Commons Sitting of 20 August 1857

MINUTES.
1o Markets and Fairs (Ireland). 3o Militia.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.—CONSIDERATION.
Order for the consideration of the Bill as amended, read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the omission of Clause 18 (added to the Bill in Committee), and the substitution of the following:—
"Application for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation on any one of the grounds aforesaid may be made by either husband or wife, by petition to the Court or to any Judge of Assize at the assizes held for the county in which the husband and wife reside or last resided together, or to the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace held for the county or borough in which the husband and wife are or were last resident, and which Judge of Assize and Courts of Quarter Sessions respectively are hereby authorized and required to hear and determine such petition according to the rules and regulations which shall be made under the authority of this Act, and the Court or Judge to which such petition is addressed, on being satisfied of the truth of the allegations therein contained, and that there is no legal ground why the same should not be granted, may decree such judicial separation accordingly, and where the application is by the wife, may make any order for alimony which shall be deemed just; provided always that any Judge of Assize to whom, such petition shall be presented may refer the same to any of Her Majesty's Counsel or Sergeant-at-law named in the Commission of Assize or Nisi Prius, and such Counsel or Serjeant shall, for the purpose of deciding upon the matters of such petition, have all the powers that any such Judge would have had by virtue of this Act or otherwise."
Clause brought up, read 1o and 2o; amended, and made part of the Bill.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved
1888
the insertion of two clauses after Clause 18, providing the machinery for carrying out the latter.
These clauses were also twice read and made part of the Bill.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that the words "of Marriage and Divorce" should be struck out of Clauses 3 and 4, for the purpose of inserting, as the title of the Court, "for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes."
Amendment agreed to.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he proposed to amend Clause 8 by adding the senior puisne Judge of each Court to the members of the new Court of Divorce.
The Amendment was agreed to.
Clause 15 and 19 of the original Bill were struck out.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in substitution of Clause 19, for the protection of the deserted wife's property, he should propose to insert Clause 19 E., (Wife deserted by her husband may apply to a Police Magistrate or Justice in Petty Sessions for protection).
Clause brought up and read 1o and 2o.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask whether the words giving the right of action to the wife against a creditor, or person claiming under the husband, expressed with sufficient clearness the kind of action which was to be brought, and in what court it was to be brought. Also, whether there was sufficient protection against the husband seizing the property himself, without the intervention of any agent. In order to make the point clearer he would move,
"That an Amendment should be made in Clause 19 E., 1. 29, by inserting before the word "any" the words the "husband or."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his desire was to give the wife a ready and expeditious remedy against every person against whom it was possible to bring an action. There was a technical difficulty in the way which rendered it scarcely possible for her to bring an action directly against her husband. If the husband obtained and violently possessed himself of the property of the wife, after the issue of the order the magistrate would have power as against the husband, or, at all events, he might be proceeded against in a Court of Equity. But if the husband, through the medium of another party, which was more

1889
generally the case, endeavoured directly to obtain possession of the property, the wife was empowered by the clause to bring an action against the individual so acting, in case the claim was under £50, in the County Court, and in case it was above that sum, in one of the Superior Courts. The magistrate's order in all common cases would be a sufficient protection against the husband, and if there were anything more important in point of property involved, the wife might be protected at once against her husband by a Court of Equity, on the ground of her being made a feme sole by the Act, and the husband would be compelled to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. MACAULAYsaid, it had long been felt a great practical defect in the law that there was no means to protect a woman separated from her husband against the husband returning and sweeping away all the property she had accumulated by her own industry. He wished to have some further explanations as to the remedy the wife would have under the Bill for the loss she might sustain by the husband disobeying the order made by a magistrate under this clause, and making such an incursion upon her home?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the husband would be exactly in the same position as a stranger who entered the house of the wife and took away her property. If the husband, after the issuing of the order, interfered with the property of the wife there would be a remedy against him under the criminal law.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the special remedy given against the creditor seemed to raise a doubt as to the protection the wife would enjoy against the husband.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Bill as it now stood gave a summary jurisdiction against the creditor. At present the right of separate property in the wife was a matter of contract before marriage, or of husband's consent afterwards; but here was a case in which for the first time the legislature gave her, by positive enactment, the same right of property as if she were a feme sole, and for that reason he thought there would be a remedy by the criminal law. Of course, if the parties cohabited together again as man and wife there would be an end to the judicial separation, and the property would become that of the husband as before. He did not make these remarks with a desire of checking
1890
suggestions from hon. Members. He considered this the most important clause in the Bill, and though it was his own proposition, he was quite open to correction from any hon. Member.
MR. ADAMSsaid, he thought the remedy of the hon. and learned Attorney General was open to some objection. It would be by preferring an indictment agaist the husband for larceny; but then would arise the ordinary rule of law, that if a person seized goods, believing he had a right to do so, he was not guilty of larceny. A trial of that kind would therefore be a very long and cumbersome process; whereas there ought to be an immediate remedy in such a case. He therefore would suggest that words should be inserted in the clause to the effect that if the husband seized the property protected under the clause he should be liable to a penalty, and in default of payment, be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a certain period.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYremarked, that in his opinion the hon. and learned Attorney General had established the rights of the wife on a sound ground. The Bill declared that she should have, under the circumstances, an absolute property in her earnings, and she would therefore be enabled to assert her rights in the ordinary way. This was the first time such a remedy had been afforded by the law to a married woman, and he regretted the principle was not carried still further.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the mode of proceeding was somewhat cumbersome; it it was to be either by prosecution for felony or by a suit in Chancery. He considered all difficulty would be met by providing that the husband should be committed to the House of Correction for any period a Court of justice might think proper, and be bound to restore the property on the order of such Court.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, after what had been suggested, he would add a proviso to the following effect:—
Amendment proposed,—
In Clause 19 E, line 29, after the word "if," to insert the words, "the husband, in violation of any such order, shall possess himself of any such earnings or property of the wife, he shall, on conviction thereof by a Magistrate or Justices, be committed to prison for a period not exceeding two calendar months, unless he shall restore the same or pay the full value thereof to the wife, and all costs and expenses incurred by her, or if."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR DENHAM NORREYSobserved that, according to that proviso, the objection still remained, if the husband chose to remain in prison for the two months, he might still retain possession of the property.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, the property would still belong to the wife, and she could recover it by a civil process.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved that even if the husband suffered the full punishment, his wife would not be deprived of her civil remedy.
MR. AYRTONsaid it was enough to declare that the wife should have all the remedies of a feme sole, and they would only get into embarrassments if they attempted to give a new remedy.
MR. MALINStook the same view of the matter. He thought it was sufficient to say that the wife might resort to all the remedies afforded by the general law, which had hitherto been found so effective as regarded both large and small properties, and he would recommend the hon. and learned Attorney General to withdraw his Amendment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would act on the suggestion, and, with the permission of the House, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether a woman who had already obtained a divorce a mensâ et thoro would be able to obtain protection for her property by applying to this Court.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that such a person would have all the rights which were conferred by this Bill.
Clause 25.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, he rose to move the insertion of words providing that a woman should be entitled to a divorce a vinculo on the ground of adultery committed by her husband within two years after she had obtained a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, if coupled with such continued or renewed denial of such rights as would enable her to take further proceedings or maintain a fresh suit for their restitution. He had moved a similar Amendment on a previous occasion, when objections were raised to it, which he hoped he had removed by the form of words that he had now adopted. The Amendment was intended to give a divorce a vinculo to a woman who had
1892
been deserted twice by her husband, or who, having been deserted once, was refused a real restitution of conjugal rights by her husband's residence abroad, or other voluntary cause on his part. To couple desertion with cruelty as a necessary cause for a divorce would leave many cruel causes still unredressed. A lady who was compelled by her husband's desertion to find a refuge in the house of her father, or other relative, and there experienced greater happiness than she had enjoyed in her husband's home, could not establish legal cruelty, and therefore, as the clause at present stood, she would have no right to a divorce. He believed that by clogging the clause with desertion for a period of two years the House of Lords had put it in the power of the husband to render it completely inoperative, as, if he chose to return to his wife once in every two years, she would be debarred from claiming the just privilege of divorce. He also doubted whether the clause of protecting the property of married women would be found to act effectually, for, although there was power to indict a husband who seized the property of his wife, yet, if he chose to return home and live with her, there was nothing to prevent him dissipating that property. A man who had once deserted his wife might well be supposed capable of making false protestations and vows of future good behaviour, in order to delude the wife into a renewal of their cohabitation for his own purposes. The Amendment he proposed would, he believed, be to render suits for restitution of conjugal rights more frequent than they were at present, a result that would be for the benefit of public morality, and would obviate many of the evils which were apprehended to flow from the Bill by many hon. gentlemen in that House.
Amendment proposed,—
In Clause 25, line 19, to insert after the word "upwards," the words, "or of adultery committed within two years after she has obtained a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, if coupled with such continued or renewed denial of such rights as entitles her either to take further proceedings in pursuance of such decree, or to maintain a fresh suit for restitution of such rights."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must object to the proviso, as going beyond the scope and intention of the Bill as settled by the repeated discussions that had taken place.
Question, "That those words be there inserted, put and negatived.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he would propose to add to Section 25 the following words:—
"And bigamy shall be taken to mean marriage of any person being married to any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place within the dominions of her Majesty or elsewhere."
Amendment agreed to: words added to the clause.
Clause 30.
MR. BUTTsaid, he would move that words should be added to Clause 30, to the effect that upon any petition for a dissoluion of marriage the Court should have the same power to make an order for alimony to the wife during the hearing of the petition as in the case of judicial separation.
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40.
MR. BUTTproposed to add to the clause the following words:—"Nothing in this Act, except when specially provided, shall be taken to extend to Scotland and Ireland." The special exemptions would be service of processes, summoning witnesses, and enforcement of decrees.
Amendment proposed,—
To add, at the end of Clause 40, the words, "But nothing herein contained shall authorize the Court, nor shall the Court have jurisdiction or entertain any such suit or proceeding against any person resident in Scotland or Ireland who had not, at the time of presenting such petition, a fixed residence within the jurisdiction of the Court."
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clause would render the Court powerless, and deprive the injured party of any remedy in some cases; but he had no objection to insert a general proviso exempting Scotland and Ireland from the operation of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BUTTsaid, he would then move the following Amendment:—
Amendment proposed, to add, at the end of the clause, the words, "But, unless where specially provided, nothing in this Act shall extend to Scotland or Ireland."
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he should take the sense of the House upon the Amendment. If the Bill did not now extend to Ireland the words were unnecessary; and, if it did extend to that country, he rejoiced in the fact, and should object to any proposal which would deprive the Irish people of the benefit it would give them.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he should also oppose the Amendment.
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
Clause 55.
MR. CLIFFORDsaid, he wished to observe in reference to Clause 55, which exempted clergymen from penalties for refusing to marry a person who had been, divorced for adultery; that it was now 600 years ago since the Councils of Clarendon enacted that clergymen must act in conformity with the law of the land, and that this clause introduced an entirely new principle into that law. If it passed, when a couple presented themselves for marriage, the clergyman would not have to consider whether they were marriageable by the law of the Church or the law of the land, but the responsibility would be thrown upon him of deciding whether, according to his own private judgment, they ought to be married or not. This was introducing the thin edge of the wedge for the severance of Church and State. It would be useless to enter at that time into the question whether such severance would be productive of good or evil; but surely it could never be intended that such a result should be brought about at the fag end of the Session by the insertion of a clause in a Divorce Bill. The speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General on the subject was unanswerable, and he only hoped his vote had been in conformity with it.
Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

SALE OF OBSCENE BOOKS, &c., PREVEN TION BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for considering the Bill, as amended, read.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he had to move the insertion of a clause providing that the Bill should not apply to Scotland, on the ground that the machinery of it would be unworkable there, and that the Scotch common law was amply sufficient for meeting the class of offences dealt with by the Bill.
  Clause twice read and made part of the Bill.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if Medical Poor Law Officers are bound to attend on persons whose tickets of attendance have been suspended in consequence of their ineligibility to Poor Law relief from position

  1895
  and circumstances, but who afterwards get renewed tickets for attendance without alteration or diminution of their pecuniary circumstances. Also, in the event of a Poor Law Medical Officer falling ill in the discharge of his duties, or otherwise, whether Guardians have power to stop from his salary the amount paid by them for his substitute.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, the questions of the hon. Gentleman would have been addressed with more propriety to some one who was more fitted to deal with points of law. He believed, however, there was nothing to prevent persons from obtaining medical relief under the circumstances in question. The matter might generally be left to the discretion and good feeling of the Dispensary Committees, but some instances of abuse undoubtedly existed which he should be glad to remedy if possible. In answer to the second question of the hon. Member, it certainly appeared rather hard to stop from the salary of the Medical Officer the amount paid by the Guardians during his illness to his substitute. He did not feel qualified to declare the law on this subject, but any Gentlemen who felt aggrieved might refer the question to the Poor Law Commissioners.

THE RECRUITING SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War if it is true that Officers who are to be appointed to the regiments about to be raised are now employed on the Recruiting Service, but are only receiving their Half-pay.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he believed that the question referred to those Officers whom it was proposed to appoint to two of the new battalions about to be raised. As soon as the names of those Officers had been seen and approved by Her Majesty they would appear in the London Gazette. In the meantime they had been directed to go down to the headquarters of the new battalions, to receive any recruits who might arrive. Until their names appeared in the Gazette, which would be in a few days, it would be impossible for them to receive their full pay.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he understood that these officers had been sent to all parts of England, and not to head-quarters.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, it was his impression that they had only been sent to the head-quarters of the new battalions.

RAILWAYS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control, what steps are taking to complete the Railway Communication between Madras and Bangalore? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Bangalore was one of the principal military stations in Southern India.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he believed that no steps had been taken for constructing this line. The rule laid down by the Directors of the East India Company was, that the trunk lines should be completed before they consented to the formation of branch lines, and the trunk line to Madras was not yet completed. It was true that Bangalore was one of the principal military stations of the Madras Presidency, and a proposal having been made to construct a railway from Bangalore to Madras, with a promise that it should not interfere with the progress of the trunk line, the Directors now had the proposal under their consideration.

THE FINANCES OF GREECE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SPOONER: Sir, I wish to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether any Report has been received from the Commissioners appointed by the Protecting Powers to inquire into the finances of Greece; and if there is any prospect that their better administration will relieve the Consolidated Fund of any portion of the annual charge for interest on the Greek Loan, guaranteed by Great Britain, which is now paid?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, as the hon. Gentleman doubtless knows, a Commission was appointed by the three Protecting Powers some time ago, in conjunction with Officers of the Greek Government, to examine into the state of the finances of Greece, and make a Report upon the subject. In the meantime—that is, before coming to a conclusion—they were to suggest to the Greek Government such alterations or considerations with a view to the improvement of the finances as might occur to them. No Report has as yet been made, though I believe the Greek Government have given every fair facility for the prosecution of the inquiry. At the same time, I am afraid I cannot hold out any expectation that the result of the inquiry will lead to any early fulfilment by the Greek Government of the

  1897
  engagement to pay themselves the interest of the sinking fund on their Loan.

EAST INDIA LOANS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would be glad if the President of the Board of Control could give the House any information respecting the precise nature and security of the loans now being negotiated by the East India Company.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the loans negotiated by the East India Company had always been made on the security of the revenues of India. The loan was always an open one; the total sum to be raised was specified, and the minimum interest was also stated. On the payment of the loan the Secretary to the Company gave a promissory note, pledging the revenues of the East India Company for the payment of the interest. With that security the creditors had always been satisfied, and he hoped always would be.

LOSSES BY EUROPEANS IN INDIA.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to be allowed to explain that a misunderstanding had arisen with regard to a question put to him on Tuesday night. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had asked him what was proposed to be done with respect to the sufferers in the recent events in India. He understood the question to refer to the widows and orphans of those persons in the civil and military services who had perished by the massacres, and he replied that the same scale would be adopted as in the case of persons perishing in action. His reply showed the impression he was under, but, he believed, did not meet the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's question. He was told that the interpretation put by the public upon his answer was that the East India Company had under their consideration a scheme of compensation for the loss of property sustained during the recent mutiny; but the fact was that no such scheme had been in their contemplation. Such a question of compensation opened up a much wider question, into which the Directors of the East India Company were not prepared to enter.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had confined his inquiry to property, and had asked whether it was intended to compensate those European subjects of Her Majesty whose property had been destroyed during
  1898
  the insurrection. He had not put his question on the paper, and the right hon. Gentleman might, therefore, easily have been misled as to his meaning. He still wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to take into consideration the claims of those European subjects of Her Majesty in India whose property had been injured or destroyed during the insurrection. The right hon. Gentleman would of course understand his question to refer in the first instance to the case of those officers whose property had been plundered, and then, if possible, to that of all Her Majesty's European subjects.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he must reply that the question embraced so very wide a field that it was impossible to answer it without deeper consideration than had hitherto been given to the subject.

THE MILITIA BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to put a question to Her Majesty's Government with reference to the regiments of militia about to be embodied. It was of very great importance to the officers that they should know what regiments were to be selected, in order that they might not be absent from the country in the event of their own regiments being called out. He wished also to inquire what rule was to be followed in this matter, and whether those regiments which had volunteered for service abroad in the late war would have the priority in being embodied at this moment? Those regiments who had had the advantage of doing garrison duty, especially in the Colonies, and of being brigaded for a year and a-half or two years with the line, would necessarily be much more efficient than the others; independent of this consideration, the officers of those regiments had been put to serious expense in fitting themselves for that service, and it was certainly understood that when they returned to this country their regiments would enjoy the benefit of being retained in an embodied state some months after the rest of the militia had been disembodied. Notwithstanding this expectation, however, they had been disembodied just in the same manner as the regiments which had never quitted England. Another point on which he desired information was as to the new Order issued to the militia in regard to recruiting. By that order the adjutants were enabled to recruit for the line within

  1899
  a circle of twelve miles from their headquarters, and the warrant stated, that the recruiting officers would receive no remuneration beyond the sum of 5s. for "bringing money;" and it was also stated in the circular that they would be liable to the same contingencies as the recruiting officers of the line, viz., in case of the recruits not being passed after inspection they would be subject to the expense of enlisting them. It appeared that the surgeons of the militia regiments were to be the surgeons who would pass the recruits; and the Government were entitled to thanks for the concession they had made in this respect. During the late war, it was intimated to the surgeons, both of the militia and the line, that they ought not to be as strict in their examination of recruits as they were in time of peace; but as those officers were to be made responsible for the cost, should the recruits be rejected, they ought to have definite instructions as to whether the ordeal preliminary to the passing of the men should or should not be a stringent one. He had again to express his hope that during the recess Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the claims of a body of officers to whose case he had recently called their attention. He referred to the lieutenant colonels of the army on whom the warrant of October, 1854, had had a retrospective operation. To show the working of this principle he would instance the case of a colonel who entered the army in 1807, became lieutenant colonel after he had been forty-nine years in the service, was employed in the Peninsula, and was never absent during the campaigns of 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, and 1814. The officer in question was Lieutenant Colonel Alves, now Major General Alves, on the retired list, who was passed over by fifty-three juniors, owing to the retrospective action of the warrant of 6th October, 1854. He entered the army, November 5, 1807; was promoted to be colonel on the 9th of November, 1856; and on the 5th of December, 1856, took the retired full pay, with step of rank. His services were: general actions.—Busaco, Fuentes D'Onor, Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajos, Salamanca, Vittoria, Pyrenees, Nivelle, Nive, Orthes, Toulouse. Actions: Retreat to and occupation of Lines of Torres Vedras, Pombal, Redinha, Foz d'Arouce, Guarda, Sabugal, El Bodon, Aldea de Ponte, Capture of Madrid and Retiro, Affairs on retreat from Madrid to Portugal, Passage of the Ebro,
  1900
  Blockade of Pampeluna, Vic Bigorre, and Tarbes. Yet, by the warrant of October, 1854, this distinguished soldier, who had retired when he became a full colonel, was passed over by no fewer than fifty-three other officers, many of whom had joined the army long after the close of the French war. There remained on the same list a great number of other officers who had gained their promotion for distinguished gallantry. Before this warrant came into play nobody could pass over the head of a lieutenant colonel but a Queen's aide-de-camp; and, relying on this rule, many officers had gone upon half-pay. He had brought this subject under the notice of the House in the month of June, when he obtained an assurance that it would receive the attention of the Noble Lord at the head of the War Department. Since then, however, he regretted to say that as many as twenty-five men had been promoted over the head of the senior colonel on this list. No greater pay was given to a colonel than to a lieutenant colonel; and a brevet might easily have been issued by which these officers would have been spared the mortification of seeing young men, who were subalterns when they themselves were lieutenant colonels, preferred over them, merely because they had been in command of regiments for two years and nine months. He therefore trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who, he was sure, was always disposed to reward the services of the officers of the army in a fitting manner, would take steps in the course of the ensuing recess to remedy so grievous a hardship.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he begged to tender his Congratulations to the noble Lord at the head of the Government on the introduction of the present measure. No sounder arrangement could be made than to embody a portion of the militia. He believed that the recruiting of the regular army would, at the same time, be carried on with great success. During the late war 40,000 men were enlisted in the regiments of the line, and we then had as many as 800 different recruiting detachments. When the mutiny broke out in India we had only twenty-six such detachments, but since that time the number had been rapidly increased, and now amounted to between 300 and 400. Within the last fortnight we had obtained upwards of 1,000 recruits, although the circumstances were unfavourable for procuring them. When the harvest was completed, we

  1901
  should no doubt get a great many more, under the auspices of that distinguished officer, Colonel Kelly, who presided over our recruiting operations. The Government had despatched to India an augmentation of troops of the line, and also of cavalry. They were likewise, for the first time,—it being an exception to the ordinary rule, indeed, he believed, the first time in the history of the country,—sending out a force of the Royal Artillery. He did not find, however, that any officers or men of the Engineer corps were being despatched to that country, and consequently he must venture to remind the Government of the need there was of Engineers at such a moment as the present in India. There were 3,000 Sappers and Miners attached to our army, and he was quite certain 1,000 might be spared for India. He might be told that the East India Company had a sufficient number of Engineers in India, but he believed that that was not the fact. He had reason to know that there was a great demand for Engineers in India. Of course, if Delhi had fallen, and he hoped it had, there would not be so great a necessity for their services; but every military man, and no man better than the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, knew that there were but four ways by which Delhi could be reduced, first by a capitulation, which was highly improbable, and which would be very impolitic for us to accept, be the terms what they might; next, by investing it, and reducing the mutineers by famine, which would be a long operation, and one that would not keep up the prestige of the British Army in India; thirdly, by the assault of a breach, and fourthly by escalade. The last-named plan, that of escalade, would not be very easy for us to accomplish, owing to the present position of our army in India. It would seem, then, that the most advisable means of reducing Delhi was that of making a breach, with a view to its capture. Of course it was very well known that the whole of the native Sappers and Miners belonging to the East India Company's service in the Bengal army had deserted with the rest of the rebels, and were now in Delhi. Every military man knew that the sorties at Delhi had been conducted with considerable skill. One of our flanks had been attacked, and another flank turned, and if that flank had not been composed of British soldiers the men belonging to it would have been doubled up and utterly destroyed. He should not
  1902
  be at all surprised if the engineering skill of the mutineers now within the walls of Delhi, made it another Saragossa. General Barnard had not, so far as he knew, a single soldier who was able to do the work of a sapper and miner. He trusted that as soon as Delhi was taken, it would be razed to the ground, and for this purpose also engineers would be necessary. For all these reasons he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would send out a large body of men thoroughly qualified to do this sort of work. Perhaps he might be told that a European sapper could not work in the hot climate of India; but he did not believe anything of the kind. If we sent out European gunners to work in the field surely our sappers could perform the less severe work of carrying on sapping and mining operations at night. The work of the miner was invariably done under cover. Moreover, he had been assured on the high authority of a gentleman who had charge of the railway works in India, that the whole of the Indian railways could be constructed entirely by European labour. He therefore begged most respectfully to suggest to Her Majesty's Government the great desirableness of sending out to India a portion of our Sappers and Miners, who, he was satisfied, would well discharge their duty.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he fully concurred in the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the sending nut of Sappers and Miners to India, for it was quite clear that there were no longer any sappers at the disposal of the Indian Government. Even if Delhi were taken before the Sappers and Miners arrived there, he was prepared to contend that a regular system of fortified posts ought to be established throughout the country, and surely, if that were so, it was desirable hat engineer officers, and a body of skilled artificers should assist in these operations; while as we had at present a body of 3,000 sappers and Miners in a state of comparative idleness at home, it was obviously desirable that a portion of them should be thus employed. Europeans might not be able to work so continuously in India as the Natives of that country, but their work, he was sure, would be more solid and finished than that done by the Natives. They were now on the subject of the militia, which was intimately connected with the whole of the Indian question, because the militia was to be embodied for the very purpose of meeting the state

  1903
  of things which the mutiny in India had occasioned. He was very much astonished to find that the noble Lord at the Head of the War Department had stated that the number of militiamen proposed to be called out for the present was only 10,000. That number appeared to him to be totally and absurdly inadequate. He recollected that complaints were made by naval officers almost on the eve of the declaration of war against Russia of the insufficient number of sailors in the Royal Navy, but not a sailor was added to it, and the Government attempted to justify their supineness by giving this very wise reason—that the increase of our navy at that time might create irritation and thus affect the negotiations then being carried on with the Emperor of Russia. He really thought that the addition of merely 2,000 men to our navy was not much wiser conduct than that of the Government immediately previous to the war with Russia. He begged also to suggest to the Government that there was a great want of small steamers to carry on our river operations against the mutineers in India. We had several such vessels, if not rotting, at least lying idle, which might be turned to excellent account if they were sent to take part in the operations in India. By their means our men could penetrate far into the interior of India, and a moral as well as a physical effect would thereby be produced upon the people of India. There were already a few there, and as an instance of what they might effect he would draw attention to the fact of a small steamer with one heavy gun and 100 picked men, armed with rifles, having been recently despatched from Allahabad to Cawnpore, and that it was hoped that by this means the garrison of the latter place might be relieved. It had been most sensibly suggested in some of the public journals that, with a view to the protection of Calcutta, as well as to cause a strong moral effect on the native population of India, there should be a display in those waters of our maritime power. He had also heard naval and military officers at Portsmouth remarking on the circumstance that when transport vessels of 500 tons burthen were being employed to take out 120 or 140 men to India, observe how much better it would be if our great screw steamers of war were employed for the purpose; moreover, that these vessels might be stationed at Calcutta and Bombay with great advantage; but he did not believe that any of that class of vessels which were
  1904
  lying (if not rotting) quite idle, had been put into commission. The sort of prejudice which existed in our navy against carrying troops in Queen's ships had been made to give way in bringing back our troops from the Crimea, and he hoped that example would be followed on the present occasion. The French did not allow any such prejudice to interfere with their ships of war carrying troops, and though it was possible that the discipline of the ships might be in some little degree affected, yet that would be more than compensated by the advantage to the public service which must result from this measure. The French forces could not have got to the Crimea unless they had been conveyed in their ships of war. We, however, were guided in this matter by old absurd professional notions, and were thus comparatively deprived of the use of our ships of war. Lord Raglan could have had a much larger force at his command, and available in landing in the Crimea, if ships of war had been employed, as they ought to have been, in assisting to convey our troops. He hoped, therefore, the Government would take into consideration the advantage of employing our large and powerful war steamers in the conveyance of troops. Every exertion ought to be made on this occasion. The conflicts which have taken place before Delhi and in other places were, he found, of a vigorously contested description, and the heroic valour displayed by our soldiers of every class in the face of vastly superior numbers was most gratifying. On this point he would remind the noble Lord that a year or two ago Her Majesty determined to grant what was styled the Victoria Cross for acts of special valour. In future that reward was to be given on the field by the General commanding, and this was a most desirable mode of distribution. He would therefore recommend it to the consideration of the noble Lord that authority be given to confer freely, though discriminately, this Victoria Cross, for the most conspicuous of the gallant acts lately recorded. He thought also that on such an emergency as this the Government should consider the propriety of removing the ground of complaint which was made more than once by the Duke of Wellington in his despatches—namely, that he had not the power of giving the smallest promotion. It would be well to give the Commander in Chief in India the power not only to fill up vacancies, but to grant promotion, subject,

  1905
  of course, to the confirmation of the Sovereign and the Government. He saw by the public journals that the force in the Persian Gulf had been ordered back to India. The statement was, he hoped, correct. General Jacob, who was in command of that force, was a man of great experience, of great scientific attainments, and of undoubted ability; and no man in the Indian army stood higher in the service. Independently, therefore, of the great advantage which would be gained from his presence in Scinde, where he was so well known, or that his services elsewhere might be made available in some high command. The mention of this officer's name likewise reminded him of the statement that these mutinies had taken the Indian Government by surprise. There must, however, have been some extraordinary inattention in high quarters to passing events on this point, for the whole state of things had been laid bare seven years ago in a pamphlet of a very striking character published by General Jacob. The statements also made by Sir Charles Napier and other officers on the same subject, ought surely to have induced the Government to take preparations to avert the dangers pointed out. Upon the question of caste, which had so much to do in this matter, he saw it reported in the newspapers that the Commander of the Forces in Bombay had lately issued an order of a character quite new in that Presidency—namely, that recruits only of high caste should in future be raised for the Bombay army. He spoke somewhat vaguely on the subject, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) could state that this was not the case, or otherwise it would afford a strong proof to his mind of the unfitness of the officer he alluded to for the high command held by him. Nothing could be more obvious than the inconsistency and the imprudence of attempting to engraft upon the Bombay army that preference of high caste which had led apparently to such fatal results in the army of Bengal. On another point connected with India he must express his satisfaction with the statement of the noble Lord the other evening, that the Government intended to give pecuniary aid for the establishment of the telegraph between Suez and Aden. It was true that this would only apply to some thirteen hundred miles of the route to India, but no doubt it would greatly facilitate and accelerate the communication, and he earnestly trusted, therefore, the Government would see that the
  1906
  undertaking was carried out with despatch. With regard to what had been said on a former occasion as to the conveyance of troops through Egypt, he confessed that the statement of the noble Lord respecting the difficulties by no means convinced him of the impracticability of adopting this route. In his opinion, a portion of the troops might with great advantage have been sent through Egypt, and as the necessity for reinforcements would undoubtedly continue he hoped the Government would reconsider this subject. Other points connected with the state of affairs in India had been touched in the discussions which had taken place, but to these he would not refer. He had neither the ability nor the disposition to enter into the question of policy raised the other evening by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli); but there were one or two matters relating to Indian policy which it would be well not to lose sight of. It appeared that some of the Native Princes, even among those residing close upon the scene of conflict, had remained perfectly loyal in the midst of the disturbances which had taken place. Among them were Holkar, Scindiah, the Rajahs of Gwalior and Pataalla, and others; and he thought it would be politic, without waiting for ulterior events, that those Princes were informed that their loyal co-operation would hereafter be appreciated by extension of territory or in some other way. At all events, some declaration of the intention of the Government to evince their satisfaction at and their gratitude for the course pursued by these Princes ought not to be delayed, because it was of the utmost importance to us that they should remain steady to our alliance. Then, again, he ventured to think the Government ought to make arrangements to finish this matter, certainly if possible within the first campaign. By next November our troops should be sufficiently numerous to march with triumph through every part of the disturbed districts. As to the reinforcements he hoped these would not be despatched by driblets, but that every exertion would be made, without reference to money, to place the largest possible amount of naval and military force at the disposal of the Indian Government. He had expressed his satisfaction the other day that a large reinforcement of artillery—consisting, he believed, of seventeen troops—was to be sent out. It appeared, however, that those troops were weak in number, and were only to

  1907
  muster 134 gunners each. Now, the strength of the troops of artillery in the Crimea was eventually 204 men. In the present case no margin was left for losses by sickness or other causes, and he should not be surprised if it were shortly found necessary to form two of these troops into one. It was most essential for the Government to bear in mind that from various causes heavy losses must be looked for in the force despatched to India, and adequate provision must be made to supply these losses.
  SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, that he also quite concurred in the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir If. Smith) upon the necessity of sending out Sappers and Miners to India. When they remembered the number of strong places which were now in the hands of the rebels, hon. Gentlemen might well imagine the efforts which must be made before they could be dislodged by troops of this description. In his opinion, it would, be necessary to send out at least 1,000 of this admirable corps, with a proper proportion of officers, as soon as possible. He concurred also in the remarks of the hon. and gallant General (Sir De Lacy Evans) as to the strength of the troops of horse artillery and companies of foot artillery which were to be despatched. Those troops were about to embark for a country the climate of which, in some districts, was of a most deadly character, and therefore, not only ought they to leave England in as efficient a state as possible, but every calculation should be made for the casualties which might be anticipated in their ranks. He did not concur in the hope expressed by the gallant General (Sir F. Smith), that if Delhi were taken, not one stone should be left upon another. It contained arsenals and works which had been prepared with great care and at great expense; it contained, also, a large amount of stores and ammunition; and a more serious mistake had not been made, of late years, than leaving such a place, full of such matériel, in the charge of Native troops. Instead of Delhi being destroyed, and not one stone being left upon another, he hoped that it might be preserved with very great care, and that if, with the blessing of God, we once got possession of it again, we should never allow an enemy to be seen within its walls. He agreed in all that had been said with respect to the want of fortified places in India. He had been in all the Presidencies
  1908
  of that country, and he had seen, so to speak, the nakedness of the land—station after station without a single stronghold. The consequence was, that when we were attacked, all went over like a pack of cards. He hoped that Parliament would turn their attention to this subject, and that we should never again permit so great a calamity—he might say disgrace—to fall upon the nation. He was perfectly sure that Her Majesty's Government would never, at the commencement of this Session, have reduced so many of the regular troops of Great Britain had it not been for the pressure from without. He was satisfied, therefore, that it was not their fault. He remembered how the noble Lord the Member for London, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, vied with each other—bade as it were against each other—with regard to those reductions; and he was persuaded that, had the Government attempted at that time to retain those troops, they would have been defeated. Let them hope that what had taken place would be a warning to them ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition]; and he trusted that hon. Gentleman opposite who said "Hear, hear!" would assist them not only with their cheers, but with their votes, when these matters came under consideration in future. [An hon. MEMBER on the Opposition side: We have never done otherwise.] With regard to the Sappers and Miners going to India, he remembered that, when Aldershot was being discussed in that House, he stated that he was in favour of Aldershot on condition that the troops of the line should be instructed in a certain amount of sapping and mining, in making gabions, and in other things that might be useful when they went to India. He only hoped that they had been so instructed, and that the authorities at Aldershot had taken those steps. If they had not, they might probably hear opinions expressed, when they came to discuss these subjects next Sessions which would not be agreeable.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was satisfied that whatever exertions Her Majesty's Government might think fit to make to meet the present crisis in India, to render our troops victorious, and to restore that government and dominion which we had so long enjoyed there, would meet with the cordial co-operation of the House and of the country. He could not entirely concur with his gallant Friend who had

  1909
  last spoken in saying that the Government were not to blame for cutting down our establishments, because he did not believe that they would listen to representations made on either side of the House unless they conceived that those representations were founded on justice and truth, and he contended that it was upon their responsibility and that of no one else that the reductions had taken place. He thought, however, that they should now inquire, not so much who was to blame for the frightful calamity that had taken place, as what measures could be adopted to remedy the present state of things and as soon as possible to give protection to our countrymen in India. He desired to see for example, not only large steamers employed upon the large rivers, but small steamers sent up all the small rivers where our stations mostly were established. Such steamers going up, well armed and well manned, would afford the greatest possible protection to those stations. He knew well the frightful calamities to which our countrymen were exposed, and he trusted, therefore, that there would be nothing like vacillation or want of strength, determination, or vigour exhibited on the part of the Government at home, or of the authorities in India. He was quite sure that when the tale of this Indian warfare should be told, we should find that there had been performed acts of heroic valour and wonderful fortitude on the part of both soldiers and civilians which would fill us with admiration and with national pride. In conclusion, he trusted that the gallant army which was about to proceed to India would be provided with adequate medical assistance and with every comfort and necessary that could be required, and that they would hear no more of such complaints as had been made on former occasions.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that in reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, (Sir De Lacy Evans) he begged to state that the Government only intended to call out 10,000 militia at present. The principle upon which they were acting was this; that the number of militia embodied should bear a proportion to the number of troops sent out to India. Now, according to the number already sent out, the Government thought that 10,000 of the militia would be sufficient to do the garrison duty of the troops that were gone. If it be found afterwards necessary to despatch a larger number of troops to India, then it would be
  1910
  also necessary to draw more largely on the services of the militia. As to the question put to him by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) in respect to the instructions given to the surgeons of the militia, in order to direct them in the recruiting service, he had not received any information as to the instructions ordinarily issued being insufficient; but if any of those gentlemen considered that those instructions were not sufficiently precise, on application at the War Office they would receive every information they required. In respect to the other question of the hon. and gallant Member—namely, what regiments it was intended to embody—he could not now give any answer to that inquiry. The Government were fully aware that it was inconvenient to the militia officers to be kept in doubt. He could only say that, as soon as the public interests would permit it to be done, the earliest information on the subject would be given. As to the principle which would guide the Government in calling out the regiments that were to be embodied, the first point for consideration was, which regiment was able to perform the most efficient service when called out. The Government in these respects would be regulated by the reports they received as to which regiments were in the most efficient condition for the discharge of the duties that would be required of them.
  COLONEL NORTH,in explanation, said, he was not aware of any complaints having been made of the insufficiency of those instructions issued to the militia surgeons. He, however, thought that the surgeons should have more precise information than what had been given them at the close of the last war, as to what sort of men they should enlist, because the onus of responsibility rested on the adjutant as to the kind of men that were enlisted.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he was of opinion that instructions should be immediately sent out to Admiral Seymour to despatch all the small steamers and gunboats which he had at Hong-kong to India. They would be of immense use in India, while, as to the Chinese, we could take them in hand at any time, and thrash them at our leisure. He was perfectly satisfied that we might remove a large portion of our force in China. He would take this opportunity of expressing the high opinion which he entertained of the gallantry and judgment which had been exhibited by Admiral Seymour and by the

  1911
  officers, both of the navy and marines, under his command, who had been engaged in the operations in the Chinese waters.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for War has explained generally the points of detail which have been referred to in the course of this debate. I can only repeat what he has said, that in fixing the number of the militia, which we in the first instance think it expedient to embody, we by no means bind ourselves not to call out more if circumstances should render it expedient to do so. However, recruiting has gone on with great success in spite of the harvest, and we entertain no doubt that when the operations incident to this period of the year are completed, the number enrolled will very rapidly increase, and we shall within a very limited period be able to place in the ranks a number of men equal to that which has been sent to India. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) repeated to-night a very natural suggestion which was made on a previous evening, that these troops should be sent to India in screw line-of-battle ships, which could easily be adapted to that purpose, which could be navigated by a small crew, and would carry a large number of men with convenience and despatch. In the first instance such an arrangement may appear to be very advantageous, but I would request the Mouse to bear in mind those other considerations in regard to the amount of our military force at home which have been very forcibly dwelt upon. We were reminded that we had been compelled to despatch to distant stations a large portion of the military force for which we asked, and which Parliament granted, for the general purposes of the country in time of peace, and it was said, "By so doing you have greatly weakened your defensive means at home, and foreign countries may take advantage of your apparent weakness, and either hold language which you ought not to bear or do things to which yon ought not to submit." The answer which I gave to that was, that the people of this country would not endure conduct of that sort, and that if an emergency should require it men would be raised rapidly and upon the sudden. That very consideration, however, shows how inexpedient it would be to send to the other end of the world the greater portion of our naval force, because, although these
  1912
  steam line-of-battle ships are, it is true, lying in ordinary and of no immediate use, yet if any of these events should occur we should want suddenly to put to sea a large fleet, and how could we do that if the line-of-battle ships which we should require were doing duty as transports in the Indian Seas? Therefore I think that prudence shows that the despatch of these ships to the East would have been a very inexpedient course,—in fact, it would have been falling into the error which the great orator of Greece imputed to the Persians. He said,—
  "When you strike a blow at one part of them they put their hand to that part and leave exposed every other, which may be struck in turn. Do not, you Athenians, follow so unwise and foolish an example."
  I think that we should have fallen into an error of the same kind if we had sent to India the fleet which circumstances occurring in Europe might, at short notice, render necessary for our defence at home. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Officer as to the sending of troops across Egypt is well worthy of consideration. On a previous occasion I stated the objections to such a proceeding. These objections it may be possible to overcome, especially if you can make arrangements beforehand. If a small force were required speedily at a particular station arrangements might be made for sending it across from Alexandria to Suez. With regard to the general question, I think that the House ought to take a larger view than hon. Members have generally been disposed to adopt. We have been reproached for precipitately reducing our army and navy upon the return of peace. Some have said that in doing so we yielded to pressure from particular Members of this House, while others have attributed it to a want of foresight on our part. The course which we have adopted is really the only one which any Government acting under a representative system, such as ours, will ever be able to pursue. Different forms of Government have their different advantages and disadvantages according to the particular circumstances of the times. Undoubtedly a despotic Government is the best for providing in time of peace the means and preparations for war, because such a Government, being subject to no control but its own will, and possessing the foresight which you must assume all governors of countries to have, keep up in time of peace a larger force than is actually required

  1913
  for defence, and when war unfortunately occurs it is at once ready to meet the pressure which is thereby occasioned. On the other hand, when war docs break out, then comes the advantage of representative institutions, because then it is that the whole nation rallying round the Government gives to it a support and a force which no despotic Government can by any means or by any possibility possess. In time of peace, however, a representative Government is comparatively weak. It is not that if we were to press this House we might not persuade it to vote men in Committee of Supply. We might induce it to give us a larger peace establishment both of army and navy, but your Votes of Supply are of no use whatever unless they are accompanied by Votes in Ways and Means. That is the limit of your peace establishment. What happens when peace arrives? What took place last year? During the war the country was ready to submit to any reasonable and necessary sacrifice to carry it to a successful issue. It bore great burdens and would have endured greater still if it had been satisfied that they were necessary for the vindication of the national honour and the assertion of national interests. Nations, however, have no foresight, or, at least, very little. Individuals may have, but multitudes have none. The consequence was that the moment peace was made everybody, from one end of the country to the other, cried out for the remission of the war income tax. That was a cry which this House was neither disposed nor able to resist; the consequence was that the Government found it absolutely necessary to bow to the national will, and the war income tax was given up. That reduced our income, and we were necessarily compelled to proportion our peace establishment to the income which Parliament, as the organ of the country, chose to give us. That was the real reason of the reduction of our military and naval establishments to an amount lower than would have been expedient at the present moment. Still, with all the inconveniences which these changes of opinion and of system may produce, there are inherent in a representative assembly so many advantages that these should be regarded only as defects which the country must at all times be ready to repair by prompt and speedy measures; and I am quite sure that those exertions will never be wanting when the occasion may require them. The present
  1914
  emergency, however, is not one of so much difficulty as was presented at the breaking out of the Russian war, because when that war began all the addition to our military was to be made at the expense of the country. The expense of any additions made now falls, not upon the revenues of the empire, but upon those of the East India Company. Therefore, no additional expenditure is required on the part of the nation, and all that we have to do is, as troops are from time to time withdrawn for action abroad, to keep up our establishments at the numbers voted by the Committee of Supply. That I think we shall be able to do; but this House has already unanimously voted an Address to the Crown assuring Her Majesty that nothing shall be wanting on our part to enable her to carry on operations in India with vigour and success; and if between this and the period at which Parliament usually meets it should be necessary to ask for further assistance, I am quite sure that no Members of this House would grudge the attendance which might be necessary to afford that assistance to the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend thinks that a large naval force ought to be sent to India, as a flotilla, which should operate in the rivers. The House must, however, recollect what I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend from his experience knows very well, that the Indus and the Ganges, although they figure very well upon a map, and are really very large streams, are not generally of such a depth as to be navigable by ships which we could send from home. Their navigation is impeded by sandbanks, shoals, rocks, and shallows, and any ships which we could send from this country would be perfectly useless except just at their mouths. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has sent, or is sending out, a flotilla from England to act, as far as it is possible for sea-going ships to do, but it must be remembered that the East India Company have a navy of their own. All their ships were employed in the Persian expedition, but the greater portion of them must by this time have returned to India, and therefore their crews can be placed in their shallow boats or rafts, which alone are useful for the navigation of the rivers of India, and by which any operations in those rivers can best be performed. With respect to Persia, the engagements embodied in the recent treaty have not yet been fulfilled. Herat has not yet been

  1915
  evacuated. On the contrary, there are reports which affirm that additional troops have been sent by Persia to Herat. That has been denied by the Persian Ambassador at Paris; but still the whole of the engagements of the treaty have not been carried into effect; great doubts are entertained as to the good faith of the Persian Government; and therefore, until the stipulations of the treaty have been complied with, it is perfectly clear that the British force cannot and will not be withdrawn. That force is under the command of General Jacob, a most distinguished general officer, and until that force has been withdrawn it will be necessary to have there an officer of the great military skill and experience which General Jacob possesses. Well, then, I say we are thankful for the suggestions which have been made this evening, coming as they do from persons who are so well competent to make them; and I can assure those who have offered them and the House that they shall receive every attention from Her Majesty's Government, who will take advantage of such of those suggestions as they think likely to conduce to the efficiency of the public service. But I entreat the House to believe that the attentions of Her Majesty's Government shall be most carefully and anxiously directed day by day to these sad events. We feel not only how afflicting are the details which reach us from time to time, but also the vast importance of the conflict now going on. We have no doubt, however, of our ultimate success. We are confident that the strength and power of this country will be put forth to suppress this insurrection, let the causes of it be what they may, whether they be religious or political, or from whatever quarter or source they may have sprung. I shall not enter into those causes now; but I can assure the House that we feel the full importance of maintaining the Indian empire of this country, that no exertions towards that end shall be wanting on our part, and I have the most perfect confidence that those exertions will be attended with complete success.
  MR. DISRAELIwas understood to say: I am not at all disposed to find fault with the Government for embodying the militia. I only wish they had done so on a larger scale and to a greater extent. I only wish our home defences were at this moment not inferior to what they were during the late war, for we had then three great sources of home defence—our Artillery, our
  1916
  Marines, and our Channel fleet. But now our Artillery has gone to India, our Marines are in China, and our Channel fleet does not exist. With respect to the transmission of troops by ships of war of the highest class, according to the reports we have, there are ships of that character quite sufficient to secure an efficient defence of our own country, and yet to act in the manner which the gallant General suggested. Nor do I see why, because some of the ships might be occupied in the manner so suggested, we should not at the same time have the great advantage of a Channel fleet. I think everybody must admit that, in an emergency of this kind, after all we have heard during the last few years of the application of science to the purposes of war, after all we have heard of screw-propellers and overland routes to India, it is extremely mortifying to find that we cannot have recourse to any of those new sources of strength; but are driven to take advantage of the same means of conveyance which those who preceded us were compelled to employ. I think that is very much to be regretted; and, although we may not, be able to send 30,000 or 40,000 men over-land, yet there can be no doubt that 5,000 men, if they had been sent through Egypt, would have been a most valuable addition to the force which we have in India, and arriving there very shortly after the troops we had sent to China, there would have been a force of 10,000 men, which might have had a very considerable effect on the fortunes of the war. I am very glad to hear that this militia force is to supply the place of our regular garrisons. I think it is much to be regretted that it has been too prevalent of late to look upon the militia merely as a means of recruiting the line. The highest function of the militia, that they are the constitutional defenders of our country, ought never to be lost sight of. During the late war, it was to be regretted that at no time was there a militia regiment that was not pestered by a parcel of recruiting agents, and that the tone and character of our militia regiments in the service were lessened and degraded to a degree of which every officer who commanded a militia regiment is aware. All this might have been avoided, and greater support given to the regular army, if there had been a nearer relation between the militia regiments and the line. In the old revolutionary war, there were certain relations between the militia regiments and

  1917
  the regiments of the line, which acted reciprocally and most beneficially on each other. The regiments of the line were recruited from the militia of their respective counties, and the tone and character of the militia regiments were much higher during the revolutionary war than during the war with Russia. Complete militia regiments at that time were enlisted for active service, and I believe there was then a greater and more continuous supply of men, although those arts of enlistment which were practised daring the late war were not had recourse to. However, the militia is to be embodied, and that is a wise and proper measure. I wish it had been on a greater scale; but, at the same time, it is to be embodied for a great public purpose, and I have no doubt the result will be highly satisfactory. It is unnecessary for me to enter into any discussion with regard to our position in India. The gallant General has spoken on that subject with authority, and also with great courtesy, in reference to some observations which I recently addressed to the House. Nothing that has since occurred has at all modified the opinions to which I then gave expression; but I don't think it expedient to enter now into any farther discussion on that subject. We have only one object before us, and that is, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, to let the Government understand that we are most anxious to forward all those measures which are calculated to bring the efforts now making to suppress this revolt to a successful termination. But, in doing so, we should remember the responsibility which devolves on us all freely to express our opinions, if at any time we should think the Government not acting with sufficient energy and in a manner tending to produce the results we all earnestly desire. I very much doubt whether the suggestion of the gallant General, with respect to sending a steamboat flotilla to Cawnpore, armed as he stated, could be carried into effect. But there is no doubt that, at this moment, much depends on the fate of Cawnpore. I think it is a much more important question than that of Delhi. There is a railroad from Allahabad to Cawnpore to the extent of sixty miles; and, although the locomotives are liable to destruction, it might still be used as a tramroad. There will be sixty or seventy miles more, over which the troops would have to march, and through a country where the population
  1918
  is to a great extent in insurrection; but it may be assumed that in five or six days the force from Allahabad would arrive at Cawnpore, and we will not doubt but that their arrival there would be the signal for success. It appears to me that on the fate of Cawnpore much, if not everything, depends. If we can maintain our post there until November, when the advance of the army takes place, we may indulge confident hopes of success. But in so doing it is of the utmost importance that we should in November make an advance, both by the Indus and through Bengal which will demonstrate to the whole Peninsula of India that our force is comprehensive and irresistible. I trust the plans of Her Majesty's Ministers will justify these expectations. I am not entirely satisfied, however, as to the sources from which their support is to be gathered. The other night inquiry was made as to what might be expected from the Cape. We have a very considerable force at the Cape, and the policy of the Government to keep a large military force at that point, is well calculated for emergencies similar to the present. But I have never heard or have been able to collect from Her Majesty's Ministers whether we really are to expect any assistance or any contribution from the garrison of the Cape to this army which we are collecting in India. The hon. and gallant General the other night pressed on the House the expediency of sending some regiments from the Cape, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who followed him, I think, said the Government had pointed out the importance of this policy to Sir George Grey, the Governor of the Cape, and had left the matter to his discretion. I repeat, I should like very much to know whether the Government can tell us whether the Governor of the Cape is taking any steps in this emergency, and what proportion of the forces under his control he is prepared to contribute to our Indian army. There is an impression abroad that the Governor of the Cape is not inclined to sec his forces diminished, and as the importance of the question can hardly be exaggerated I should be glad if her Majesty's Ministers could satisfy the House and the country upon the point. We may be told there is some danger of a Kaffir war. Of course, if we are officially informed that there is such danger we must give great weight to the assertion; but from all the information which reaches me—and which is unofficial—I

  1919
  should say that there is no danger of a Kaffir war. Probably at this moment there is less expectation of such a war than there has been for many years past, and I am therefore desirous of knowing why so many regiments are retained at the Cape at a crisis like the present. I ask this question because I remember that the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope—a gentleman of great energy, who has shown, on many occasions that he possesses qualities which entitle him to command—was for some time Governor of the settlement of New Zealand, and that during the period of his governorship he maintained the largest military force ever assembled in that colony. At one time, I believe, there were at least six regiments in New Zealand, and the prosperity of the colony and the great increase of revenue were perpetually pressed upon our attention; but this prosperity turned out to be mainly, if not entirely, attributable to the expenditure of this large military force. I now find the same Governor at the Cape of Good Hope, with a still greater military force. I know that the expenditure of a regiment at the Cape is calculated, on the lowest estimate, at £30,000 a year; and I can understand that a gentleman who has the reputation of great energy, and who has a large military force under his command, would feel—if it were left to his discretion—very much indisposed to decrease that force. I should therefore be glad to learn whether Her Majesty's Government—from general information, and upon their responsibility—have given more definite directions for the despatch of troops to India from the Cape than a mere appeal to the discretion of the Governor. In touching on this subject I cannot help referring to a point upon which I should have been glad to hear the opinions of hon. Gentlemen of the military profession. I allude to the term of military service of regiments in our Colonies. Some of the regiments sent to our Colonies are kept there a much longer time than is just or politic, or for the interest of the country. I remember that at the beginning of the Session, an hon. Friend of mine, the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton (Major Stuart Wortley) asked the noble Lord opposite whether it was the intention of the Government to recall the 45th Regiment from the Cape of Good Hope, but the noble Lord very properly replied that he had nothing to do with the disposition of Her Majesty's
  1920
  troops, and that the question was one for the Horse Guards to determine. This is an occasion on which that subject may be referred to, and I must say that the position of the 45th—a very gallant regiment, and one of high character—ought not to be unnoticed in such a discussion as the present. The usual term of service for an infantry regiment in such a colony as the Cape is, I understand, ten years, but the 45th has been at the Cape for fifteen years, and I believe there is no prospect of its relief. The consequences of such service, protracted beyond the intentions of the Government and of the country, are most serious and injurious; and if a regiment in these circumstances falls under a Governor who likes to be at the head of an army and to exercise very great influence and authority, the prospect of relief is so slight that unless its position is brought under the notice of such an assembly as this it is likely to remain without redress. The 45th Regiment which went out to the Cape in the expectation of remaining there for ten years, has already been on the station fifteen years. The men have no quarters; they are scattered in detachments over South Africa, leading lives of continual hardship; incurring physical and moral disorganization, yet they are Englishmen, officered by English gentlemen, and there is no prospect held out to them of any redress. At the commencement of this year, in May, I believe, there was a sort of unofficial announcement that they were about to be relieved, and I am told that the scene which took place between the officers and men—such of them, at least, as could be collected, for so scattered were the detachments that it would have required two months to assemble the entire regiment—affected all those by whom it was witnessed. I should be very glad to hear that they were going to India. It would at any rate be a change of scene to besiege Delhi or to relieve Cawnpore. After undergoing years of toilsome duty they had no opportunity of gaining promotion in the Crimea, or of attaining that distinction which all Englishmen covet, and which is the main reward of public duty and service. I believe the position of this gallant regiment is truly heartrending, and I trust the Government will consider the circumstances to which I have called attention. The hon. and gallant General (Sir William F. Williams) who spoke in defence of the Government, and who vindicates his friends in a manner which I should be very

  1921
  sorry, were I in their position, to experience, has accounted for the reduction of the military and naval forces of the country on grounds which, I confess, somewhat astonished me. I understood from him that the Government were fully sensible that the military forces of the country ought to have been maintained in much greater strength, but that the House of Commons would not support the necessary establishments; and that, notwithstanding the conviction of the Government that reductions were impolitic and injurious, yet, preferring place and power to the policy which they thought right, they yielded their convictions to a Parliamentary necessity. Now, I am not a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, but if I had the honour of sitting behind the noble Lord, I should do him and his colleagues the justice of saying that they were never influenced by any such considerations. I am sure that the present Ministry, or any other Ministry, would upon so grave a subject be influenced only by their opinions as to what was necessary for the advantage and welfare of the empire. I deny that the Members of Parliament, who have been referred to, were not perfectly justified in the course they adopted. When we were engaged in a most expensive and arduous struggle, during which no one can pretend that the House of Commons did not give the Government every support they required, the Members who sat behind the Government, and the Opposition vied in placing at the disposal of Her Majesty's Ministers all the means which were necessary for bringing the struggle to a successful issue. That object was attained. I have before expressed an opinion, which I now repeat, that the settlement of Paris—although there might be objections to points of detail—was such as to give us the expectation of a long and permanent peace. What was, then, the duty of the House of Commons? Our highest function is that of guardians of the public purse. Surely, when war had ceased, and when we were told and believed that there was an expectation of an enduring peace, our first duty was to enforce economy—and the most rigid economy—upon the Government, and to diminish the pressure of taxation upon the people as much as possible. The only return we could make to the people for the zeal and patriotism with which they came forward in the emergency was by showing that, when the crisis was past, we were mindful of our duty as
  1922
  stewards of the public purse; that we were not debauched by the habit which prevails in Parliament during the time of war, of easily voting public money; but that we were prepared to enforce upon the Government a system of reduction and economy. This was the first duty of Parliament; and it was the first duty of Government, if they believed that peace was secured, to respond to our wishes. I say, therefore, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, that we acted wisely in the course we took; because, what excites in emergencies a prompt and passionate response to the appeals of the Government on the part of the community, who have been described by the noble Lord as so shortsighted, but the conviction that advantage will not be taken of their generosity, and that when the desired result has been accomplished their interests will be consulted, and that they will be allowed to husband those resources which, if an emergency should again rise, can alone enable them to afford similar assistance to the Government? It is the economy, the retrenchment, and the reductions of taxation effected after a war which enable the community, when an emergency again arises, to come promptly and powerfully to the aid of the Government. I conceive, therefore, that when, as Members of the House of Commons, we impress upon the Government the necessity of reductions, we merely do our duty; and not only do we do our duty to our constituents, who have the first claim upon our consideration, but generally and abstractedly we adopt a politic course, because we enrich the community, and enable them, when a necessity again arises, to supply the resources which may be required. There is, however, some distinction between the position in this respect, of a mere Member of Parliament and that of a Minister of the Crown. A Member of Parliament deems it his duty on the termination of a great struggle, and after the commencement of peace, to enforce reduction and retrenchment. Something more is to he expected from the Minister of the Crown. He has sources of information not open to us, and he has a policy in his mind of which we are not the sharers. He has a responsibility on him ten thousand times greater than all the Members of Parliament put together; and if the Minister believes it to be not wise or expedient to effect reduction or retrenchment, the Minister under those circumstances is bound to come forward, and

  1923
  if he has that conviction it is not only his duty, but, in my opinion, it would be on his part a duty which he could successfully fulfil, to impress that conviction on Parliament. If Parliament pressed the Government for reductions which they believed would be injurious to the country it would be in the power of a Minister—and I am sure it would be in the power of the noble Lord, addressing the House in a warning and monitory tone, without making revelations inconvenient to the public service—to make such an impression on Parliament as to induce Members to relax in the efforts they were making and in the opinion they were urging. I do not say that Her Majesty's Ministers had a consciousness of the danger of the course they were taking. I commenced by expressing my perfect belief that they had not, though as to some points of degree or of time I might have some difference of opinion; but in the main the Ministers thought that the time had come when economy ought to be enforced and reduction practised. But did the circumstances of the empire justify the Ministers in having that opinion? Did the circumstances of the empire justify the Ministers in those reductions? I express my conviction that they did not. I think the Ministers ought to have been more aware of the condition of our Indian empire than they were; or, if they were really aware of the condition of that empire, I do not think they were justified in the course they pursued and the policy they recommended to Parliament. It is easy to say that it is of no use now to inquire into the cause of what has occurred; but in the long run we must inquire what has been the cause of the convulsion which has taken place. Then we are told that the events were such as on one could guard against; but if we maintain that argument we put ourselves in a false position; for if these things could happen without any human being anticipating them, what use is there for any Government? If without the slightest expectation twenty-four hours beforehand an insurrection can take place, extending over a country nearly as large as Europe, and with a populatihn of 180,000,000 of souls—if such a thing could happen without those who are responsible for the administration of that country having the slightest previous knowledge or suspicion of it—I want to know of what use or value is an administration under circumstances of that kind.
  1924
  Every day something oozes out which shows that the administration of India ought to have been, if not absolutely prepared for all that has occurred, most suspicious and prescient of what has happened. You cannot justify now, when you are more acquainted with the circumstances—you cannot, with your knowledge of the insubordination of the Bengal army, justify that Administration in permitting a post like Delhi, the arsenal of the empire, to be garrisoned solely by Native troops, when they must have had information of the mystical symbols of combination and conspiracy circulating in that very city at the commencement of this year. These are questions not very convenient now to urge, but when attacks are made on Members of Parliament because they performed their duty, after the conclusion of the war, in enforcing economy and retrenchment on Ministers, and when it is said that the fault of our present position is due to Members of Parliament doing their duty, it is right for us in our defence to make these remarks, and to impress on the country other considerations besides those which were submitted by the hon. and gallant General. I repeat, we did our duty in enforcing economy on the Government, though it is very much to be regretted, considering what has happened, that we were successful in our policy. I doubt not that the Government of this country acted fairly and candidly by the House in consenting to that great reduction of taxation and to those general measures of economy which were adopted. They did believe, no doubt, that they had provided sufficiently for all the exigencies of the country; but the Ministers cannot relieve themselves from this grave responsibility which devolves on them, for having, in consequence of their fatal ignorance of the condition of a great portion of Her Majesty's empire, and of their total negligence and inadvertence, sanctioned the policy, which Parliament commenced, of reduction, at a time when it is quite clear that if they had been in possession of that information, which I maintain they ought to have been in possession of, must have appeared a most unwise policy, and which has proved most injurious to this country.
  MR. VERNON SMITH: The present debate began by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North), and by another hon. Member (Sir F. Smith,) offering some useful suggestions on the

  1925
  question how the revolt in India might be put an end to in a tone for which the Government could not be otherwise than grateful; and the right hon. Gentleman when he commenced, assumed the same tone, and, as I understood, deprecated the discussion at the present time of the causes of the Indian mutinies. At the close of his speech, however, the right hon. Gentleman forgot his opening warning, and fell into that line of observations in which he had on a former occasion indulged. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Calne (Sir William F. Williams), whom he represented as saying that the Government, being perfectly aware of the great need of troops, had cut down the force from fear of the House of Commons. Now, I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say no such thing; but at all events, I am sure the Government had no intention so to act. My noble Friend at the head of the Government has stated what I believe to be a perfectly acknowledged constitutional doctrine, which the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire has himself adopted—namely, that, though it is the duty of the House of Commons to enforce economy on the Ministers, yet, if the Ministers are aware that the state of affairs in Europe or in any of Her Majesty's dominions makes it unsafe to diminish the military forces, they are bound to defy—if I may use that expression—even the House of Commons, and to force on the House those considerations which appear to them important. The Ministers, however, were aware of no such considerations. They proposed a peace establishment which they arc still disposed to think was a sufficient peace establishment, which happened to be above the peace establishment existing before the commencement of the war, and which the advocates of economy in this House complained of as being too large. But the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government ought to have been aware of the probability of the events which have occurred in India. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman enters into that argument, and states the reasons why he thinks so, I hope I shall be prepared to meet him; but on the present occasion he had only adverted to one circumstance in connection with that point, and that is, that Delhi being a large arsenal, had been left unprotected by European troops. I shall only say, that if the Government in 1857 could have been aware
  1926
  of any danger existing in that circumstance, every Government for many years ought to have been equally cognizant of it; but they never were, and I deny that there existed any particular circumstances attracting the attention of Government to the inexpediency of allowing Native troops to garrison Delhi. It had always been notorious throughout India that Delhi was an unsafe and unhealthy station for European troops, and the late Sir Charles Napier, whose opinion on Indian affairs were much referred to, desired a large arsenal there, to be protected by twelve Native regiments, and never proposed to place European troops at that station. This may be a question of policy, but neither the present nor preceding Governments should be blamed with reference to this point. The right hon. Gentleman has defended himself from a supposed attack for having enforced economy. The Government do not make any charge against him upon that ground. They think it is the duty of a Member of the House of Commons to consider economy in all these matters, and when we are told that the Government diminished the forces too much, I refer, in reply, to the statement of my noble Friend, who pointed out that, though the House might tell the Government that it would vote a larger number of troops, yet the House was not ready to tell him how it would vote larger Ways and Means to maintain them. Hon. Members surely cannot have forgotten the cry of "the war ninepence." The country called out to the Government to get rid of the war ninepence, and I think that that cry was perfectly fair at the time, after the termination of all the calamities which had occurred, and there being no circumstances in Europe or in any of Her Majesty's possessions which indicated any cause of alarm rendering it necessary to keep up that tax. If, therefore, any Minister had come down to the House under those circumstances, and stated that he would not take off the war ninepence, because the arsenal of Delhi was unprotected by European troops, such a plea would have been scouted by the House of Commons, and he would have been accused of putting it forward merely for the purpose of keeping up large establishments. It would have been said this was a plain imposition on the part of the Government, for no outbreak there could possibly be anticipated at the present moment any more than in former years. The right hon. Gentleman echoed a statement made

  1927
  by my noble Friend the Member for the City of London, who expressed his surprise—at which I do not wonder—that, considering all the inventions of modern science, we should have no better means of despatching troops to India than by sailing vessels. The assumption, however, is not quite accurate, for great care was taken in the consideration of this question, and a number of troops were sent out in screw steamers, the others being sent in clipper sailing vessels. But the right hon. Gentleman forgets that there are many advantages in sending out the troops by good clippers. They were not only more economical—which I admit is not itself a sufficient consideration—but regard being had to the season of the year, to the want of coal, and other circumstances, the passage is said to be as likely to be made by them in seventy days as by the screw steamers themselves. Every consideration was given to the matter with the view of expediting the transport of troops to India, and considering the season of the year and other circumstances, the clippers were thought to be as likely to succeed as steamers. With regard to the question whether the troops ought to have been sent through Egypt the House must look at all the circumstances. If we had had steamers in the Red Sea to convey the troops from Suez to India, it is perfectly true that that would have been the more expeditions mode of transit, and we might have overcome the political difficulties attendant upon the passage of troops through a foreign country. But we had no such steamers ready, and if we had communicated with the Indian Government, desiring that they should be sent, or if we had sent them ourselves we should have lost as much time as in sending the troops by the usual route by the Cape. There was another reason in the unhealthiness of the Red Sea at that season of the year, which rendered it undesirable to send troops by this route. We could not by any degree of foresight have been provided with ships at Suez, nor, if we had sent out screw steamers, would there have been a sufficient provision of coal at the usual coaling stations, since the coal provided for those steamers, which usually run, would have been entirely insufficient for the large system of transport rendered necessary by the recent occurrences. There has, therefore, been no neglect of the modern inventions of science, nor any of that dulness, ignorance, or prejudice
  1928
  which might be presumed. All that can be said is that, under the circumstances, we have not been able to deal with the modern inventions of science so amply as we might otherwise have done. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that troops ought to have been sent to India from the Cape. I can assure him that the Government lost no time in sending the most positive instructions to Sir George Grey at the Cape to forward two regiments immediately to India. It has been left in Sir George Grey's discretion to send more than two regiments, or not; but he is instructed to send as many more as he can spare. I do not think that more distinct instructions could have been sent to the Governor of the Cape. At the same time it happens, by a curious coincidence, that Lord Elphinstone, the Governor of Bombay, with an energy and discretion that cannot be too highly applauded, sent for two regiments from the Cape, and also despatched steamers with the troops, so that they might be forwarded to Bombay with the least possible delay. I do not think, therefore, that the Government can be justly charged with any want of energy and foresight in respect to the Cape. But the right hon. Gentleman has thrown out a charge and has led us by implication to suppose that Governor Sir George Grey is not likely to act on these instructions, or to send as many troops from the colony as he can spare. I have the honour of Governor Grey's acquaintance, and I do not believe there is any man more ready to act on his own responsibility. Sir George Grey is not only a man of judgment, but of undoubted nerve and high courage. He is not likely to be alarmed at the position of affairs in the colony, and there is no doubt that if he can spare more than two regiments he will send them to India. Governor Grey, in all the offices he has filled, has executed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and the public. I happened to be attached to the Colonial office when he was first appointed to a colonial government by my noble Friend the Member for the City of London. That appointment was given to him from a knowledge of the energy and skill he had displayed in his journeys in Western Australia. At that time Governor Grey was unknown to my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), but since that time every Colonial Secretary retained him in some colonial government until he was appointed Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, in which post he has

  1929
  acted with courage, spirit, and judgment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) has referred to the Native Princes of India, and he says that we ought to manifest our satisfaction with their services and fidelity by giving them an increase of territory. Well, that may come hereafter, but it is at present doubtful whether it would be expedient to exhibit in that manner our acknowledgment of their conduct. Many of the Native Princes have, no doubt, behaved with great gallantry, generosity, and friendship to the Government of India. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to Holkar. That chief has, no doubt, maintained his allegiance and behaved with sincerity to the Government of India, but it also happens that Holkar's troops have all turned against us; and it would, therefore, be rather premature to give him an increase of territory, [Sir De L. EVANS: These troops have boon put upon him.] They are supposed to be under him, and in such a state of things it would be premature to give increased territory to any chiefs who have exhibited their goodwill in so unsupported a manner. Many of the suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend, however, will be valuable as objects of future policy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) recommends us to send out sappers and miners. That suggestion, coming from so experienced an authority, no doubt deserves, and will receive, due attention. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that steps ought to be taken, and troops sent out for the relief of Cawnpore. That is a question which it would be difficult to entertain here; but I have no doubt that, by this time, the question must have been settled there, and I trust in our favour, by Cawnpore being relieved. [Mr. DISRAELI: I did not say anything about sending out troops.] I regard the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend as suggestions rather than attacks upon Her Majesty's Government; but when my hon. and gallant Friend says that he agrees with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire in thinking that the Government ought to provide for a second and a third campaign. [Sir De L. EVANS: I did not say a third: I said a second campaign.] I must state that the Government have provided a force which they consider sufficient, and which they are assured by all the authorities upon Indian
  1930
  subjects will be amply sufficient to extinguish the flame of insurrection in India. We have sent out an officer of undoubted ability—Sir Colin Campbell—to take the command of the army in India. There is already in the command of that army Sir Patrick Grant, also a gentleman of undoubted ability, and well acquainted with the Indian army. It would not be wise to predict the course which it may be necessary to pursue hereafter. The Government will despatch a sufficient force to India, but before they send the larger reinforcements, which some persons think necessary, it may appear that the distinguished officers to whom I have alluded may be of a different opinion. We shall be prepared to act on the suggestions of those officers who are most competent to inform us, but I hope that the House and the country will feel assured that there has been no lack of consideration as to the amount of force necessary to put an end to the revolt. An ample force has been sent out for this purpose, and our reinforcements will arrive at the best season of the year. They will, I cannot doubt, display those military qualities which lead to success, and, although I would not hold out hopes that might be falsified by the event, I will assure the House that this question has not been treated lightly by Her Majesty's Government, but has been regarded by them as one of the saddest and most serious events that has ever occurred to this country. These difficulties will, however, be surmounted, for I am certain we shall be backed by the House in every endeavour to overcome them. And when Her Majesty's Government turn their minds to the reorganization of the Indian army, and to the question whether it will not be their duty, by a large addition to the European force in that country, to keep down the appearance of insurrection on the part of the Native regiments, they will at the same time consider by what means they can best secure and advance the happiness, comfort, and well-being of the Natives of India.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it would be out of place for him to offer an opinion on military affairs, but he felt bound to take some notice of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Calne (Sir William F. Williams). He did not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended to make an attack upon his Friends on the Ministerial beaches, for providing insufficient means for putting down this revolt, but he did

  1931
  make an attack upon the House of Commons for having put a pressure upon the Government, and for having cut down the establishments too low; and he, for one, protested against any such conclusion. What had since taken place completely negatived such a conclusion, unless, indeed, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Williams) was of opinion that the Government ought to have foreseen the danger of this outbreak in India. The Government were now despatching between 20,000 and 30,000 men to the East, and yet they had not felt it necessary to call out the Militia—they had merely asked for the power to call it out at some future period. Surely, when it had furnished the means, in time of peace, of sending out a force of 20,000 or 30,000 men to the other end of the globe, the House of Commons could not fairly be charged with having cut down the establishments of the country too far. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) had backed up the statements of the hon. and gallant General, and, in so doing, had made a hash of two things that were totally distinct. When asked why a European force had not been stationd at Delhi, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was, that that could not be done consistently with the remission of "the war ninepence." Now, whatever might have been the information possessed by the Government, as to the necessity for garrisoning the scat of the ancient Mogul empire, it was plain that the war ninepence could have had no possible connection with the matter, because they all knew, and the noble Lord the Prime Minister had that very night assured them, that the cost of providing additional regiments for India fell exclusively upon the Indian treasury. He denied, then, that pressure had been put upon the Government by any part of the House, to compel them to reduce the military force of the country below the proper limits. Whether the Government might have had reason to anticipate such an outbreak as had since occurred in the East, was quite another question, into which he would not now enter; but, whatever might he the requirements of India, that House ought not to be reproached with having forced the Government to cut down the military strength of the kingdom to a point incompatible with the national safety and honour. Indeed, the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had himself entirely exonerated the House of Commons from the charge which the hon. and gallant
  1932
  Gentleman had thought fit to bring against it.
  SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, he rose to observe that what he had said had been misapprehended by two right hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House. He had made no attack upon the House of Commons. He had merely stated his opinion, as a Member of that Assembly, that the reductions which had been effected were unfortunate and precipitate; and he had added, so great was the pressure from without, that if the Government had thought it necessary to have a larger body of troops, they would not, from the spirit of certain parties in the House, have been able to obtain them.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSexplained, that what he had said in regard to Holkar was, that that chief had been personally faithful to us, and that he had proved his fidelity by sending his treasure from Indore, his own capital, to our fort at Mhow. He was quite aware, however, that Holkar's regiments had mutinied.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was sure the hon. and gallant Member would not believe him guilty of any wilful misrepresentation with respect to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman as to what had fallen from him (Mr. Disraeli) on the subject of a third campaign. He (Mr. Disraeli) had not said that he anticipated a third campaign; quite the reverse. He said he hoped the war would be finished in the second campaign, because if it were allowed to extend to a third, the results might be most disastrous.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, that, without imputing to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, any want of a proper feeling on the subject, would observe that it would have been very gratifying to both the House and the country if the Ministers of a Christian nation had, while talking of the means taken to quell the Indian mutiny, acknowledged in terms that all those preparations and exertions would prove utterly futile if they did not receive the blessing of Divine Providence. An expression of their dependence on the great Disposer of events—that it was not on the national strength, or the national valour, but to the providence of God, they looked for a successful termination of the struggle, would have been only becoming on the part of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman, and only what the country would have expected. He was very glad to hear the hon. and gallant

  1933
  Baronet (Sir W. F. Williams) use the expression, that he trusted those measures would, by the blessing of Providence, prove successful; and he only regretted that the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman had not openly declared—what he did not accuse them of not feeling—the same confidence in the Almighty.
  Bill read 3o, and passed with Amendments.

DULWICH COLLEGE BILL.

  LORDS' REASONS FOR DISAGREEING WITH COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  MR. BAINESobserved, that to a great number of the Amendments made in this Bill by the House of Commons the other House had acceded. One point on which there was considerable variance between the views of the two Houses was as to the constitution of the governing body of the College. There were four of the metropolitan parishes which were mainly, if not exclusively, interested in this Bill, and these parishes were, St. Botolph, St. Luke's, St. Saviour's Southwark, and St. Giles Camberwell. When this Bill came down from the House of Lords the governing body which it proposed to establish was to consist of four elected members—one from each of the parishes above mentioned—and eleven non-elected members to be chosen by the Court of Chancery, thus making a total of fifteen Governors in all. The measure had been referred to a Select Committee of the Lower House, when, after much consideration, it was deemed desirable to raise the number of elected governors from four to eight, so as to give two representatives to each of the four parishes. It was quite clear that it was the intention of the founder that persons representing locally the four parishes should form a large part of the governing and managing body of the institution. The Committee of the House of Commons, therefore, recommended that there should be eight elective governors instead of four, and that there should be eight non-elective governors. There was a difference in the Committee as to how the non-elective should be appointed; at last they hit on a plan which he thought was not the best that could be adopted, namely, that three of the eight should consist of official persons—the President and the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council on Education, and the President of the Poor Law Board. However ornamental their names might
  1934
  be, it was quite evident that you could never expect them to give a regular attendance as part of the governing body of the institution. His opinion was, that the Lords' plan was a better one, namely, that a certain number should be appointed by the Court of Chancery, which, it was well known, took great pains in satisfying itself as to the fitness of parties proposed as the governors of charities. The Lords insisted on the Amendment which they made in the Bill with regard to the elective and non-elective governors. He was strongly of opinion that it was desirable to adhere to the opinion of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and to the unanimous decision of the House of Commons, with regard to the eight elected governors. He thought that, by doing so, they would only be giving a reasonable satisfaction to the four parishes. Those parishes had every reason to believe that the decision of the House of Commons would be adhered to. What he should, therefore, respectfully submit to the House, by and by, was, that they should affirm their decision that eight should be the number of the elected governors; but, first, he would move that the Lords' Amendments be considered.
  Lords' Amendments read.
  MR. BAINES MR. BAINES moved that the House do insist on the Amendment which they had made in the Bill, to the effect that there should be eight elected governors.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he rose to move that the debate be adjourned. He believed that a worse scheme than that propounded by the Charity Commissioners for the government of this institution could not be devised, and that the bargain which the Commissioners had made with the Fellows was as bad as it could possibly be. If the Bill were thrown out, no such bad bargain could ever again be made with the Fellows. There had been a constant struggle for many years between the officers and the objects of this charity. For many years the officers had been endeavouring to seize the property left by the founder for the benefit of the poor. The officers in those endeavours had been very successful. They had got rid of a great number of the objects of the charity. They had got rid of the sixty-eight boys who were to be instructed in school according to the directions of the founder. They had got rid of the thirty out-pensioners, and of the six chanters or under-Fellows. They had got rid of the almshouses,

  1935
  at least they allowed nothing for their repair, and gave nothing to the persons living therein except 3s. 6d. for coal every now and then. They had got rid of a great deal of the population by their mismanagement. They had power to grant building leases, and might have made the property worth £50,000 a year, whereas it was not worth £10,000 a year. After the constant fights which had been going on for years to put an end to the mismanagement of the charity, the Charity Commissioners entered into a bargain—which he could not call corrupt, because the Commissioners could not derive any personal gain by it, but which he must call most unjust—with the Fellows, who after having mismanaged the charity would by that bargain be enabled to retreat with the honours of war, their colours flying, and cash in their pockels—the actual value of their pensions being, as he had been informed, between £70,000 and £80,000. The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill, told the House the other day that the Charity Commissioners could not help entering into that bargain, because the Fellows had as good a right to the property as any Gentleman had to his estate. Now, part of the Fellows' oath was that they would lead a single life, that they would not accept any other service, or yearly wages, or stipend from any other person whatever; that they would faithfully, according to the best of their skill, and the plain grammatical sense of the statutes of the college, discharge the duties thereof; that they would never consent to give away any lands, goods, or things whatsoever belonging to the same college, and that they would not convert any part of the property of the college to their own use. And yet these were the people who they had been told were as complete owners of the property of the college as any hon. Gentleman was owner of his estate. The fact was that the struggle to get these estates began very soon after the death of the testator; and the Fellows had got them and plundered them ever since in the most disgraceful manner. The Archbishop of Canterbury was the visitor of the college, and had full power to correct all abuses in its management, but none of the Archbishops of Canterbury had discharged that duty. The Court of Chancery was frequently asked to interfere, but though there was a distinct trust for the poor, it preferred to leave the Archbishop of Canterbury to do so. The statutes
  1936
  for the government of the charity were made in 1626, in which year the testator died. In 1633 began the first quarrel for a surplus, for even so early as that year a surplus had accumulated. Ever since there had been quarrels for the surplus. These Fellows had, for a considerable number of years, been putting several thousands of pounds into their pockets. In 1633 there was a surplus of £240. The churchwardens of the parishes interested appealed to Lord Keeper Coventry with respect to it. The Fellows, he believed, violently opposed that appeal. The result was that Lord Keeper Coventry decided that £120, one-half of the surplus, should be placed in the common chest of the college, and that the residue should be applied to other charities contemplated by the testator, and he ordered that if there should be a surplus thereafter it should be applied to such of those additional charities as the Court should think fit. The Fellows had cut off the additional recipients of the charity. This opinion was given only six years after the death of the founder. Then came the civil wars, during which the income was greatly reduced, but he believed that it was decided that the loss should fall on the officers and not on the objects of the charity. After the Restoration, however, in 1667, Archbishop Sheldon went to Dulwich as Visitor, and, finding a surplus of £139 10 s., decided that it should be expended in placing boys at the Universities, in weekly allowances, and in similar ways. In 1724 Archbishop Wake was visitor, and, finding that the income of the charity had increased from £800 to £1,000, he also, while giving the Fellows a share in the increase, directed that the residue should be apportioned in the manner ordered by Archbishop Sheldon. There had been one or two fights before the Court of Chancery, but no decision had been given as to whom the surplus was to go. The point raised had always been this:—are the additional Fellows a part of the corporation? And Chancery had always said, "They are not in the letters patent, and cannot be a part of the foundation." It was quite clear, however, that they ought to have been assistants to the corporation, instead of which they had been cut off one by one, and the whole of the surplus had gone into the pockets of the officers. Archbishop Sheldon, when making his redistribution of the surplus, was violently opposed by the college, and particularly

  1937
  by one of the Fellows. What did the Archbishop do? He turned the Fellow out, and there was not the slightest doubt that the present Visitor, if he chose, could do the same. Lord Langdale, when the question came before him, decided that Chancery had no power to touch the trust, though the Visitor had. Up to this time there was a surplus of some thousands, which the officers placed in the common chest; but on the 1st of March, which was what they called the dividend day, they put it all into their pockets and walked off with it. In 1834 the Charity Commissioners, a body of eleven eminent men, inquired into the subject, and said it was quite clear that the Fellows were putting into their pockets very much larger sums than were intended by the founder or were given by the statutes. In fact, until the present Charity Commissioners were appointed he could find nobody who supposed that the Fellows had not done so. The Commissioners decided that these persons had the entire right to the funds, a right which nobody could touch, and recommended that a compromise should be made with the Fellows on their own terms. Moreover, the Commissioners pointed out that as the properly was rising in value, so the surplus put into the common chest, and thence into the pockets of the Fellows, would increase. No doubt, it was said, there would, within a certain time, be £20,000 to be divided; and the Fellows in the most generous manner pretended that they were giving up something for the benefit of the public. The fact was that the indignant country was turning them out; yet, after misappropriating such large sums, and being let off with all this money, they wanted to retire with £70,000 or £80,000 in their pockets. The proposal was so thoroughly unjust and iniquitous that he did sincerely hope the House would not allow the Bill to be forced through at this period of the Session. Let another Select Committee be appointed next Session to inquire into the rights of the Fellows. Though Chancery could not touch the trust the Archbishop could, and he, as visitor, following the example set by Archbishop Sheldon, could send them neck and crop about their business if they did not agree to that which was right. The parishes were in this position—they all allowed that these retiring pensions were the grossest iniquity in the world; but they said, "The Charity Commissioners have sided with these Fellows, and
  1938
  as they possess great power and influence, we had better, perhaps, give up the £70,000, in order to obtain the rest." Now, this was a sort of compromise with the Devil, which he confessed he could not make out. It provoked him so much that he could hardly keep his temper when he talked about it. He did not like the scheme proposed by the Charity Commissioners. It was, he believed, their pet scheme—a model scheme—and if it passed there were to be a great many more like it. But as it came down from the Commissioners he thought it objectionable in more than one particular. Its effect would have been to give over the charity entirely to the wealthier classes, cutting out the poor altogether. It was to be a boarding-school for the upper classes, the orphans being left out of consideration. To a certain degree it had been altered in the Select Committee, but not at all to the extent he could wish, because the children were still to be subject to a tax of £8 or £10 per annum, which in such a wealthy charity ought not to be. Then there was no expansion; it was a sort of dead, dry scheme, drawn up without the least regard to the will of the founder, and so bad in itself that it would be better to do without it. He hoped the House would not allow them to carry out the scheme this year. Let the point be well considered whether the Fellows had a right to oppose a fair and just distribution of this money or not. He regretted to say that the Select Committee had not attacked the Fellows as they ought to have done, and as he hoped they would do next year. They did not say, "These men shall be called upon, as trustees, to account for the money they have already received and pocketed." On the contrary, they said, "As the Commissioners have given them to you, we will not interfere with your salaries." He wished to do so, but the Select Committee did not support him, because they had not inquired into the case. With respect to maintenance, it appeared that by the original statute £10 a year each was allowed for the maintenance of the Fellows. Archbishop Sheldon increased that amount to £15, but still the sum was, he admitted, very small. He had no doubt, therefore, that if the Archbishop had been applied to, as he ought to have been, he would have granted some further allowance. The Rev. Mr. Howes, the Senior Follow, who gave evidence before the Committee, said that he had been a Fellow of his college

  1939
  at Cambridge, and that if he estimated the value of his board and lodging there at £100 a year he should think it a fairsum. He (Mr. Knight) had no doubt, therefore, that if the Archbishop had been asked he would have fixed it at £100; but the Archbishop had not been consulted, and the next thing they heard of it was that the Fellows had taken to themselves £300 a year each, and £75 a year for a horse. The Select Committee said, "Suppose we take the Charity Commissioners' dictum, that this is their own property, yet surely board and lodging are not their own property—they are boarded and lodged while they perform duties, but not for ever, and surely they ought not for ever to receive those allowances of £300 a year and £75 for a horse each. [Mr. BAINES intimated that they did not receive that sum.] Yes; that was their own statement. They were to receive those sums for life. One got a curacy, another went somewhere else; they no longer performed any duties, but they still took that money, which belonged to the poor, every year pocketed it, and carried it off. These Fellows drank the best wine, rode fine horses, and led a splendid life of ease. Really it appeared to him as if the place were a sort of little Protestant monastery. If they complained of luxuries and abuses in Roman Catholic monasteries, they would be told that the monks had considerable duties to perform; but these people boasted that they did nothing. Mr. Howes said that he was lodged on a free and liberal scale, that his duties were very light—only preaching one sermon once a week,—that he had nothing to do for what he received. Unless these gentlemen could show some better reason for claiming so large a sum it ought to be considerably reduced, and, instead of complaining of a reduction, they ought to consider themselves exceedingly lucky in having received so much for so long a period. In conclusion he would move the Adjournment of the debate.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the only question before them was that the House should insist upon its Amendments, and he should not therefore follow the example of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, which was quite irregular, and discuss the merits of the whole Bill. He reminded the House, however, that this was not a Bill of the Charity Commissioners, but that it was founded on a scheme originally prepared by them, which had passed through two Select Committees of
  1940
  the House of Lords, and one of the House of Commons, in which it had undergone the most careful inquiry and been considerably modified. He would not say more upon the merits of the Bill, because the hon. Gentleman had made the same speech as that which he had just addressed to them on the third reading. He was answered on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Baines), and by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr, Malins), and the third reading was agreed to by a large majority. The question before the House was practically whether there should be eight members in the governing body elected by the parishes, or only four. His right hon. Friend did not propose to interfere with the Amendment which related to other portions of the governing body, but he thought it desirable that the decision come to by the Select Committee and approved by the House, that the members elected by the parishes should be eight and not four, should stand part of the Bill. That being the only question before the House, he hoped that the discussion would be confined to that.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that speaking on the part of the parish of Camberwell, although his constituents were by no means satisfied with the Bill, yet the difficulties which had been experienced in bringing matters to this point had been so great that they would much rather the Bill should pass in its present form than that it should be thrown out. He could not understand the ground on which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) opposed the Bill. He had given them a long statement from a pamphlet showing the horrible mismanagement of this charity for the last 200 years, and now he stood in the way of effecting any improvement by desiring to throw out a Bill which gave them better terms than they would ever be likely to obtain again.
  MR. T. J. MILLERsaid, that as a Member of the Select Committee he might be allowed to observe that he had heard the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Knight) with great surprise; because in the course of the lengthened investigation which took place before the Committee, it was his gratification to hear his hon. Friend express his satisfaction at the scheme which the Committee had recommended. His hon. Friend had to-night complained on just and strong grounds that the funds of the institution had been misapplied to a

  1941
  considerable extent, and had expressed regret, in which he (Mr. Miller) concurred, that the objects for which they were intended had not derived the full advantage contemplated by the founder. Now, the desire of the Committee, with a view to carry out the intentions of the founder, was to confer upon those objects as much of benefit from the institution as it was possible for Parliament to secure; and one of the most important Resolutions of the Committee was that a certain class of poor persons should come in and participate in that benefit; and of this Resolution his hon. Friend had in Committee expressed his unqualified approval. He (Mr. Miller) had also, with much surprise, listened to the objections which his hon. Friend entertained to the scheme embodied in the Bill. He said that hitherto the institution had been so entirely mismanaged as to be a disgrace to those who had the management entrusted to them, and that he put forward as a reason why the system should not now be altered. But one would have thought the logical deduction from these premises would have been the exact reverse. The gist of his hon. Friend's opposition, however, was to be found in his assertion that they were about to compensate the servants of the institution to a much greater amount than they were entitled to receive. Well, he admitted, and with some regret, that the amount charged upon the institution for those servants was somewhat large—not quite so large as his hon. Friend had stated, though still large. But the fact was, that by the statutes or ordinances of the founder, they were fully entitled to all they demanded, and he believed that nothing could deprive them of their title to make the demand except the authority of Parliament; and judging from his short experience in that House, he was satisfied that Parliament would not act upon a principle that went to deprive persons of vested interests of which they could not be deprived under the common or statute law of the hind without awarding a full compensation. If the sums of money which the Fellows received and the other advantages which they enjoyed were calculated, it would be found that the House of Lords and the Charity Commissioners had fixed upon exactly equivalent sums for their retiring allowances. But in doing so, far from doing the institution any injustice, it might be said that they did injustice to the Masters, Fellows, and Assistants, because under the items they were each entitled to
  1942
  a certain proportion of the income, whatever that income might be, and it had increased from £800 a year, at the time of the institution being founded, to £9,500 a year, with every probability of its reaching £20,000 a year within a very short time. If, therefore, the prospective advantages were taken into account they were entitled to more than was to be given to them. He trusted the House would concur in the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to their Amendment.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, that he had certainly been under the same impression as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Miller), and had understood that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) was highly delighted at the conclusions at which the Select Committee came, and had expressed his satisfaction at the prospect of the benefits of the institution being extended to eighty boys and to four parishes, with a population of 150,000 souls. The representatives of those parishes were extremely anxious that the Bill should pass, and the Master, Warden, and Fellows would be the only persons who would have reason to be pleased if the hon. Member for West Worcestershire should succeed in overthrowing it. Although the original scheme had not been carried out in spirit, there was no doubt it had been carried out to the letter, and that there was no foundation for the charge that downright robbery had been committed by the officers of a charity of which the Archbishop of Canterbury was the visitor. If the Master-Warden and Fellows took a little too much, it would only be for their lives; and, considering the dignity, honour, and position which they gave up, and the failure for fifteen years of all attempts to place the institution upon a new footing—whether made by the Visitor, the Court of Chancery, the Charity Commissioners, or Parliament—he did not think that objection ought to induce them to reject the Bill.
  MR. HADFIELDexpressed a conviction that the poor of this country were injured to a vast extent by the misappropriation of various charities, and he regretted to add that the Courts of law, and even Parliament itself, had sometimes sanctioned arrangements contrary to the intentions of the founders. In the proportion that the sums to be paid to these officers were in excess of what they were strictly entitled to receive, in that same proportion would the poor objects of the charity be

  1943
  denuded of their rights, and from what he had observed of the provisions of the Bill, and more especially as regarded the payments to be made by poor scholars, he really feared the interests of the poor had not been sufficiently attended to.
  MR. BAINESsaid, that although an entrance fee would be allowed to be charged, the governors would have ample discretion to admit boys without the payment of any fee at all.
  SIR W. HEATHCOTEsaid, he thought there was great inconvenience in raising a discussion on the merits of this Bill upon the very narrow question whether the House should agree or disagree to the Lords' Amendments with respect to particular parts of the measure. He understood the objections of his hon. Friend (Mr. Knight) to relate chiefly to the allowances to be paid to the persons who were retiring from a position in which, as far as he could gather, they had a vested interest; and he believed it had never been the practice of Parliament to dispossess persons of positions in which they had a vested interest without according them a fair retiring allowance. The other question related to the arrangements with respect to the governing body. These were the only points before the House, and whatever might be the merits of the case, it could not be said they had not been carefully considered. It appeared the parishes concerned were satisfied, and the other parties were satisfied with the powers given to the Chancellor, and therefore he (Sir W. Heathcote) hoped his hon. Friend would not press his objections to the Bill, and drive the House to vote on an issue which he had not raised.
  MR. COXsaid that he full himself placed in a somewhat difficult position respecting the hon. Gentleman's Motion, for although the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had presented a petition from the four parishes in favour of the Bill, he (Mr. Cox) had been told by persons, parishioners in St. Luke's, that they were in favour of its postponement during the present Session. Under all the circumstances, however, and considering that the Bill gave the four parishes eight representative governors in all, he should support the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines).
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolved,—
  That this House doth insist on its Amendment at page 2, line 18, to leave out the word "16,"
  1944
  but doth propose to insert the word "19" instead of that previously inserted; and doth insist on its Amendments in page 2, lines 21 and 26; and doth not insist on the other of the said Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.
  Committee appointed,
  "To draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on several of the said Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed:"—Mr. BAINES, Mr. TAVERNER MILLER, Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Mr. Cox, and Sir JOHN RAMSDEN. To withdraw immediately; three to be the quorum.

CROWDED DWELLINGS PREVENTION BILL.

  WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he had come to the resolution to withdraw this Bill, feeling that in the last week of a protracted Session the opponents of the measure had a power commensurate more with their pertinacity than with their numbers. The opposition, in the present instance, had this peculiarity, that it came mainly from the hon. Members who represented those parts of the metropolis in which evasions of the law were most frequent, and in which the greatest number of lodging-houses were found, to the injury of health and the detriment of morality. Under these circumstances he begged to move that the Order for going into Committee upon the Bill be discharged.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he could not but regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not done a graceful thing in a graceful manner, but had considered it necessary to make remarks as uncalled for as they were unfounded. The right hon. Gentleman had no doubt withdrawn the Bill because he had discovered that it was entirely erroneous from beginning to end, that it would not carry out its professed object, and that it was not in the least degree necessary.
  Order discharged. Committee put off till this day month.

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL SERVICE.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. MACARTNEY MR. MACARTNEY moved an Address for copy of any contract entered into with the European and Columbian Steam Company, or the European and Australian Royal Mail Company, in pursuance of a tender bearing date the 11th day of June, 1856. In so doing, he disclaimed any personal interest whatever in the matter;

  1945
  but he had, for several years, taken a deep interest in the prosperity of the Australian Colonies, and had acted with his late lamented Friend, Lord Jocelyn, for the purpose of promoting postal intercourse between them and this country. Last year, the subject of postal communication to Australia occupied the attention of the House, and he would refer to that and the circumstances which preceded it. In the year 1854, the postal service between these colonies was performed by the General Screw Company, in connection with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company, but the former Company had ceased, and the latter had to withdraw several of its vessels for the transport service. In 1855 it was performed by clipper ships, but they exceeded the average time agreed upon so greatly that the Government had to put an end to the contract. In 1856 a question was put to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury on the subject, and he stated that the service would be performed by screw steamers under contract, and that the colony would pay half the amount. In the May following he said that tenders had been sent in in the March preceding, but that they had been all rejected. On the 19th June, the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) asked the hon. Gentleman what was the position of the arrangements, and the reply was, that tenders had been sent in that day, but that, as there had not been sufficient time to examine them, he would give an answer on the day following. It was not, however, until the 26th that the right hon. Gentleman answered, and then he stated:—
  "That it was a matter of no small difficulty to arrange a service of such importance in a manner in which it should be carried out perfectly satisfactory to the Government of this country, and to those colonies that were so much interested in it. There had been so many trials and failures of former experiments, that it was obviously necessary that the matter should be arranged, not only in a manner that would give satisfaction at present, but that would ensure permanence. The House was aware that after a great deal of consideration, advertisements were issued for tenders, the object of which was to test all the different routes by which Australia could be reached in the shortest possible time. After putting out these advertisements, offers were received by the Government of such a nature as to show both the Government at home and the representatives of the colonists in this country interested in the subject that the only sure way of reaching Australia in a short time would be, by the overland route to Suez, down the Red Sea to Point do Galle, round Cape Louis to Melbourne. Well, after very
  1946
  considerable attention to the subject, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that this was the best route, and they authorized the Treasury to advertise for tenders, and the Government had received four tenders for that service. He would shortly state the nature of them. One proposed to carry the mails for a comparatively small sum of money, but there was, as regarded that tender, this disadvantage—that no vessels were ready, that at least twelve months would elapse before the vessels could be ready, and three months more before they could be placed on the sation. It therefore appeared to the Government that this tender could not be accepted. On the ground of delay alone they would not be justified in accepting it, as it involved a delay of fifteen months. The next tender was of a similar nature. The amount was not very large, but there again the vessels were not ready, and a very long time must expire before the service could be commenced. Under these circumstances the Government also felt justified in rejecting that offer. The third tender was put in by a very powerful company, competent to carry out the service, and having in their possession vessels sufficient in power and sufficient in number; but the company proposed this condition, that, the Government should wait for an uncertain period before the commencement of the service, and until those vessels were disengaged from the transport service in which they were, at present, employed. That was a conclusive reason against accepting that tender. But there was another reason, namely, that the company refused to be bound by the penalties, which were strict, and which, on all occasions where there was a non-fulfilment of a Government contract, it was necessary should be imposed. Besides, it was obvious that, in a contract of this kind, affecting both this country and the colonies, whatever conditions were imposed must be imperatively adhered to by the home Government, who could not relax any condition in which the Colonies were equally concerned. Therefore, on two grounds, the Government were obliged to reject this tender; first, because the company were not in a position at once to commence the service, and, secondly, because they would not bind themselves by those penalties which were considered absolutely necessary to insure that the service should be performed in a satisfactory manner. The fourth tender was the largest in amount by a considerable sum, but it comprehended the immediate commencement of the service by vessels recently built. The company also took upon themselves the performance of the contract under the penalties in full; they likewise proposed to commence the service at Southampton, though the conditions of the tender only required it to commence from Suez. They would take the mails and passengers direct from Southampton to Australia. That appeared to the Government to be a very important object, because, although there was now a perfect postal establishment at Suez, yet a late Indian mail might delay the Australian mail for a fortnight, and in that way many of the advantages which the Government were anxious to secure would be lost. Therefore, though the amount of this tender was much larger than the other offers, yet, after a communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, whom he, on this occasion, looked upon as representing those colonies which had joint interest

  1947
  with this country in the arrangement, and would bear a considerable portion towards the expense of the service he (Mr. Wilson) could not hesitate in consenting to pay a large sum of money in order to secure what he believed to be great advantages to the Australian Colonies. He had made strict inquiry as to the responsibility of the parties, and nothing could be more satisfactory than the account he had received, not only as to their ability in point of capital, but also as to their knowledge, energy, and business-like habits. The arrangement would be this:—The first vessel would be ready for survey in the month of August, and would depart on a voyage between Southampton and Melbourne direct round the Cape, with passengers in October; that vessel would be ready in January to take up the service from Melbourne to Suez and back; another vessel would be despatched for Melbourne in November; a third in December, and a fourth in January. From January the service would be performed between Suez and Melbourne monthly, without interruption, backwards and forwards each month. The vessels would be of 2200 tons burden, and not less than of 500 horse power. He thought everything had been done which money and invention could achieve in order to accomplish the most rapid and regular communication between this country and the Australian colonies."
  The hon. Gentleman subsequently stated,
  "That none of the vessels to be permanently employed would be less than 2,200 tons burden. There were two of 1800 tons to be employed temporarily. He did not exactly remember the time stipulated for the passage, but he thought that the number of days was about fifty from London to Australia. The penalty to be incurred for the non-performance of the contract was, for the first day of infringement, £50, and so increasing by £50 every day afterwards."
  The first vessel should have been ready for sailing on the 1st of October, but she was not tendered as for survey, according to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, until the 17th or 18th of October. The penalty was, for every day after the 1st of August, £10 per day, and £100 a day for every day after that upon which she was to start. She was surveyed on the 18th of October, she started on the 19th, and she broke down soon after.
  MR. WILSONsaid, there was no objection to give the returns which were asked for, but he could assure the hon. Member that, although there had been one or two failures incidental to a new company, yet upon the whole, the service had hitherto been satisfactorily performed. The Government had exacted the penalties prescribed for any breach of the terms of the undertaking, and would continue strictly to enforce the contract.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that he must complain of the vast amount of money which was granted out of the public purse
  1948
  to the mail companies, He understood, from the report of a recent meeting, that it was proposed to amalgamate the West India Mail Company and the Australian Company. What interest had the public in granting the enormous sum of £910,000 to enable two companies to amalgamate, neither of which had been very successful? There was a suspicion amongst the public that great favouritism had been shown, and he was inclined to think there was good ground for that suspicion. In the case of the West India Mail Company, their contract had been granted without being put up to competition, while the Australian Company's contract was the highest which had been offered. Neither of these Companies had successfully accomplished their work. The penalties for non-performance had been fixed, so as to enable the companies to execute their works slowly or rapidly as best suited their purposes. He would conclude these few observations by deprecating, for the future, the granting of contracts without public competition.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the question of the amalgamation of the two companies had not come before him officially, but when it did, it would be considered solely with a view to the public interest.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for
  "Copy of any Contract entered into with the European and Columbian Steam Company or the European and Australian Royal Mail Company, in pursuance of a Tender bearing date the 11th day of June, 1856, and signed by John Orr Ewing, for conveying the Australian Mails from England to Melbourne via Southampton, Alexandria, and Suez."
  "Returns setting forth the number of Days occupied in each voyage out and home, separating the portions of the route between Southampton and Alexandria from that between Suez and Melbourne; also, a list of Penalties incurred by reason of non-arrival according to Contract, and the amount (if any) already levied or deducted from the Contractors' remuneration."
  "Of the Names, Tonnage, and Horse-power of all Vessels employed by virtue of said Contract in the Australian Postal Service."
  "And, Copies of all Communications between the Treasury, the Directors of the European and Australian Royal Mail Company, and of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, with the view of amalgamating said Companies, to enable them to continue the Mail Service to Australia and the West Indies as one Company, and the terms proposed by the Government or the said united Company for performance of the Postal Services now performed by those Companies separately."
  House adjourned at half after Ten o'clock.