since the last war. Our London stock may be said to be nearly exhausted. On the 21st ultimo it showed only 8,024 puncheons of all sorts. Should the Government require in one tender 100,000 gallons (until arrivals take place), it is questionable if they would get supplied. British spirits, now at 11 s. proof, must be used up extensively to mash with rum for domestic consumption. The effect of the high prices on home consumption is made apparent by a decrease in the London payments for twelve months, and a falling off of 519 puncheons."
Such being the present state of the market, he submitted that there was nothing unreasonable in the request that, prior to any future contract for the supply of spirits to Her Majesty's Navy, tenders for the supply of home-made spirits should be admitted. The only question to be considered was, whether home-made spirits were as wholesome as rum; but on this point he did not apprehend that any difficulty would arise, for, if he had been correctly informed, the Treasury were at that moment in possession of evidence to show that home-made spirits, if of the proper age, were the more wholesome of the two. And most assuredly the relative estimation in which both were held by the general population was sufficiently attested by the much larger consumption of home-made spirits than of rum. This was not a mere distillers' question. It was a question in which England, Scotland, and Ireland were financially interested, and one which was of especial importance in Ireland, where there was an agricultural population, because the establishment of distilleries tended to encourage agriculture, by creating ready markets for grain, and gave to the poorer population remunerative employment, and thus relieved the pressure of the poors' rates. If it could be shown that the men serving on board Her Majesty's ships had an objection to spirits, or preferred rum, such a fact would, of course, be fatal to the Motion he was now submitting; but no such prejudice could exist, inasmuch as the experiment of introducing home-made spirits instead of rum had never as yet been made. Some hundreds of coast-guardsmen had been drafted from their stations in Ireland and Scotland into the naval service, and it was not to be supposed that they would entertain any objection to a beverage with which they had been familiar for the last ten or twelve years. He considered that the Motion was a fair one, and, upon economic, sanitary, and free-trade grounds, he hoped that it would re-
310
ceive the serious consideration of the Government.
COLONEL DUNNEseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'it is the opinion of this House, that, prior to any future contract for the supply of Spirits for the use of Her Majesty's Navy being made, Tenders for the supply of Home-made Spirits be admitted,' instead thereof."
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the question the hon. Gentleman had raised was by no means new; it had already been brought, and recently, under the consideration of the House, and he was bound to say that, in a financial point of view, it was worthy consideration. It was quite true that, at the present moment, the price of rum was considerably higher than that of whisky; but it would be entirely incompatible with the discipline of the Navy that two species of spirits should be issued to them at the same time. Almost from time immemorial rum had been the spirit used in the Navy, and it was in accordance with the great majority of those who served Her Majesty afloat. At this moment, in his judgment, it would be inconsistent with sound policy, on the ground of the high price of that spirit, to introduce any change. It must be remembered that the quantity of spirits served out every day had been greatly reduced, and while they reduced the quantity, he thought it would be most unadvisable to change the quality. It was not, therefore, on financial grounds that he should resist this Motion, but on the grounds that he had stated.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, the right hon. Baronet opposed the Motion on the ground that it would be most detrimental to the discipline of the Navy if any choice was allowed to seamen with regard to the supply of spirits; but he must remind the right hon. Baronet that sailors were now allowed to use cocoa or coffee at their own discretion, and he (Mr. French) was not aware that that regulation had been prejudicial to the discipline of the fleet. The right hon. Baronet, by contending for this monopoly, was supporting a principle of protection in direct opposition to the interests of the corn-growers of the kingdom. He and his predecessors had thrown beef, biscuit, and almost every other article used in the Navy open to the entire world, but claimed protection for an article the produce of the refuse of sugar. He did not venture to say the health of

311
the sailors was involved in this question, for he admitted that home-made spirits were wholesome; they were much more economical than the spirit supplied at present, and before the Sugar and Coffee Committee they had admitted that the preference was given to rum solely as a protection to the interests of the Colonies. British home-made spirits had already been tried with great advantage to the health of crews in the mercantile navy, and it was perfectly well known that, when on shore, sailors preferred them to rum. Last year the right hon. Baronet told them that if they considered the Board of Admiralty were not competent to manage such affairs they had better get rid of the establishment at once. Now, he (Mr. French) thought a little temper was displayed there, for he should think no one could contend that all the acts of the Admiralty were good, and he reminded them of the bad meat which had been bought and turned out a great loss to the country.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he could not see what analogy the hon. Member for Roscommon could find between this and the great question of protection. The argument in favour of the Motion was simply this—whisky was made in Ireland, rum was used in the Navy, therefore whisky ought to be substituted for rum on board Her Majesty's ships, or the hon. Gentleman made it a subject of complaint. As well might the sheep-growers of Sussex make it a matter of complaint that beef only was used in the Navy, and ask the House why it was that they did not take their mutton. But the hon. Member for Roscommon was the representative of a great whisky-growing interest, and because their interests might be served by it, therefore the House were to compel the seamen of Her Majesty's Navy to drink whisky instead of rum. Nothing was so dangerous at any time as to interfere with the rations and the allowances of the Navy. The mutiny at the Nore was chiefly caused, he believed, by the intermeddling of some such well-meaning individual as the hon. Member for Roscommon. But the hon. Member, in support of his own views, asserted that several of the mercantile marine had stored with whisky instead of rum; he challenged the hon. Gentleman to make good that assertion. It might be there was an individual ship that had made the substitution, but it was well known that the great majority of the mercantile marine made use of the ordinary grog
312
taken in Her Majesty's Navy. He wished to inform the hon. Gentleman that the great consumption of rum in this country took place in seaport towns; and from that fact he drew this conclusion, that they drank it at seaport towns because sailors had a decided preference for rum. That, then, was a matter which might safely be left to the Board of Admiralty. No complaints had reached the Board from the sailors that it was rum and not whisky which was supplied them. The hon. Member had complained of whisky not having been substituted; but he could assure them that, if they persisted as they had begun with intermeddling with all the little details of the Board of Admiralty, they would have the Navy by-and-by in a very discreditable condition. He gave the hon. Member for Roscommon credit for his honesty of purpose; but he trusted the House would not be led away upon a Motion such as the present. He had no wish to detain the House; but if time permitted he could point out how inconvenient it would be to have two kinds of spirits on board, and especially if sailors were contented to drink grog, it was imprudent to interfere.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was glad to hear the voice of his hon. Friend once more, but he thought on this occasion he had not spoken with his usual ingenuity. There might be very good reasons why mutton could not be introduced into the Navy—salt beef would keep better; but in the case of whisky, that spirit would keep as long as rum. He differed as to the taste of sailors for rum, for he had never met a naval officer who could bear that spirit in consequence of having so much on board. As to the two issues, he could see no objection to them; he believed the real reason for the preference shown to rum was that of protection, as had been alleged.
MR. BELLEWhad listened with great attention to the remarks of the First Lord of the Admiralty on this subject, but could not discover a single sound argument for the continuance of the exclusion of homemade spirit from the Navy. When the hon. Gentleman who spoke afterwards rose, he expected to hear something like reason; but he told them nothing further than that they ought to have sufficient confidence in those who administered the affairs of the Admiralty. Rum cost the country considerably more than whisky would, and the latter spirit was not less wholesome, nor,

313
he was sure, if introduced into the Navy, would it be less popular. If it could be so introduced great benefit would be conferred on the country generally and Ireland in particular.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, as the representative of a district that was largely interested in the whisky manufacture, he might perhaps be permitted to state that he intended to support Her Majesty's Government on this occasion, and he did it on this ground, that it was an interference with the details of a department which had far better be left in the hands of the Executive. He had never heard any complaints from his constituents on the subject, who, as he said, dealt largely in the manufacture of whisky, and without going into details, he was satisfied that, if it was not for the convenience of the service, the Admiralty would not refuse to allow it to be tried.
MR. STAFFORDgave the Government credit for simply wishing to determine which was the best spirit for the service, irrespective of West India or any other interest. He was quite prepared to assert that the only method of giving the experiment a trial would be to supply some particular ship before starting on a cruise with either whisky or gin, or some other spirit different from that ordinarily allowed. At the same time he was strongly of opinion that any such experiment was of a most hazardous character, considering how long the seamen had been accustomed to another sort of spirit, in the use of which they had always found very great pleasure. He quite coincided with the statement made by the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Osborne) as to the use of rum in seaport towns; he was perfectly certain that Jack, on first going on shore, would be sure to ask for rum above all other spirits. There could be no analogy whatever recognised between the use of coffee or cocoa in the Navy, and a choice between rum and whisky; for the arrangement as to the spirit to be used was a matter affecting the whole discipline of the service. No discretion could be allowed in such a matter. Agreeing, then, in the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the experiment suggested would be a most dangerous one, he was obliged, with every wish for the prosperity of Irish distillation, to vote against the proposal of the hon. Member.
Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:——Ayes 97; Noes 38: Majority 59.

RELIGIOUS WANTS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
MR. LUCASsaid, although the subject which he was about to submit to the notice of the House was one of very great importance, he should have been glad not to have interrupted the progress of business on a supply night if a suitable opportunity had been otherwise appointed of bringing forward the question. At the same time he was most anxious that both the House and the Government should understand that, in thus laying bare the grievances under which Catholic soldiers and sailors had laboured for so long a time, he had no wish whatever to excite a feeling of discontent in the minds of those whose claims he was submitting to consideration. He believed that the effect of his Motion would be to produce a feeling the very opposite of discontent, and that its tendency would be to show those who were hazarding their lives on behalf of their country that their reasonable interests were not left uncared for by the House of Commons. The question he was about to raise was not one in any way connected with the military or naval service of the country in a time of war, for the grievances complained of had been experienced in time of peace as well as in time of war. No less than fifty years ago, at a meeting of the Roman Catholic bishops held to take cognisance of the grievances under which the Roman Catholic portion of the community laboured, the most prominent grievance put forward was that felt by Roman Catholic soldiers and sailors in being debarred from the proper exercise of their religion. Fifty years had now elapsed since that date, and, though the subject had been repeatedly brought before Parliament, and though some move had been made in the proper direction, still it was not to be denied that the grievance substantially remained. It would be, therefore, his duty to-night to call upon Her Majesty's Government to make some effort for its effectual and final removal. And let it be remembered that he and those who were acting with him were contending for no new principle; for the principle that the Catholic soldier and sailor were entitled to the same justice—to the same adequate provision for their religious wants as the Protestant soldier and sailor—had been already fully recognised by Her Majesty's Ministers, from whatever

315
side of the House they had been chosen. The only thing wanted, then, was to carry into practice the principle already acknowledged, and to give that fair and reasonable justice which it was admitted ought to be conceded. He believed, however, that, even amongst Roman Catholics themselves, there were those who were not aware of the full extent to which the inequality complained of prevailed. According to a return which he had obtained last year, showing how a sum of 18,000 l., included in the estimates for the religious services of the Army—had been divided, it was quite evident that, taking into consideration the number of Catholics in the Army, a real hardship was inflicted on the soldiers and sailors of that persuasion. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War was kind enough to furnish him with a statement giving the proportion of Protestants, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics in the Army on the 3rd of June, 1853; and it appeared from that return the Protestants numbered 74,335; the Presbyterians, 12,765; and the Roman Catholics, 41,400—total, 128,495. According, therefore, to that statement, the Catholic soldiers formed about one-third of the Army. That being so, it was a matter of very great importance, especially at a moment when they were engaged in hostilities, that one-third of the Army should have no reasonable grounds for complaint—that one-third of the Army should feel that they were really treated with equality—that they were looked upon—not, indeed, with any peculiar favour—but with complete impartiality. Under any circumstances they were entitled to this; but he considered that a great augmentation would be supplied to their claims by a reference to the facts stated in the last report of Colonel Jebb, Inspector General of Military Prisons, as to the conduct and discipline of Catholic soldiers. That report stated that, in the nine military prisons of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the proportion of Catholic military prisoners was only 28 per cent, while the proportion of Catholics in the Army amounted to 32 per cent of the whole; there was, therefore, a balance of 4 per cent in favour of the conduct of the Catholic soldiers. Now what was the proportion of the fund devoted by Parliament for the necessary religious worship to the Army which he should expect to find allocated to the service of the Roman Catholics? He believed it was impossible to place their claim upon a lower footing than
316
that they should have a proportion of it equal to their numbers. He did not mean to say that a Catholic clergyman should receive as much as a Protestant clergyman, because he did not believe that their necessities were equal; but he thought that the duties of the Catholic priest were very much more arduous in their nature than those of the Protestant clergyman, and that one Catholic clergyman was not able to meet the spiritual wants of as many soldiers as the Protestant. On that account he believed there ought to be a greater number of Catholic than Protestant clergymen in proportion to the number of Catholics and Protestants attached to the Army, and that the fund voted by Parliament should be divided in some approximation to the numbers. Now, how was that fund of 18,500 l. divided? 500 l. of it went to supply books for the soldiers, and, therefore, of that he should take no account. But of the remainder, 14,436 l. went to the Protestants, 865 l. to the Presbyterians, and 2,702 l. was devoted to the Roman Catholics. That is, while the Catholics formed one-third of the whole Army, they only received one-seventh of the grant for religious purposes. The grievance, however, by no means stopped there; for this sum of 14,000 l. was by no means the whole amount dedicated to Protestant services in the Army. Thus, he found that to the chaplain general, who was a Protestant, of course, and who certainly was not an officer who could or ought to be entrusted with the spiritual superintendence of Roman Catholic clergymen—a man who, from his position and functions, would naturally, on any question affecting the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholics, be a partisan against them, though he wished to make no charge whatever against the present holder of the office—on the contrary, He had heard of one or two instances where he had opposed the manifestation of a bigoted feeling. Well, he found this gentleman with a salary of 500 l., and an allowance for a clerk of 80 l. a year. Then there were chaplains and assistant chaplains, with salaries varying from 200 l. to upwards of 400 l. a year, stationed at various garrisons at home and abroad. And then came a class of items to which he should beg the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War—items which altogether yielded a larger amount than the entire provision made for the spiritual wants of the Catholics of the Army. He alluded to the al-

317
lowances for half-pay to regimental chaplains, and allowances to chaplains' widows. He found that the sum of 2,911 l. 5s. 10 d. was allotted for the non-effective religious service of the British Army. He found also that there were twelve prison chaplains, with an allowance of 54 l. 10 s. each, included in the estimates for the Army. Summing all the various items together, he found that a further sum of 10,000 l., quite distinct from the original 18,000 l., was given for Protestant service in the Army. So that, while a sum of 2,700 l. was all that was allotted for Catholic service, no less than 26,000 l. was allotted for the religious purposes of the Protestant soldiery. Coming now to the Navy Estimates, he was unable to determine whether any effectual spiritual aid whatever was provided for Roman Catholic sailors afloat. He must admit that he had no data to go upon, on which he could form an opinion as to the proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants on board our fleets; he was told, however, that this could not amount to much less than one-fourth of the whole. The whole amount voted for the promotion of Protestant religious service in the Navy was, he believed, about 22,000 l., distributed among about 69 chaplains, stationed on board our ships, in the naval yards, and the marine barracks—a certain portion being allotted for half-pay and widows; while the only money which he could find voted for Catholic purposes, was four miserable stipends of 20 l. each, divided amongst the 4tospitals at Plymouth, Greenwich, Chatham, and Woolwich. Now, the result of all this was, that there was scarcely a station either at home or abroad where adequate provision was made for the religious wants of the Catholic soldiers; and, even where they were permitted to attend religious worship in the Catholic chapels of the district, the arrangements to enable them to do so were perfectly scandalous. Now, the Government must accept one of these two alternatives if they persisted in maintaining the present system, namely, either that a sum of under 3,000 l. was miserably inadequate for the wants of one-third of the Army, or that it was monstrous to expend 26,000 l. upon the remaining two-thirds. He would illustrate this system by one detail of it:—The sum of 968 l. was allotted for the Protestant service of the troops at the Cape. He did not know precisely what the proportion of Roman Catholic soldiers there was, but he saw no reason to suppose it was different from the
318
Proportion elsewhere. Now, what sum did the House suppose was given for the Roman Catholic military service in that colony? Two sums of, respectively, 30 l. and 40 l.—one to the priest at Fort Hare, the other to the priest at King William's Town. How arduous were the duties of these priests the House might learn from the statement in a letter he held in his hand, from the priest at Fort Hare, who mentioned incidentally that, after riding twenty-eight miles that day, on his spiritual duties, he was, after writing the letter, about to ride other fourteen miles, in the darkness of night, to visit a dying man of his flock. Yet, for these arduous duties, this gentleman received only 30 l., having no horse and no forage provided him, an assistance given only to the Protestant chaplains. Such a state of things as this was scandalous. The Protestant chaplains at the Cape received 200 l. a year, and there were four of them, while the Catholic clergyman only got 40 l., and there were but two of them. Passing from the Cape to Scotland, he found that the clergyman, who travelled a distance of twelve miles to attend the spiritual wants of the Catholic soldiers of Fort George, only received last year 10 s. a visit—a sum which would not pay his expenses. In the previous October this clergyman stated that he was treated better, and received 30 s. a visit. When he (Mr. Lucas) had brought this subject privately under the attention of the Government, he was told that the Catholic soldiers in a great number of stations were in a minority, and it was much more difficult to provide for this minority than it would be for a large body of soldiers. He wished to show, though this was a plausible objection, and one that was very often put forward by official men when they had what they considered a troublesome grievance to deal with—it was still an objection which they found it very easy to get over when they had a very strong motive for getting over it. How, he asked, did they deal with the lowest refuse of society when they got them in gaol? How did they deal with burglars and ruffians, who happened to be Protestants, when they were placed in a gaol? These men were very often lodged in gaol in very small numbers; in Ireland the Protestant criminals were in a constant minority; but, without going to that country for examples, how, he would ask, were the religious wants of criminals provided for in England? By a return laid upon the table of

319
the House there were, on the day the return was made, in Exeter city gaol 21 prisoners, and the Protestant chaplain was allowed 60 l. a-year; in Ilfracombe, 40 prisoners, with 61 l. for the chaplain; in Lancaster, 39 prisoners, and 380 l. for the chaplain; in Walsingham, 29 prisoners, and 200 l. for the clergyman; in Middlesex, 30 prisoners, and 300 for the chaplain; in York Castle, 37 prisoners, with 300 l. for the chaplain, and so on. The result was, that the total number of prisoners in the English gaols on the day of that return was 21,626; that 16,077 of these belonged to the Church of England; and the salaries of Church of England chaplains were 23,129 l.; while for 40,000 Catholic soldiers the Government could not afford 3,000 l. The estimate formed of the religious wants of the Catholic soldier was, therefore, very much under those of the Protestant convict; and while 11. 8s. per head was allowed to the Church of England prisoners, only ls. 6d. a-head was given for Catholic soldiers. Take, again, the case of Chatham. There he understood the Catholic soldiers were at certain periods of the year in a majority. At Chatham also there were considerable establishments connected with the Navy; there were the garrison, the dockyard, the marines, two hospitals, and the Military Prison at Fort Clarence. As far as he could make out, the soldiers in the garrison were in equal numbers—say 2,000 Protestants and 2,000 Catholics. Of the marines, dockyard artificers, people in hospitals and in the prisons, there would, of course, be a Protestant majority—say 3,000 Protestants and 500 Catholics, making altogether 5,000 Protestants and 2,500 Catholics. What were the respective religious allowances made? In the first place there was the Protestant garrison chaplain, with a salary of 2921., and allowances which made his salary 4081.; then there was a chaplain in Fort Clarence, with 205 l.; a dockyard chaplain, with 350 l.; and a chaplain to the Marine Infirmary, 160 l.; making altogether a sum of 1,123 l. at Chatham paid for Protestant clergymen in these various establishments. To this must be added additional pay of chaplains, half-pay of chaplains, and widows' pay, a due proportion of which must go to Chatham, with the outlay upon the chapels and repairs, so that altogether there could not be less spent than 1,200 l. annually upon the Protestant service in that garrison. Now, what was the allow-
320
ance for the performance of Catholic service? There was but one priest, who had a congregation to look after besides, and who received 20 l. on account of the Navy, and 80 l. on account of the Army, which was paid him for religious services to 2,500 Catholics, while 5,000 Protestants had allowed them something like 1,200 l. Then the Protestant clergyman got all sorts of extras, while the Catholics had a chapel rent to pay; the priest had no pension, and when he had worn out his health in performing the duties which devolved upon him, He was allowed to live as he could in his old age. The priest, living at Brompton, had to attend the military prison at Fort Clarence, which was five miles from Brompton Barracks; be had to attend Fort Pitt, which was three miles distant; had the spiritual wants of a large congregation to attend to besides; and, to make the whole complete, he had to attend the cavalry barracks at Maidstone and the county gaol there—a distance of eleven miles—for which he had no allowance. Then look at the chapel room at the disposal of the two communities. The Protestants at Chatham had the dockyard chapel, which would hold 2,000; the chapel in Brompton Barracks, 1,500; that at Fort Pitt, 150; and the Fort Clarence Chapel, 150 more; making a total of 3,800 sittings. On the other hand, the Catholics had only one chapel, every inch of which was wanted for the accommodation of the ordinary congregation, and only 200 soldiers could attend mass there on the Sunday. Thus, it was ten weeks before the turn of a Catholic soldier to hear mass came round at Chatham, it being an obligation of his religion that he should hear mass (whatever else he missed) every Sunday morning. Again, while there were Protestant schoolmasters, there was not one Catholic schoolmaster anywhere. Another grievance had arisen at Chatham out of the difficulty which the Catholics had there in getting ground for a new chapel. Three or four years ago repeated applications were made for a piece of ground at Brompton, close to the garrison hospital, but those applications were refused instead of a proper piece of ground for the erection of a chapel, the Roman Catholics were offered a piece of land situated in a swampy marsh, about two or three miles beyond Brompton Barracks, perhaps with the idea that malaria was considered beneficial to the Roman Catholic soldier. At Chatham there were many pieces of

321
ground vacant, and one very suitable piece was pointed out; but the commandant objected, on the ground that, if a chapel were erected and the place became shut in by buildings, it would be dangerous as affording an admirable cover to the enemy in case of invasion. He thought, however, that the commandant feared the spread of Roman Catholicism more than any invasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had had the case under consideration, and he had endeavoured to make an arrangement, under which a large room, which was appropriated to the performance of the Protestant service, should be allowed to be used alternately for Roman Catholic and Protestant worship, but to that arrangement objection was taken by a Protestant bishop. The Bishop of Rochester objected to it, not on the ground that the building was consecrated, but—he objected to the alternate performance of the two services. What, then, did the Secretary at War propose? He proposed to take away the chapel from both, and to build a chapel school, to be used alternately for both services. He had seen the plan for the erection of that school, and it appeared that it was to be a very handsome edifice, built like a church, and containing a communion-table and everything required for the convenience of the performance of the Protestant ritual, but nothing for the convenience of the Roman Catholic service. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War sincerely desired to do what was right in the matter, but that the fear he entertained of exciting against himself all the existing bigotry would prevent him from carrying out any change to its full extent. It appeared to be almost impossible to obtain adequate justice for the Roman Catholic soldier. At Kilmainham Hospital, this year, for the first time, it was proposed to give an allowance for a Roman Catholic priest. He would just call the attention of the House to the proportion which the Roman Catholics bore to the Protestants in that institution. There were 139 inmates in that hospital; of that number 100 were Roman Catholics, 35 were Protestants, and there were 4 Presbyterians; so that the vast majority were Roman Catholics. Now, what provision was made for the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholics? Last year no provision at all was made, while there was an allowance of 250 l. for a Protestant chaplain, and of 18 l. 5s. for a clerk. This year there was, in addition, an allowance made
322
of 50 l. for a Roman Catholic priest; but, instead of his being described as a chaplain, he was described as a Roman Catholic clergyman officiating to the prisoners. Such a state of things was manifestly most unjust—that 268 l. 5s. should be allowed for the spiritual wants of 35 Protestants, and only 50 l. for those of 100 Roman Catholics. It was absolutely necessary that the salaries and allowances of Roman Catholic chaplains should be increased, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War would state to the House whether he proposed to make any such increase, and, if so, to what extent. It would not be advisable to tell the 40,000 troops of the Roman Catholic persuasion in the British Army that they would not be treated with justice and impartiality. There must also be some reform in the hospitals with the view of preventing the Roman Catholics there from being interfered with by the Protestant chaplains. With regard to the schools, it appeared to him that the proper principle to be adopted was, that children who were entered as Roman Catholics, should be ipso facto exempted from attendance at any Protestant place of worship. The present system, which amounted to compelling a soldier to proclaim himself a Roman Catholic and to object to attend divine service, was a serious hardship, as it exposed him to the bigotry of his commanding officers, who might use the power with which they were entrusted for what they might deem a proper, but which would, in reality, be a most unjust purpose. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War would give this subject his consideration, and that a principle so objectionable would be done away with. He was sorry that he was compelled to trespass at such length upon the time of the House, but the subject was one of the utmost importance, and, although it was most necessary to correct any deficiency in the administration of the Army in time of peace, it became doubly necessary to do so with war impending. He would now advert to similar grievances which existed in the Naval Department. The first complaint he had to make was that, in the Navy as well as the Army, the provision to supply the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholics was utterly insufficient. The provision for the support of Roman Catholic clergymen was only 80 l., while for Protestant chaplains it amounted to a sum of 22,000 l. A question was asked, a few evenings back, as to

323
whether the Roman Catholic priests in Kilkenny urged their congregations not to enlist in the service; but he could tell Her Majesty's Ministers that, if it were announced that such a disproportion as he had mentioned should still continue to exist, it would not be the Roman Catholic priests who would prevent the people from entering the Army or Navy, but the voice of warning would proceed from the Treasury bench. For his next grievance, he quoted a letter written to the late Board of Admiralty by a priest at Portsmouth, named Kelly, who objected to the practice of Roman Catholic boys being taught the Protestant Catechism on board Her Majesty's ships; and that, whilst Protestant chaplains were regularly provided for the Protestant sailors on board ships at Spit-head, the Roman Catholic sailors were prevented attending mass on shore en Sunday, unless they happened to be off duty on that day. All the notice that was taken of this communication by the late Board was a mere acknowledgment of its receipt in a letter signed "Augustus Stafford." On the accession to office of the present Administration, the priest renewed his application to the Board of Admiralty, requesting it to restrain all naval commanders from compelling Roman Catholics serving on board the Queen's ships to attend the Protestant worship or read Protestant books. But the only answer received from the present First Lord, dated 22nd January last, was, "their Lordships do not think it necessary to adopt your suggestion "—that suggestion being that Roman Catholic sailors were not to be compelled to attend the Protestant worship or read Protestant books. When he had such facts to lay before the House, he had a right to the most serious attention of the Government, and he had also a right to demand that the two right hon. Gentlemen who represented the two services in that House, should both pronounce that a very great change should be made in the arrangement for the performance of divine service for the Roman Catholic soldiers and sailors in Her Majesty's service. He did not believe that that could be refused, and he was sure it was not their interest to refuse it. When the Government found that the very services on which they relied to carry on the war in which they were now about to engage were embittered by grievances of this kind, it behoved them to adopt a similar policy to that which they Lad already pursued that night in respect
324
to the Reform Bill, and to withdraw that which was a constant source of animosities, disputes, and jealousies between Roman Catholics and Protestants in both services. He believed that the Catholic population of the United Kingdom were with the Government, heart and soul, in the cause in which they were engaged. Every one whom he knew was of opinion that the war about to commence was one in which all classes of the community were equally interested. It was a war which concerned the people as well as the prince, the Catholic as well as the Protestant, the Celt as well as the Saxon; it concerned all who did not wish that Europe should be overrun by the irruption of a barbarous Tartar empire, and who were anxious to uphold the honour and the glory of this nation. Some three or four years ago, there were those who expressed themselves indignant at a document which had come from Rome, dated from the Flaminian Gate, and which was attributed to the influence of a Cardinal who was the Archbishop of this metropolis and the neighbouring counties. It so happened that at this very time the same Cardinal was again in Rome, and a document had just come over again to this country, dated at the Flaminian Gate. It was a charge addressed to the Catholics of this metropolis, in which Cardinal Wiseman enforced on them the duty of cordially supporting the honour of the Crown and the interests of the people of this realm, and in which he called upon them to bear cheerfully the additional burdens which the war might impose on them. The document concluded by saying that he felt it necessary that there should be inserted in the prayer for Her Majesty on Sunday that clause which for forty years had been omitted, "That she may conquer her enemies." Such was the document addressed by the Cardinal Archbishop of this diocese to the Catholics of this metropolis, but it was matter of seine importance that there should be reasonable ground why he should teach those entrusted to his spiritual direction that they could have confidence in the Crown that arrangements would be made by the State for the support of which so many of them were required to shed their blood, for their spiritual instruction and religious consolation. He had not made this present address to the House from any feeling of hostility to the Government, but in the conscientious discharge of his duty. He would sit down by earnestly calling upon the two right hon. Gentlemen

325
who represented the two services in that house, to give a promise that every consideration would be bestowed on the subject to which he had now called their attention.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he could not pretend to follow the hon. Gentleman through all the details into which he had entered in his speech, because he frankly confessed he felt himself unable to do it, and because, not having had notice of the particular instances to which he intended to call attention, he was not in a situation to state precisely at that moment what were the facts of each case. He thought it better, therefore, to state to the House what had been the practice, and what changes had been effected, and then to leave the House to judge how far he had acted in a spirit of fairness towards the Roman Catholic soldiers of the Army, and how far the hon. Gentleman was justified in many of the observations which he had addressed to the House. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that the Roman Catholic soldiers amounted in round numbers to about one-third of the whole Army. He had gone on to state that he was not aware of the numbers as they existed at particular stations. This, however, had nothing to do with the matter, because, in the relief which annually took place, and the shifting of regiments from one station to another, the relative proportions of Protestants and Roman Catholics at each place must, of course, be constantly shifting also. At one time there might be a Highland regiment, composed in greater part of Presbyterians, and in the next year the same station might be occupied by another with a large proportion of Roman Catholics; and therefore any argument founded upon the particular numbers occupying a particular station at any given moment would be entirely fallacious, because the numbers themselves were fluctuating and temporary. With respect to the case which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned, of a Roman Catholic priest at the Cape of Good Hope, who had not received the stipend to which he was entitled, and who said that the amount was so small that he had been ashamed to ask for it, it might be that his not having asked for it accounted for his not having received it—at any rate he would inquire into the circumstances, and endeavour to ascertain the reason of what at this moment he confessed himself unable to explain. But he was sorry to say that, if this miserable pittance shocked the Roman Catholic priest, it must
326
also shock the Protestant clergyman; because, although it was true that at the large stations, where permanent chaplains existed, the salary was of higher description, yet the payment per head in many instances—as well in the case of Protestants as in that of Roman Catholics—was as low as 5s. per week for fifty men. It was perfectly true, that where there were fewer than thirty men, no chaplains were appointed; but this did not justify the inference that the Government had no care for the soldier's soul, for the fact was, that when the number was so small there was accommodation for them in the place where they were—either in church or chapel, as the ease might happen to be—and he would not do so much injustice either to Roman Catholic priests or to Protestant clergymen as to suppose that they would refuse, for the sake of so small an addition to their flocks, to minister to the soldiers in their parishes or in their neighbourhoods, even though they would receive no stipend from the State. The hon. Gentleman must recollect that they were dealing, not so much with large masses of men, as with an Army distributed according to the exigencies of the public service, at a vast number of stations, and that if they were to extend their arrangements so as to include the appointment of a chaplain for every small detachment, they would swell this sum of 18,000 l. to an amount so large that the House would refuse to grant it. Coming now to the case of Chatham, with which he happened to be acquainted, the hon. Gentleman had, first of all, complained that the Government had not consented to give the ground, and to build a chapel for the Roman Catholic soldiers. This was true, and he could not give him any hope that the Government would ever consent to that arrangement. He did not think it was the duty of the Government to give ground or to build chapels for congregations of any description. They were building, however, out of the public funds, what was called a chapel school. This, however, stood upon a very different footing. It was built, as he had said, out of the public funds, which were contributed by all denominations. It was built as a school, and it was not consecrated, although it was true that it did, in its external appearance, somewhat resemble a chapel, and that it had, what were said to be peculiar to Protestant places of worship, a pulpit and a font. It was open, however, as a school throughout the week without religious distinction, and on Sun-

327
days he thought it perfectly just and fair that the clergyman of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic should perform divine service in it in turn, to such portions of the troops as were attached to their respective communions. With respect to prisons he was entirely of opinion that when persons were confined, and were unable, on that account, to have access to the ordinary ministrations of religion, care ought to be taken to provide them with spiritual instruction and advice. He had put himself in communication upon that subject with his noble Friend at the head of the Home Department, and he hoped that, in concert with him, such regulations would be made as would ensure that object being properly carried out. The hon. Gentleman complained that the Roman Catholic was not put upon the same footing as the Protestant. He admitted, as far as it was possible for any man to do, the necessity of giving to the soldier, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, every facility of access to religious instruction, and to such religious instruction as his own conscience would approve. But the hon. Gentleman said that the Roman Catholics would not put themselves under the restrictions which were imposed on an Established Church. They refused to submit to the advantages which such restrictions would subject them to, but they asked, at the same time, to have all the advantages of an establishment.
MR. LUCAS: What I say is, that if you build chapels for Protestant soldiers, you ought to build them for Roman Catholic soldiers also.
MR SIDNEY HERBERThad explained exactly what had been done. No doubt, in some old garrisons there were consecrated chapels, which could not be diverted, and ought not to be diverted, from the purposes for which they had been set apart; but with respect to the buildings which had recently been erected, they were schools, built as schools, and used as schools on week days, and on Sundays available for the purpose of religious worship to members of the Church of England, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians, in turn. He did not think he need detain the House with any further observation. The hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that he did not think the Roman Catholic priest required the same amount of salary as the Protestant clergyman, because the fact of the one being generally married, and charged with the maintenance of a
328
family, while the other was bound to a life of celibacy, placed them in very different circumstances. He (Mr. Herbert) had been endeavouring to put this matter on a better footing; he had been anxious, wherever it was possible, to arrange for fixed stipends, not only in the case of Roman Catholic clergymen, but in reference to those of other religious denominations. He was desirous to make every concession that was just and fair, and to give to the soldier every means of religious consolation which it was possible to secure to him. He should continue his exertions for that object; he should endeavour, also, to put the prisons and schools upon a sound footing; and, although he despaired of satisfying the hon. Gentleman opposite to the extent which he asked him to go, he did not despair of making his efforts acceptable to the great body of those who took an interest in the subject.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, perhaps it might be convenient that he should follow his right hon. Friend in replying to the observations which had been made by the hon. Gentleman with respect to the sister service—the Navy. With regard to the Navy, the hon. Gentleman had not entered into many details; and as to his facts he (Sir J. Graham) should not pretend to offer any observations. The hon. Gentleman had talked of going to the root of the evil. The root of the evil, with respect to the naval service, was, that the established religion of this country was the Protestant religion; and that, inasmuch as on board ship it was not possible to make provision for more than one form of religious worship, the provision made in all Her Majesty's ships was for the established religion of this country, being Protestant. It was well understood, therefore, why 50,000 l. should appear in the annual estimates for payment of the clergy of the Protestant religion, and why the provision was so small for the priests of the Roman Catholic religion; the fact being, that provision was only made for one chaplain on board each ship, it being utterly impossible to admit on board one ship two ministers of two opposite religions, for the purpose of administering religious instruction to the sailors on board. Until, therefore, Parliament should enact that the religious service on board ship should not be according to the principles of the Established Church, he could not hold out any hope to the hon. Gentleman that any such provision as he had proposed would be

329
made for the Catholic religion. He was well aware of the good-will, and, he would say, cordial feeling that existed on the part of the Catholic population towards the Sovereign and the Government of this country, at the present time more especially, and he was fully sensible of the valuable services which the Roman Catholics had rendered on board Her Majesty's ships; but, while be willingly and cheerfully made these acknowledgments, there was one thing which he could never do—he could not hold out expectations which he believed were delusive, and he could not hold out hopes which he knew would be disappointed. The hon. Gentleman had referred to an order which had been issued by the Board of Admiralty soon after he (Sir J. Graham) came into office with respect to the form of objections to be stated by Roman Catholic parents, in order to exempt their children from being taught in the Protestant schools the same as in the Army, which required that the objection should proceed from the parents of the child, otherwise the child would be taught in the Protestant school. The hon. Gentleman objected to that provision; but the principle on which it was formed was obvious. From the earliest period there had never been any difference made in the religious creed of men on their first entry into Her Majesty's naval service. The question was never put as to what was the creed of those who voluntarily entered the naval service. He conceived, therefore, that the objection to the children being educated in the Protestant religion ought to be made by the parents. It was not right that any provision should be made by previous inquiry into the creed of those parents, but which, if made, would render any objection on their part unnecessary. He felt bound to tell the House that in harbour sufficient facilities were not afforded to Roman Catholic sailors for attendance at divine service on Sundays according to their own religious faith. At Malta full provision had been made by the Board of Admiralty that on every Sunday morning the sailors of the Roman Catholic creed should have facilities afforded them for attending chapel. He was now in communication with the heads of the Roman Catholic Church, for the purpose of considering whether arrangements might not be made in the principal naval arsenals of this country—Portsmouth, Plymouth, Queen's Town, and Sheerness—for the purpose of providing facilities of attending, if not on shore, in the harbour, religious
330
worship by the Roman Catholic sailors on Sunday mornings. With respect to hospitals provision had also been made for the attendance of the priest on the sick Roman Catholic inmates of the four principal naval hospitals in this country; but in regard to hospitals abroad no such provision had yet been made; but he was also at this moment in communication with the head of the Roman Catholic Church as to the best means of providing such religious service in those hospitals. He could not conclude his observations without begging the House to remember, that the question brought forward by the hon. Gentleman was surrounded with many and great difficulties; and that, whilst the religion of this country continued to be Protestant, and until the Legislature decided that the Protestant service should not be provided in Her Majesty's ships for Protestant sailors, the hon. Gentleman could not hope to accomplish his wishes in favour of the Roman Catholic sailors.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply,
(1.) 15,000 Land Forces, further number of men.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he rose to move a Supplemental Estimate, of which notice had been given on a former evening. After the statement which the noble Lord the Member for London had already addressed to the House, it was altogether unnecessary to trouble the Committee with any detailed explanation of the object of the Estimate. It would be recollected, also, that he himself, on introducing the Army Estimates, had communicated the reasons which rendered necessary an additional Estimate over and above the number of men which had already been voted. Although the Estimate formed only one item in the paper, He would ask the Committee to vote it in three items, in order that these might be posted under their proper heads in the general Estimates, with the view of facilitating comparison in future years. In the first place he would move that an additional number of men, not exceeding 15,000, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom for the year ending the 31st of March, 1855.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to know whether it was intended to make an addition to the number of regiments, or to increase the strength of the companies in each regiment?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, it was

331
intended that the fresh men should be added to the existing companies. It was thought that additional officers would not be required at present; but should it be found desirable to employ any, they would be taken from the half-pay list.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he felt it necessary, in the exigency in which the country was placed, to repose confidence in Ministers, and he gave them credit for not demanding a larger force than was required. He approved the intention to call officers from the half-pay list into active service.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved that, although the right hon. Gentleman had answered the question of the gallant Officer (Col. Dunne), he had not explained how the larger additional number of men which he asked for was to be distributed.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that the greater portion of the new force would be absorbed in the existing regiments by raising the number of each company. A considerable number would also be kept in reserve for casualties in connection with the regiments on foreign service. He thought it would be unnecessary to appoint new officers, except for the superintendence of combined depôts, in which it was thought that recruits would be brought forward more rapidly than in isolated depôts scattered over the country.
Vote agreed to, as were the following:—
(2.) 500,000 l., further Charge of Land Forces.
(3.) 70,000 l., General Staff Officers.
(4.) 600,27 l., Commissariat Department.
(5.) 44,302 l., Half-Pay in Commissariat Department.
House resumed.
The House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till Monday next.