Commons Sitting of 21 February 1855

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Swansea, v. John Henry Vivian, Esq., deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Dwelling Houses (Scotland); Cathedral Appointments Act Continuance; Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Jurisdiction); Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Procedure); Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Receivers); Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Sales of Estates); Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Appeals); Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Stamp Duties).
2° Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Acts Consolidation and Amendment; Public Health; Army Service Act Amendment; Marine Mutiny; Mutiny.

NUISANCES REMOVAL, ETC. BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL, in moving the second reading of the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Acts Consolidation and Amendment Bill, said, that it might be well if he were to state, then, the various alterations it had been decided to make in the Bill. Previously to the introduction of the Bill he had some conversation with his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for Scotland about the propriety of separating the Bill and bringing in a special one for Scotland. The Lord Advocate entirely acquiesced in his proposal. Subsequently he saw the Secretary for Ireland, and that right hon. Baronet desired that there should be a separate Irish Bill also. The Bill now before the House would, therefore, apply only to England and Wales. There were two objects in the Bill. The first was that of general application, and the other had for its object provisions which could only be applied under special and peculiar circumstances. With regard to the first object of the Bill, it was thought that its provisions should apply under all circumstances whatsoever; with regard to the other provisions of the Bill, they could only be applied under peculiar circumstances, when the President of the Board of Health should obtain the sanction of the Council, under whose orders the provisions of the Bill should be enforced. If the House would allow him to take the second reading of the Bill now he would go into Committee pro formà, strike out everything that related to provisions which
1714
could only be applied under Orders in Council, leaving the Bill as it stood with reference to the removal of nuisances, and then he would introduce another Bill whose provisions should be applied under special Orders in Council. He had already made a statement on moving the first reading of the Bill, but he hoped the House would allow him to reply to any questions or suggestions that might be made. He would now merely move that the Bill be read a second time.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he considered that the Nuisances Removal and the Public Health Bill should be taken and considered together. It was impossible to speak of one without at the same time speaking of the other. He thought the course taken last year by the late Government was a very judicious one. It was very fortunate that they had now in the House an hon. Member who represented the Board of Health, and to whom complaints could be made. So far they had gained a great step; but when he came to consider those two Bills, he must say he found, especially in the Public Health Bill, a great deal that would require consideration and considerable alteration before they could be satisfactory to the country. There were some portions of the Public Health Bill which it certainly would be more judicious to remove to the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Bill. The power of summary interference given to the Board of Health when deaths exceeded twenty-three in a thousand ought to be taken out of the Board of Health Act altogether, and should come under the Diseases Prevention Act; for the Public Health Bill proceeded on the principle of the election of local boards by local ratepayers, and not on the principle of the arbitrary interference of a central board. Then, the question of boundaries to be enforced was one of great difficulty, doubts, and disputes, and ought to be very carefully considered by a Select Committee upstairs. Again, it was provided that where there was a district to be brought under the Act, and a small suburb in the neighbourhood, a majority of votes in the district should suffice to bring in the suburb, whether that suburb liked or not. Now, he thought that was not only unfair, but unjust. There ought to be afforded to a small suburb some means of defending itself against a large town in the neighbourhood. The suburbs were just the parts that were the most improved. They had been recently built, they were generally well drained,

1715
and to them was congregated, in most instances, the wealth of the neighbourhood. No doubt, the larger town would be anxious to bring them in for the purpose of putting a rate upon them, and relieving themselves to a certain extent. The inhabitants of the suburb would consequently find that, although their district was properly and healthfully conducted, they were to be called on to pay for the health of the town in the neighbourhood, in which they were not at all concerned. The Board of Health, under the Bill, might take water and might take property, and to whom was there any appeal? The quarter sessions and the justices were totally unsatisfactory. The justices would not even attend to listen to business of this kind. Then there was the Buildings Bill. Now, if there was anything that could try the patience and good temper of the people of England, and if there was in Europe an oppressive and tyrannical Bill, such a Bill was the Buildings Bill.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL: All the clauses of the Buildings Bill have been struck out of these measures.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he was very glad to hear it. That at once got rid of what was most objectionable in these measures. The Committee upstairs ought also to have power to call for persons, papers, and records, and to take evidence. This Bill was one which must carry with it the good temper of the country, for the comfort and happiness of all were connected.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, it must be satisfactory to the country to have obtained the valuable services of the right hon. Baronet. The Bill before the House corrected, at all events, a great number of hardships and inconveniences, which had been a fruitful source of contention in a great number of large and populous towns. But it must be by the declared and manifest consent of a majority of the ratepayers that anything could now be done. He had shortened his life by the battles he had had to fight with former Governments; and he hoped that under the administration of the right hon. Baronet all those battles would cease.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he considered that the proposed measures fairly recognised the principle of compensation. He thought that some compensation ought to be made payable by those who sought to remove what they considered nuisances to the persons whose property was injured by the removal.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he thought that evidence ought to be taken by a Select Committee on this subject. It was very important, and the law upon it ought to be carefully settled.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the determination that had been taken to legislate separately for England, Scotland, and Ireland, was a step in the wrong direction. He could see no objection to the separation of the Nuisances Removal Act into two parts; but many serious objections would still remain in the Bill. It would be very inconvenient to have neighbouring towns governed by different laws; the one by local Acts, the other by a general Bill. When they considered how many were the places in which the deaths exceeded twenty-three in a thousand, he thought great numbers of those who were anxious for a popular principle of government would find a central authority coming down upon them when they little expected it. With regard to the different modes of making the districts, great improvement was wanted. He did not think that parties were sufficiently guarded from being taken in against their will. The power of voting against being taken in was no sufficient defence, for the inhabitants of a rural district were always much less numerous than those of a neighbouring town that might desire to join that district to itself. He thought, also, that the scheme of referring matters of this kind to tribunals like the quarter sessions and the justices was most objectionable. He could not conceive any tribunal less fit for the exercise of such a jurisdiction. It was a jurisdiction wholly foreign to the duties of a magistrate, whose commission of the peace never contemplated his being saddled with duties of this kind also. It was one of the objections to the House of Commons that Members could rush in at the end of a debate, and vote without having heard either one side or the other. In the same way, at the end of a trial of some days, a batch of magistrates from town would come into the court of a rural district and decide its annexation to the town by an overwhelming majority. It was also a very objectionable thing to give to districts in the country a power to repeal all local Acts; and there were many other provisions to which he could by no means assent. He thought it ought to be seen how the Bill would work before there was given so great a power as that to remove gasworks, soap-boiling works, and other establishments which might be thought to

1717
be obnoxious in the districts where they were.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he approved the principle of the Bill, and gave great credit to the right hon. Baronet for the pains which he had taken, not only with this measure, but with all the matters connected with his office. He contended, however, that, in the event of some of those trades which created nuisances being done away with, ten times greater nuisances would be occasioned. Suppose every person were obliged to keep his dust in his yard, what a nuisance that would be! He would put another case. One of his constituents was extensively engaged as a market gardener. He had commenced business years ago, when there was not a house near the spot. He was now surrounded with houses, and the manure which he used for fertilising his garden was complained of as a nuisance; but if market gardens were to be abolished, what was to become of our refuse and manure? He certainly thought that persons whose business was interfered with and destroyed should be entitled to compensation, as provided under the Act of 1844.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he objected to the powers which it was proposed to confer by the Bill, especially those which related to the owners of establishments in which the machinery was worked by water power from pools and ponds. If the right hon. Baronet would consent to a clause at a future period, which should give compensation for the ponds or pools which might be closed up by the operation of the Act, the objection would be obviated, for it was unfair to interfere with private property in this manner.
MR. BARROWsaid, he did not agree with the principles involved in these Bills, for if they were carried out they would most unjustly interfere with the rights of property. He could not consent that a principle which would establish the boldest democracy ever dreamt of should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs, without being fully discussed by the House. It was unfair that in a case of such importance to property, mere numbers should override property. He must dissent from the precedent of handing over to a Select Committee questions which dealt with the rights of property in the manner proposed by these Bills.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he trusted that the inspectors who were to be appointed under this Bill would be medical men. He cordially agreed to the compen-
1718
sations recommended by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson), for the owners of property might be driven out of the districts in which they had invested a large amount of capital. He also highly approved of the mode of single voting, for the system of plurality of votes was a modern innovation, which had never been granted until Sturges Bourne's Act.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he thought that great advantage would be derived from the division of the Nuisances Removal Bill into two Bills, one being applicable to permanent, the other to temporary circumstances. He quite approved of the Bills being sent before a Select Committee, but he hoped that it would not occupy such a length of time as to prevent legislation during the present Session. He was glad to find that the right hon. Baronet's (Sir B. Hall's) experience of his office had taught him the necessity of adopting a number of the principles and plans of his much calumniated predecessors. With regard to the Public Health Bill, while approving of many of its provisions, he lamented the introduction of one or two enactments which were new, and which appeared to him to be rather of a retrograde character. He also objected to the principle of a majority of temporary inhabitants entirely excluding permanent owners of property from any voice in the arrangements under the Bill. Questions of this sort seemed to require more careful consideration than appeared to have been given to them in the Bill as it stood. He likewise objected to the machinery provided for voting, which seemed to him to be also of a retrograde character, and calculated to consult rather the convenience of the few than of the many, and which would practically disfranchise thousands of voters. He hoped evidence, however, would be taken on these points.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he trusted that the Committee would be so selected as to be a fair representation of the House. He recognised the valuable principle of local self-government which pervaded the Public Health Bill, but he thought the powers which it proposed to confer on the quarter sessions were so large and extensive, that they would require the most careful consideration of the Committee, to see that they did not trench upon those rights which it was the duty of the House to preserve. According to the plan proposed, the owners of property, from the limited time of notice, would frequently be unable to attend, and the working of the

1719
Act would be left in the hands of those who had no permanent interest in the matter. He trusted that as soon as the Bill had been duly considered by the Select Committee it would be printed, and ample time given for the country to become fully aware of the extent to which the House intended to delegate the powers of legislation on those questions, and that due respect would be paid to the rights of property.
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought that to be effective the Bill should provide that the inspectors should be medical men. Several clauses would require careful consideration—particularly that one which so far interfered with private rights as to prevent any private person erecting an hospital without the consent of the board.
Bill read 2°.

THE PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he would now beg to move the second reading of this Bill. He would take that opportunity of replying to the observations which had been made by the hon. Members who had addressed the House in respect to these measures. He could assure the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr.W.Williams) he had no desire to restrict discussion, but had taken a course which would render, he thought, the Bills more open to discussion. He would accede also to the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and have the Bills printed, and allow ample time for a consideration of their provisions. He was more convinced than ever, from the statements which had been made that day, that the Bills were most necessary, and that they would be most difficult to pass. It was his duty not to shrink from these difficulties, and he would bring before a Select Committee, to which he hoped the Bills would be referred, all the suggestions which had been made to him from different quarters. He had no desire whatever to interfere with existing interests more than was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the community at large, but if existing interests were not carried out for the benefit of the community, he thought it was necessary for the Legislature to interfere. He had no objection to transfer the powers for the intervention of the Board of Health when the mortality exceeded the rate of twenty-three in 1,000 to the Diseases Prevention Bill, and he thought it a most useful suggestion. A provision would be introduced to limit these powers under the Order in
1720
Council to temporary cases. With respect to the alteration of districts, the question was one that must be considered by the Select Committee. He had proposed a Bill such as he thought would be useful. He could only make suggestions, and it would be the duty of the Committee to carry them out. One of the important provisions of the Bill was the compulsory power of taking land for the purposes of the Act, but it would require to be carefully guarded. When any one read the evidence taken before a Committee of that House with respect to the expense which parties were put to who came for Bills for local purposes, he would feel that the time was come when some other tribunal, less expensive, should be permitted to decide these matters. He had a great desire to reduce this expenditure, and he hoped the Select Committee would assist him in so doing. Three of his colleagues in the representation of the metropolis had wished to insert a clause for compensation to those persons who had created nuisances when these nuisances are to be put down. He (Sir B. Hall) could not hold out any hope that he, for one, should be disposed to give that compensation. He did not think it would be useful, and he hoped that the Select Committee would not offer compensation to those who had created nuisances, and who would be obliged by the Public Health Bill to remove those nuisances. It had been urged by several hon. Members that evidence should be heard before the Select Committee. He had no objection to that, but he hoped the Committee would set their face against any unnecessary prolongation of taking evidence. It was his desire to pass a Bill as early as possible, in order that, if a pestilence should again visit the country this summer, they might have taken every precaution, and shown all the foresight that it was in their power to do. A noble Lord had said with reference to this question that there were two parties, the dirty party and the clean party. He (Sir B. Hall) must say that the most dirty party he knew were the gas companies and the water companies, and if any attempt was made to improve the sanitary condition of the public, and to supply them with more light and the means of securing greater cleanliness, the first persons to oppose such a proposition were usually the dealers in gas and the retailers of water. While the Select Committee would see that the rights of gas and water companies were properly preserved, he trusted they would not allow

1721
these Bills to be thrown over by those whose duty it was to minister to the wants of the public in respect to the supply of gas and water. It would be his duty to lay before the Select Committee all the suggestions which he had received; and he sincerely hoped that after they had been considered by the Committee, and ample opportunity given to the country to consider them, some measures would be passed, at no distant period of the Session, to carry out objects so necessary.
Bill read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee.

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. I. BUTTmoved that the House go into Committee on this Bill.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not proceed with this Bill until a more comprehensive attempt were made to assimilate the law of England and Ireland.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he thought the Bill ought to pass as a matter of course. Last year a Bill was brought in with reference to criminal procedure in England, and he then moved that several of its clauses should be extended to Ireland. Every one agreed that one of the clauses of the English Bill ought to be extended to Ireland—namely, that by which the defendant was allowed to address the jury at the close of his case. It was thought that this clause was applied to Ireland by the Bill of last Session, and he had received letters from some of his friends thanking him for this measure of improvement. However, on investigation it was discovered that the clause was not extended to Ireland, and the present Bill was intended to cure the defect and assimilate the law.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he saw no reason why the error in question should not be rectified. He proposed to introduce a Bill next week altering in many important particulars the Act of last Session, and it would then be seen whether the alterations now proposed to be made could not be embodied in one Bill.
House in Committee; the several clauses were then agreed to.
House resumed.

SUPPLY—EXCHEQUER BILLS.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee of Supply.
MR. WILSONsaid, he had to move that a sum not exceeding 17,183,000 l.
1722
be granted to Her Majesty to pay off and discharge Exchequer bills charged on the aids of 1855 unprovided for.
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed.

WAYS AND MEANS
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee of Ways and Means.
MR. WILSONsaid, he would now beg to move the following Resolutions—
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of 20,000,000 l. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, for the deficiency in the Grants for the Service of the year ending the 31st day of March, 1855, the sum of 1,300,000 l. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
Resolutions agreed to.
House resumed.

ARMY SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that in moving the second reading of this Bill he should merely say a few words, in order to recommend the measure to the consideration of the House. The principle of enlisting men for a limited period of service was not a new one. That principle had been affirmed by the House of Commons in the year 1847, when the Secretary at War of the day had proposed a Bill to authorise the Government to enlist men for a period not exceeding ten years. The present measure had for its object to legalise the enlistment of soldiers for a period less than ten years, namely, from three to five years. The necessity for introducing the Bill rested partly upon technical considerations, and partly upon considerations of general policy. It proposed to remove the stringency which existed with respect to the regulations by which men were enlisted for a term of ten years, neither more nor less, and to obtain the services of men whose age—thirty to thirty-four—rendered it probable that they could better endure the fatigues and hardships of active service than those who entered the army under the present system. It would, he was certain, be gratifying to the House to hear that the recruiting service of the country was at the present moment in a most satisfactory position. He found, from returns upon the subject, that in the year 1853, 11,545 men had joined the army. That number had, in 1854, been increased to 34,844, of which 1,942 men had volunteered from the

1723
militia. In the month of January there had been no less than 6,092 recruits, of which number 1,190 had come from the ranks of the militia. The continuance of the Bill before the House was to be limited to three years; but if, at the expiration of that time, it should be found expedient to prolong its operation, he had no doubt that Parliament would assent to its renewal.
COLONEL FORESTERsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few remarks, in consequence of some observations which had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) a few nights ago, who had thought proper to make an attack on the Household Brigade. In 1853 he (Colonel Forester) was in camp at Chobham with his regiment, the Royal Horse Guards Blue, in company with the Scots Greys, the 4th Light Dragoons, and the 8th Hussars. They were encamped for six weeks, and during that time he would appeal to every military man whether the regiment which he had the honour of commanding did not go through its exercise with as much activity, with fewer falls, and fewer accidents than any other, The difference of weight between the Scots Greys and the Royal Horse Guards in full marching order was one stone and a half. The difference between the Light Cavalry and the Household Brigade was two stones. The cuirass of the Household Brigade was taken to weigh from 14 lbs. to 17 lbs. If that weight was taken off the breast of the Household Brigade, they would be brought within 5lbs. or 6lbs. of the Scots Greys. The noble Lord said the Household Cavalry, men and horses, were too large, too heavy in every way for service. Now he would take the liberty of reading an extract from Alison's History of Europe, in reference to what occurred at the battle of Quatre Bras. The historian said no attempt was made, upon that occasion, to disturb the retreat of our army, except by a body of French Lancers, which, between Gemappes and Waterloo, had, in spite of the gallantry of the 7th Hussars, almost overwhelmed that distinguished corps of light cavalry, who were no match in close fight for the Lancers of France. Lord Uxbridge, afterwards Marquess of Anglesea, seeing the position in which the Hussars were placed, came up to their relief in person at the head of the 1st Life Guards, and those magnificent troops, albeit unprotected by armour, bore down upon the French Lancers with a vigour so irresistible as to rout them complete-
1724
ly, and the retreat was afterwards permitted to take place undisturbed. He (Colonel Forester) deemed it to be his duty to offer these observations to the House, in reply to the attack which had been made upon the Household Cavalry by the noble Lord, who had said that they were no better than "beef-eaters."
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he was glad to hear that the troops under the gallant Colonel performed their evolutions so well at Chobham, but he wished to call the attention of the House to what he really did say on the occasion referred to, because the question was one of great importance, and one which affected not only the Household Brigade, on whom he made no personal attack, but also the other regiments of cavalry. There were three regiments of the Household Brigade, with about 400 horses to each regiment. Now, what he said was, that one effective regiment would be much better than three ineffective regiments, and could be maintained at a much less cost to the public. At present we had the maximum of expense with the minimum of efficiency—officers for three regiments and men for only one. This remark applied not merely to the Household Brigade, but to all the other cavalry regiments. It was said that these regiments must be considered a nucleus, and that as soon as war occurred they would be filled up. But that had not been done, and they had been sent abroad as they were. Any man acquainted with cavalry regiments abroad would say that this was an admirable system for patronage at the Horse Guards, and for expense; but it was certainly not a good system, so far as regarded efficiency. He never doubted the efficiency of the regiments alluded to at Waterloo, and he had no doubt if they were taken from this country fresh they would overthrow almost any cavalry that could be brought against them; but if the gallant Colonel had looked to what occurred in the Peninsula, he would not have found that the heavy cavalry went through the service very well. If he had been aware that the question was likely to be raised, he should have been prepared to show that in the Peninsula the weight of the horses and men was considered very disadvantageous in many respects. His object had merely been to illustrate the system. He did not think it right to have so large a proportion of heavy cavalry, nor did he consider it right to have three regiments of the Household Brigade when one could be made more effective and maintained at a

1725
much less cost, although it certainly would not, as he had previously stated, give such an amount of patronage at the Horse Guards.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he understood that men might be enlisted, under the operation of the Bill before them, for three years. He should suggest that that period should be extended to five years. The men who would enlist under the Bill would enter the army later in life than was now the case, and a longer period of time would be requisite to make them good soldiers.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he understood that the men were to be enlisted for three years. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member might receive consideration, if it were sent back in the shape of an Amendment to the House of Lords.
Bill read 2°.

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, SAND HURST.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would now beg to bring under the consideration of the House the regulations of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, respecting the admission of orphan sons of the officers of the army, navy, and marine into that establishment. He felt assured that at a moment when this country had to mourn the loss of so many gallant officers, the House would not grudge him their indulgence while he made a brief statement upon the subject of his Motion. The Royal Military College at Sandhurst had been erected under the auspices of his Royal Highness the late Duke of York. The order for its erection was dated the 7th of May, 1808; admission to it was then, as at the present time, confined to three classes. The first class which attracted towards it the kindly solicitude of his Royal Highness had been the orphans of the subaltern officers of our army, and who had died leaving their families in pecuniary distress. Those who entered the college as members of that class were to receive here their education, board, and clothing, free of expense. The second class to whom admission had been accorded were the sons of officers who were alive, and serving in the army or navy; while the third class comprised the sons of noblemen and gentlemen who wished to enter into our military or naval services as a profession. Those regulations had, however, been since altered, and at present
1726
the first class embraced the sons of officers under the rank of field officers, and those, upon becoming students of the college, were obliged, instead of being educated free of expense, to pay a pension of 40 l. per annum. The second and third classes continued in the same position as that in which they had been placed in 1808. The regulation which enabled the orphans of officers to be educated at Sandhurst free of expense had been in operation when he himself had been a student of the establishment. Under the system which then prevailed many of the sons of our most distinguished officers had received their education at the College. Among them was Sir Gaspard Le Marchant—the brother of the Clerk of that House, and at present Governor of Nova Scotia—one of the best officers in the service. He could, if it were necessary, mention the names of many other officers who had received their education at Sandhurst, and who had since shown themselves to be deserving of the kindness which had been extended towards them by their country. But he should advert to the cruel results of the changes in the regulations at Sandhurst to which he had alluded. The orphans of every class of officers were now compelled to pay 40 l. a year upon admission to the college, and it must be obvious that many of the orphans of our officers were in consequence precluded from availing themselves of the means of obtaining military instruction. The widow of an ensign received only 30 l. per annum, of a lieutenant 40 l., of a captain 50 l., and of a major 70 l. per annum, and from that miserable annuity it was of course out of the question that the widow of an officer could pay 40 l. a year for the education of a son, provide him with clothing and pocket money, furnish him with books, and support him during the vacations. In order to show how cruelly the present regulations operated he should mention to the House a case with which he had himself become acquainted. An officer on full pay had within the last two or three years a son at Sandhurst whose good conduct and attention to his studies had given to his instructors the greatest satisfaction. The young man in question had passed some of the examinations which it was necessary that he should pass before he was presented with his commission. Well, his father had died. The boy had become an orphan, and had been called upon to pay 40 l. a year during the remainder of his term in

1727
college. To pay that sum had for him become impossible; and it appeared to be inevitable but that he must be removed from the college in consequence of his inability to pay the pension; thus his prospects in life had been upon the point of being blasted. However, to the great credit of his father's brother officers, they had stepped forward and agreed to pay for the son of their comrade in arms 40 l. a year until he should have passed the necessary examination and obtained his commission. But could anything, he would ask, be more disgraceful to the country than that the necessity for an act of so much generosity upon the part of individuals should be permitted to exist? Sandhurst was called a Royal college, but what, he should like to know, was Royal about it except the building? It was called self-supporting, but it was so at the expense of officers of our army and navy. The question which he had asked the House to consider was not one embracing any religious or party feelings. It was a question upon which hon. Members of every shade of political and religious opinions might agree, and there were few among them who were not directly or indirectly interested in the well-being of the army and navy of this country. But it was not the country only which felt an interest in those who devoted their lives to its service; her sympathy with those gallant men, and her admiration of their valour, had been conveyed to our army in the Crimea by the commands of the Sovereign. Under the circumstances to which he had called the attention of the House, he thought he was justified in moving that twenty boys—the orphans of subaltern officers in the army, navy, or marines—should be elected annually to be educated at the expense of the country, and that for that purpose the number of cadets of the first class should be raised to fifty. He should also move that the new appointments in the Civil Service should be thrown open to cadets of Sandhurst who should pass the requisite examinations.
COLONEL KNOX, in seconding the Motion, said, he considered it most desirable to extend to the services the boon now asked for. At present a great deal was said about the policy of raising men from the ranks, and making them officers; but if they should have the misfortune to fall in the service, how was it likely that sufficient means should be provided for the education of their children? He trusted
1728
the Government would take the matter into consideration, and deal with it in a liberal spirit, and if they did so they would receive the thanks of the profession, and deserve the gratitude of the country.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that there was an irregularity in the Resolutions, which prevented him from putting them to the House. No charge on the revenue could be voted except in Committee of the whole House, and therefore he was precluded from putting the Resolutions.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that under those circumstances he would withdraw the Resolutions.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The House adjourned at five Minutes after Five o'clock.