Commons Sitting of 3 July 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Revenue (Transfer of Charges); Criminal Appropriation of Trust Property.
2o Commons Inclosure (No. 2).
3o Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment (No. 2); Turnpike Acts Continuance.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Order for second reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, he had to express his regret on private grounds, that he should be obliged to appear before the House on the present occasion, living, as he did, in the heart of a society in which peace had prevailed for many years, but which was about to be disturbed by the enactment of the measure for which a second reading was asked. In the first place he had to complain of the manner in which the Bill had been brought forward. Bill No. 1 was introduced on the 3rd of April, without any previous intimation being given to those who took a great interest in the question during the years 1844 and 1845. On the 19th of May an attempt was made to read that Bill a second time, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) saying that as no principle was involved in it, the Bill might be read a second time without discussion. That, however, was objected to, and on the 23rd of May that Bill was discharged, and leave was given to substitute the present Bill for it. After several postponements, the second reading
of the present Bill was finally fixed for

253
that day. He knew not whether the present, like the first Bill, was without any principle, but up to the present moment the House had not heard any statement from the Poor-Law authorities as to the provisions of the measure. The great defect of the Bill, in his opinion, was those clauses which repealed the 22nd of Geo. III., and also that portion of the Poor-Law Act which authorised single parishes to become incorporated under the wise and beneficent Statute called the Gilbert Act. There was also a provision restricting the publicity of the rules, orders, and regulations of the Poor-Law Board to the Clerk of the Peace, whereas the present law required copies of such rules to be furnished to the clerks of the petty sessions. So long as there presided at the head of the Poor-Law Board a person in whom the country could place confidence, it did not much signify whether those rules were promulgated or not; but it was matter of great importance as to the description of person who should so preside over that Board. Great inconvenience would, however, arise from dispensing with the copies of the rules which were at present sent to the clerks of the petty sessions. Again, the chairman and vice-chairman of the Board of Guardians at present appointed the auditor of the district; but by the Bill now before the House the power of appointing the auditor would be transferred to the Poor-Law Board; and the auditor, in addition to his present duties, would also have to undertake all the accounts of those places which had adopted the provisions of the Statute of the 4 & 5 Will. IV., including watching and lighting. What watching and lighting had to do with the Poor-Law Amendment Act he was at a loss to conceive. On the other hand, however, the appointment of registrars, which was now exercised by the Poor-Law Commissioners, was to be transferred to the Board of Guardians. If that were considered an equivalent for taking the appointment of auditor from the Board of Guardians, he certainly did not think it to be an adequate one. It was most important that the appointment of the auditor should rest with the Board of Guardians. But, after all, the great objection to this Bill was its compulsory clauses, by which it was proposed to repeal the Act commonly called the Gilbert Union Act—a wise and beneficent law, and one which had operated most advantageously both for the ratepayers and for the poor in all
254
those places where its provisions had been adopted. Now, he wished to inquire why those incorporated parishes should be dissolved? No abuses had been shown to exist in them, nor any inconvenience to have arisen from them. He, therefore, hoped the House would pause before it sanctioned the measure of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor-Law Board. When the Poor-Law Bill was first introduced in 1834, it was proved that the only parishes in England which were quiet were those which had been incorporated under the Gilbert Act. The population of those places then amounted to about 500,000; and Lord Althorp wisely inserted in the Act of 1834 a clause excepting from its operation those Gilbert incorporations, and also those parishes and towns which were governed by local acts. The Gilbert Act was passed in 1782. It empowered parishes to unite for the purpose, among other things, of administering relief to the poor. A great many parishes adopted the provisions of the Act. It was true that on the passing of the Bill of 1834 many of those incorporations were scattered and broken up; but that, he believed, was in consequence of the statements made to the different Gilbert Unions by the emissaries of those who advocated the Poor-Law Bill of 1834. He knew that many of those parishes which were then deluded by those representations were anxious to return and be again placed under the provisions of the 22 Geo. III. They had ever since regretted having yielded to the pressure then put upon them, and having listened to the misrepresentations then made to them in order to induce them to place themselves in the hands of the Poor-Law Commissioners. Great disgust was at the time created throughout the country at the manner in which the Poor-Law Commissioners proceeded to form their Unions, and especially at the course they adopted in 1835 and 1836 in endeavouring to persuade the remaining Gilbert incorporations to surrender. The inspectors who were sent into the different parts of the country resorted to the most unjustifiable means to effect their object, and they from time to time reported that everything was working well in the Poor-Law Unions; but that the Gilbert incorporations were mischievous examples and ought to be dissolved. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) believed there was any defect in the Gilbert Act, why did he not propose to amend it, instead of repealing

255
the Act altogether. The objection brought against the Gilbert Unions by the Commissioners had, in almost every instance, been overruled by the evidence taken before a Committee of the House of Commons; and that Committee had decided that it was not expedient that the Gilbert Unions should be abolished, but it was, upon the Report of that Committee, adopted by the casting vote of the Chairman, that the present Bill was founded. If the charges brought against the Gilbert Unions were persisted in, he would fortify himself with his strong box, containing every case that had occurred since the year 1844, in order to show the blame that ought to be attached to the proceedings of the Commissioners. As regarded the feeling out of doors on the subject, there had been ten petitions for the Bill and 381 against it—while the number of petitioners in the first case was 448, and in the second 2,471. After reading several passages from these petitions, the hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that he did not entirely dissent to the Bill, yet he entertained some serious objections to it, and for more reasons than one he would second the Amendment. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor-Law Board as to whether he did not think it advisable, considering the lateness of the Session, to withdraw the Bill. It must be recollected that the right hon. Gentleman had not even made a statement in favour of the measure; and it should also be borne in mind that it was not the fault of the House that the Bill was not more advanced. The right hon. Gentleman had partly to blame himself for the delay. It was not the first Bill he had introduced on the subject. If it was a matter of urgent necessity, the clauses being of such importance, they ought to have been well considered in the first instance, and have been brought forward in a state fit to pass the House. His great objection, however, to the Bill was, it proposed doing away with the Gilbert Unions. No misconduct whatever had been alleged against them; no proof of any want of out-door relief, or of an insufficiency of in-door relief had been adduced, while it certainly was the fact that nine-tenths of the ratepayers of those Unions were adverse to the proposed Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had the power
256
of doing away with the Gilbert Unions, he could not see any reason why he should not equally do away with the Unions under local Acts. He must confess he was utterly at a loss to know—and the right hon. Gentleman had not as yet made any statement to inform him on the subject—why it was considered necessary to bring the parishes comprising the Gilbert Unions under the operation of the Poor-Law Board. So far as the ratepayers residing in those Unions were concerned, they had the strongest objection to the step, on the ground of the large expenditure that would have to be incurred for erecting workhouses and organising and establishing a new parochial system. With regard to transferring the appointment of auditor from the chairman and vice-chairman of the Boards of Guardians to the Poor-Law Board, he thought the former were as capable of making a good appointment as the latter. In reference to extra-parochial places, it was no more than fair that they should be made to provide for their own poor, and that the burden of doing so should not be cast upon the adjacent parishes; but he did not think the best course would be to attach those extra-parochial places to the parishes adjoining. That was, however, the least objectionable feature of the Bill; but, taken as a whole, the measure seemed to him to be so unnecessary, whilst at the same time it went to extend the principle of centralisation, that he had no hesitation in seconding the Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would not follow the example which had been set by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir G. Pechell), for he must say that never since he had a seat in that House had he heard a speech in which so much was said that was so little to the purpose. The fact was, there was nothing in the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend that required an answer; he would therefore at once address a few remarks to the House in support of the Bill. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Galway) had alluded to the appointment of auditors, and its transfer to the Poor-Law Board. The House must understand that at present the auditor was

257
appointed by the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the Boards of Guardians of the district to be the auditor of that district. That was an arrangement made in substitution of the one by which the Board of Guardians of each Union appointed their own auditor and paid him out of their own funds. Subsequently it was arranged that the auditors should be paid entirely by the public out of the general funds of the country, and a vote was annually taken for that purpose. He could not understand upon what principle it could be contended that the chairman and vice-chairman of the Board of Guardians should have the appointment of the auditors. In 1838 it was a distinct recommendation of a Committee of that House that the auditors should be appointed by the Poor-Law Board. Subsequently to that the Commissioners appointed by the Treasury to examine the state of the public offices investigated the subject and afterwards recommended that the auditors should be appointed in the way proposed by the Bill now under consideration. It was important that the auditors should be absolutely independent of the parties whose accounts they audited, that their whole time should be devoted to the discharge of their duties, and that their districts should be enlarged. In point of fact, they were officers subject to the control of the central authorities, and appointed merely for the purpose of checking and controlling the expenditure of the local rates. If they ought to be appointed locally at all, the appointment ought not to be by the Boards of Guardians, but by the ratepayers. It was preposterous that the Board of Guardians should appoint an auditor to audit their own accounts. The auditor's duty was to act on the part of the ratepayers as a check on the Guardians, and to see that the rates were properly applied. Besides these general objections, he did not think the result of the present system of auditing the accounts was of a satisfactory nature. Many of those officers were efficient, but many were not. As an instance of the necessity which existed for altering the system of appointing auditors, he might mention that not very long since a chairman of a Board of Guardians had actually become a candidate for the office of auditor of the accounts of his own Board, and had voted for himself. The auditors should be much fewer in number, their whole time should be devoted to their duties, and their appointment should be left in
258
the hands of the Poor-Law Board. The animosity of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton against the Bill was excited by the clauses which would effect the abolition of the Gilbert Unions. The question the House had to consider was this:—As the system of the Poor-Law administration was carried on in ninety-nine instances out of every hundred by Boards of Guardians administering relief under the provisions of the Poor-Law Amendment Act, was it on the whole a sound and beneficial system for the ratepayers, and also for the poor themselves, or was the administration adopted by the Gilbert Unions to be preferred, where the parties acted without any system or any law, and did just as they pleased? It was on the part of the poor who were the proper objects of relief that he urged it was time those Unions should be dissolved. There were only fourteen Gilbert Unions throughout the kingdom, the total population of which was 174,000, while the total population under the ordinary Poor-Law administration was 17,000,000. He should be indifferent about those small local administrations if they were carried on properly, but his complaint against the Gilbert Unions was that as far as the benefit of the poor was concerned they were not properly conducted. As regarded the education of the children of the poor, to care for which was a very important part of the duty of those who managed the poor in these Unions, it was entirely neglected in almost every one of them; and where education was attempted to be given, it was next to nothing in amount, and what there was of it was miserably bad. In fact, in every material respect in which the law for the relief of the poor ought to be efficiently administered, the Gilbert Unions were greatly defective, and he thought it was high time to get rid of them. Next, with regard to the provisions of the Bill respecting extra-parochial places. There were nearly 500 of those places in England and Wales—some small in extent, some with no population, some of considerable extent, and some with a considerable population. The population of those 500 extra-parochial places amounted to more than 30,000. In the whole of them there was absolutely no mode of relieving the poor. The poor had no resource when in a state of destitution, and they were in those places as much without relief—as much without a poor-law as if the statute

259
of Elizabeth had never been passed. It was a disgrace to the country that such a state of things should continue a day longer than was necessary. He had found many hon. Members labouring under the impression that those persons could be relieved from the rates of the adjoining parishes. Now that certainly was not the fact. The rates of the adjoining parishes could not be legally so applied. He had numerous applications from parishes near extra-parochial places, containing accounts of the greatest hardships and suffering endured by the poor of those extra-parochial places, and asking whether there were any means of relieving those people besides by private charity. [The right hon. Gentleman here read a letter which had been addressed by a bench of Magistrates to the Poor-Law Board, in which they stated that they had little doubt the death of a certain pauper, living in an extra-parochial place, had been accelerated, if not caused, by a want of nourishment during her confinement, which she would have received in case the relieving officer of the Union had been at liberty to give it.] With reference to the case of pauper lunatics in such places there was no means of providing for them. The Lunacy Acts applied to parishes only, and the relieving officer had no power to deal with a lunatic belonging to an extra-parochial place, unless the lunatic was first removed into some parish. He confidently appealed to the House as to whether that was a state of things which ought to continue. For his own part, he did not like to take upon himself the responsibility of allowing cases like the one to which he had referred to be continually occurring without endeavouring to provide a remedy. He would therefore ask the House to allow so much of the Bill, at least, to pass as related to these extra-parochial places. He would admit that as regarded some of the other provisions of the Bill, they perhaps were open to objection; and if any opposition should be made to them, he was prepared, considering that the period of the Session was not favourable to him, to postpone those portions of the Bill. But as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir G. Pechell) as well as every other hon. Member, must be friendly to some provision being made to give relief to the destitute poor, he did hope that they would not oppose that part of the measure which applied to extra-parochial places. Therefore, if the House would assent to the second reading of the
260
Bill, he would undertake, when the Bill went into Committee, to strike out everything except that which related to the relief of poor in extra-parochial places.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, that the gentleman to whom the right hon. President of the Poor-Law Board (Mr. Bouverie) had referred, as having nominated himself for the office of auditor of a poor-law union, had certainly been the chairman of a board of guardians for several years; but he should have thought that that would have constituted a qualification rather than the reverse. [Mr. BOUVERIE: He was the chairman, and he voted for himself.] So most other gentlemen did under similar circumstances. At all avents, in the instance referred to, the gentleman was well prepared for the discharge of the duties of his office, for, in addition to being chairman of the board of guardians he was a barrister of considerable practice on the Midland Circuit. He might further state that he had resigned his chairmanship, and was now no longer in connection with the Board. With regard to that portion of the Bill which related to extra-parochial places, the peculiar hardships of the present system, both as to the occupiers of property and the poor themselves, were matters which had come under his own personal observation, and in his county advantage had recently been taken of a private Bill for the purpose of parochialising upwards of 14,000 acres of extra-parochial property rather than wait for any general measure on the subject. The district lay between two Unions, but paid no rates to either; it afforded, however, a large amount of industrial occupation to the poor residents within the Unions, who, when they became sick or required relief, were chargeable, not to the places where they were employed, but to the Union, which derived no benefit from their labour. He thought, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, finding that he could not carry the whole of his Bill, had wisely determined on endeavouring to carry that portion of it which the House would agree to. With respect to the Gilbert Unions, it was his opinion that they had failed in their object, and become effete. The Bill, in its present shape, referred to a great many subjects. He (Sir J. Trollope) should be excused, therefore, if he drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another question of a kindred nature—he meant that of medical relief. Than the present mode of granting medical relief throughout

261
the country nothing, he apprehended, could be more unsatisfactory. It was his opinion, however, that medical men had themselves to blame for this to a great extent; for under the pressure of excessive competition they had been induced, at the outset of the administration of the present poor law to enter into contracts upon an inadequate scale. Indeed, from his own personal knowledge, he could take upon himself to say that the cost of bare medicines, where given in sufficient quantities, would more than absorb the whole salary, and leave the medical man no remuneration whatever for his time, the exercise of his skill, the expense of travelling, and other charges incidental to his profession. The amount these gentlemen asked for in their petitions was 5s. for attendance, 1s. a mile for travelling expenses; and in his (Sir J. Trollope's) opinion that would be by no means an exorbitant allowance. There was besides the greatest discrepancy in the payment of their officers. Pauper cases were always cases of extremity, and the pauper did not call in a medical man till he was forced. In consequence, the medicines he required were such as could not, as he had just stated, be given under the poor-law contracts. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the subject. They were doing much in other ways to improve the sanitary condition of the great towns. It was of as much importance to the public health to attend thus to the health of the poor as to drain the towns. It might, perhaps, cost £500,000 to put the present system into proper force, and would be at least as useful as would be the expenditure of £3,000,000 in draining our towns. One-half of the expense would be borne by the State, and the ratepayers throughout the country surely would not grudge their part for a purpose so necessary for the health of the community. He approved of the Bill, and only regretted that so much would be struck out of it as had been promised by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he wished to say one word with respect to extra-parochial places. The Bill would make those extra-parochial places parishes within themselves. That might be done, and yet no great result attained. It would be, he apprehended, no remedy. They would continue to employ, as they did at present, persons living in the adjoining parishes. In the city of Oxford, Christ Church would by the Bill remain a parish by itself, and
262
yet the property it contained, representing a value of £4,000 a year, would not be called upon to contribute one penny towards a poor rate by reason of there being no poor. By the first Bill of the right hon. Gentleman that would not have been the case. The first clause of that Bill enacted that such extra-parochial place should, for the purposes of the assessment of the poor rate, be deemed to be a part of the parish by which it was surrounded, or of one of the adjoining parishes. He understood, however, that that clause would have given rise to considerable opposition. The present Bill altered that clause to a much greater extent than was necessary, in his opinion, to meet the justice of the case, because Clause 4 still left it optional to an extra-parochial place whether it should be joined to any parish or not. What, however, he wished to suggest was, whether it might not be possible so to arrange the fourth clause as not to leave it optional with the residents, but to make it, as a general rule, compulsory, and then afterwards to adapt that rule to the circumstances of each particular case. I It would be almost futile to pass a Bill which was to contain nothing but the clauses relating to extra-parochial places, unless they made the measure in that respect perfect.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood that all the provisions of the Bill were to go overboard, except the extra-parochial clauses. That being so, he confessed that, even in regard to that part of the Bill, he was not disposed to vote for the second reading; and he would shortly state the reason. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) said that those clauses related to 500 places, and to a population of 30,000. Now, it would be very difficult to say how great was the variety of circumstances existing in those places; and it would be equally difficult to devise any general measure that should do equal justice to all. He had not any evidence before him to enable him to come to any conclusion on the subject; and it was impossible that a matter of such importance, and at that late period of the Session, could fairly be gone into. Another subject closely analogous to this had been postponed—he meant the rating of mines. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be a wiser course for him not to go into the matter now, but in the beginning of another Session to have a Committee to inquire into all these subjects, and obtain the fullest

263
information upon them. The right hon. Gentleman would then be able to legislate in a manner much more satisfactory to the country, and would also be able to do more justice both to the parties to be relieved and to the people whose property would be most materially affected by it. He congratulated the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir G. Pechell) on the successful effect of his very heavy broadside on the right hon. Gentleman. He did not like the change in the mode of electing the auditors, and he did not approve giving the Government patronage over to the civil power in that way. He should, therefore, oppose the second reading of the Bill.
MR. BARROWsaid, he very much objected to the House proceeding with a measure of legislation which must necessarily be altered next Session. He did not think the present Bill would answer the object it was intended to effect. The time had arrived when it was impossible to avoid a revision and an alteration of the original Poor Law Act; what was called the common fund had become an enormous charge upon many parishes. There were large districts of land in his own union which did not contribute a single farthing: and there were whole parishes that had entirely dropped out of the contribution.
MR. WALTERsaid, he merely rose for the purpose of joining his appeal with that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) to the President of the Poor-Law Commission, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to complete the act of grace which he had begun, in withdrawing the clauses relating to the Gilbert Unions, by putting a good face on the matter and withdrawing the whole measure. It was from no spirit of opposition to the object which the right hon. Gentleman had at heart—namely, the rating of extra-parochial places—that he made this suggestion. It was, undoubtedly, an anomaly that such places should exist, and he should have great pleasure at any future time in assisting the right hon. Gentleman in his endeavours to attain the object he was anxious to accomplish. But there was great force in the objection which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) that there were many places where there were no poor, and, therefore, to give a power of raising rates in those places was a mere mockery and of no substantial advantage.
264
[The hon. Member was proceeding with his observations, when he was reminded by Mr. SPEAKER that the time for the adjournment of the House had arrived.]

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY—FRENCH SUFFERERS BY THE INUNDATIONS— QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control whether the sum of £500, which had been subscribed by the Chairman of the East India Company for the relief of the sufferers by the inundations in France, was to be charged on the revenues of India; and whether the subscription of the East India Company, or the sums expended by them in public entertainments, were limited by any fixed regulation, and were subject to the control of Parliament?
MR.VERNON SMITHsaid, the charge must be made on the revenues of the Company, for there was no other source whence to take it; but it was not true to say the Chairman subscribed the amount—it should be the Chairman on behalf of the Company. The Company had been in the habit of granting various charitable donations to different objects ever since their foundation, but by the Act 55 Geo. III., they could not go beyond £600 without its being first submitted to Parliament. In this instance the grant was within that sum, and, consequently, there was no necessity for submitting it to Parliament; but it was submitted to the Board of Control, and it had the sanction of that Board. With regard to the other question, the hon. Member was probably aware that the Company gave entertainments to the Governors General and other public officers, and though the sums expended were not subject to any fixed regulation, yet they were submitted to the Board of Control, and the yearly expenditure for that purpose was pretty nearly the same. No Estimates were submitted to Parliament, and, consequently, no Votes were taken.

CROWN LANDS AND CHURCH EXTENSION—QUESTION.
MR. THORNELYsaid, he wished to ask whether the Vote of £10,000, proposed to be paid out of the Crown land revenues for new churches, would be taken this Session?
MR. WILSONsaid, it would be deferred until next Session.

RETURN OF THE TROOPS FROM THE CRIMEA—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who stated, some time ago, that all the troops would have left the Crimea by the 30th of June. He wanted to know if that was likely to be the case?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the third battalion of the Grenadier Guards were coming home by the Princess Royal. Before he left the Admiralty a telegraphic despatch was received that she had made her signal. The whole of the forces had not yet left the Crimea, but a portion of them were engaged in taking up the railway. Every other man was brought away. Ample transport was there long before the 30th June, and was now waiting till the troops were ready to come away.

ENTRY OF THE GUARDS INTO LONDON— QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he should be glad if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would afford some information to the House as to the manner in which the Guards would enter London. It had been stated in the papers that the route had been determined upon—namely, that the Guards would alight at Nine Elms, that they were to pass through some of the Pimlico Squares, along Victoria Street, up Constitution Hill, and into the Park. He trusted that the noble Lord would afford the inhabitants of London the opportunity of giving the Guards a cordial welcome. He thought it would be well if the same route were followed as was taken on the occasion of the visit of the Emperor of the French to this country—namely, over Westminster Bridge, along Parliament Street, Whitehall, Pall Mall, Piccadilly, and thus into the Park.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he believed the precise route the Guards were to take was not yet fixed upon. They would come from Aldershot to the South-Western Railway, and, of course, alight at the station. They would pass under review by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace, and then proceed to the Park. The immediate route, however, had not yet been determined upon.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that as the inhabitants of London were very anxious about the matter, perhaps his Lordship would have no objection to name the actual day.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that
266
part of the Guards had only just arrived at Gosport. They would go to Aldershot, in the first instance, and thence would proceed to London. It was impossible at present to say on what day they would arrive in London, but due notice would be given.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES—QUESTION.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to ask whether Mr. Dallas had represented to Her Majesty's Government that he had full powers to settle the Central American dispute, or had he only the same powers that were entrusted to Mr. Buchanan?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I understand that Mr. Dallas has full powers to discuss with Her Majesty's Government all the questions which have arisen with respect to the affairs of Central America, and that he has powers which Mr. Buchanan had not; as I understood from Mr. Buchanan that he had no instructions upon these questions.

WILLS AND ADMINISTRATIONS BILL— QUESTION.
MR. MALINSsaid, he wished to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General whether it was his intention to proceed with the Bill that night? In conversation with his hon. and learned Friend, he (Mr. Malins) had asked the question, and the reply was that it would not come on that night, and that also was understood by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), who had left London to attend a cattle show—[Laughter.]—or agricultural meeting. Hon. Members must be aware that his hon. and learned Friend had agricultural duties to attend to, he being a county Member. He (Mr. Malins) had relied upon the answer given him, and had taken for granted the Bill would not come on that night, but to his great surprise he found, on entering the House, that it was the intention of his hon. and learned Friend opposite to proceed with it. He (Mr. Malins) had come down to the House without his papers, and the facts which he had prepared, and he begged, therefore, to ask his hon. and learned Friend whether he intended to persevere?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was exceedingly sorry that any communication made by him to his hon. and learned Friend should have caused what he would not call a slanderous imputation to be made upon the hon. and learned Member

267
for East Suffolk, who, it appeared, was absent at a cattle show instead of being present in that House. What he (the Solicitor General) had said to his hon. and learned Friend on Tuesday was, that if the debate in which the House was then engaged terminated that evening, the Wills and Administrations Bill would undoubtedly be taken that night. He regretted that some misapprehension had arisen as to what he did say, but his hon. and learned Friend could not say that he was unprepared to discuss the provisions of the Bill when he was generally so well informed on every question before the House.
MR. MALINSsaid, if his hon. and learned Friend persisted in going on that night, he should move that the Bill be committed that day three months.
On the question that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,

CROWN LANDS AND CHURCH EXTENSION.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury had stated in answer to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thornely) that the vote of £10,000 out of the Crown lands for the purposes of Church extension was to be left over for the present Session. He (Mr. Williams) had never before known such an attempt made to get £10,000 by misrepresentation. It was to be granted out of the Crown lands for the purpose of building churches. Now, all the Crown property had been surrendered to the public, and there was now no Crown property available for churches, or any such purposes. He thought it would be monstrous to bring forward a Vote of this kind to build churches in connection with the Establishment, when the Church enjoyed property amounting to millions per annum. They should take example from the Dissenters, and provide for the building of their own churches out of their own pockets. In the district he resided in they had built three or four new churches at their own expense, and had taxed themselves not only to pay for them but also to keep them up. He was certain that there was no other source than the public taxes from which the Vote could be made, and it was nothing short of a misrepresentation to say that it was to come out of the Church property.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose that
268
Vote this Session, and he should, therefore, be wasting the time of the House if, under such circumstances, he entered upon its discussion. The hon. Member for Lambeth was quite mistaken as to the circumstances of the Vote. When the proper time arrived, the circumstances would be laid fully before the House.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that he suspected, notwithstanding the short notice that had been given, that this Vote would have been persevered in, had it not been for the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams), and he cautioned the House not to be taken by surprise at a future day. £1,500,000 had already been expended on this subject; for the last thirty-eight years a sum of £40,000 had been devoted to it per annum. The Government should avow what their intentions really were. Let the House, however, beware how it commenced a series of grants for church-building, which would lead to disputes of which no man could see the result.

EDUCATION AT SANDHURST— QUESTION.
MR. RICHsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War if it was the intention of the Government to continue the present charge of £125 a year for the education of the sons of civilians at the Royal Military College, when, as appeared by the Supplementary Army Estimate, the total cost of a cadet did not exceed £75 a year. The Military College was constituted under a Royal Warrant which specially provided a gratuitous education for orphans of the officers of the army, and education at about half cost for sons of officers on service, whilst a third-rate was provided for the sons of civilians, nobility, and gentry, who were to pay such a sum for the expenses of their education, board, and clothing, as should be from time to time determined by a Board of Commissioners acting under that warrant. Before the Committee which sat last year, it was stated in evidence that the Commissioners who had power to modify the rate of educational charges had no power to set aside the provisions of the warrant in the above respect. The warrant had been strictly adhered to during the war, in the course of which there had been educated 156 orphan sons of officers, 100 sons of officers, and 156 sons of civilians receiving their education at the expense of their parents. Under this system the college had prospered, and had sent out many

269
young men who had distinguished themselves. But since peace had been established, the Commissioners, disregarding the warrant under which they were acting, thought fit nearly to double the sum for the sons of civilians, by charging them £125 a year, or, in many cases, with extras, a sum nearly amounting to £150 a year. The price for the sons of officers had been raised by degrees to £80, and the orphans of officers had to pay, first £20, then £30, and afterwards £40 a year. The excuse for this was, that it was desirable to make the school self-supporting; but the result was that the surplus, amounting to more than £7,000 a year, was misapplied, contrary to the spirit of the Royal Warrant under which the school had been founded, in the first place to the payment of nearly £2,000 a year in money and advantages to a governor, a general officer, who had no influence whatever upon the education of the pupils; in the second place, to the expenditure of £5,300 a year upon the education of senior officers who had been in the army, to fit them for the staff, to which probably they might never be appointed. That, with a balance on four years of £5,000, or nearly £1,300 a year, made a sum of £8,000 or £9,000 a year—about one-half the cost of the whole establishment, which came out of the pockets of the civilians who sent their sons to the school to qualify them for the army. The result was, that the great bulk of the officers of the line were deprived of the advantages of a preliminary military education; the increased cost at this school, £150 a year, being beyond the means of their parents. He therefore wished to call the attention of the Government to the subject, and hoped it would be considered with a view to its amendment. He would also observe, that it would be very convenient if the holidays at the Military College could be made in some degree coincident with those at the public schools, in order that brothers who might happen to be at both might have opportunities of meeting.

ARMY PRIZE MONEY—QUESTION.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to inquire the intentions of the Government as to advising Her Majesty to grant compensation to the army engaged in the siege, for stores, &c., taken in Sebastopol. He understood that, after previous wars in which this country had been engaged, it had been the custom for the then Chan-
270
cellor of the Exchequer to propose that a sum should be granted to the army by way of compensation for prize-money; and at the end of the last war, two sums of £500,000 and £800,000 had been voted for that purpose. In India, also, almost every army had received prize-money. It had not always been very wisely distributed, as, for instance, in the case of the Deccan prize-money, but, at all events, it had been voted; and, among other instances, a sum of £150,000 was granted for the troops who were present at the capture of Java, where a considerable quantity of stores was taken. Now, at the taking of Sebastopol, an Anglo-French Committee was formed for the purpose of dividing the stores found in the town, and this into two sub-committees, one of which took the eastern and the other the western half of the place. In the western town, or Karabelnaia quarter alone, he (Colonel Dunne) believed he was right in stating, they found 2,089 guns, 1,770 of which were serviceable, and among them were several brass guns. Of course, iron guns would not be so useful to us, as the calibre of our guns was different; but brass guns were always valuable. They found also 257,000 solid shot, 60,000 shells, 30,000 grapeshot, and 1,200,000 or 1,500,000 live shells. There wore also 417,000 lb. of powder, and 434,000 rounds of small-arm ammunition. A large stock of provisions was also found; but, although they were condemned as food by the English and French Commission, they were sent to Eupatoria, and there made use of. He thought the army had some right to prize-money for the ships which would have been taken if the war had continued. He would also observe that the troops had been put to extraordinary expenses during the late war—from the loss of horses in the passage from Varna to the Crimea, and other causes; he, therefore, hoped the Government would give some equivalent for the stores that had been taken by the army. He was aware that there was a theory abroad that prize-money belonged to the Crown. He did not know how far that might be legal. In the times when the general and his troops divided their spoils at the drum-head they had not to go to the office of some prize-master, who generally robbed them of what they had won. That was the course pursued in the case of the celebrated Koh-i-noor, and some other recent instances; he would, therefore, ask whether the Government

271
intended to advise the Crown to give an equivalent? He had stated the account of the Karabelnaia suburb, but the French prize was even larger than the English. He might add, that he was far from grudging any honour done to the household troops—they had fought bravely at Inkerman; but, as the destination of the line would probably be the West Indies instead of London, he thought some reward might be bestowed on them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON; Sir, there is no doubt that, in former wars, when property of great value was taken from the enemy, which belonged to the Crown, an equivalent in money was distributed to the troops engaged in its capture. But the property taken in this instance is so extremely small, that if divided among the troops it will not amount to more than 2s. 6d. for each officer and 6d. for each man. These sums are so small, that I fear they would be considered rather a mockery than a reward;—and we are, therefore, not prepared to advise the Crown to make a grant of so small a sum of money.

PROMOTION IN THE ENGINEERS— QUESTION.
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, he rose to ask the hon. Under-Secretary for War whether it was intended as a rule of promotion in the Scientific Corps of the army, that no subaltern officer, however he might have distinguished himself in that rank, could be advanced to a brevet majority until he should have again subsequently distinguished himself in the rank of captain? and to call attention to the inexpediency of such a regulation. No such rule as that prevailed in the line, in which branch of the service a lieutenant or ensign who distinguished himself might at once be promoted to substantive rank, either in his own or in some other regiment. The operation of the rule would prevent the Engineer officers who had distinguished themselves before Sebastopol from receiving that promotion to which they were fairly entitled.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, in reply to the question respecting Sandhurst College, which had been put by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich), he must state that the Estimate laid on the table only covered nine months of the year, and favoured the inference that the cost of each cadet was £100, and not £75 a year, as the hon. Member for
272
Richmond seemed to suppose. It was possible that £125 per annum was in excess of the sum actually incurred in the education of a cadet, and he was not aware that there was any intention to lessen the charge; but, if it could be shown that the receipts of the college were in excess of the expenditure, it might be well to consider the propriety of effecting a proportionate reduction in the sums payable by the pupils. In answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain L. Vernon), it should be stated that in no branch of the service was there a rule preventing an officer who had distinguished himself as a subaltern from receiving, after he had been made a captain, a step of military rank in recognition of services rendered before he had been promoted to his captaincy. He had himself known a case where a subaltern of artillery had, on becoming a captain, been rewarded with brevet rank for his services while a subaltern. It was not desirable, however, that there should be any positive regulation on the subject, for, if there were, services rendered many years previously might be thought to constitute a claim to brevet promotion. It was his belief that the scientific corps was in no worse position as regarded the matter than any other branch of the service.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he thought the answer of the hon. Under Secretary for War, with regard to Sandhurst College, was very unsatisfactory. It was a notorious fact that the sons of civilians were charged double the amount necessary for educating them, for they could not be maintained at the college for less than £200 a year. That large sum practically excluded the sons of men who were not in very affluent circumstances; and if additional charges were necessary to maintain the college, they should be borne by the State, and not charged to the sons of civilians, in order that the sons of officers might be educated almost gratuitously. He hoped the subject would be taken into consideration by the Government, as it was one of great importance, and he was sure it would not be satisfactory to the public if the college were maintained on its present footing.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
(1). £6,912, British Embassy Houses abroad.
MR. WISEobserved, that though the

273
Vote had been assented to by the Committee to which it had been referred, and of which he was a member, he still regarded it as an unsatisfactory one. Fortunately there was little likelihood that the circumstances which had given rise to it would occur again. There had been for a long series of years a profligate expenditure on account of the Embassy House at Paris, but the matter had been thoroughly sifted by the Committee up stairs, and there was reason to hope that the President of the Board of Works would exercise such control and supervision as would prevent the recurrence of similar evils for the future. The Committee had, therefore, looked more to the future than the past, and in their investigation sought to prevent abuses, rather than inculpate the agents of the past. The amount claimed by Mr. Albano, £3,217, for superintending the expenditure of £11,763, was very large; but his presence being required to counteract the systematic imposition which had previously prevailed, the charges were such as he was fairly and professionally entitled to make, and had been sanctioned by Lord Cowley, Lord Clarendon, and by the Board of Works. Mr. Albano had to contend with many difficulties, and with the greatest opposition from the previous Clerk of the Works, and even from the Ambassador's own establishment, one of whom had been permitted to contract for the fuel used at the Embassy, but whose account was reduced from 1,942 francs to 1,458. The valuable plate, which cost several thousand pounds, had been allowed to fall into a neglected state, and upwards of £200 was required to replace what was missing or useless. Mr. Albano, by his supervision, reduced accounts amounting to £8,513 to £6,858, and put a stop to the system of overcharging. Whilst he did justice to Mr. Albano, he must condemn the system which had been pursued by the Board of Works. No proper estimate had been made, money had been paid on account to the architect, and when the expenses had been incurred, Parliament was applied to. He hoped, however, that such irregularities would not occur again. What had taken place with reference to this Embassy, appeared a mystery. In 1815 the Government purchased the house, gardens, stables, and furniture for £36,000. In 1825–6, Messrs. Wyatt and Smirke superintended an outlay of £25,000. In 1843, £8,320 were voted; in 1844, £3,892; in 1853–4,
274
£9,213; and this year £5,078, was required. Besides these sums, an average amount of £1,000 had been expended every year, making a total of £127,503. In 1850, Mr. Burton visited the house, and was of opinion that dilapidation did not exist, and that the premises appeared in a state not unworthy the character of the country; and yet in 1852, Mr. Albano called for £11,763, which, in addition to £3,217 claimed by the architect, makes £14,980 expended within the last three years. And yet, after this outlay, what was the statement made up stairs a few days ago. In reply to questions put to Mr. Albano, he stated that the structure was in such a state that £20,000 would not suffice to put it in proper order; that the timber work was of a most rotten and defective construction; that the doors and windows were rotten, and that there was not a floor upon which he could reckon. This condition of affairs was hardly to be wondered at, when it was considered how little care was bestowed upon the preservation of this species of public property. A striking example of this was presented in the fact, that after the departure of the last Ambassador, the private property of that nobleman was sold at a public auction, which was allowed to be held in the State apartments of the Embassy House, while the costly carpets and satin sofas and chairs were left wholly unprotected from the damage consequent upon an influx of the populace of Paris. The architect found the rooms dirty, the carpets extremely damaged, and stated that he had reported upon the auction as one of the causes of the mischief that ought not to have been allowed. He (Mr. Wise) thought what had occurred in this respect ought to be a lesson to the Government not to purchase Embassy Houses on the Continent. It would be better to make an allowance to the Ambassador of even £2,000 a year extra for a house, than to continue such wasteful expenditure and to incur such uncertain expenses. A portion of this Vote was for the decoration of the dining-room as a chapel. During the last three years £1,600 had been paid for moving the chapel from room to room. He thought it was inconvenient and undesirable to have the service at the Embassy, and he regretted that the offer of the late Bishop Lascombe to sell his chapel in the Rue d'Aguesseau had not been accepted. For one year's annuity of £1,000, the Government would have

275
obtained a chapel that had cost £10,000. The charges incurred for the Embassy House at Madrid offered another instance of the glaring defect of the system that had been pursued at the Board of Works. In 1848 the Government took a lease of an old house for twenty years, and spent £3,000 upon repairs. The rent was £400 a year, but charges were perpetually arising, and Mr. Albano had been twice to Madrid, so that no less a sum than £756 had been paid to that gentleman for travelling expenses and professional allowances, incidental to the superintendence of an expenditure of £574 upon a house that was designated as half-built with mud, with sunken foundations, and in such a state that it might come down any day. He really trusted that this sytem would be reformed, and that an architect receiving four guineas a day would not be sent to Madrid to superintend such works as had been described.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he rose to protest against an insinuation attempted to be cast upon the late Sir William Molesworth, when the present estimate was last before the Committee. Although he had differed in politics from the right hon. Baronet, he could not be silent while an injustice was apparently done to his memory. No doubt a vicious system had hitherto been pursued in the Public Works Department; but a careful examination of the matter had convinced him that no blame whatever for that state of things fairly attached to the late Sir William Molesworth.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that on a former occasion he had certainly alluded to the bad system which prevailed in the office, with which he was connected, for years before he held his present situation, and expressed his determination to put an end to that system; but nothing could have been further from his thoughts than the intention to cast any reflection upon the right hon. Baronet who had preceded him in his department. He was now endeavouring to correct the undoubted defects of the system, and hoped to be able next year to present these estimates in a form that would prove satisfactory to the House.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEwas glad to find that the old system was amended.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that while it was clear from the Report of the Committee that the business of the office under consideration had been conducted in a very unsatisfactory manner, nothing very de-
276
finite had been indicated to the Committee which held out a prospect of the future amendment of the system. It appeared that nobody was responsible for whatever happened to the property at the Embassy Houses; and if the whole of their contents were walked away some fine morning, no person, he apprehended, could be held answerable for the loss. It was somewhat extraordinary that private individuals could have buildings erected in Paris without any of the difficulties encountered by those who acted for our Government; and, indeed, the allegations made on that head implied the prevalence, in that gay capital, of an almost universal system of villany where the expenditure of public money was concerned. He hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works what arrangements were contemplated for the future. He certainly thought it quite unnecessary that an architect of eminence should be sent over to Paris merely to superintend the repair of floors and matters of that kind, which might be effected under the direction of a person of very inferior ability.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that as soon as the Session of Parliament closed, he intended to send to Paris one of the officers attached to his department, who would report to him what repairs were required in the structure of the Ambassador's house, and the only expense with which the country would be saddled would be the travelling expenses of that individual. He also intended to appoint a practical man as resident Clerk of the Works at Paris, who would be able to keep the house in repair with the assistance of tradesmen on the spot, and who would not receive a high salary.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he felt sufficient confidence in the right hon. Baronet to believe that under his control an end would be put to the discreditable state of things which had hitherto existed.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he thought the Committee did not look at the architect's expenses fairly. He believed they had been the means of saving money instead of incurring a loss.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £827, British Protestant Cemetery, Madrid.
MR. WISEobserved that this Vote had also been referred to the Select Committee. In 1854, £1,400 had been voted for the purpose of a cemetery, and Mr. Albano had been sent over to Madrid to superintend

277
the building of a small lodge and a wall round the cemetery, on the understanding that he should receive £300 as full compensation for his services and travelling expenses. A few days after Mr. Albano arrived at Madrid the revolution broke out, and he was detained there six weeks. The Government, in consideration of the loss that gentleman sustained in his own business in consequence of his prolonged absence from this country, granted him an additional sum of £470; and although, under the circumstances, he (Mr. Wise) did not complain of that arrangement, he thought works of such insignificance might have been effected under the superintendence of some of the attachés of the embassy, or of the Consul at Madrid. We had at Madrid a Minister, a Secretary of Legation, several Attachés, and a Consul, who had little to do; and surely, if we employed our Minister and consuls in the United States in recruiting, it would not be unreasonable to ask our representative at Madrid to employ some local architect and inspect the building of a wall round the cemetery. The Committee upstairs had assented to this Vote as a fail compensation, but whilst they thought the charges reasonable, they thought it most unreasonable to send a person like Mr. Albano all the way to Madrid, merely to superintend the building of a wall round an acre of ground and of a lodge at the entrance to the cemetery.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £228,950, Disembodied Militia.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, it appeared from the Vote now before the Committee that the pay of the permanent staff of the militia was to be considerably reduced, and that the non-commissioned officers who had for the last two or three years been occupying very responsible positions were, as a reward for their services, to receive diminished pay. The pay of these non-commissioned officers had been—for a sergeant-major, 3s. a day; quartermaster sergeant, 2s. 6d.; colour sergeant, 2s. 5d.; sergeant, 1s. 10 d. It appeared that, in future, the sergeant-majors were to receive only 1s. 10 d., the quartermaster sergeants 1s. 8d., the colour sergeants and sergeants 1s. 6d. Now, if that plan were carried out the country would be in the same position in which it was at the time the militia were embodied two years ago, when there was not a militia staff throughout the kingdom worthy of the name of soldiers. The members of that staff received such trifling pay,
278
that most of them had been compelled to become petty dealers, and trafficked almost as hucksters. Now, the non-commissioned officers, during the last two years, had in the discharge of their duties given the utmost satisfaction to their commanding officers. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that they could not get what were called "hedge carpenters or hedge masons" to work on their estates for less than 3s. or 3s. 6d. a day, and yet it was proposed to give men who were persons of education, and who had filled most responsible situations, the miserable pittance of 1s. 10 d. a day for performing duties of a most important and responsible nature. If that plan were carried out, could they expect, when the services of the militia were again required, to find in its ranks men worthy to fill the position of non-commissioned officers? He thought that every man who wore the uniform of the army ought to be placed under the orders of the Commander in Chief; but when the militia were embodied two years ago the officers who applied for instructions to the Home Secretary were referred by that right hon. Gentleman to the Horse Guards; they were sent by the Commander in Chief to the War Department, and months passed before they were able to obtain any instructions. At length a most able officer, Colonel Pierre-point, was appointed assistant adjutant general of the militia force. That officer had given universal satisfaction, but now, having filled the position for two years, and having become fully conversant with all the details of the office, he had received notice that the appointment was to be discontinued. In the case of the permanent staff of the militia no one but the full colonel could interfere with the adjutant; and the lieutenant colonel who had commanded a regiment for five years might, the day after it was disembodied, be refused admission to the barracks by the adjutant. He would ask hon. Members whether that was a state of things which should be longer allowed to exist? The next point to which he would call the attention of the Government was the position of the quartermasters. In some regiments quartermasters had been appointed, but in others the duty had been done by subalterns, who received an extra allowance, and only those men who had been commissioned as quartermasters were now to be placed on the permanent staff. There were some cases in which quartermasters had resigned and done the duty as subal-

279
terns, in order to receive double pay, and those men must of course be satisfied with the arrangement; but surely men who had refused the appointment of quartermaster because their commanding officers wished to have the benefit of their services as subalterns ought to be placed on the permanent staff. He understood that in future there were to be two sergeants to a company, but he would suggest that the number should be increased to three, or that there should be one sergeant and two corporals. If that extension of the permanent staff was not approved of there ought at all events to be an orderly clerk, an armourer, a sergeant-major, and a drum or bugle major to every regiment. The counties at present were obliged to find quarters for half the staff, and he wanted to know what was to become of the other half if they were to be allowed no billet-money. The militia ought to have the same advantages with regard to the price of rations as the line. He would next call the attention of the Government to some of the regulations respecting non-commissioned officers in the army. A corporal who had obtained three or four good service badges lost his 1d. a day for each of those badges directly he became a sergeant. In consequence of that rule, a corporal had refused his offer to be appointed sergeant, because his responsibility would be increased and his remuneration diminished. A sergeant's pay in the infantry was £2 17 s. 6d. a month, a corporal's £2 2s. 6d. The deductions from the corporal's pay were £1, leaving him £1 2s. 6d.; and the deductions from the sergeants were £1 7s. 9d., leaving him £1 9s. 9d. But if the corporal had four good-conduct badges, he received, in addition to his pay, 10 s., in all £1 12 s. 6d., while the sergeant only received £1 9s. 9d. In the case of a sergeant in the cavalry the injustice was still greater, for, while a corporal with four badges received £1 18 s. 9d. per month, a sergeant received only £1 3s. 3d. There was not a more worthy class of men in Her Majesty's dominions than the noncommissioned officers of the army, and they ought not to be treated in that manner. He therefore hoped the Under Secretary of War would be able to give some satisfactory explanation with respect to this gross injustice.
MR. PELLATTsaid, he was glad the subject had been fairly brought before the Committee for the injustice was so great as to call for immediate redress. No class
280
of men were so ill paid as the officers that had been referred to. Out of their small pay the sergeants had to pay 5d. a day for clothing, against 2d. a day paid by a corporal. Some of the latter, in consequence of good-conduct marks, as has been stated, get more daily pay than sergeants.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North) seemed not to be aware that the rate of pay of the disembodied militia was different from that of the embodied militia. When embodied, all ranks received the same rate of pay as the army; but when disembodied, the pay of the various ranks was not the same, and if we were to pay the staff of the disembodied militia the same as the embodied, it would follow as a necessary consequence that all ranks of the militia would claim to be paid the same. [Colonel NORTH: So they are.] No, that was a mistake. If it were so, the disembodied militia would cost a much greater sum than they now did. They had other sources of income besides their disembodied pay. Most of them received pay in the line, or pensions for their services in the line; and he saw no objection to a noncommissioned officer pursuing a trade in those intervals of time which were not required for military duty. An objection had been made as to the department by whom authority should be exercised over the militia when disembodied. When embodied it was under the authority of the Horse Guards; but when disembodied it was considered to be a sort of Parliamentary or constitutional force, and not a portion of the army. He did not see what advantage would arise from transferring it to the authority of the Horse Guards. The advantage of inspection had been referred to; but if the colonel of a militia regiment thought it necessary he could apply to the Horse Guards for an officer to make a periodical inspection; and he (Mr. Peel) should be very glad if, by that or any other means, the military spirit of the country could be kept alive. He had already stated the course which the Government intended to take as to quartermasters. Where they found a commissioned officer in the actual performance of duties, he would be placed upon the permanent staff. Had not that been done, those officers would have been left without any provision at all. It was very easy to say that they ought to increase the number of the permanent staff of the militia; but unless very cogent reasons were assigned for that recommendation

281
it would be impossible for the Government to agree to it. He did not believe that, under the present system, the duties to be performed by the permanent staff were more than would occupy the time of those already on the staff. Complaint was made by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) that, under the present law, counties were compelled to provide quarters for half the permanent staff; but that was perfectly optional with the magistrates, for they might decline to provide anything beyond a secure store-house. But the permanent staff were, however, entitled to be billeted just the same as if the regiment were in an embodied state. He should be glad if the billet-money could be collected and applied to the supply of permanent quarters. It was said that there ought to be a drum or bugle-major on the permanent staff. He did not know exactly what would be the duties of drum-major in a disembodied regiment; but if it were merely to instruct the drummers, they might take the most expert of those and let him instruct the others, and with respect to the appointment of a sergeant-armourer there was at present a weekly sum allowed for the repair of arms. As to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt), he thought it quite impossible that a corporal should receive more than a sergeant. The pay of the one was 1s. 10 d., of the other 1s. 4d. a day; and if a private served for thirty years, he would only then get on a level in pay with the sergeant. The regulation as to clothing had nothing whatever to do with the question. A sergeant was allowed, on retiring from the army, to add to his pension any additional pay which he might have earned as a private or corporal for good conduct, and in addition, to count his sergeant's services for extra pay. Supposing that a sergeant had served ten years as a private or a corporal, and received 2d. a day additional, and that he had served ten years as a sergeant, when he retired he would be entitled to add more pence to his pension on that account. It did seem a hardship to mulct the man in respect to his clothing; and he would certainly take that subject into consideration.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to know whether those members of the militia staff, to whom it seemed it would be open to sell and huckster, would be allowed to do so in uniform or not?
MR. FREDERICK PEELwas understood to say that in accordance with the
282
regulations which had hitherto existed, those soldiers to whom the hon. and gallant Member referred were required to appear in uniform only upon certain days.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he considered that it was absolutely impossible to maintain a body of men in a state of military efficiency upon an amount of pay which was less than that which the humblest labourers received. Many of those men who were to be retained upon the militia staff had, owing to their good conduct, risen from the rank of privates; and it was certainly no adequate return for that good conduct to place them upon a footing which would preclude them from being able to keep up even a military appearance. It was, however, said that those men might add to their resources by pursuing some trade; but he for one thought it a matter well worthy of consideration, whether in acting upon that principle they would be taking the best course to secure the services of an efficient body of soldiers, and whether it would not be better rather to diminish the number of the militia staff, and maintain their military appearance and discipline, than to keep up a larger number and lose sight in a great degree of considerations so important. There was another matter which he thought was well deserving of the attention of the Committee, it was, whether it was not desirable to place upon an equality, upon the score of pay, the sergeant who happened to have entered the militia as a private, and who, by his good conduct, had gained for himself his present position, and the man who happened, in consequence of his having been in the army before, to have entered as a sergeant, and who was entitled to a pension for his former services? He did not wish for a moment that the latter should be deprived of one penny of that pension. All he desired was, that the inequality which must necessarily now exist between the two classes of men with respect to pay should be removed, and that the merit of the former in rising by their good conduct to the same rank as their fellow sergeants should be duly recognised. He also was of opinion that the Government ought to supply provisions to the soldiers of the militia staff at contract price.
COLONEL BUCKsaid, he was extremely gratified to find that the services of the militia had met with the warm approbation both of that House and of the country. They were, he thought, deserving of that

283
approbation; and not the less so because while during the last war the men had been balloted for, the present militia force had been composed entirely of volunteers. That circumstance had entailed upon the officers a much greater amount of anxiety and of labour than they had under the old system been subjected to; but notwithstanding all the difficulties with which they had had to contend, the militia regiments had not only been filled, but in many cases—and in that of his own regiment among the number—the complement of men had been doubled, the places of those who had volunteered into the line having been filled up as soon as they had been vacated. Having said thus much of the readiness with which volunteers had come forward, he would now beg to call the attention of the Committee to the disadvantages of making the Lord Lieutenant of the county colonel of a regiment in the case in which there happened to be two or three regiments of militia as in his (Colonel Buck's) own county. The interests of the regiment of which the Lord Lieutenant was colonel might be distinct from those of another regiment belonging to the same county, and the consequence would be that the interests of the one might in some instances be postponed to those of the other. The Lord Lieutenant should not, therefore, in his opinion, be placed in a position in which favour or bias should be supposed to actuate his decisions with respect to that arm of the service over which, when in a disembodied state, he exercised so extensive a control. In illustration of the disadvantages of that policy he might observe, that while the South Devon militia was No. 25 on the list of militia regiments, the East Devon being No. 41, the Lord Lieutenant of the county having been colonel of the latter regiment, had authority conferred upon him to give to it that precedence to which, in accordance with military regulations, the former was entitled. By some jugglery the latter regiment was now called the 1st Devon, and the former, which by age and position on the list had the precedence, the 2nd Devon. Now that, he must contend, was a system of jobbing which must operate very injuriously upon the efficiency of the service, and which should not be resorted to out of considerations of deference to any individual, however high might be his position. Such considerations, however, were but too frequently found to prevail, and that such was the case had upon more
284
than one occasion come within the scope of his own experience. Lord Mount Edgcumbe, for instance, had been permitted to interfere very materially with the efficiency of the militia artillery practice at Devonport—a subject in connection with which he (Colonel Buck) had moved for certain Returns, which had formed the topic of a conversation at an interview which he had had with the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance. One of the papers in question was a letter which had been written by Lord Mount Edgcumbe, complaining of the artillery practice which had been carried on within two miles of his house, greatly to his annoyance, and at a spot adjacent to some property upon which it was his intention to build. Such was the usual mode in which a contemplated job was introduced to the notice of the Government. In the instance to which he referred it had emanated from a great man—Lord Mount Edgcumbe, and had been backed by the influence of a still greater man—Lord Lansdowne. While calling the attention of the Committee to that circumstance he might be permitted to congratulate those with whom he had the honour to act, that it was not a nobleman of the Tory party whose assistance had either been solicited or obtained in the matter, but an experienced Whig nobleman whom the Tory nobleman selected to assist him. But to proceed, the letter of Lord Mount Edgcumbe had been submitted to Lord Panmure and to the colonel of the Royal Artillery at Devonport, and the result had been that the acquiescence of both those distinguished individuals having been obtained, the artillery practice, at the spot at which Lord Mount Edgcumbe had objected to its being held, had been put an end to. He (Colonel Buck) having complained to the Clerk of the Ordnance of the injury which had thus been done to the public service, had had his objections to it laid, in the first place, before the colonel of Artillery at Devonport, and, in the next place, before Lord Panmure, both of whom had previously acquiesced in the representations of Lord Mount Edgcumbe, and the consequence had been, as might very naturally have been anticipated, that they had adhered to their original views in the matter. Indeed, he hardly knew of an instance in which objections such as he had advanced had been so dealt with before, except, perhaps, in the case of the proceedings of the other House of Parliament,

285
in which the Lord Chancellor was at present sitting to try an appeal from his own decision. The result of that success of Lord Mount Edgcumbe's representations had been, that the militia artillery had been driven to practice at Drake's Island, which was three-quarters of a mile from the shore; and from that island had been obliged to go to the citadel, which was at a still more considerable distance. Now, there were many objections to prosecuting artillery practice at the citadel, one of the most important being that the range for firing was across the harbour of Devonport, thus causing the practice to be attended with considerable danger and delay, owing to the constant sailing of vessels into and out of that harbour. That view of the case was fully borne out by the major of the regiment to which he had the honour to belong—a man who had served under the Duke of Wellington, and whose testimony was entitled to the utmost consideration; and the consequence of the whole transaction had been that much valuable time for practice was lost to the militia artillery, and of course the efficiency of the service so far impaired. Another subject which he deemed to be well worthy of the consideration of the Committee was the state of our fortifications, which at Devonport, as well as elsewhere, he believed to be in a very imperfect condition. The Government authorities were at present engaged in completing, at an enormous cost, what were called the lines at Devonport. Now, it appeared that the late Duke of Wellington had given it as his opinion that those lines would be wholly useless, and the works had in consequence been discontinued until within the last two or three years, when they had been resumed. But a general impression still prevailed that they could be of no use to keep any people out of Devonport except the inhabitants of Plymouth. He hoped that a Committee would as soon as possible be appointed to inquire into the state of the defences of this country, and that the commission would not consist exclusively of engineers, but would also embrace officers in the marine artillery, captains in the navy, and scientific men, such as Mr. Fergusson. Before resuming his seat he should allude to the condition of Fort Biddlecombe. He had every reason to believe that that fort would be useless for defensive purposes. It was exactly such a work as one might expect to see on the stage of a theatre,
286
and it was said that the reason why it had been so constructed was that Lord Mount Edgcumbe, on whose property it was built, required that it should be of an ornamental character. He would not trespass any further on the time of the Committee, but he would venture to express a hope that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give the best consideration in his power to the observations he (Colonel Buck) had felt it his duty to make upon that occasion.
MR. MONSELLsaid, it was the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne that the fort at Biddlecombe, which the hon. and gallant Member had so severely criticised, was one very admirably adapted for the purpose for which it had been constructed; and it was impossible for the agents of the Government not to act upon the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne in preference to that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in such a matter. It was true that there was some ornamental work on it, in consequence of Lord Mount Edgcumbe, who had given permission to have it built in his park, having required that it should wear a more or less ornamental aspect; but it was by no means unreasonable that the noble Lord should have insisted on such a condition. With regard to the lines at Devonport, he had to observe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in that case also directly at variance with the high authority of Sir John Burgoyne, who had decidedly recommended that the works should be proceeded with. In reference to the removal of the artillery practice from one point to another, he readily admitted that in such a case the convenience of a Peer ought no more to be consulted than that of anybody else, and that no distinction ought to be made between one class of Her Majesty's subjects and another. When a complaint had been made by Lord Mount Edgcumbe of the inconvenience which he and his family suffered from the practice of firing at a particular spot, that complaint had been referred to the Director General of Artillery, who, in his turn, had referred it to the consideration of the commanding officer of artillery at Devonport; and the latter officer, after having carefully inquired into the matter, had given it as his opinion that no injury would arise to the public service from the removal of the practice to another spot. Of course, the commanding officer of artillery was not infallible any more than any one else. The views of the

287
hon. and gallant Member on this subject certainly had not been adopted; but that circumstance gave him no right to talk as he had done of gross jobs, or to make the most unfounded charges against a department which, in this instance, had only followed its usual course of seeking the best advice, and then acting upon it. If the hon. and gallant Officer could suggest a better plan than the one that had been pursued, the department would feel extremely obliged to him; but he ought to remember that a bad case could never be mended by the flinging about of random and unjust imputations.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he had to complain that the paymasters were about to be treated in what he considered a very unfair manner on the occasion of the disembodiment of the militia. The subalterns, generally, were to be dismissed with a gratuity of six months' pay; but the paymasters, who had imposed upon them peculiar responsibilities, and who had to incur a pecular expenditure, would be employed three months longer than other officers, and would then be dismissed with a gratuity of only three months' pay. It seemed to him to be manifest that the fact that they had extra duty to discharge, with the usual pay during the period they were fulfilling that duty, ought not to disqualify them from receiving the six months' gratuity on the occasion of the cessation of their labours.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the treatment of the paymasters and of the subalterns was only different in terms. The paymasters, from the special nature of their engagements, would be employed three months after the disembodiment of the militia, for the adjustment of their accounts, and would then receive a gratuity of three months' pay. They would thus receive as large an amount as the subaltern from the moment the disembodiment took place.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, it was not the less true that the paymasters would receive only a gratuity of three months' pay from the period at which their work was to cease.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he thought the position of captains of militia was one of peculiar hardship. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but it was no laughing matter for the officers themselves. The regulation respecting the property qualification of militia officers had been relaxed, and the Government had availed them-
288
selves in that force of the experience of officers who had been for five years in Her Majesty's service. Those officers had toiled incessantly for the last two years to bring the militia into an efficient state, and, he believed, in consequence of the expenses they had incurred from the injury done to arms by recruits, and from other circumstances, there was hardly a captain of militia who would not retire from the service with a pecuniary loss of at least £50.
MR. COWANsaid, he thought the adjutants in the militia had special grievances to complain of. They were the only officers whose families were entitled to no pensions, and they had no allowance made to them for their outfits. But he had risen principally for the purpose of referring to another topic. Some three months ago he had brought forward a Motion against the system of billeting in Scotland, on which the Government had been defeated. He hoped they would immediately proceed to adopt measures for carrying out the Resolution of the House upon that subject, and that they would relieve the people of Scotland from what was felt to be a very great grievance.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he believed it was generally admitted that the militia had during the last eighteen months rendered very important service to the country, and he thought that the present time was a very favourable one for making a liberal recognition of their merits. He regretted to hear it stated on the part of the Government that the members of the militia staff, which was still to be maintained, should depend mainly for their subsistence on what they could earn in addition to their pay. It appeared to him that it would be both wise and becoming on the part of the State to place them in a more independent position. There was another point to which he also wished to direct the attention of the Committee. It had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War that it was the duty of the Lords Lieutenant of counties to order the training of the militia. But the Act required, as he understood it, that the training of the militia should be undertaken under an Order in Council, and that the Lords Lieutenant should merely determine what were to be the precise time and district at which it was to take place. No Order in Council had been issued upon the subject last year, and he found that only thirteen regiments had been trained

289
in the course of that year, and that at an expense of £10,379, which was about £4 8s. per man.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the Act required that the Lords Lieutenant should appoint, with the approbation of the Crown, the time and place at which the exercise of the militia should take place.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that the Lords Lieutenant had the power of fixing the time and place at which the training was to be undertaken, but the order for the training ought to issue from the Queen in Council.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he was aware of that. Each regiment should be trained once a year, and he imagined that the object of the Act was to leave it to the Lords Lieutenant to decide what were to be the time and the locality at which the trainings were to take place, because they were naturally the best judges of what would suit the convenience of the men in reference to those points. Of course, if the Lord Lieutenant did not order any training within the year, it would be the duty of the Government to see that the provisions of the Act were enforced.
SIR JOHN BULLERsaid, the discussion on the present Vote had been of a very diversified character, and on some of the points alluded to be had a remark or two to offer. In the first place, he felt bound to express his opinion that the works on the lines at Devonport touched on by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Colonel Buck), notwithstanding the authority of the name of Sir John Burgoyne, were the greatest absurdity ever witnessed. There was a story at Plymouth that the Duke of Wellington saw the lines in operation, that he spoke to the people employed there on the subject, that he then went to luncheon, that the people went to their dinners, and that they never returned, and the work was never resumed. To re-open them, therefore, would be to throw away money. Then, of all the miserable arrangements ever heard of, those at Fort Biddlecombe, for the supply of water, were the most miserable. There was a small tank to catch the rain water, but it would not catch enough for 200 men, and when the pump was used, the liquid came up unfit for use. Besides which, he understood that the guns could not be sufficiently depressed to be serviceable. He wished, before resuming his seat, to call the attention of
290
the Government to the system of billeting. He did not see how to get rid of it on the march; but unquestionably, where possible, the system should be dispensed with, and the men relieved from the disagreeable position in which they were now placed. Nothing could be worse than placing very young men—drummers, for instance, and very young sergeants—in common public-houses when up for their twenty-eight days' training, or when called out for service; and if the Government could allow the young men to have lodgings, or to provide for themselves, instead of being placed in the public-houses, they would do that for which the men and boys would be thankful. In their disembodied state there were no officers to look after them except the adjutant, who, at the utmost, could muster them only once or twice a day; and the rest of the time they were under no restraint. He would not venture to describe the state of things to which he himself had been an eye-witness at Plymouth. He quite concurred in the opinion of hon. Members who had preceded him, that the paymasters would be treated unfairly if they were to receive a gratuity of only three months' pay after the termination of their labours. The adjutant was a permanent officer of the staff, always with his regiment, and if he were active and looked after the interests of the militia and recruiting, he would have quite enough to occupy his time. He (Sir J. Buller) therefore thought that his claim for an additional rate of pay was worthy of being taken into consideration by the Government. He had no doubt the subject would be well considered by the Secretary for War, but inasmuch as the office of adjutant was permanent, his claims might be brought under notice on a future occasion. Attention had been called to the captains of the militia. As that force was constituted, generally the captains were gentlemen of landed property, possessing ample qualification, and who did not, therefore, he thought, have a very powerful claim for additional remuneration on the Government. There was a contingent fund, and if they did their duty there was hardly any case in which that fund was not able to cover the demand. But there was another class of militia captains, young men holding commissions in the line who had come forward to assist in training the militia, in the hope that by doing that essential service to the country they might push their own fortunes. That class, he thought, had a claim upon the

291
Government, because, on many occasions, they were forced into an expenditure beyond their means; and having come at the request, at least, of the Government to help in drilling the militia, they were certainly entitled to some consideration on the part of the Government, which he hoped would be shown to them.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the fact, that in consequence of the accounts having to pass the War Office it was not always possible for the paymaster to settle the matter within three months, and it would be very hard that they should be deprived of the month's bonus, because it might very well happen that they would have to work very hard after they had sent in all their accounts in checking and making the disallowances ordered. They had also to find securities, which in some cases could not be obtained without money, so that, in addition to the loss of their pay, they would lose the interest of the money expended by them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could assure the Committee that the Government were fully sensible of the great public utility and value of the militia, and were most desirous that the militia should be kept in such a condition as to fully meet the purpose for which it was established. Any fair liberality to the officers on being disembodied would be entirely in accordance with the wishes of the Government. With regard to the paymasters, if their accounts were properly kept, the duty of settling those accounts would not be a very hard one, and they could correspond with the War Office, as well from one place as another, so that they could select their residence where they pleased. The Government were quite sensible of the great value of the artillery branch of the militia. Indeed, he might take some credit to himself on that account, because as it was his duty as Home Secretary to arrange the distribution of the corps, when the militia was formed, he, for the first time, established a large number of artillery regiments, amounting, for the whole of the United Kingdom, to, he believed, between 16,000 and 18,000 men. No doubt they were a most valuable corps, and, having had access to the returns of practice, he was aware that the regiment alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Colonel Buck) had shown great efficiency; indeed, he believed no part of
292
the regular artillery had displayed greater efficiency. With regard to the forts and lines at Plymouth, he thought gentlemen were mistaken in the opinion they entertained as to the difficulty of completing those lines. The matter had received great attention, not only from Sir John Burgoyne, but from Her Majesty's Government in consultation with him, and the Government came to the conclusion that the whole extent of those defences should be completed, and that, with a view to defence from a particular quarter, they would form a very valuable addition. As to the fort to the seaward of Mount Edgcumbe, Fort Biddlecombe, he had been within it, and he could not imagine upon what ground it could be pretended that guns could not be fired from it. The engineers who constructed it, so far from thinking there was anything to prevent it being usefully employed, believed that, from the manner the guns were placed near the line of water, and from other circumstances, it would be a very valuable addition to the defences which commanded the entrance to the Sound on that side of the Breakwater. With regard to billeting in Scotland, alluded to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan), he wished to state that, in consquence of the vote of the House, the Government contemplated introducing a provision into the Mutiny Act of next year, placing Scotland on the same footing as England—namely, that it should no longer be in the power of the Government to billet troops on private houses, and that billeting should apply to public-houses only. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devonshire (Sir J. Buller) wished to carry that exemption further. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet, that, consistently with a due regard to the public service, it was impossible altogether to exempt public-houses from the liability to receive billets, and that the military service of the country could not be carried on without recourse to billets. But it was unquestionably true that it was very undesirable to billet troops, and more especially militia and young troops in public-houses if it could be avoided. When he was at the Home Office he received great complaints from the keepers of public-houses in one part of Yorkshire on the conduct of the militia quartered on them. They said that in former times they made a very good profit out of the drinking of militiamen, but that the present militiamen were so very sober that they made

293
nothing out of them, and were losers by the sum allowed as compensation by the Government. That showed, however, that the conduct of the militia was not affected in Yorkshire by the temptation of billets, as seemed to be the case in Plymouth. The Committee would see that there were only two methods of providing for troops—either in barracks, or by encampment. The construction of barracks he considered to be a most important object to which the attention of the House of Commons ought to be directed, and the assistance of Parliament ought to be afforded. But, at the same time, the object could not be accomplished without a very large expense, when it was remembered how desirable it was to raise the character and condition of the soldier by the construction of barracks on improved principles, which would give means for classification and healthful exercise. That would increase the expense; but he could assure the Committee as far as the means of putting troops, whether militia or regulars, in barracks existed, the Government would avail themselves of those means, because it was desirable, in the first place, for the sake of the discipline of the army, and, in the next, for the sake of relieving innkeepers from the burden of which they complained. He need scarcely say that the various suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the discussion would receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the permanent staff of the militia, the great object was to retain that number of non-commissioned officers which was necessary to take charge of the arms and clothing during the period the regiments were not assembled for training, and not to go beyond that, because whatever attention was paid by the adjutant, he had not the same means of keeping a small number of sergeants up to the military point which existed with regard to regiments embodied or assembled for training. It was important that sergeants should not lose their efficiency, and it appeared to him the better course would be to have no larger permanent staff than was absolutely necessary; and that, when the militia regiments were called out for training, they should have the advantage of drill sergeants from the regiments of the line, who would bring with them the latest improvements and the full spirit of military smartness, and if at any future time it should become necessary to embody the militia, sergeants could be taken by promotion
294
from the smartest and best men in the line. With respect to armourer-sergeants he was inclined to believe that respectable gunmakers could be found to keep the arms in better repair than any armourer-sergeant. The Government had, he conceived, shown that they were disposed to treat the subject with as much liberality as was consistent with a due regard to economy, and he could assure the Committee that the Government was deeply sensible of the great value of the services of the militia, and of the devotion to the public interests displayed by its officers in sacrificing convenience and comfort for service at home and abroad for the benefit of the country. With regard to the question of training, it was true that it rested with the Lords Lieutenant to fix the time and place of assembly, but undoubtedly it was for the Secretary of State to intimate to the Lords Lieutenant that their particular regiments were to be called out for training during a certain period. Last year, however, the greater part of the militia was embodied, and it was quite possible that with respect to some of those regiments that were not embodied there might have been doubts between the Lord Lieutenant and the public department as to the period for calling them out, and that some of the regiments might have been overlooked.
SIR JOHN BULLERsaid that, with regard to paymasters, they were required to send in their accounts signed by the commanding officer and the adjutant, and accompanied by a declaration before a magistrate that they had been examined in the presence of all three parties.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the paymaster was to send in his accounts as soon as possible after they were made up, and the only duty remaining after that was corresponding with the Departments in respect to any disallowances of sums charged in those accounts.
SIR JOHN BULLERsaid, that the paymaster could not leave head-quarters until he had prepared the accounts, and had them signed by the commanding officer and the adjutant.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there had been a former Vote of £1,010,000, and he assumed that that amount could not possibly be expended on the embodied militia, for some 40,000 men, or thereabouts, for a period not exceeding four months. There was an item of £18,500 for enrolling and attesting 20,000 men.

295
Surely they did not expect to raise 20,000 militiamen in the course of the present year. Then, again, there was a large sum for half-pay or retired allowances for no less than 2,999 lieutenants and sixty-six ensigns. He wished to know if that was to be a permanent charge, or a charge for the current year only.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the amount voted for the army was not applicable to the disembodied militia. More than half of that sum of £288,000, namely, £180,000 was to provide for the pay and allowances of the permanent staff of the disembodied militia. Every regiment of militia ought, as a matter of rule, to be trained and exercised once in every year, but they intended during the present year only to call out these that had not been embodied, and it was provided in the estimate that they should be trained for a period of forty-two days. With regard to the bounty for raising 20,000 men, as the militia men were only enlisted for a period of five years, of course a number were continually receiving their discharge, and it was calculated that for the present year it would be requisite to raise 20,000 men in order to supply the deficiency. With regard to the half pay, it was for old allowances, and those lieutenants and ensigns were those who were in the late war.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that with respect to the observation that the officers of the militia would be satisfied with the liberality of the Government, he must say that he was far from contented with the lavish expenditure of the Government. The noble Lord (the First Minister of the Crown) had told them that they were to have a staff who were to do nothing but take care of the arms. It was monstrous that the sum of £288,000 should be thrown away for that purpose. Forty years' experience had proved the inutility of that staff, and what was required was a new organisation. In thirty years £8,000,000, and in forty years £11,000,000 had been spent on those useless staffs of militia. It was, he considered, so much money thrown away. He thought the training of the twenty regiments alluded to would be also money thrown away. In the meanwhile there was a large force of foreign legions doing nothing, though they cost £58 per man. Those troops were brought to Aldershot, whereas they ought to have been disbanded; or if not, they ought to be kept on the edge of the country, ac-
296
cording to the promise of the Government when the foreign legion was raised. He would give every assistance to any financial reformer who would seek to rectify those abuses.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he must explain that he did not say the militia staff had nothing to do, but that it was not desirable to retain a larger number of sergeants than necessary, and that when they were embodied it was better to make up the number by soldiers from the line.
House resumed.

WILLS AND ADMINISTRATIONS (STAMPS).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd July]—
"That the Resolution 'That it is expedient to authorise the collection, by means of Stamps, of the Fees to be payable in Her Majesty's Court of Probate and Administration, and the Testamentary and District Offices to be established by any Act of the present Session relating to Wills and Administrations,' be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution read 2o, and agreed to.

WILLS AND ADMINISTRATIONS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to make a few observations on the position in which the Bill now stood. He had been unable, through indisposition, to be present when the subject was last discussed, on which occasion the House, he thought, took a somewhat unusual course. A Bill was then read a second time which nobody intended to proceed with, and which was so read on the clear understanding, that as soon as that operation should be duly performed, the measure was to vanish, and another to accomplish the same end, but differing wholly in its details, was forthwith to be substituted. Accordingly the Bill now before the House was as different as chalk from cheese from that originally introduced by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. He should say that the transmogrification was the result of what he might almost call a sort of illicit intercourse between the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General). When the hon. and learned Gentleman brought in the Bill

297
it did not contain the name of the Court of Chancery, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was well aware, that name had no very good repute in the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, with considerable adroitness, originally proposed to constitute a Court with all the powers and without the name of the Court of Chancery; but his (Mr. Henley's) hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), who had a great dislike to the Court of Chancery, refused to have anything to do with the Bill, unless some other sort of Court were substituted for that Court. The clause by which the Court was constituted now conferred upon it all the powers at first proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the powers of a Court of Common Law besides. The powers now to be given to it were sufficiently large to make it a tribunal of any sort or size, and they were left entirely in the dark as to what was to be its practice or procedure. Rules for its regulation were to be framed by the Judge, subject to the approbation of the Lord Chancellor, the Lords Justices, the Master of the Rolls, and the Chief Justices of the Common Law Courts; and whether it would turn out to be a Court of Common Law, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Suffolk said, or a Court of Chancery, according to the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) no one could tell. The present Bill, too, dealt a great deal more with the subject of real property than the original Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman; it went even further, he apprehended, than the recommendations of the Commissioners; but remembering that not many years ago a measure had been shipwrecked in another place upon that very ground, he doubted whether that part of it would facilitate its progress through Parliament. He was willing and anxious that the law should be so altered that, when probate had been granted to any instrument dealing with either real or personal property, everything within the four corners of that instrument should be concluded by the judgment of the Court which granted probate; double litigation upon the same instrument ought not to be necessary, but he did not think it would be prudent to go further and to risk the loss of a good measure by dealing with real property to a greater extent than was required, in order to get rid of the evils of the present sys-
298
tem. Another great and very beneficial change in the Bill was that which extended the jurisdiction to country districts. No measure which did not enable people to get their own business done in their own neighbourhood would have a chance of, or even deserved, success. But he felt a difficulty as to going into Committee that evening, and, from some observations of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) the other night, he thought the proposal he was about to make to obviate that difficulty, would probably meet with the right hon. Gentleman's sanction. It would be quite impossible at that hour (a quarter to eleven) to make any great progress with the Bill, and they certainly could not discuss it with any advantage until the question of the constitution of the House of Lords, as a Court of Appeal, had been in some way or other settled. It was proposed to give suitors in the new Court the option of a double appeal; they would be able either to go, in the first instance, to the Lords Justices, and then to the House of Lords, or to go direct to the House of Lords, if they so wished it. Surely that proposition could not be properly considered; no sound decision upon it could be arrived at, unless they knew how the Appellate Court of the House of Lords was for the future to be constituted, and whether it would be constituted in a manner that would give confidence to the public, and enable them to resort to it without being put to a ruinous expense. If the Court of ultimate Appeal could be reached at a moderate expense, it might, perhaps, be desirable to have no intermediate Court of Appeal. He would, therefore, ask the House, to postpone going into Committee until after Monday, when the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill would be brought under their consideration. Another reason for postponement was, that he had learned, through those indirect channels from which they sometimes obtained information, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General intended to propose still further alterations. For these reasons he earnestly hoped that the House would agree to his Motion not to go into Committee until after they had considered the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion can not be put in that form.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would then move that the House resolve itself in Committee on Tuesday next.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. COLLIERsaid, he hoped that the Committee on the Bill would not be postponed; the question, as to whether the appeal should be given to the House of Lords or to the Privy Council was one which might easily be discussed at a subsequent stage of the measure, and, reserving that question, it would be very desirable to proceed at once with the measure.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he thought that the House was wasting a great deal of time, inasmuch as there was not the slightest prospect of carrying the measure, which was one of the greatest importance, to a satisfactory conclusion during the present Session. The Bill was one formed from the combination of three other Bills, and, if the Committee upon it were postponed until Tuesday next, Gentlemen who were interested in those three Bills would be able to determine whether it would be possible to proceed with it during the present Session, and he hoped, therefore, that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) would be acceded to.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he sincerely hoped that the House would consent to go at once into Committee upon the Bill. Considerable delay had already taken place, and much mischief had thereby resulted in dealing with this important subject, and he did not consider it advisable that further delay should be allowed. and further mischief consequently submitted to. He did not imagine that any great progress would be made in the Bill that evening, if the House went at once into Committee; but still the fact of going into Committee was progress in itself; and if the Bill could be carried to a conclusion during the present Session a very great advantage would be obtained. It ought to be remembered that before another week, probably before next Tuesday, hon. Members of that House who belonged to the legal profession would have gone circuit, and he ventured to think that on a subject of that description, the study, and still more the experience of Members of the legal profession, might be useful in enabling the House to arrive at a satisfactory result.
MR. KEATINGsaid that, if he were assured that it was the boná fide intention
300
of the Government to proceed with the Bill during the present Session of Parliament, he would have no objection to go at once into Committee, but upon that subject he entertained grave doubts. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had obtained the second reading of the Bill, by promising to introduce into it certain provisions contained in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) and in that of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). That part of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth which was to have been incorporated in the present Bill gave a jurisdiction to County Courts, and that part of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk, which ought to have been introduced, related to a simplification of the mode of procedure. Now, looking at the present Bill, it was his firm conviction that the drawer of it never intended to give effect to the views of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, or of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk. One clause, it was true, gave a contentious jurisdiction to the County Court, but then the rest of the machinery of the Bill rendered it impossible that a contentious cause could ever be settled in those Courts; and in the same way the views of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth were not carried into effect. Probably the hon. and learned Solicitor General had not had time to look very carefully to the construction of the Bill, but he hoped that, if it was his intention to carry out the views of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen to whom he had referred, he would before Tuesday next carefully consider the clauses of the Bill.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Sir, I have never experienced in so practical a way the wisdom of the old adage,—"Heaven preserve one from one's friends,"—for the attack which has just proceeded from what I imagined to be a friendly quarter is even more unwarranted and more unjust than any which has proceeded from any other quarter of the House. I cannot think that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth can concur in that attack, nor do I think that the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk will be ready to defend it; for the clauses in the present Bill which refer to the mode of procedure are so similar to those in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) that they might have been cut out of that Bill with the scissors, perhaps even

301
by the hand of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, and pasted upon the draught of the present measure. So much for the attack which has been made upon the Bill because it departs from the understanding I had with the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for Plymouth and East Suffolk. I admit, Sir, that I have fallen into a great error in attempting to please all the world. Another mistake has been this, that I imagined there was some agreement, some concert, some mutual understanding, some harmony between right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House. Yet the fault was not wholly mine, for the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk professed to be the exponent of their combined wishes and desires, and my error lay in innocently, but as it appears most erroneously, confiding in his representation that he spoke their sentiments. My hon. and learned Friend claimed to act on their behalf; but now I find that upon this subject, as recently the House has seen upon many others, there is no agreement between any two Gentlemen on the opposite side. What to do under such circumstances I really am at a loss to conjecture. But I have not yet told the House all; for, assailed in front and in rear, I have still another enemy to encounter. I had imagined until now that it was one of the fondest wishes of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) that he might live to see the day when these Ecclesiastical Courts should be abolished. On former occasions I have imbibed from him a great number of correct principles, and received from him most valuable advice with respect to the accomplishment of this great undertaking. Yet, if I may judge from a speech which I had the misfortune to hear the other night, the right hon. Baronet has changed all his opinions, and, by some wonderful process which I have not the wit to understand, he has arrived at a conclusion exactly the opposite of that which he has entertained for the last twenty years. Now, in this predicament, what to do, as I have just said, is exceedingly difficult to determine. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), if I do not violate any confidence in referring to a conversation which I had with him some time ago, I may state that I was so much impressed with a desire he appeared to entertain to provide for the country districts that I introduced his suggestions upon that
302
point into the Bill. I have, therefore, sincerely endeavoured—and, perhaps, this will be accepted as a proof of my want of Parliamentary experience—to make the Bill a measure that would be acceptable to all. With reference to the debate the other night, the House will do me the justice to recollect that I did not ask them to take the Bill upon trust, because I was careful to point out that there were three Bills at the present time before the House, describing what I intended to borrow from one, and for what I meant to be indebted to another. I hope, therefore, the House will acquit me of having in any manner desired to lead them into the second reading, without giving them an opportunity of considering all the provisions of which my Bill would ultimately be composed, especially when I recall to their recollection that I stated at the time that I would have no objection to any hon. Gentleman discussing the principle of the measure again upon going into Committee. Now, unfortunately, Sir, I have another antagonist to which I have not yet referred, though it is, perhaps, the most formidable of all—I mean time. Under these circumstances, and surrounded by enemies on all hands, I can do nothing but yield to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, and defer the consideration of the Bill in Committee till Tuesday next, trusting that on that occasion I shall have his concurrence, and, I hope, the concurrence of at least some Gentlemen who may be pleased to act with him on the other side, in endeavouring to advance a measure which I firmly believe calculated to confer great benefits upon all classes in the country.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has given us practical proof that the advice which the noble Lord at the head of the Government tendered to a right hon. Friend of mind the other night, cannot in all cases be followed with success, and that half an hour's conversation with Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side does not always lead to satisfactory results. I also think I may infer from the discussion which has taken place, that what a very great lawyer—Lord Clarendon—calls the "impossible faculty of pleasing everybody," does not help the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General in his endeavours to pass his Wills and Administration Bill through the House. Now, Sir, I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, since he

303
compels me to speak, whether the House is yet in possession of his own ultimate views? To be more pointed in my question, I will ask him whether it be true or not that it is his intention to propose that a district probate shall be granted where the sum does not exceed £1,500 or £2,000. Unless I am misinformed, it is the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in fulfilment of a pledge which he has already given out of doors, to propose such a provision, which, I need hardly say, would be a great alteration of the Bill before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman has thought fit to charge me with a change of opinion on this subject. Let me illustrate to the House what is the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself with respect to change of opinion from the Report of the Chancery Commission. I served with him on that Commission, and, led by him, I joined in some of his recommendations, though with much doubt and hesitation, but influenced by the confidence which I then reposed in his judgment. The Report of the Chancery Commission recommended distinctly that the new Court should be connected with the Court of Chancery. That was the advice of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. I followed his lead to the extent that with him and the Master of the Rolls I joined in protesting against the recommendation of a majority of the Commission, that there should be a separation in the jurisdiction between probate and administration, and construction and administration. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks of change of opinion, and yet he proposes in his Bill, that up to £200 and £300 respectively jurisdiction should be given to County Courts in matters testamentary! Let me, however, read to the House what is the opinion of the Chancery Commission upon this point from a Report signed by the Solicitor General.
"We have considered," say the Commissioners, "the expediency of transferring the testamentary jurisdiction to the Courts of Common Law, but it appears to us that the machinery of those Courts is not adapted for the transaction of such business."
And there is a separate paragraph with respect to the County Courts. Now, after what I have said, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman need not have compelled me to speak in defence of myself with respect to a change of opinion. He proposes to sever the testamentary jurisdiction from the Court of Chancery. He proposes to
304
transfer up to a limited amount a contentious jurisdiction in matters testamentary to the County Courts. Yet in the Chancery Commission he opposed both measures, and, relying on his judgment, I was induced to join in that opposition.
MR. MALINSsaid, he was opposed to the principle of the Bill, which he was determined to resist by every means in his power. He was both sorry and surprised that the hon. and learned Solicitor General should still cling to the vain hope of passing the Bill during the present Session. The Bill had not been circulated through the country, and those affected by it had not had an opportunity of considering its provisions. During the short time that he had been in that House, the present was the fourth Bill introduced on testamentary jurisdiction, each one differing from its predecessor; and, now, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had tried to please everybody he had, as might have been expected, ended in pleasing no one. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that no two Members on the Opposition side of the House appeared to agree on anything; but assuredly there did not appear to be much unanimity on the other side. In 1854, the hon. and learned Gentleman put his hand to a Report declaring that the machinery of the Common Law Courts was not adapted to the purpose of testamentary jurisdiction, and stating that it was not expedient to confer any testamentary jurisdiction on the County Courts. Now, he (Mr. Malins) unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, adhered to the opinion that no part of this business should be transferred to the County Courts. He was no party to any arrangement which had been come to with the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), and should continue to oppose the further progress of the Bill at the present period of the Session. For it was absurd to suppose that a Bill containing 157 clauses could, under such circumstances, be carried that Session. He would therefore suggest that the Bill should be now abandoned, and that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee next Session.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), though he feared they would not get the Bill through Committee that Session. He (Sir E. Perry) was in favour of the local jurisdiction provided by the measure,

305
and thought that the County Courts had given great satisfaction. He would, therefore, support the proposition to give them jurisdiction in testamentary matters.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that not one great measure for the good of the general public had been passed during the Session. The expenses of the Ecclesiastical Courts fell upon the bereaved classes of the community—they fell upon the weak. He called on the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government to say would he give the measure a real support by making it take precedence of all other Government business on Tuesday. The proposed measure was the greatest reform that ever the country produced in the law, and it was a shame that it should receive such obstruction.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Committee deferred till Tuesday next.

CHURCH-BUILDING COMMISSION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should move that the Committee be deferred for three months. The Acts of Parliament on the subject amounted to nineteen in number; and so complicated and confused were they, that consolidation was out of the question. It was impossible, therefore, that at that hour of the night (half-past eleven o'clock) the House could give the matter the consideration it required; but there was, in his opinion, quite enough on the face of the present Bill to show that it was not calculated to effect the object that he, and those who thought with him, desired. The Commission had now been in existence thirty-eight years, and the legislation connected with it had, as he had just mentioned, got into such inextricable confusion that it was perfectly impossible to reduce it to any order or system. He had the strongest possible objection to the continuance of the Commission, which cost the country annually a large sum of money, without producing any adequate advantage.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve
306
itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought that some misapprehension was entertained with respect to the Bill. Its object was to give effect to the Church-Building Acts, and to enable the Church-Building Commission to carry out its powers. It was intended originally that the Commission should be continued for ten years; but, in deference to the wishes that had been expressed on the subject, the Government had consented to a shorter period. The object of the Bill was with a view to the execution of powers and the performance of duties which were necessary to be performed under the Church-Building Acts. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was only a very small sum in the hands of the Commission; but the funds remaining to be distributed amounted to £18,000, part of which was conditionally granted, it was true. Then there were sums repayable to the Commission, and there were many powers vested in the Commission. It was a question whether it would not be desirable to consolidate the Church-Building with the Ecclesiastical Commission, in order to avoid the continuance of the Church-Building Commission under existing Acts, and thus do away with a multiplicity of Commissions.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 9: Majority 150.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
The House resumed.
Bill reported without Amendment.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.