Commons Sitting of 29 May 1857

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Leeds, v. Robert Hall, esq., deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Scientific and Literary Societies; Savings Banks (No. 2); Joint-Stock Companies Act Amendment; Turnpike Trusts Abolition (Ireland).
3° Cinque Ports.

PASSING TOLLS—QUESTION.
On the Question, "That the House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday next,"
MR. HUDSONsaid, he wished to draw attention to the grievance pressing on the shipping interest with reference to Passing Tolls. Years ago a pledge had been given for the repeal of those tolls; the pledge had been repeated again and again, and Bills on the subject had been brought in unsuccessfully. He now asked whether it is intended to bring in a Bill on the subject this Session, and whether the Government mean to deal with the whole question of local dues? Another matter of importance was that of pilotage, as to which many ports laboured under great difficulties. There was another question, also, which he wished to ask relative to the abolition of the duties on timber, on which abortive pledges had been given. Did the Government mean to bring in this Session any Bill on the subject of passing tolls, and also for the regulation of the appointment of pilots?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the subject of passing tolls was one which was in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lowe). The hon. Member for Sunderland not having given notice of his question, his right hon. Friend was not in his place to reply to it, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might observe that the state of public business was such as to render it improbable that any measure upon the subject would be speedily introduced.
Motion agreed to.
House at its rising to adjourn till Thursday next.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—MOTION.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would now move that on Thursday, the 18th of June, and upon every succeeding Thursday during the present Session, Government Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion.
Ordered, "That upon Thursday, the 18th June next, and upon every succeeding Thursday during the present Session, Government Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motions."

POLICE BILL (SCOTLAND)—QUESTION.
MR. MACKIEasked the Lord Advocate if it is his intention to introduce a Police Bill for Scotland during this Session?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Police Bill for Scotland during the present Session.

CIVIL SERVICE—QUESTION.
MR. BASSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the course pursued when candidates for employment in the Civil Service are nominated by Members of Parliament; whether a candidate so nominated is necessarily admitted to examination; whether there is any competition for employment in the Civil Service, and whether, in fact, with the exception of a simple examination as to the ordinary qualifications for office, the old system of patronage and favouritism did not still remain in force? He had been induced to put these questions in order to remove all uncertainty with respect to the subject to which they related. That such uncertainty now existed he was convinced, from the number of letters which had been addressed to him, stating that a general impression prevailed throughout the country that if a Member of Parliament were to recommend a candidate for an appointment he was not subjected to examination, and that, in fact, there was no competition.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the impression which his hon. Friend had described as prevailing out of doors was entirely erroneous, as Members of Parliament possessed no right to nominate candidates for public situations which was not enjoyed in an equal degree by every other member of the community. All the regulations which existed upon the subject were embodied in an Order in Council of May, 1855, and if his hon. Friend would refer to that Order, he would find that it contained everything which it was material that he should know. He might add, that there were also two Reports upon the subject which had emanated from the Civil Service Examination Commissioners, and from which his hon. Friend would be enabled to ascertain the manner in which the Order in Council had been carried into effect. He would learn from that Report that in addition to the ordinary examinations, in which no competition took place, there were several instances in which the heads of the public departments had selected candidates, in whose case there had been competition. That was a matter in which the heads of departments exercised their own discretion,

1003
and he might add that the competition was not unlimited, but existed between a certain limited number of persons.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he would take that opportunity of giving notice that upon the Motion for going into Committee upon the Civil Service Estimates he should bring the subject to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bass) had called their attention under the consideration of the House.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, to Municipal Elections? He believed that Act had been found to work very well throughout the country.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was not the intention of the Government to propose the extension of the Act to Municipal Elections. It was a measure of a temporary character, and, although the hon. Gentleman had said that it had worked well, it had been deemed expedient last Session to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into its operation. That Committee had not been reappointed in the present Session, and for the very good reason that perhaps the best test of the working of the Act would be obtained from the inquiries which wore about to take place before the Election Committees upstairs.

  HONDURAS—QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: I rise, Sir, to make inquiry of Her Majesty's Government as to the reasons for the non-ratification of the treaty between Her Majesty and the Government of the United States about Honduras. I should be glad if the noble Lord at the head of the Government could state to the House the reasons why that treaty has not been ratified, and I should wish that he would also inform us as to the present state of the negotiations, and whether papers will be laid before Parliament.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman I have to state that in the course of last summer two treaties were concluded by Her Majesty's Government—the one with the Re-
  1004
  public of Honduras, the other with the Government of the United States. The object of the treaty which we entered into with Honduras was, among other things, the cession to her of what are called the Bay Islands—namely, Ruatan, Bonacca, and two or three other smaller islands. Those islands were, under the provisions of the treaty, ceded to Honduras upon certain conditions which Her Majesty's Government deemed it to be necessary to impose for the security and well-being of such British settlers as had property within them. The treaty also provides that the islands in question should not be allowed to fall into the possession of any great maritime Power; that no fortifications should be erected upon them, but that they should continue to be—that which they hitherto have been—inoffensive and non-military stations. The treaty which we concluded with the United States divides itself into two distinct parts. The first part contains the articles of the treaty which Great Britain and the United States were to propose to Nicaragua and Costa Rica for the purpose of settling the differences which have arisen between the Spanish American States in Central America and for the future regulation of the condition of the Mosquito Indians and Greytown. That was one part of the treaty. It contained articles which the two Powers were to propose to those Central American States—as a treaty to be concluded between those States and England arid America. The other part of the treaty contained the conditions of certain engagements between England and the United States, and one of these articles was to this effect—that whereas a Convention had been concluded between Great Britain and Honduras whereby, on certain conditions, the Bay Islands had been ceded to Honduras, Great Britain and the United States engaged henceforward to acknowledge those islands as part of the territory and sovereignty of Honduras. This treaty was signed by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department (the Earl of Clarendon) and Mr. Dallas, the American Minister here. This treaty was sent to Honduras and Washington respectively for the ratification of those Governments. We have not yet received an official notice from Honduras whether the treaty to which I have alluded has been ratified or not by the Government of Honduras. We have, indeed, heard privately that some technical difficulties have prevented its ratification, but we have

  1005
  no official information on the subject. The treaty with the United States was referred, as a matter of course, to the Senate. The Senate proposed several alterations in that treaty. Some of those alterations were of considerable importance, and one was of very great importance. The treaty so amended was sent back to this country with the ratification of the Government of the United States, and we were asked to accede to that ratification and adopt those alterations. Now, of course, the Senate of the United States have an undoubted right to modify and alter any treaty with which they are not satisfied, and which, not having been ratified, may become the subject of discussion. But the ratification of a treaty by a sovereign Power means that that sovereign Power adopts and ratifies by its signature the engagements taken in its behalf by authorized diplomatic agents; and to ratify a treaty which, having been altered by another Power, is no longer the treaty that was concluded by an authorized diplomatic agent would be against all rule and against all the principles of diplomatic usage. Therefore, even if the British Government agreed to adopt the alterations made in the treaty by the Senate after the signature of the representative of the United States, it would be necessary that a fresh treaty should be concluded, adopting and embodying those changes, and that this new treaty should be ratified by the sovereign Powers of the two countries. There were several changes made in the treaty, none of them, as I have stated, unimportant; but, nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government being desirous of not raising unnecessary difficulties upon a question which it was highly desirable should be settled, waived their objections to all but one, and that was a change made not in the treaty which the two Governments proposed to Nicaragua and Costa Rica, but in the recital of that treaty. There were alterations in that draught of the treaty—if I may so call it—which was embodied in the Convention with the United States. They were far from unimportant, yet we were prepared to adopt them. But in the other articles which were agreed to be directly contracted between the United States and Great Britain there was an alteration which I will mention. The article relating to the Bay Islands contained, as I have stated, the recital of a Convention between Great Britain and Honduras for the cession
  1006
  of these islands upon certain conditions, and it said—
  "Whereas such Convention has been concluded between the Government of Great Britain and Honduras, and it has been agreed to consider these islands as part of the territory of Honduras."
  The Senate of the United States proposed to omit all reference to the Convention between Great Britain and Honduras, and that the article should simply stand that England and the United States acknowledged these islands as part of the territory of Honduras. Now, the obvious effect would have been, by implication, and, indeed, directly, that we were making an unconditional cession of these islands to Honduras divested of those steps which we thought necessary for the protection of the colony and the well-being and future political interests of the country. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, expressed their regret that they could not adopt that alteration, but they proposed an addition to the article as it was amended by the United States, which would have made the cession of these islands conclusive only upon the acceptance by Honduras of the conditions and stipulations we proposed. That proposal was sent to the United States, and the matter is still under negotiation. Therefore, with respect both to this treaty and to the treaty with Honduras, it is not in my power, according to the established practice, to lay these papers before the House. If, unfortunately, these negotiations do not turn out successful, it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to lay before the House the grounds of the stand which they have thought proper to make. If, on the other hand, the negotiations are successful and the treaty should be ratified and signed in the form which the interests of this country require, then the House will probably; be content with the treaty without inquiring into the differences between the two countries.
  MR. DISRAELI: I wish to know whether the alterations made in the treaty were not communicated to our representative at Washington, and whether an announcement of those alterations was not received from him before the treaty was ratified and sent to this country?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not quite comprehend the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  MR. DISRAELI: My question is, whether

  1007
  their the alterations which Her Majesty's Government could not accede to were not communicated to our Representative at Washington, and whether an answer to the alterations of which the noble Lord complains was not sent out before the treaty was sent over here for the ratification of Her Majesty's Government?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I might take exception to the word "complains." We made no complaint. [Mr. DISRAELI: Well, "objects."] The Senate of the United States had a right to make what alterations they pleased in the treaty if they thought it not fit to be agreed to. No doubt the probability of some alterations being made in the treaty by the Senate was communicated by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington. That anticipation arrived before the treaty, but the answer of Her Majesty's Government was founded on the official communication of the result of the deliberations of the Senate of the United States.

PRINCESS ROYAL'S ANNUITY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1.
  MR. BOWYER, who had given notice that he should move to add an Amendment to Clause 1, said, that the reasons both for and against his Amendment were so obvious that it would be best to introduce it briefly. He need scarcely say that he participated in those feelings of affectionate loyalty which pervaded not only that House but all classes of this country. Indeed, when he looked back to the history of this country up to the time of the Norman Conquest, he did not find amongst the long line of princes who had filled the Throne a better sovereign than Her Majesty the Queen. But these feelings, however laudable and just, ought not to influence the House in deciding a matter like the present. It seemed to him that all the reasons in favour of this provision for the Princess Royal, however just they might he under present circumstances, did not apply to the event of Her Royal Highness becoming Queen Consort of Prussia. It was most desirable for the honour of the Prussian Crown that the Queen Consort of Prussia should not be in the receipt of a pension from a foreign State. He was sure that we should not
  1008
  like to see a Queen Consort of England placed in that position; and he felt confident there would be a strong feeling, especially among the middle classes of this country, against an annual payment to the Queen Consort of an independent nation. Such a continued payment would be a constant source of irritation in the country, and candidates on the hustings would be asked whether they concurred in it, or would propose its repeal. Some illustration on this point was afforded by the case of the King of Belgium, who, it was well known, did not apply to his own personal use the sum he received as having been the husband of the Princess Charlotte. Yet candidates at elections had been questioned in regard to that pension and a strong feeling had been expressed at the hustings against the sovereign of a foreign country deriving anything from the Exchequer of England. For this reason he thought the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was right when he proposed the payment of a capital sum instead of an annuity. He (Mr. Bowyer) was aware that precedents might be cited against him. His answer was that precedents drawn from things done in the reigns of George II. and George III., under unreformed Parliaments, ought not to be binding upon them. Indeed, such precedents rather resembled the lighthouse placed on a rock to warn people off than the signpost which pointed the way they should go. His Amendment, which had been slightly altered since he put it on the paper, was that the annuity to the Princess Royal should be suspended during the time she might be Queen Consort of Prussia. But looking to the possible contingency, which he trusted would not occur, of her becoming a widow, he proposed that in the event of her Royal Highness surviving her intended husband, after he had been King of Prussia, her allowance should revive, and its payment be resumed. His reason was this: on becoming a widow her Royal Highness would very probably return to her own country. At any rate she would be regarded more as an English than a foreign princess. In this shape he believed his proposal would be more favourably received by many hon. Members than if it made the annuity entirely to cease from the date of the Princess Royal becoming Queen Consort of Prussia. The hon. Gentleman

  1009
  concluded by moving to add to Clause 1 the words—
  "Provided, however, that in the event of Her Royal Highness becoming Queen Consort of Prussia, the said annuity shall he and remain suspended, so long as her Royal Highness shall continue the consort of his Royal Highness Prince Frederick William of Prussia; but in case His Royal Highness Prince Frederic William of Prussia shall die in the lifetime of Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal that the said annuity shall revive and become payable from the date of his decease."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said: I will endeavour to follow the example of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk by addressing the House very briefly; and I can hardly think that any very elaborate argument is needed to convince them of the propriety of rejecting the Amendment which he has proposed. I could understand any hon. Member of this House objecting that the whole proposition of the Government respecting the provision for the Princess Royal was excessive and extravagant; that, looking to the compact made between the Queen and the country at Her Majesty's accession, it is Her duty to provide for Her children; and that this House ought not to be called upon to vote anything for the dowry of Her eldest daughter. I could comprehend, I say, an hon. Gentleman taking that course, and putting an entire negative on the proposition of Her Majesty's Government; but I confess I cannot appreciate the merit of such counter Motions as have been submitted to the House—such minute, such "nibbling" Motions (if I may be allowed the word), first reducing the annuity of Her Royal Highness from £8,000 to £6,000 per annum, and then crowning this species of propositions by the singular Amendment at present under discussion. The hon. and learned Member has now made his Motion smaller and more diminutive than the one of which he originally gave notice. The notice he gave at the outset was to put an end to the annuity if the Princess Royal should become Queen Consort of Prussia. He now amends his Amendment, and converts this into a sort of shifting or springing annuity, to be paid as long as she remains the consort of the son of the Prince of Prussia. She would continue, I presume, to enjoy this allowance if her father-in-law should succeed to the throne, and if she became consort of the heir apparent. Should she, however, become Queen Consort of Prussia, she is to be deprived of her annuity! But the hon. Gentleman
  1010
  hopes that she may die during the life of her husband. [Mr. BOWYER: No, no!] He wished her, as I understood him, to be short-lived, in the hope that she might not survive her husband; but in the event of the unfortunate calamity of her being blessed with longevity, her allowance is to revive—this grant is to spring up again, and she is to be entitled to £8,000 a year. I do not believe that an arrangement of that sort would redound to the credit of this country. For myself I would far rather agree that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, and give up the arrangement altogether. What should we think of the person who proposed such an arrangement in private life? Would anybody really propose, on the marriage of a lady to the heir of a fortune or a lauded estate, that she should enjoy a certain annuity till her father-in-law died—that, on her husband succeeding to the estate, she should be deprived of that annuity; but in the event of her becoming a widow, that the allowance should again come in force? Such a settlement would not be deemed very honourable to those who framed it; and I cannot think it is the wish of this House that if the Princess Royal forms an alliance with the presumptive heir of Prussia—a marriage higher perhaps in rank than any contracted by a Princess of this kingdom for many years past—she should be placed, if her husband succeeds to the throne, in a situation of entire dependence on the bounty of the Royal Family of Prussia, and that no contribution should be made by the country of her birth to maintain her dignity and support the exalted position she will have to occupy. Without considering what is due to the honour of the Crown, I cannot but believe that even the national pride of this country would prevent the House from acceding to a Motion such as the hon. and learned Member has invited us to sanction. I therefore trust it will not receive the countenance of hon. Gentlemen, but will be negatived by a large majority.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that having himself given notice of a Motion similar to the present, he should cordially support the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal. He was not a little surprized to find Her Majesty's Government opposing so reasonable a Motion. What, he should like to know, could be the feeling of a King of Prussia who could allow his Queen to be a pensioner paid out of the taxes extracted from the people of England? A man of

  1011
  so little spirit could hardly be a very desirable husband for the Princess Royal. What would Her Majesty and the people of this country say, if His Royal Highness the Prince Consort derived an annuity from the taxes of Saxe Coburg? They would be ashamed of it, and would not permit it for one moment. That the people of England should be taxed to maintain a foreign Queen, and especially the Queen of a high power like Prussia, would be most degrading to that country; and so far from this being a "nibbling" proposition, it was one which, if carried, would conduce greatly to the respect in which Her Majesty and her august family were held. Taxes for such objects as that proposed by the Bill were the most likely of all other things to bring the Royal Family into a position with respect to the people very different from that which they now occupied. He hoped, although he knew there was not much ground for hoping, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would carry this Motion. He was quite convinced that it would be most acceptable to the country at large. The House had acted very liberally in granting this annuity, as well as the dowry of £40,000; and it would be unjust to the people of England, and a violation of every principle, if she were to continue to receive an annuity of £8,000 after she had become Queen of Prussia.
  MR. WALTERthought that the very circumstance of this discussion showed how much more sensible the arrangement that was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield would have been (had it been proposed in a more definite and specific form) than the scheme which had been submitted by the Government. It must be confessed that it would be somewhat unbecoming in the Princess Royal to continue to be a pensioner on the people of England when she became Queen of Prussia. At the same time he could not support the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk, unless it underwent some alteration. He should like to suggest, by way of compromise, that the annuity should cease altogether when the Princess Royal became Queen of Prussia; but that a corresponding increase should be made in the annuity for the limited period antecedent to that event—that it should be £12,000 instead of £8,000, and should cease absolutely when the Princess Royal became Queen of Prussia. He believed that—as a matter
  1012
  of pounds, shillings, and pence—that would be a very good bargain for the country. If it were possible to propose such an Amendment on the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, he should be disposed to do so.
  MR. DISRAELI: Every stage of this measure, and every form in which these propositions have come before us, has only the more and more convinced me of the folly and extreme injustice of placing the Crown in the position of making these applications to the House of Commons. It is necessary to remind the House over and over again, that the Crown has possession of an estate perfectly adequate to furnish all that is required for the convenience, comforts, and happiness of the Queen and the Royal Family, and for establishing every branch of that family, however numerous, in a manner worthy of the Royal Family of England without coming down to Parliament for any grant whatever. It appears, by evidence which any hon. Gentleman may refer to, that the Crown Estate brings into our Exchequer £260,000 per annum. With an estate to that amount surely the Crown would be in a position to supply all that is necessary for the comfort and convenience of the Crown, and for establishing every branch of the Royal Family. In all that is necessary for the wise pageantry connected with the Crown the country is as much and more interested than the Crown itself. We know very well that under ordinary circumstances that pageantry is not had recourse to, but on all occasions of public ceremonials in which the august individual who is the representative of our national institutions performs public duties that pageantry is required, and the House of Commons is bound to furnish the expenditure which it entails, and an annual Vote of a certain amount for that purpose would never be refused. Unfortunately, on the accession of Her Majesty to the Throne, and by the advice of those who believed, no doubt, that they were giving sound advice to the Crown, Her Majesty entered into this compact which we now call the Civil List. But let the House consider under what circumstances a youthful Sovereign is called upon to enter into an arrangement of that kind. What experience of the world could a youthful Sovereign have as to the feelings of a community which she might be called upon to govern? If it had not been for the compact then entered into it would not have

  1013
  been necessary for Her Majesty to make this application to the House of Commons. It may now be impossible to change the arrangements entered into with the Crown, but it is for those who advise the Crown to consider whether it might not be advisable to do so. I suppose that no person in this House may live till another reign, but if I should have the opportunity, I should urge upon the advisers of the Sovereign that a compact so unwise as regards the dignity of the Crown as the Civil List of 1832 ought never to have been sanctioned by any Government or Parliament. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth talks of these annuities being paid out of the taxes of the people. But is that true? [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: Perfectly true.] The hon. Gentleman says it is perfectly true, but he does not deny that the Crown estate at this moment furnishes some £260,000 a year, being considerably more than two-thirds of the Civil List, and that that £260,000 a year is not furnished out of the taxes of the people. The hon. Gentleman will not deny that the revenues of that Crown estate are quite ample for all that is necessary for the comfort and convenience of the Crown and the establishment of the various members of the Royal Family. I am surprised that he should persist in saying that this annuity is to be furnished out of the taxes of the people; at the same time I regret that there is a state of circumstances which gives a plausible show to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, and of others who sit beside him. I am quite sure that when another appeal of this kind is made to the House we shall hear the same declaration, that these sums which are voted for the establishment of the various members of the Royal Family are paid out of the taxes of the people, and therefore I think the Crown ought to be advised to reconsider the settlement of the Civil List in 1832. I think the position of the Crown in respect to these applications one that ought never to have been established. The resources of the Crown are quite sufficient to meet all these expenses if the money were not diverted to public objects in which the country is infinitely more concerned than the Crown. I am sure that the objections which have been made to this annuity cannot be sanctioned by the House. They would, if carried into effect, place this country in a shabby and ignominious position. It may, or may not be a question
  1014
  whether the Queen of Prussia should be a pensioner of England under these circumstances; but it is not for England—it is for the Court of Prussia—to determine that question. The Court of Prussia may signify, as the King of Belgium did, its dislike to be placed in such a position; but it is not for us to anticipate what may be the conduct of that Court by a shabby suggestion of our own. That, I am sure, is not a course which the House of Commons will tolerate. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if it was a matter of doubt how the income which the King of Belgium derives from this country is expended, but the hon. Gentleman and the House should remember that the whole of that income was relinquished by His Majesty. With the exception of legacies which were left by his lamented consort to maintain the establishment which she left, the whole of that income, amounting to £34,000, I think, a year, or something very near that sum, is always paid back into our Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth tried to illustrate the position in which one who, I hope, may be the future Queen of Prussia may be placed by referring to the Consort of Her Majesty, but I do not think that was a very felicitous illustration. I do not believe that it would tend to decrease the popularity of His Royal Highness if, for example, the people of this country were made aware that he derived from the country of his birth annually a considerable sum. I believe the truth is that His Royal Highness docs derive from that country no inconsiderable income, not exacted from the taxes of the people, as the hon. Gentleman says, but from that patrimonial and hereditary estate which every Sovereign in the world but the Queen of England enjoys. In consequence of the jealousy of Parliament the earliest opportunity is taken on the accession of the Sovereign to prevent that Sovereign from enjoying the pleasures and duties of a proprietor. The circumstances under which that jealousy first arose having ceased to exist, I think it would be much better that the Sovereign of this country should fill the natural position of being the chief landed proprietor in this country. You cannot suppose that because the King or Queen of England was in receipt of £200,000 or £300,000 a year from landed estate, that King or Queen would become an object of suspicion and jealousy to the people, or that our rights and liberties would be thereby endangered.

  1015
  This country is remarkable for its accumulated capital and immense wealth, and we might as well be jealous of some of our great peers who have territorial incomes of that character and amount, and suppose that our liberties were endangered by them, and every one of them would turn out to be an Earl of Warwick. But I suppose nobody imagines any danger is likely to arise to our liberties because the Duke of Bedford or the Marquess of Westminster draw a large income from their landed estates. We therefore should not be jealous if the Sovereign of this country, possessing real property, should exercise the duties of a propietor. On the contrary, we should rather be glad if the Sovereign were placed in that position and saved from the humiliation of making appeals of this kind. When Her Majesty is called upon to fulfil the most agreeable of duties—namely, the establishing in an honourable manner a member of her family, we find her position entirely misrepresented by its being said that she is exacting something from the taxes of Her people. I think the time is come when we ought gravely to consider whether this system should not be put an end to, because we can all anticipate that other appeals may be made to us, and because the same objection, utterly false and fallacious, will again be urged in order to poison the feelings of the people of this country.
  SIR FRANCIS BARING: Sir, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has introduced a new question into the discussion, and entered upon matters which would have been better considered and discussed upon some more opportune occasion. As to the result at which the right hon. Gentleman arrives, I entirely concur with him. I may say for myself that I am not usually anything but a lover of economy, but I should deeply regret if to the grant of this House were attached a condition which would, I think, bear the character of extreme shabbiness. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman opposite bases this grant, not upon the attachment we bear to the Sovereign, or upon the duty which, as it seems to me, is imposed upon us of providing for the Royal Family, but upon the ground that the Crown has made a bad bargain with the country, all I can say is, that in the first place I sincerely regret that such a point should have been started, and in the next place I must frankly state that the right hon. Gentleman
  1016
  and I, looking at the figures involved in the case, have come to different conclusions. I know this is an argument which my late lamented Friend, Sir Robert Inglis, was ever fond of using in this House; but it was founded upon an entire misapprehension of the charges originally attaching to the Royal revenue. No doubt, if you take the Crown's hereditary revenue, and say that that should be employed only for the personal advantage and pleasure of the Sovereign for the time being, it may be true that the Civil List is not equal to the amount which the Crown would then receive. But what are the facts? In old times the Crown's hereditary revenue was bound to support many charges now considered of a public nature. Thus, in former times, the diplomatic and many other services were paid for from the hereditary revenues of the Crown; and if, as to my surprize has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, the Crown, were to re-enter upon its hereditary revenue, I am afraid Her Majesty would find that a large part of the expenditure now borne by the public would attach to that revenue, and very much reduce its amount. I will not go further into the question, for I am sorry it has been raised, than to say that, as regards the possibility of binding the hereditary revenue for the payment of an annuity to the Princess Royal, I very much doubt whether the Crown, in the full plenitude of its enjoyment of this revenue, would allow such a charge to be made; I very much doubt whether it would not be found necessary to come to Parliament, even supposing the Crown still possessed its hereditary revenue. But I will-not go further into a question which I regret should have been raised. I cordially concur with the right hon. Gentleman in voting against this Motion, and I hope my hon. Friend who brings it forward will find very few to support him.
  MR. ROEBUCK: After the political lecture read to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), I was in hopes that, when the other right hon. Gentleman got up to answer him, he would have taken notice of the inaccuracy of his facts. There is another right hon. Gentleman here who was a member of the Administration which actually made the settlement which has been referred to. And first, let me remind the Committee that this settlement was not made with a youthful Sovereign. It was first made in 1830, when William

  1017
  IV. succeeded to the throne of England, and during the Premiership of Lord Grey. The hereditary revenue of the Crown was on that occasion said to be given up. That was not so; for a portion of it was retained. The bargain made by the Crown was one advantageous to it, and not to the people. Let us look at what occurred before that time. George II. and George III. made no such "concession" to their people. But they both came to Parliament for a provision for their daughters, so that, even by retaining this hereditary revenue in the hands of the Crown, you don't protect Parliament against these applications. Now, this is a very important matter. When the Princess Royal of that day was married, George III. came to this House for a portion for his daughter; and I cannot sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman who thinks that any indignity results to the Sovereign in consequence of such an application. The Sovereign, having confidence in the respect, the loyalty, and the affections of her people, comes to Parliament and says,—"I have now a daughter going to be married—going forth into life—and I appeal to you, to my people, so to provide for her as that she may be happy herself, and in her condition reflect honour upon the country from whence she comes." Sir, the people of England have ever answered such an appeal; they have ever answered it in such a way as to reflect no discredit on themselves, and no dishonour on the Sovereign. Sir, I have such respect for the Crown as to suppose that it so endears itself to the people by the benefits it confers upon them, that the return we thus make is a return of gratitude not degrading to it, and not dishonouring to us. I am not going to vote for the Motion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bowyer). I myself, on a former occasion, proposed an alteration in the form of the grant, and I rather anticipated the proposal before us. It has been said—and the statement has been repeated to-night—that I did wrong on that occasion; that had I proposed a round sum, I was likely to have had a majority of the House with me. The statement has been made to you, Sir, by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Walter), and it was made some days ago by a very important—self-important—organ of public instruction—The Times newspaper. Now, The Times newspaper and the hon. Gentleman are both in error. By the forms of this House I could not
  1018
  make the proposal. It was so stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposed the annuity to her Royal Highness, and therefore I can disregard the sort of taunt to which I have been subjected. But let us not now stickle at the terms of this grant. We are about to provide for her Royal Highness, and I am quite sure that the people of England will be glad to see her well and handsomely provided for. I think the grant which I proposed was more advantageous to the Princess Royal than the one adopted; but, as the Ministerial plan has been adopted, let us not haggle over the bargain, and seek to alter its terms. Let us at once say, like a great people as we are, or as we ought to be, —"We will not quarrel about a small sum. Our great object is to make the lady happy." That she maybe happy is my fervent prayer, and I would entreat the hon. Gentleman, as I have been entreated before, not to divide the Committee on such an occasion. The sense of the House has been sufficiently expressed on this subject. It has determined to adopt the plan of the Government. Let us not interfere with that decision further, or try vainly to upset it; but let us appear to do what we are about to do, gracefully as well as generously.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the revenues of the Crown surrendered to the State did not amount to £;300,000 a year, which had been given in exchange for a Civil List of £;385,000 a year, as well as a considerable sum for the maintenance of the Royal palaces.
  MR. DISRAELI: The right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Baring) has totally misconceived what I stated. I did not talk of the ancient revenues of the Crown, which he candidly informed the Committee were greater than the Civil List. I spoke of the £;260,000 per annum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took credit for, under the head of "Crown Lands," in the budget of the spring, and I said that that was an estate which Her Majesty might be in possession of. As to the ancient possessions of the Crown referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, they are all abrogated. The hon. Mem-for Lambeth speaks of an insinuation which I made. Now, Sir, I indulged in no insinuations; I simply made a statement. I never gave the amount proceeding from the Crown estates when this compact was entered into. What I referred to was, the present revenue of the

  1019
  Crown estates—namely £;260,000; and I have no doubt, if those estates had been left alone, had not been meddled with by Parliament, but had been let to the management of their old proprietor, the revenue derivable from them would be much more considerable. That was the consideration which I urged upon the House, and, Sir, I have heard nothing whatever to change my opinion on the main question. As to the patriotic appeal, and the fervid eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, all I can say is, that I listen to such sentiments with the utmost pleasure, and if all Members for Sheffield would so express themselves, and if the whole House had profited by the patriotic example of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should not have risen to address the Committee; but, unfortunately, there are Members for Lambeth as well as for Sheffield; and it is because of the Member for Lambeth—the model Member, as I believe he has described himself—who, when a popular Sovereign comes forward to perform the pleasing duty of establishing her daughter in life, answers that she is exacting something from the pockets of the people—that I thought the time had come when I ought to state to the Committee the true facts of the case, and the course which in justice and true policy we ought to pursue.
  MR. ROEBUCK: The right hon. Gentleman has again endeavoured to impress upon the Committee that the bargain made with reference to the Civil List of William IV., or Her Majesty, was a bad one for the Crown. He states that this year £;260,000 have been taken credit for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that, if the Crown had not entered into the bargain in question, it would have had this £;260,000. So be it; but has not Her Majesty more than that yearly given to her by her people? Has she not £;385,000 a year? I am obliged to make these statements in fairness to the Ministry who made the arrangement, and to the people who acquiesced in it. I say, then, that the Queen has made a good bargain, and that she is amply provided for; that she has £;385,000 a year, and that, on different occasions, appeals are made to Parliament on her behalf, and on behalf of the Royal Family. I say this is no niggard spirit, Sir, though one can tolerably well understand the sarcasm of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, when he is pleased to speak of
  1020
  my "fervid eloquence." I lay no claim to eloquence. I am a plain-spoken man; but that is no reason why a man may not state the facts as they have passed under his own eyes. I repeat, then, what I have said, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to establish the proposition that the Queen did not make a good bargain when she threw herself upon her people, and gave up her hereditary revenue.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to; Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported without Amendment: to be read 3° on Thursday next.

LUNATICS IN SCOTLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  On the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee of Supply,
  MR. B. ELLICE (St. Andrews)said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the state of Lunatics in Scotland, and to ask what steps the Government intend to take for immediately securing to Pauper Lunatics in Scotland proper protection and maintenance? Having lately carefully examined the Report in question, he found such important matter in it affecting the administration of the law in that country, so many charges of evasion and disregard of the law by the authorities paid and nominated to carry it into execution, that he felt it to be his duty to take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the subject, being satisfied that no one acquainted with the facts, possessing the common feelings of humanity, could refrain from demanding of the Government that something should be done to alleviate the sufferings of the persons to whom the Report related. The persons to whose condition he wished to direct the attention of the House constituted, probably, the most helpless class of the whole family of human beings—that class which, under the dispensation of Providence, had been deprived of reason, and which in all countries almost, from the most remote times and in the most savage nations, had been regarded as having peculiar claims upon the sympathy and protection of their fellows. In England and Ireland Boards had been appointed, under which the law for the protection of lunatics had, generally speaking, been satisfactorily administered. He was ashamed to admit that in Scotland unfortunately the state of things had been

  1021
  lamentably different. In Scotland, instead of a Board of Commissioners specially appointed to take care of lunatics, their charge had devolved upon the Sheriffs of counties and the Board of Supervision, which latter body stood in the place of the Poor Law Board in this country. Although no doubt the abuses which had sprung up were in part to be attributed to the unsatisfactory and unprecise state of the law, nevertheless in a great measure the law in its present condition was very ample for the protection of the great proportion of the pauper lunatics in Scotland, if it were properly administered; but he should have unfortunately to charge the authorities to whom he had referred with an almost total neglect of the duties which were incumbent upon them under the law. The power and duties of the Sheriffs in their respective jurisdictions, as laid down by the Act, were very ample. They had "to decide upon every matter and thing to be done which might be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person or persons confined ought to be confined, and to make such order for their care and confinement, or for their being set at liberty again, as the circumstances of the case might require." They were empowered to give licences for the reception and care and confinement of lunatics; and it was further enacted, that any person keeping a house for the reception of lunatics without a licence from the Sheriff should be liable to a penalty of £;200 for each offence. The penalty was extended likewise to all persons sending, or being accessory to sending, any lunatic to custody without such a licence. The Sheriffs had also to attend to the detention of lunatics, and it was provided that no one could lawfully be either received as a lunatic or discharged from custody without the express order in writing of the Sheriff. He would be able to show that in Scotland the granting of these licences formed the exception, and that, in fact, the houses were opened generally without any licence whatever, that the people were detained without any order, or without even any medical certificate, and that if after being confined in these places they died, their friends were not informed of their deaths, which were not reported to any constituted authority, the unfortunate persons disappearing in that mass of misery and filth which he should shortly depict. In addition to the authority of the Sheriff, there were certain regulations required by law in reference to
  1022
  the confinement of the lunatics in these places, and certain provisions as regarded a register being kept. The statute provided, that no one should receive in his exclusive care any insane persons without an order and a certificate signed by two physicians or surgeons, and that the keeper of every such house should within five days after receiving the lunatic transmit to the Sheriff a copy of the certificate, stating the parish where the house was situated, as well as the name of the owner. The statute also provided, that within seven days of the 1st of January in each year there should be transmitted to the Sheriff a certificate signed by two medical men, describing the state of the lunatic, and in case of his death or removal, the death or removal was to be notified to the authorities. There was also to be kept a register of the particular instances of detention, where force was required for the necessary detention of the lunatic. A book was to be produced to the inspectors, who were to record the day of their inspection, and any facts worth noting, and a refusal to produce this book was punishable by heavy penalties. Again, the Sheriff was called on to make regulations for the management of all private madhouses, and to enforce the same by heavy penalties. This related to the case of lunatics in general, and showed that the law as respected the proper custody and maintenance of lunatics in general was, if put into force, sufficient to prevent the existence of gross abuses. He would now refer to the case of the pauper lunatics, who formed a separate class from the general lunatics. The pauper lunatics in Scotland were in the hands of the parochial boards. These, under a Bill brought in about ten years ago, were under the control of the board of supervision, which sat in Edinburgh, and was similar to the Poor Law Board in London. In that law particular reference was made to the custody and care of pauper lunatics. It enacted that, whenever any poor person, chargeable on the parish, should become insane, the parochial Board should, within fourteen days of his being certified to be insane, take care that he was properly lodged in an asylum kept for the maintenance of lunatics. The Board of Supervision had, under the same Act, peculiar power with respect to lunatics. On proper cause being shown them that the lunatic might, with more regard to the feelings of his friends and to his own more comfortable

  1023
  maintenance, be left in the care of his family or friends, it was competent for the Board of Supervision to dispense with his removal to an asylum, and to allow him to remain in the custody of his friends, always having regard to a due inspection, from time to time, as to the care taken of him by his friends. The asylums for pauper lunatics were also subject to the inspection of the sheriffs. Beyond this, the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh had a peculiar power with respect to the maintenance of pauper lunatics, which did not exist in England. He believed that in England there was no legal appeal against the allowance, whatever it might be, which the Board of Guardians chose to make. In Scotland there was such an appeal. In Scotland the Board of Supervision could allow any pauper to appeal to the Court of Sessions, and under the order of that court any amount of maintenance proved to be necessary could by summary means be recovered against the parish. Beyond this, the Board of Supervision had absolute powers to dismiss any inspectors or others neglecting their duty towards the pauper lunatics; consequently, the power of the Board of Supervision over the parishes was as complete as under the circumstances could be expected. He would now refer to certain reports of the Board of Supervision with respect to pauper lunatics. This was no matter of argument or assumption, for, in these reports, the Board themselves admitted their obligation under the law to look to the well-being of the pauper lunatics. In the first report of the Board, in 1847, they state that, having called for and received returns of all the pauper lunatics in the different parishes, and the manner in which they were disposed of, the Board required that all such as were not placed in asylums should be visited by medical gentlemen, who should report whether they would be benefited by being sent to an asylum, and whether or not proper care was taken of them where they resided; that the Board, in all cases in which they dispensed with the removal of the pauper lunatics to asylums, were careful to preserve the necessary safeguards against abuse by requiring a satisfactory medical certificate as to treatment of the lunatics; and that the inspector should exercise a general superintendence over the lunatic paupers in his parish, reporting, if necessary, to the Board of Supervision. Now, he would show that
  1024
  these statements had no foundation in fact, that they were positive untruths, and entirely deceptive, year after year, as to the real state of the lunatics in Scotland. In the second Report, in 1848, the Board stated that they had dispensed with the removal of a certain number of lunatics to asylums, but that in all such cases they were satisfied that suitable accommodation was provided at the cost of the parishes; and in the third Report, in 1849, the Board stated that they had completed their inquiry respecting 2,003 pauper lunatics not confined in asylums, and that they had in all cases required that the allowance paid by the parish should be sufficient not only for the subsistence, but also for securing the proper treatment of the lunatics; that thus they had endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to improve the condition of this most helpless and hitherto most neglected class of paupers; and that it was due to the parochial Boards to state that they readily co-operated in ameliorating the condition of the pauper lunatics. In the four last Reports, all special reference to the pauper lunatics was omitted, the Board stating that they had no change to report in their manner of proceeding with respect to the pauper lunatics. Now, he would show that the condition and treatment of the pauper lunatic was diametrically opposite to what was there stated. After his statement with respect to the provisions of the law, there could be no doubt that the law was sufficient, in a very great measure indeed, to obviate any danger of the pauper lunatics being neglected or oppressed, if the provisions of the law were properly enforced. Of course, he was aware he should receive an assurance from the Government that, after this Report, some legislation would be had recourse to in another Session to adapt the law to the case of asylums and lunatics generally; but what he should contend for was, that the country had a right to expect from the Government that they would see the existing law enforced forthwith and immediately as affected the proper treatment of lunatics, and that, if it should appear that the authorities had been negligent (to use a mild term) in enforcing the law, due notice should be taken of their conduct. Three years ago he brought in a Bill for the inspection of parochial boards and paupers, on the ground that the Board of Supervision was lax, and that paupers were much neglected in Scotland, but he was met by the reply that his

  1025
  statements were exaggerated, for the purpose of getting up a case, and if he had moved for a Commission of Inquiry as to the state of pauper lunatics, he should no doubt have been met with the same objection. But it was a subject of congratulation that, in consequence of the attention then drawn to the subject, and through the exertions of the Lord Advocate, a Bill had been subsequently brought in and passed, under which inspectors had been appointed. He was now prepared to reiterate the statements he then made, and to prove their complete accuracy. And first with regard to the history of the Report of the late Commission. That Report was entirely due to the exertion of a lady who was not a native of England, Scotland, or Ireland, but of the United States. That lady, Miss Dix, came over, a short time ago, to this country on a philanthropic mission to inquire into the treatment of Lunatics. After visiting the Lunatic Establishments of England, she proceeded to Scotland, where her suspicions were aroused by the great difficulty she experienced in penetrating into the lunatic asylums of Scotland, but when she did gain access to them she found that the unfortunate inmates were in a most miserable condition. She came to London and placed herself in communication with the Secretary of State for the Home Department and with the Duke of Argyll, and at her instance, and without any public movement on the subject, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of the Lunatic Asylums of Scotland. No one, he was sure, could read the Report of the Commissioners without feeling grateful to that lady for having been instrumental in exposing proceedings which were disgraceful to this or to any civilized country. The Report was one of the most horrifying documents he had ever seen, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would be induced to read it; for if they did so, they must, he was sure, be astonished at the treatment to which Lunatics were subjected in Scotland. The duty of seeing that pauper Lunatics were properly provided for, so far as regards the supervision of the regular lunatic asylums in that country devolved upon the Sheriffs, but the Report stated that the Commissioners were only acquainted with one instance, that of Mid-Lothian, in which regulations for the management of licensed houses had been issued by the Sheriff, and that those regulations, without having been formally withdrawn, had fallen into disuse.
  1026
  The Commissioners further stated that the visitations of the Sheriffs and medical inspectors were not sufficiently frequent to secure the patients against gross neglect and improper treatment. The justices of the peace and the ministers of the several parishes had the power of visitation; but, he was sorry to say, that they had not availed themselves of it. The warrant authorising the reception of lunatic patients should be granted by the Sheriff of the county in which the asylum was situated. A medical certificate was necessary to remove a person from his own house to an asylum. But the law in that respect was wholly unheeded at times, and persons had been removed without any semblance of authority. There were no rules or regulations to secure the proper treatment of those persons whilst confined within the houses, nor any power for the discharge of them when they were recovered. It was required by statute that certain records should be kept with reference to the proceedings in lunatic asylums; but this provision was altogether disregarded. The Commissioners stated that frequently there were no records as to cases of restraint, and that when such records existed the authorities had seldom enforced compliance with the provisions of the statute, for no medical case books were kept. If lunatic asylums were suffered to exist some with and others without licences, if such establishments were not subjected to inspection, and if no records as to the treatment of patients were kept, the result must be that there would be great neglect. The House, however, would be surprised at the extent to which such negligence was shown to prevail by the Report. The Commissioners stated that in many cases the patients were scantily fed and clothed: that they were provided with a meagre amount of bedding of the worst kind; that they were subjected to mechanical restraint and to seclusion; that they were occasionally stripped naked, and sent to sleep together upon straw; that no means of recreation were provided for them; that the number of attendants was insufficient; that no provision was made for religious exercises; and that scarcely anything was done to break the cheerless monotony of the existence of these unfortunate persons. The Commissioners further said that the sole aim, in the case of the pauper asylums, seemed to be to accommodate the greatest possible number at the smallest possible outlay, adding that frquently no measures were

  1027
  taken for the separation of the male and female patients—no day rooms—the miserable bed-rooms used both night and day. Often did one of these unfortunates die in the dormitory, and after being kept a considerable time, the body was carted away to the burial ground, without decent ceremony, without notice to the relations. On the subject of mechanical restraint in the case of pauper lunatics, the Commissioners said that in almost every asylum they found handcuffs, hand-locks, iron gloves, leg locks, and strait-waistcoats, which were not in the custody of the proprietors or medical officers, but were hanging up in the wards or in the rooms of the attendants, and evidently used without any check. Again, the statute required, under heavy penalties, that on every death, notice should be given to the authorities, who then were to communicate the fact to the relatives of those poor people. The Commissioners stated that this regulation had been wholly disregarded, and that on the death of a patient in a public asylum, no notice of the event was given to the Sheriff, who was thus left without any clue as to what became of the unfortunate individuals for whose incarceration he might possibly have granted his warrant. With regard to the state of the asylums generally, he thought he had stated enough to induce some hon. Members to read the Report who had not already done so. He had only selected one or two passages out of a hundred, and, if hon. Gentlemen would peruse the Report for themselves, they would see that it described a state of things which they could not before have believed to prevail in any civilized country, much less in this country, which laid peculiar claims to civilization, and boasted of its religious and humane principles. The Commissioners went on to describe the difficulties they had in ascertaining the correct number of pauper lunatics. Only a certain number of these pauper lunatics were confined in asylums by order of the Board, the greater part being, from motives of economy on the part of the authorities, permitted to remain in their parishes, under the guardianship of strangers or their own relatives, so that the Commissioners had the greatest difficulty in getting at anything like a correct return of their aggregate number. They applied first of all to the Board of Supervision, but could get from that quarter no return that could be at all relied on. They then made application to the clergy,
  1028
  and he (Mr. Ellice) was sorry to say that they could obtain no reliable information from them even. Their ill-success in that direction induced the suspicion that many of the clergy had in this matter more regard for the pockets of the rate-payers than for the condition of the pauper lunatics. The Commissioners eventually applied to the constabulary force, who in Scotland were an active and intelligent body of men, and through the Inspectors they received such reports as enabled them to arrive at a pretty accurate estimate of the numbers of pauper lunatics in each county. The difference in the returns supplied by the constabulary, compared with those received from the Board of Supervision, was very marked; for example, the Board gave 57 as the number of pauper lunatics in Caithness, while the constabulary returned 90. The discrepancy in the returns for Shetland was still more noticeable, the Board returning 20 as the number, and the constabulary returning 55. The Commissioners had afterwards reason to believe that the returns sent in by the constabulary were, upon the whole, accurate and reliable. In Scotland the number of insane persons of every class amounted in May, 1855, to 7,403, and of those no fewer than 4,642 were pauper lunatics. Of those 4,642, only 1,500 were confined in chartered asylums, and many of those chartered asylums—those, for instance, in Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, and other places—had been established by the philanthropic efforts of individuals, and were, generally speaking—without any supervision by the legal authorities—under the charge of the medical officers appointed by the persons who, to their great credit, had instituted those asylums. It was not in those asylums, but in the licensed houses, so called, and poor-houses, under the control of the public authorities, where the disgrace lay. He found there were 426 pauper lunatics living in those licensed houses, which were under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff, while in the poor-houses, or living with relatives or strangers, there were no less than 2,671 pauper lunatics, all of whom were under the parochial Boards in the first instance, and the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervision in the second, and the great majority of whom were outdoor paupers. The Commissioners stated that
  "The statutes provide that every pauper lunatic shall be sent to a public hospital or asylum, unless the Sheriff shall be of opinion that, in the special circumstances of the case, it is more

  1029
  expedient to place him in a licensed house. The result of this provision, if carried into effect, would be to place all pauper lunatics, unless in exceptional cases, in public asylums. But in practice the enactment is entirely disregarded, and pauper patients are sent to public asylums or licensed houses, just as suits the convenience of the parties interested. In consequence of want of accommodation private houses are opened for paupers, where there is no limitation as to the number or sex of the patients to be admitted; nor has due regard been had to the qualifications of the proprietor, or to his means of providing proper lodging, board, and treatment. The premises are in most cases totally unsuited for the purpose of asylums, and are crowded in an extreme degree."
  It appeared that pauper lunatics were admitted to the poor-houses of Edinburgh itself without any licence from the Sheriff, and sometimes without any medical certificate that they were mad at all. The Commissioners said:—
  "We have already stated that the Edinburgh city poor-house receives insane and fatuous paupers without any licence from the Sheriff, and that at the time of our first visit this was also the practice in St. Cuthbert's workhouse. Indeed, on visiting the latter house, we found that the patients were admitted, not only without a licence, but even without a medical certificate. The Sheriff had never made an official visitation to either workhouse, so that the responsibility of the management rested solely with the parochial authorities. The reasons for abstaining from applying for a licence appear to have been the wish to avoid payment of the fees, and to be exempt from inspection and interference on the part of the Sheriff. In the two Edinburgh workhouses patients were avowedly received without licence; but there is scarcely a poor-house in the kingdom in which there are not several insane persons who have been irregularly admitted in the same way."
  The Commissioners seemed to doubt whether the local Boards had any perception of the difference between ordinary paupers and paupers labouring under insanity, for they went on to say—
  "But, first, it may be well to point out the difference existing between an ordinary pauper and one who is labouring under insanity. In the case of the former it may be right to make the poor-house as little attractive as possible, and to hold out no inducement of comfort and better food to swell the number of those claiming admission; but in the case of the insane no such reasons exist for supplying them with merely the barest necessaries, and depriving them of everything that may tend to alleviate their heavy lot. The question is no longer—"What is the lowest rate at which pauper patients can be maintained? But, what are the best means of restoring them to sanity? We have no hesitation in saying that, in providing accommodation for insane paupers, the parochial authorities have more consulted the interests of the ratepayers than the well-being of the patients. Economy is their rule of conduct,
  1030
  and has greatly influenced the nature of the accommodation."
  The Commissioners further reported:—
  "None of the houses which receive patients without licence are officially visited by the Sheriff and medical inspectors. The patients there are under the sole charge of the Poor Law authorities; or, more strictly speaking, of the parochial Boards; for the Board of Supervision seem rarely to make any direct inspection of their condition."
  These facts proved the truth of the statement which he ventured to make to the House two years ago, that the Board of Supervision did not do their duty. Another very painful part of the subject was the removal of lunatics from their homes to an asylum, or from one asylum to another. There was a very good asylum at Perth, where certain paupers were confined. One of the private houses bid a smaller sum, and the parish authorities took upon themselves to remove a considerable number of the paupers from the asylum which was properly conducted to the private house, where they would be received at a lower rate, without any regard whatever to the manner in which they would be treated. A long description in the Report was summed up thus—
  "Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we are of opinion that the removal of the paupers from Murray's Royal Asylum at Perth into the licensed house of Mr. Aikenhead, at Musselburgh, was effected without the slightest regard to the well-being of the patients, or the feelings of their relatives, and was disgraceful to the authorities who sanctioned the proceeding. Placed as they were near their homes, in a public institution, well-situated in spacious grounds, living in commodious rooms, well warmed and furnished, and having all requisite conveniences, provided with ample diet, clothing, bedding, and medical care and treatment, they were suddenly removed to a distance from their relatives and placed in a small house standing in a low and confined situation, provided with little or no means of exercise, and, from its size, altogether incapable of properly accommodating them or affording them a fair chance of recovery. They were crowded together day and night, in small rooms, imperfectly warmed and ventilated, and almost entirely without seats or tables, and wanting the ordinary conveniences of life. Their clothing and bedding were insufficient; and we have great reason to fear that they were stinted in food. Sickness, with a consequent high rate of mortality, ensued; and during illness and after death little or no regard seems to have been paid to the feelings of their relatives or friends."
  He was speaking of things which had occurred, not in times long past, but as recently as the spring of last year. A most terrible case was thus reported—
  "As an example may be mentioned the case of a woman who was brought from Orkney to the

  1031
  Edinburgh asylum in March, 1856, in charge of a sheriff's officer, and who on her arrival was found to be in a state of great exhaustion, having about six ribs broken on each side of the sternum. According to the patient's declaration to the procurator-fiscal of Edinburgh, the injuries were caused by the attendant in the gaol at Kirkwall putting his foot on her breast to enable him to secure her with straps or ropes."
  The Commissioners remarked—
  "They are often harshly treated, and during the journey to the asylums are frequently painfully manacled, or secured with ropes, sometimes bound so tightly as to penetrate the flesh, and cruelties of this kind appear to pass unnoticed and unpunished. They are recklessly transported from one place to another, and sometimes brought from remote districts, and shamefully cast free among the population of large towns to get rid of the expense of their maintenance."
  There was another case which made his blood run cold. It was perfectly shocking, especially as the subject of it was still alive. A woman was brought to Perth, who had been troublesome with her tongue, having a piece of stick put inside her mouth crossways as a gag, and kept in that position by a string tied behind her head. The authorities did not know how long the stick had been kept there, but when she was taken into the asylum it was found that her tongue, from the long-continued pressure, had mortified, and it sloughed away. Under proper treatment her life was saved, and she became a docile and quiet patient. That was the case of a pauper lunatic in the Perth Asylum only last year. He would now come to the case of those whom he would call out-of-door lunatics. The Sheriff of Aberdeen, who was a bright exception to the general rule of conduct of Sheriffs in Scotland with regard to lunatics, said in his evidence that he did not think the licence of the Sheriff to admit into the poor-house relieved the Board of Supervision of the duty of inspection; but, whatever might be the question as to poor-houses, there was a class of lunatics, numbering about 1,300, for whose condition the Board of Supervision must be held at all events to be peculiarly responsible, because the Board was the cause of their not being put into asylums,—namely, lunatics at large or in the custody of their friends. Their condition was extremely bad, and, in the absence of inspection, they were left in a great measure to chance, and it was difficult to conceive the amount of wretchedness which prevailed amongst them, especially in the rural districts. The Commissioners stated that the instructions
  1032
  given by the Board of Supervision to their Inspectors were immediately to report all cases of insanity; but that those instructions were by no means stringently acted upon, and that many insane persons in receipt of parochial relief were retained as ordinary paupers. No stronger proof could be adduced of the fact that the supervision exercised by the Board in Edinburgh was extremely lax. There was, in truth, no check of any kind upon the Inspector, who was left entirely to his own sense of duty. The Commissioners said—
  "With the insane poor it entirely depends upon the Inspectors whether or not a report is made. A very few conceive it to be their duty, when the paupers are placed with strangers to make such reports; but the proportionally small number of cases in which this is done stands strongly out on comparing the thirty-one reported pauper cases with the total number of insane poor returned by the Board of Supervision as living with strangers, and still more strongly if we adopt the numbers returned by the constables. In the former case the total number is 333, and in the latter 640, so that the proportion of cases reported is respectively as 1 to 11, and as 1 to 21. According to the strict interpretation of the 8th clause of the 9 Geo. IV. c. 34, the whole of these cases ought to have been reported to the Sheriff, and the omission to do so has caused the entire care of such patients virtually to devolve upon the Board of Supervision. The Inspectors of the poor, acting in the name of their respective parochial Boards, practically assume an unwarrantable power over pauper patients, in keeping them at home, or placing them in the houses of strangers, in selecting asylums for them, in removing them from asylums, in transferring them from one asylum to another, and generally, in contravention of the Statutes, from a public asylum to a licensed house, and in transporting them, when English or Irish paupers, to the country of their birth. Neither the Board of Supervision, the Sheriff, nor the managers or medical superintendents of chartered asylums, who may collectively be considered as the Guardians of the insane poor, practically exercise any check on this inordinate power assumed by Inspectors."
  In the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners the House would find a mass of information respecting the general treatment of lunatic paupers not in asylums which could not fail to convey to their minds a picture of wretchedness such as had seldom been equalled. The Commissioners said:—
  "A large number are detained at home or illegally placed in the houses of strangers. The generality of these are in a most destitute condition, being badly lodged, ill fed, scantily clothed, and not provided with sufficient bedding. A few are subjected to personal chastisement, some are permanently chained, others are placed in outhouses or are locked up in small closets just

  1033
  capable of holding them. Many are filthy in their persons, infested with vermin, covered by mere rags, or allowed to remain perfectly naked. Some are without bedding, except loose straw or heather cast on rough boards, and their rooms emit an intolerable stench. Others, again, are homeless, and are allowed to wander at large."
  The particular case of a pauper in Loch Carron was thus described:—
  "The dwelling in which the lunatic is kept is of the most wretched description. Its dimensions outside the walls are about 9 yards by 4; the walls about 4½ feet high, about 2½ thick, and are composed of turf. The house is thatched with heather, and the roof is pervious to rain in several places. The door, which is about 4 feet high, opens directly into the place where the lunatic is confined. The dimensions of this place are about 9 feet by 7. It has no window, nor any opening for one; the turf walls are bare, and the floor is of earth. When visited it contained no furniture of any description, except the bed to which the lunatic is confined by his chain. The lunatic is always chained, and has been so for the last thirty years. The chain consists of thirteen iron links, and is about 2½ feet in length. One end is fastened to the side of the bed with an iron staple, and the other is passed round his right ancle, and fastened with an iron bolt and nut. He has never left the bed to which he is chained; but about ten years ago he was carried to his present abode from his former dwelling, distant about 200 yards. With this exception he has not been out of a house since he was first confined."
  This case was reported to the Board of Supervision. A friend of his—a sheriff substitute—visited the man personally, saw his miserable condition, and communicated the facts to the Sheriff of the county, with a view to his removal to a lunatic asylum. The Sheriff brought the case under the notice of the Board of Supervision, with the result of an arrangement being made with the parochial board, by which a new and suitable dwelling was to be provided for the lunatic and his sister, and a fixed allowance made to her from the poor's funds for attending and taking care of him. Would the House believe that the arrangement was thought to be carried out by removing the man to a wretched hovel about 200 yards from his former place of residence, and affording his sister the miserable pittance of 12 s. 6d. a month? Such was a sample of the treatment of pauper lunatics in Scotland. Another case—that of two insane sisters—was reported by the superintendent of police in a county which the Commissioners, he knew not for what reason, had not named in their report. One of the women, according to the statement of the superintendent, was—
  "Confined in a strong wooden cage in the corner of the room, in a state of complete nudity, and hardly a vestige of anything to cover her—nothing whatever in the shape of bed clothing to
  1034
  be seen. An old wooden bedstead was in this cage, similar to those used in our strong rooms, but there was nothing but the boards. She was in a most filthy, dirty state, and quite furious, using awful oaths. It is thirteen years since she became insane, and for the last nine years has been quite furious, and appears to be exceedingly dangerous, as she tears every article of clothing to pieces the moment it is given her, and if she had any opportunity of doing an injury to either her father or mother she would do it."
  The other sister, who was thirty-two years of age—
  "Became insane in June last, and after being kept in her father's house for some six or seven weeks was sent to the Royal Asylum at—,where she remained for three months, and was brought home by her father on the 7th instant, as he could not afford to keep her any longer there. He paid for the quarter the sum of £9 10 s. She appears to have been benefited by her stay in the asylum, but she has relapsed into her old state since she came home. She also is kept in a most filthy state."
  The parents were reported as naturally inclined to be dirty in the extreme, and as drunken in their habits. They drank a good deal of whisky, they said, to drive care away when they thought of their daughters. It was true that these sisters were not paupers, but they were on the verge of pauperism, and at all events such an extreme case of horrible treatment ought to have been noticed by the parochial authorities. He now approached a very sad and painful part of the case—the number of lunatic and idiotic women in Scotland who had given birth to children, and whose mental defect was frequently manifested in their offspring.
  "These," said the Commissioners, "we have ascertained to amount to not less than 126, and there is cause to believe that many cases of this description have escaped observation, and, also, that the fact of such weak-minded females having given birth to offspring has often, for obvious reasons, been designedly concealed. Accordingly, large as the above number appears, we are satisfied it should be taken considerably higher. It must be kept in view, too, that many of these women have given birth to several children."
  In one county—Ayr, he thought—there were fifteen idiot mothers with thirty-one children. In Latheron, in Caithness, with a population of about 8,000, eight mothers were returned with ten children, while one woman was reported pregnant. The largest number of children anywhere returned to one fatuous female was five. The Commissioners said, and he agreed with them, that—
  "It thus becomes a question of very serious import whether, for the sake of public morality and civil policy, all fatuous females should not be restricted in their liberty, and be gathered together in poor-houses,"

  1035
  On referring to the particular cases given in the Appendix, he found that many female paupers, insane from birth, had borne one, two, and three children each, and opposite their names was the following remark, "Not sufficiently clothed, fed, or cared for." In many instances the allowances from the poor's funds ranged from 9s. to 20 s. a quarter—sums utterly inadequate for the maintenance of these poor women. Distressing as were the cases which he had mentioned, there were others ten times worse remaining behind—so horrible, indeed, that he durst not venture to shock the feelings of the House by relating them. There were other cases of a similar kind reported by the Commissioners,—
  "The fatuous paupers of the City of Edinburgh, living with relatives or strangers, are twelve in number, and the allowance for some of them, though boarded with strangers, is only 2s. a week. Complaints are made that this is insufficient, and, indeed, the fact is self-evident; for, although certain articles of clothing are also found by the parish, it is clear that 2s. a week is a very inadequate sum wherewith to provide lodging and food for adult paupers and to afford remuneration for the trouble of looking after them. Such cases as these show either a want of proper supervision of the fatuous poor by inspectors or else a culpable economy on the part of parochial Boards. Of these lunatics 937 are placed with strangers, and 191 are not under the care of any one. Of those placed with strangers, as many as 489 are women. The pauper lunatics amount to 1,998, many of whom should be placed in asylums, and who are left in their present circumstances from their condition being imperfectly reported to the Board of Supervision. When estimating the condition of the insane not in establishments, it should be remembered that the details furnished by us give only an imperfect representation of the true state of matters. They form only a part of the picture of misery, and had we been able to extend our investigations it would, we are convinced, have assumed a much darker shade. We possess little or no information as to the condition of those who have no one to take charge of them."
  He (Mr. Ellice) should have begun by saying that the constitution of the Commission was such as to remove all suspicion of partiality or interested motives. It consisted of two gentlemen experienced in cases of lunacy, and fully acquainted with the treatment of such cases, of a very experienced lawyer in Edinburgh, himself a Sheriff of a most populous county, and therefore not a likely man to say anything unnecessarily harsh against his brother Sheriffs or the Board of Supervision; and of a medical gentleman of Edinburgh fully qualified to deal with the subject. All the Commissioners appeared to have set about their task with an earnest desire to ascertain the real facts, and had spared
  1036
  no labour in pursuing their objects. He would next refer the House to the Report of the Board of Supervision which had been recently laid upon the table, dated August of last year. For four years previously the Board had reported ''no change in our manner of proceeding in regard to lunatic paupers," but in their last Report they stated,—
  "Having ascertained that in some instances the necessary legal forms had not been observed in reference to fatuous paupers who were inmates of Poor-houses, we considered it necessary to call the attention of parochial boards, inspectors of poor, poor-house committees, and officials of poor-houses to the requirements of the law in regard to this class of the poor. As we had no reason to believe that the irregularities which had arisen proceeded from any improper motive, we contented ourselves with explaining to the parochial authorities the requirements of the statutes, and warning parochial boards and their officers as to the danger to neglecting them."
  One would have thought that, with the knowledge that a Commission of this sort was inquiring into the subject, the Board of Supervision would have had some respect for the common sense of that House and the country. He thought that a Board of Supervision that could pen such a paragraph under the circumstances he had stated should be abolished as soon as possible. He could not understand how any Government could remain passive after the publication of a statement which he would not call wilfully false, but at least culpably incorrect. The declaration that they had confined themselves to
  "explaining to the parochial authorities the requirements of the statute," after the facts published by the Commissioners, was, he could only think, an insult to the common sense of the Government and the country. He thought he had made out a case to justify his calling attention to this matter, and, although it was unnecessary for him to ask the Government to legislate upon the subject of asylums, as he was sure they intended to do so, yet he felt it necessary to ask what was to be done at the present moment to put an end to those horrors which he had described. What was to be said to those authorities who had so culpably allowed the law to be disregarded? If the Government did not intend to pronounce a severe censure upon those authorities, he conceived they would be abdicating their functions. Before the inquiry, and Report of the Commissioners, it had been admitted that inspection of a local description was requisite. But that Report disclosed such a state of things as showed that more must

  1037
  be done to meet the larger case disclosed. The suggestions of the Commissioners were moderate; they recommended that regulations should be made by which pauper lunatics might be brought under proper visitation, and that steps should be immediately taken to prevent a continuance of that ill-treatment of which they quoted so many instances. The Commissioners also recommended that rules should be framed for the guidance of the Board of Supervision; but he (Mr. Ellice) thought that a Board of Supervision which required rules for its guidance was a misnomer. The control of paupers had been continued to that Board when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) introduced the new Poor Law Bill, because its members were supposed to be best acquainted with the wants of the country, and of the mode of meeting those wants. They had failed in their duty, and he therefore asked that a direct condemnation should be passed upon those who had so neglected their charge, and that some statement might be made of the measures to be adopted to compel that Board to pay proper attention to its duties, and to protect pauper lunatics from continued neglect and abuse.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend, as one of the representatives of Scotland, should have felt it to be his duty upon the earliest opportunity to call the attention of—I will not say the Government, for our attention has already been given to it—but the attention of the House and the country to the Report recently made by the Commissioners appointed two years ago to inquire into the state of lunatic asylums, and the care and treatment of lunatics in Scotland, containing, as that Report does, statements of facts calculated to cast very great discredit upon that portion of the United Kingdom. I shall not follow my hon. Friend through the details of the Report, but can only express a hope that the observations he has made may lead hon. Members to read that Report themselves, and especially those Members who are returned by Scotch constituencies, because upon them mainly depends the adoption of those means which alone can be effectual to remedy the gross cases of neglect and abuse complained of; and I trust that the perusal of the Report will secure the hearty co-operation of every Member from that part of the United Kingdom in the adoption of
  1038
  measures which will prevent the continuance of such a state of things. In one respect only do I differ from my hon. Friend; I do not know whether he meant exactly what I collected from his statement, but I understood him to state that the law in Scotland was far from being defective, that the law provided safeguards and securities for the proper treatment and care of the helpless class whose condition we are considering, but that the defects revealed by the Report arose from a defective administration of that law. [Mr. E. ELLICE: I confined that statement to the case of pauper lunatics.] Then, I must say that, as to pauper lunatics, especially, I think this Report shows great defects in the present state of the law. Allow me to call the attention of the House to a passage in the concluding portion of the Report, which is the key to most of the abuses therein detailed.
  "Gross anomalies exist in the statute. Thus—the statute requires that pauper lunatics should be sent to a public asylum, while it omits to make any provision by enactment for the erection of such establishments."
  There does not exist at the present moment in Scotland one single establishment supported by local rates or by public funds appropriated by the State. The only asylums of which favourable mention can be made are those which are termed chartered asylums, owing their origin to the munificent benevolence of individuals, but which are self-supporting because they only receive a class of patients whose friends are in a position to pay for their maintenance. After these asylums, which can only receive a limited number of the superior class of lunatics, the Commissioners speak of the licensed houses, and those portions of poor-houses appropriated to the reception of lunatics as of the worst possible description, as, indeed, might well be expected when we find no provision made for the proper reception of that class of paupers who most need care, but who, in many cases, at present are subjected to treatment too horrible to contemplate. This Report very clearly demonstrates a most defective state of the law, especially as respects due provision for the unfortunate class of pauper lunatics—defects that once existed in this country, but which have been remedied by imposing on every borough and county in England the duty of providing out of local funds establishments, subject to the approval of the

  1039
  Government, in which the care and treatment of these unfortunate persons may be properly attended to. I can assure my hon. Friend that as soon as that Report came into my hands, which was only fifteen days ago, my attention was immediately given to it. I lost no time in consulting my learned Friend the Lord Advocate as to the measures which ought to be taken; and I shall now state generally what steps have been taken and what steps we intend to take regarding it. First of all, let me say as to the origin of the Report, that I entirely concur with my hon. Friend in the tribute of admiration which he has paid to the benevolence of the American lady who some time ago visited this country and took a deep interest in the welfare of this unfortunate class of beings. That lady went to Scotland, and on her behalf an application was made to me to enable her to get access to all establishments for the reception of lunatics. The Duke of Argyll, Lord Shaftesbury, and the Lord Advocate were aware of her wishes and represented them to me, and I most cordially agreed to give her every facility in visiting those establishments. Even before the visits of Miss Dix to the licensed houses and other places where pauper lunatics are confined, the matter had been under the consideration of the Government; and the result was, that as my hon. Friend has informed the House, the Government, about two years ago, thought it desirable to issue a Commission for a fuller investigation of the whole of this subject than had previously taken place. He has also done the Government but justice in saying that we were desirous that that Commission should be so composed as to insure an efficient discharge of the important duties intrusted to it. I put myself in communication with the Lunacy Commissioners here, and two of their number—Mr. Campbell and Mr. Gaskell—were appointed on the Commission, assisted by Dr. Coxe, an eminent man who has devoted much of his time and attention to this subject, and with them was associated Mr. Sheriff Monteith. The result of their labours is now before us. I am bound to say that they have discharged their duty with great ability and honesty, and I trust the effect will be to confer an incalculable boon upon the unfortunate class into whose case they were appointed to inquire. As my hon. Friend
  1040
  seemed to intimate that the Board of Supervision and other authorities in Scotland had thrown obstacles in the way of the inquiries of the Commissioners, I beg, in justice to the Board, to call the attention of the House to one paragraph in the Report which by no means bears out my hon. Friend's statement. In that paragraph it is said:—
  "We take this opportunity of acknowledging our obligations to the various legal authorities; the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and parochial Inspectors; the General Board of Prisons and governors of prisons; the Secretaries and Superintendents of public asylums; and to many of the proprietors of private asylums, for the willing and ready manner in which they aided us in our inquiries."
  I have to state to the House, that after even a cursory perusal of the Report, I thought it my duty to address a letter to the Board of Supervision, enclosing a copy of the Report and Appendix, and informing the Board that the statement of facts therein related was one that demanded and would receive the immediate attention of the Government, with the view of applying a remedy to the evils brought to light; but that, independently of any general measures which the Government might propose, the attention of the Board ought to be directed, without delay, to the allegations of cases of cruelty and neglect that had taken place in the administration of the existing law. I received an acknowledgment of that letter from Sir J. M'Neill, the president of the Board of Supervision, thanking me for the communication, which he said should be laid before the Board at its next meeting, and expressing his desire to be furnished with more definite information on various points adverted to in the Report. I accordingly addressed a letter to the Lunacy Commissioners, asking them to put themselves in communication with the Board of Supervision, and to supply all the information that could be required by the Board, in order to a full investigation of the various cases. I will not enter into a defence of the Board of Supervision; but I think hon. Gentlemen ought to suspend their judgments, and not ask the Government to pass a censure on the Board till they have heard the statement that will be made by the Board itself. I believe my hon. Friend has very much over-rated the power of the Board of Supervision as to control. I am far from saying they are free from blame; but on reading the Report, it is plain that whatever blame exists is shared by the

  1041
  parochial Boards, by the inspectors of the poor, by the sheriffs, the clergy, the justices of the peace, and the Commissioners of Supply. One great defect, indeed, in the existing law is the imperfect responsibility thrown upon these persons, no one being called on to take on himself the undivided responsibility that is necessary to the due performance of duties of this kind. I have also to state, that my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has addressed a letter to the Sheriffs of counties, sending them a copy of the Report, and calling their attention to the alleged cases of neglect of duty on the part of sheriffs in the exercise of the visitorial powers given to them by law, and asking in such cases for any explanation they may have to offer. When these explanations are given, my hon. and learned Friend will know what course it will be proper to take regarding that part of the subject. With regard to individual cases of gross cruelty, or illegal proceedings, I may observe that these particular cases are now under the consideration of the Lord Advocate. Time is, however, required, in order to do full justice in these cases, and I hope the House will bear in mind that only a fortnight has elapsed since a printed copy of the Report was put into my hands. I trust it will be the opinion of the House, that the Government have lost no time in taking those measures that were thought necessary to correct what may be amiss in the administration of the present law. With regard to the steps hereafter to be taken, I may observe that we intend to ask Parliament for leave to introduce a Bill calculated to remove those defects in the law that are proved to exist by the statements made in this Report. This is not the first time that a measure on this subject will have been laid before Parliament. The late Lord Rutherfurd, when Lord Advocate, brought in a Bill which, if passed, would, I believe, have remedied all the evils now complained of. That Bill was read a second time with the warm approbation of many Scotch Members on both sides of the House, and was by common consent referred to a Select Committee; but the opposition raised to it in Scotland on the miserable ground of the expense it would incur proved fatal to the measure, and the Lord Advocate found himself unable to carry it. It is deeply to be lamented that he was not able successfully to persevere with that measure; but I trust that a different result will be arrived
  1042
  at with regard to the Bill which my hon. and learned Friend will propose to the House. I trust the disgrace that now attaches to Scotland in this matter will be thereby removed, and that this and the other House of Parliament will cordially co-operate with the Government in the adoption of those measures that are necessary for the relief and protection of the unfortunate class of persons referred to in this Report.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that he recollected the measure to which the right hon. Baronet had referred. It was from knowing something of that darker shade which, as the Commissioner stated, remained behind, that, when Lord Rutherfurd was Lord Advocate, he (Mr. Drummond) endeavoured to get some returns that would give information to the House on this question. Everybody who knew Lord Rutherfurd would say that a more humane man never existed, and accordingly he obtained from him every assistance in his power to procure the returns which he desired; but all his efforts were fruitless. Both he and the Lord Advocate were beaten by the systematic opposition of every single person who was connected with the administration of the system in Scotland. They would not give the returns sought for. And he recollected the Lord Advocate taking him behind the chair on one occasion and showing him some most defective and imperfect returns which had been made, and saying to him, "There is nothing for it but to abuse me and the Government." Accordingly he agreed to do so, and did it; when the Lord Advocate stated in the House that all he had said was perfectly true; but it would not do. He was unable to procure the returns, and the ground of the opposition was the dread of the dirty expense which might be incurred. From one to the other it appeared that the object of care in Scotland was property, not persons. The way in which they treated the poor in Scotland was perfectly scandalous, and in nothing did the system appear so bad as in the treatment of pauper lunatics, the rich lunatics being sufficiently well taken care of. On reading the Report one could not help being struck, in the first place, with the neglect of duty by the Sheriffs, and, in the next, with the total neglect of duty exhibited by all the magistrates. How was it that throughout the whole of Scotland there was not one clergyman who could find time to visit these poor creatures?

  1043
  True, there was one, but when he went to the asylum he was refused admittance; and why? Because he was a Papist. The poor law, as managed by the Board of Supervision, had been well defined to be "a law for depriving the poor of their just rights. "Three cases which he had taken at hazard well illustrated this. The relief amounted to something like mockery:—A woman of sixty-four years of age, who had lost the use of her right arm, who had asthma and a cough, was allowed 2s. a month; one of which was deducted for some purpose or other. Another case was that of a poor woman, deserted by her husband, with three children under seven years of age. He did not know what they allowed her, but she lived all day on a turnip, which one of the children stole out of a garden. To an Irishman, a Roman Catholic, with an asthma and an ulcerated leg, they gave nominally 4s. a week, but the inspector kept back 3s. of it for rent. All these cases were brought before the Board of Supervision, but it refused to interfere until some person, with whom he was well acquainted, but whose name he would not mention, insisted upon having a row made about them. Now, that this Report was fresh in everybody's mind, was the time for doing something to remedy these evils; but he warned the Lord Advocate that unless he exerted himself to the utmost he would meet with the same discomfiture as Lord Rutherfurd.
  MR. F. DUNDASsaid, that he thanked the hon. Member for the forcible appeal he bad made to the House, but in reference to a case mentioned by Mr. Ellice, he had a letter from Professor Aytoun, the Sheriff of the county in question, who assured him that, after instituting an inquiry, he was satisfied that the woman was labouring under a delusion. Still he (Mr. Dundas) was afraid that so good an answer could not be made to all the charges which had been brought forward; and he was glad, therefore, that an investigation had taken place which was likely to put an end to so serious and so grave an evil.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that there were others who had a greater share of responsibility than those who had the execution of the law as regarded these asylums. He did not so much allude to the Sheriffs as he did to the Imperial Parliament, to whose neglect in not having taken measures at an earlier period most of the existing evils must be attributed.
  1044
  As one of the Members for Scotland in the last Parliament, he must take his share of the blame that attached to the House in reference to these Scotch asylums. In a Report issued by a Committee as long ago as the year 1844, it was recommended that more stringent provisions should be introduced into the law, but they had not been attended to. Much evil arose from the divided responsibility under the present system, and he was of opinion that a proper Central Board, provided with sufficient power, would tend to remedy the existing state of things most effectually. When the late Lord Rutherfurd endeavoured to remedy the law by the introduction of a Bill, the Bill was received with a profusion of compliments, but after its introduction they heard nothing more of it. The Home Secretary was quite correct in attributing the opposition which Lord Rutherfurd's Bill had met with to motives of economy; and a very mistaken economy it was, for it was a well-known fact that patients afflicted with this distressing malady, who might easily have been cured at first, became incurable for want of care and attention, and that a permanent charge was thrown on the ratepayers. He trusted that the Secretary for the Home Department would see that the officials of these asylums peformed their duties with more care.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the Scotch Members owed a debt of gratitude to his hon. Friend for the very able manner in which he had laid this disgraceful feature in the administration of the Scotch Poor Law before the House. Some hon. Members, he believed, were under a misapprehension that one of the cases of gross cruelty described by his hon. Friend had occurred in the Perth Asylum, but that was not the fact. The case in question occurred elsewhere, but the patient was afterwards brought into the Perth Asylum, and there treated with great humanity and kindness. He had always been in the habit of visiting the asylum in the town which he represented (Perth), and he was glad to find that it was not one of those which had disgraced Scotland. Great praise was due to the Home Secretary for the vigour with which he had prosecuted this matter.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that a remedy should be applied to this evil at the earliest possible period, and the Lunacy Commission of England afforded an example of one which could not fail to be successful. Up

  1045
  to a recent period, the condition of Lunatics in England was quite as bad as it had been described to be in Scotland, and in consequence, Mr. Robert Gordon and some other philanthropic gentlemen procured the establishment of the Lunacy Commission. That Commission, of which he (Colonel Sykes) was an unpaid member, from 1835 to 1845, found that even in respectable licensed establishments, in which £50, £60, and £100 per annum was paid by the friends of the inmates, the patients were chained to their chairs and their beds. The Commission had put an end to the existence of these and other atrocities in England, and he had no doubt that the extension of the Commission to Scotland, or the establishment of a similar body, consisting of stipendiaries and philanthropists there, would produce similar results in that country; but he would remind the Government that, if there were any divided authority, these results would not be accomplished.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that so far from regretting the publication of this Report, or the statements made by his hon. Friend, he rejoiced at them from the bottom of his heart, because this state of things had for a long time been a disgrace and a scandal to Scotland. The people of that country had known that it was a disgrace and a scandal; and he regretted to add, that it was not the first time that statements had been made similar to those to which they had just listened. An attempt had been made to remedy this state of things, but that attempt had failed. The Commissioners, in their Report, suggested certain matters as the groundwork of a remedy, and in referring to the measure introduced by his late much-lamented Friend, Lord Rutherford, he found that it included all these suggestions. Therefore, had that Bill been passed in the year 1848, this disgraceful state of things would have been put an end to. What was the fate of that measure? He found, on referring back to the Minutes of that date, that not a single petition was presented in its favour; while, on the other hand, twelve of the largest and most important counties of Scotland petitioned against it. Therefore, it was not the fault of the Government of that day that this state of things continued He was in communication with Lord Rutherfurd upon this subject up to the day of his death, but he had not the courage to re-introduce the Bill which that learned
  1046
  Lord had, with all his powers, failed to carry, until circumstances had brought about a change of feeling in Scotland. He endeavoured in the first place to carry the Valuation Bill, in order to place the assessment for public objects on a satisfactory footing. That Bill was passed in 1854. In the year 1855 the noble-minded lady to whom his right hon. Friend had alluded, and who, greatly to her credit, had made so many exertions on behalf of this neglected class of the population, went to Edinburgh, and visited the asylums at Musselburgh. After seeing them, she said there was something wrong, and she wished to be allowed to visit them at the dead of night, when she would not be expected. He felt a difficulty about giving a permission of that kind to a non-official person, and accordingly she applied to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. His right hon. Friend asked him (the Lord Advocate) his opinion upon the subject, and he at once stated that the whole system with regard to the treatment of lunacy in Scotland was utterly disgraceful, and that the evil could only be reached by a Commission of Inquiry. The result was the appointment of the Commission, to the Report of which attention had been called; so ably that evening; and the facts were now so clearly proved that he believed, if he proposed the very remedy which was rejected in 1848, it would be adopted by both Houses of Parliament without any important opposition, He would not, on this occasion, enter into a discussion of the merits of the Poor Law in Scotland, nor did he think it desirable to express any opinion as to the conduct of the officials, whether the Board of Supervision or the Sheriffs, and that for this simple reason, that the House had heard only one side and not the other. He would, however, assure hon. Gentlemen that all the matters in this Report which seemed to need further inquiry should receive his earnest attention.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it must not be supposed that the censures in this Report were of universal application. The Aberdeen Asylum, for instance, was one of the best in Great Britain.
  MR. HOPE JOHNSTONEsaid, he believed that public feeling in Scotland with regard to this subject had very much changed of late years. Information on the subject of lunacy was now much more complete than it was forty years ago, and the Government would find that the people

  1047
  of Scotland were now quite willing to concur with them in the application of an effectual remedy to the evil complained of.
  MR. FERGUSbelieved that it was a financial objection that had caused the opposition to Lord Rutherfurd's Bill; but he was sure there would be no such opposition to a similar measure if brought forward, now that hon. Members had had an opportunity of reading the facts detailed in the Report of the Commission. He hoped, therefore, that the Lord Advocate would bring in a Bill on the subject without further delay.
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
  (1.) £251,238, Manufacturing Departments, &c.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYrose to make some observations with regard to the position of sergeants in the army.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that these remarks, as referring to a subject not included in this Vote, would be irregular.
  MR. SPOONERwished to ask the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for War whether it was true that in 1855 the Government advanced a large sum of money to enable an American house to set up a manufactory of arms in America? If he (Mr. Spooner) was correctly informed, the Government in 1855 entered into a contract with Messrs. Fox and Henderson and an American house for a supply of arms for our soldiers; and in order to enable that American house to set up the manufactory or machinery advanced it a sum of £20,000 to begin with, and a further sum of £6,000 at a subsequent period—a large portion of which money was now due to this country, both the American house and Messrs. Fox and Henderson having failed. He wished to know, before the particulars of the Vote were entered into, whether his information was correct; and, if it was, by what authority such an advance of the public money was made for the purpose of setting up a manufactory of arms in America? If such a transaction had taken place, he believed it was a totally unjustifiable one. In fact, he was at a loss to know what reason could be given for such an appropriation, or rather misappropriation, of
  1048
  money voted by that House for the manufacture of arms, and not for the purpose of setting up a manufactory, especially a manufactory in a foreign country. He believed the Government held some security in the shape of a mortgage over buildings and land in America, but a very large amount was due to the Government; and on grounds of national policy as well as of finance, he thought the matter one that required explanation. He could not but regard the act of the Government as unconstitutional. When replying to his question, perhaps the hon. Baronet would be good enough to state what steps were being taken by the Government to get back their money; and what was the nature of the security held for the amount.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he had no complaint to make of the course taken by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in making this inquiry. It was quite true that an advance had been made by the Government to a manufacturing house in America; and he (Sir J. Ramsden) must commence his explanation by admitting, on the part of the Government, a rather larger amount of delinquency than that charged by that hon. Gentleman. He trusted, however, that when the Committee had heard the statement which he (Sir J. Ramsden) had to make, and which he would do as shortly as possible, they would take a more favourable view of the conduct of the Government in the transaction than that entertained by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when the war was at its height, there was a very large supply of small arms required—very much larger than it was possible for the home trade to supply, and it was found expedient to have recourse to the foreign market. In the first place, a contract was sent out to the home manufacturers; and when they were fully employed and the demand still unsatisfied, the Government had to have recourse to the foreign manufacturer. Contracts were entered into with houses in France and Belgium; but all they could do to meet the demand was insufficient, and still further arms were required. Messrs. Fox and Henderson were then engaged in various contracts for the Ordnance, and they suggested that they could procure 25,000 stand of arms from America, made on the best principles, and by machinery. They stated at the same time, that in order to enable the American house to set up the expensive machinery

  1049
  necessary for that contract, an advance should be made. Under those circumstances—considering the very great demand there was for arms, and how desirable it was to get a supply of an additional 25,000—the Government thought it advisable to make an advance, and accordingly an advance was made of, in the first instance, £21,875, which was one-fourth of the entire amount to be paid for the performance of the contract: 25,000 rifles were to be supplied at £3 10 s. each. The whole contract was to amount to £87,000, so that the amount advanced was one-fourth. By the terms of the agreement, as the arms were delivered payments were to be made, on the principle of deducting one-fourth, which was to go in diminution of the advance of £21,875. Some months after the contract was entered into, the American house was in want of money, and was unable, without a further advance,' to carry out the contract. It then became a question with the Government whether it should close the security at once, or advance more money in order to enable the contractors to carry out their contract. The matter was very carefully considered, and taking into account the urgent requirements of the public service, it was determined to advance more money, and even a larger sum than that stated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was advanced. In various amounts about £14,000 was advanced in addition to the original sum; so that the total sum advanced was £35,659. But he should beg of the Committee to bear in mind that during the time these further advances were being made the arms were being delivered, of very good quality, in very considerable quantities, and with great regularity. The manufacture of arms by the American firm went on throughout 1856; but when 10,000 stand had been delivered information was given to the Government that the American house could not continue the contract. At the end of the account 10,000 stand of arms had been delivered, and the balance of money due to the English Government from the American house was £24,185. Steps were immediately taken to close the contract, and to realize the security held by the Government. That was at the end of 1856, and those steps were still in progress; and the Government was informed that the value of the machinery and of the buildings, and of the land which was attached to the latter,
  1050
  was very much larger than the amount of the debt due to our Treasury by the firm. Government was not yet informed whether that security had been realized, and it was impossible for him to say how much it would realize, for though it was of very great value, it was of such a peculiar character that the number of purchasers for such property was necessarily limited. But he had to inform the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to that security in America, which Messrs. Fox and Henderson had considered perfectly sufficient to justify them in advancing their own money to the American house, the Government had another security, which was one on the estate of Messrs. Fox and Henderson. It was only right he should state that, though Messrs. Fox and Henderson had met with pecuniary difficulties, there was no shadow of imputation on them in reference to the contract now under discussion. Their conduct throughout these transactions had been most honourable and straightforward. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire thought these advances a misappropriation of the public money. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that the money so advanced was a portion of an amount voted for a particular tender; but that was a mistake. The Committee would find on a reference to the Estimates for the army and commissariat in 1855–6. a sum of £257,400 granted for the supply of small arms. Out of that money the advance was made, and he was of opinion that it was perfectly competent to the Government to so apply a portion of money not granted for any particular contract, but for a general supply of small arms. The advances were brought forward in the accounts in the usual manner, as hon. Members would find on reference to page 70 of a Return laid on the table of the late House, on the 26th of July, 1856. On that page was an entry "Sums advanced to Messrs. Fox and Henderson, £26,485 11 s. 8d.," showing a regular account of the advances up to the date of the preparation of that Return. He trusted that this explanation would be deemed satisfactory by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the Committee.
  MR. SPOONERasked, was the security alluded to by the hon. Baronet as on the property of Messrs. Fox and Henderson, a specific security, or merely a charge on their estate, which would only give a right of proof against it?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDEN: A charge on the estate, not a specific security.
  MR. SPOONERobserved, that a proof of £25,000 had been tendered against the estate.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the charge of the Government against the estate of Messrs. Fox and Henderson would not come into effect unless the mortgage on the property in America should prove insufficient. In such an event Government would have a further claim against the general estate. He could not answer the hon. Member as to what were the exact steps which had been taken to prove the claim of the Government against Messrs. Fox and Henderson's estate. He was not himself aware of the precise nature of the proceedings in that respect.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the could not but express his opinion that the Government ought not to have felt itself authorized, without the consent of that House, to spend in the shape of advances to an American firm, in order to enable that firm to manufacture arms, a portion of a sum voted for the purposes of the Army and Commissariat. In 1854 the Government proposed that a sum of £100,000 should be spent on the small arms manufactory at Enfield, which establishment it was stated would supply arms for our soldiers. Thus the arms trade of England was given to understand that they would not be called on for a supply. However, a Committee of that House was subsequently appointed to inquire into the matter, and that Committee was of opinion that the Government had committed a mistake. The Government was virtually told by the Report of that Committee that it had only to send orders to the arms trade of England and its orders would be supplied. He (Mr. Newdegate) had stated, on behalf of the trade when supporting the Motion for the appointment of the Committee, that the manufacturers of this country were perfectly prepared to supply 50,000 stand the first year; 100,000 the next; and more than 100,000 the year after. The House was convinced of the truth of that assertion; but an authority from the Ordnance stated before that Committee that the arms trade of England could not be depended on for the supply of more than 30,000 stand per year: by such assertions the Government had been misled. In two years and a half the arms trade supplied not less than 272,000 stand of arms, thus greatly exceeding
  1052
  the rate which he had assured the House they were capable of producing. In consequence of the Report of the Committee, the Government reduced the Vote they had proposed of £100,000 to £25,000, to be expended, not in the erection of a large and new manufactory at Enfield, but in the enlargement of the factory already existing there. What happened? They did not expend that 25,000 on the existing factory at Enfield, but applied it to the purchase of machinery for a new factory, which the House, at the instance of its own Committee, had prohibited. Afterwards in 1855, not only did the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, with that tact which at all times distinguished him, persuade the House to submit to this unauthorized reversal of its Vote, but in successive years to expend, not £150,000, which was the maximum stated in 1854 to be expended in two years, but £300,000, on the factory at Enfield, which up to March last had not turned out a single musket. After that he could not be surprised that the Government should presume upon the carelessness or the indulgence of the House, and without scruple, advance £20,000 or £30,000 to some foreign house, through an English house, for the production of a supply of small arms. The noble Lord had taunted his hon. Colleague with speaking in behalf of the interests of his constituents. Now it happened that orders for arms were sent not only to America but to Belgium and France in 1854, because the Government could not be persuaded to trust the arms trade of England. The result was that whilst the trade of England supplied 272,000 stand of arms during the period of the war, not one single musket for the purposes of the war did the Government obtain through, and during the period, those foreign orders; nor yet one to represent the return on the £300,000 which had been expended on the manufactory at Enfield. The noble Lord then should not have taunted the Members for North Warwickshire as having promoted the interests of their constituents to the detriment of the interests of the country; the fact being that if it had not been for the labours of the arms trade of England, of which the Government had entertained so ill-founded and unnatural a distrust, they would not have bad a supply of arms for the purposes of the war. The course the Government had adopted was to send the admirable pattern for the Enfield rifle out of the

  1053
  country, to be made by foreigners; and when the foreigners confessed that they could not make muskets of that pattern at the price of £3 4s., Government then agreed to give them £3 10 s., or 6s. more, and sent skilled workmen from Birmingham to teach them to make them from the patterns which they had not invented, and could not carry out themselves. Now, he should like to know what was the use of inventing the best pattern muskets for the army of England if the most ordinary precautions were not to be taken, not merely for preventing foreigners from knowing how to make them, but to avoid teaching them how to do so. There was reason to believe that another most valuable discovery had been made in the rifling of small arms; and he trusted the Government would not disappoint those who had worked for them, as the trade of England had done, by allowing the new patterns to be consigned to foreigners before the home trade had the power of endeavouring to give the army of England at least priority in the possession of that weapon. The Government seemed to him (Mr. Newdegate) to claim a very wide latitude in applying the balances of public money. To appropriate the balance which might arise between the Commissariat expenditure and the Commissariat Vote as advances to foreign houses for the purpose of enabling those houses to make arms for this country from our own patterns was what he thought the House of Commons could never approve. He hoped, then, that the noble Lord, in considering the future conduct of the Government, would endeavour to limit his administration somewhat more within the rules which Parliament had always observed under the constitutional monarchy of England.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not meant to taunt him and his hon. Colleague with having taken a peculiar interest in regard to the affairs of their constituents. It was only natural that they should do that; at the same time it was but right that the House of Commons, when considering this question, should know exactly in what capacity and character hon. Gentlemen stood who offered certain opinions, so that it might be seen whether those opinions were impartial and unprejudiced as between the Government and the small arm manufacturers. It was all very well at the present moment to say that the Government were prodigal in sending orders to France,
  1054
  Belgium, and America for muskets when the trade at home might have furnished, as the hon. Gentleman said, 50,000 in the first year, and 100,000 in the next. [Mr. NEWDEGATE said, they did supply at the rate of 100,000 a year.] What the hon. Member engaged for the trade to do was to supply 50,000 stand the first year and 100,000 the next. But the first year was a year of great pressure, and 50,000 was not anything like the number of muskets which were required of the improved pattern. The Government were, therefore, obliged to go all over the world, wherever they could get muskets made, to supply the immediate and pressing wants of the service. That system arose on the emergency of the moment, and he thought they were perfectly justified in adopting it, and that they would have been very much to blame had they not done so. If the war had gone on, and they had not had proper muskets to put into the hands of the troops, it would have been no answer to say that they could only get a limited number from our own manufacturers, and did not choose to go and employ persons at Liege, at St. Etienne, and in America. But the hon. Gentleman said that the Government had employed money which had been voted by Parliament for one purpose in making advances for another. His hon. Friend (Sir J. Ramsden), however, had explained that this was not the case. The advance to the American house was an advance made out of Votes which were specially for the supply of small arms, and there was nothing in the Vote of Parliament to limit the quarters whence that supply was to come. Therefore, the transaction was perfectly constitutional and Parliamentary. The hon. Gentleman had also observed, that by going to Liege and other places, and sending thither the patterns upon which the supply was to be made, the Government had put into the hands of foreigners those improvements which ought to have been kept secret for ourselves. Did the hon. Gentleman really believe that any improvement in small arms made in any country whatsoever could be kept a secret for the sole benefit of that country? Why, God bless me! if we wanted to get patterns of Russian arms, or American arms, or French arms, or Austrian arms, or Prussian arms, we could get them in the shortest possible time, and the hon. Gentleman may rest perfectly assured that there is no improvement which can be made in the arms of

  1055
  this country which any other country, wanting to acquire it, will not also get in the shortest possible period. The idea, then, that any improvement in the musket could be kept a secret in one country, for the exclusive benefit of that country, was altogether a delusion. On the one hand, whilst no possible injury had arisen from the course which had been adopted, on the other hand, that course was the only one by which an immediate supply of small arms could be obtained.
  MR. SPOONER: The noble Lord seemed to forget that he did not obtain a supply; that he sent the patterns abroad; but that during the war he got all his arms from Birmingham and London. It was true the Committee had agreed to a Vote for the purpose of getting small arms; but if the noble Lord had come down and put the question in this way—"We want to establish a foreign manufactory; give us leave to lend £30,000 or £40,000 to Americans for the purpose," did he believe that the Committee would have entertained his proposal? The noble Lord said that we could not keep our patterns secret; but the fact was that the Government not only sent the orders and the patterns, but the men how to teach foreigners to make the new muskets. The foreigners declared they did not know how to make these new arms, and under the name of "viewers" the Government sent them out the best men they could seduce from the service of their employers in Birmingham, to the great injury of the trade. The noble Lord said the arrangements entered into was rendered necessary by the emergency of the case—that it was not intended to be a permanent arrangement. But was the noble Lord aware what was going on at Birmingham at this moment? Why, there were agents there who were paying premiums to the workmen to induce them to leave. He could prove that large sums of money had been given to induce the men to quit their employers, and that upon their doing so they had gone to work at Enfield. Only within the last few days the order for "sights" had been suspended, and the men who were engaged in that branch of the manufacture, being the best filers, simultaneously with the suspension of these orders being turned out of employment, the streets of the town were placarded with notices that a number of the best filers were wanted at Enfield. Was that, he asked, a fair way of dealing
  1056
  with the trade? He contended that the persons who were sent to give orders at Birmingham, and to see that the manufacture was conducted properly, ought to be persons totally unconnected with the establishment at Enfield, inasmuch as persons employed there felt a natural anxiety to encourage that establishment. If the noble Lord would only carry out what he had stated the other night, that Enfield was only wanted—not to rival the London or Birmingham manufacturer—but simply to establish a manufactory by which the Government themselves could come into possession of knowledge which was exceedingly necessary, and have the means of introducing the best machinery, and doing the best they could to improve the manufacture generally, no man would complain. But when he saw a spirit of rivalry introduced, every possible attempt made to entice the men from their natural employers into the Government manufactory at Enfield, and that the orders were not given out in a regular tradesmanlike manner, then he must say that it did excite more than a suspicion in his mind that it was intended to set up at the public expense, and with the public money, a manufactory the ultimate object of which was to remove the whole of the gun trade from London and Birmingham, and put it into the hands of the Government at Enfield. He warned the Committee, then, not to lend itself to such a dangerous experiment, He would observe, with regard to Enfield, that the Government issued orders, and pretended to show the place to manufacturers, but he would bring men who would state that they had been refused an examination of the place. When they presented themselves they were told that one house was shut, and that in another the men were not at work, and thus the parties were prevented from seeing anything. Now, if the building had been erected for a national object, and not for the purpose of establishing a local trade, the Government ought to permit all persons to see and examine the Enfield manufactory. Enfield ought to be an encouragement to the trade generally, and not set up as a rival to London and Birmingham.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to refer to page 56 of the Estimates, and ask what was meant by the charge of £1,095 for three persons, superintending officers, for the manufacture of small arms in foreign countries. And at page 80 there was a charge of £4,292 as

  1057
  being required for nineteen artificers and labourers. He should like to know what these charges meant?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the sum of £1,095 for superintending officers was on account of the old contracts entered into during 1854–55 for rifles. The contracts had not yet run out, and until they were completed these officers must remain abroad to inspect the small arms. The charge of £4,292 was for wages of the men employed under those superintending officers. In further answer to Mr. Williams, Sir John Ramsden said the charge of £5,272 to which he had alluded was on account of the clothing department for the infantry. All the clothing for the army was now sent down to Weedon for inspection—that was the general depot for the clothing, and it was there examined. He then said (in reply to Mr. Spooner) that he could mention a case which he thought would show that the hon. Gentleman had been misinformed. What had occurred was this: a workman was said to have been enticed from Birmingham to Enfield, upon the representation of another workman who was employed at Enfield. The man had been in the employ of a Birmingham manufacturer, and the superintendent at Enfield going soon after to Birmingham, the matter was brought under his notice. He at once said that the circumstance had taken place without his authority, and that the man should be sent back. Subsequently, therefore, the man was discharged from Enfield, and returned to his work at Birmingham. The hon. Member had also accused the Government of desiring to take the whole manufacture of small arms into their own hands. He might state, however, on their behalf, that only a short time ago a company of gunmakers came to them and represented that they were willing to supply rifle muskets of the pattern of 1853, and on the principle of interchangeability of all the parts; but could not undertake to do so unless they had a large contract to enable them to bear the great expense of setting up the necessary machinery. The Government were so anxious to encourage every effort of this nature in the gun trade, that they entered into a contract with the company to be supplied with 30,000 stand—and this for the purpose of setting up in England a private factory which should come into competition with their own establishment at Enfield.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, that the moment
  1058
  the time of the man to whom the hon. Baronet referred was completed at Birmingham, the authorities at Enfield took him back again, and that there he was now. He did not believe that an honourable private tradesman would have re-engaged a man who had thus deserted his employer.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: His hon. Friend (Sir J. Ramsden) had stated that a company had been established to whom a contract had been given for the supply of 30,000 stand of arms. He should be glad to know of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire where he imagined the company was to get its workmen. Was not trade free? Was not labour in this country free? Was it not perfectly competent for any individual or company who entered upon a career of industry with new capital to bold out encouragement to persons skilled in that particular line to come and enter their employ? Never in his life had he heard such a doctrine as that because a certain number of persons in Birmingham happened to have in their employment a certain number of skilled labourers, the workmen were not to be at liberty, if they could find employment more to their taste elsewhere, to transfer their services to the market which promised to be most advantageous when their time had expired.
  MR. SPOONER: Nobody disputed that; but then the Government were doing it with the public "money—money which the masters, from whom the Government seduced these workmen, had to contribute to in the shape of taxes. That, he thought, was a complete answer to the noble Lord's remarks.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It was no answer at all. If Parliament said that the Government should manufacture weapons, or ships, or any other things, for the public service, they would surely be defeating their own object to say to the Government, "You are to make these things, but we forbid you to take persons into your establishments to make them for you." [Mr. SPOONER: You are bribing them.] Bribing them! Why, the hon. Member might as well say that we were to have no shipwrights in our dockyards, because the shipwrights who came there had left the employment of some private tradesman. The hon. Gentleman talked of the Government as if it were a corporation, acting for its own advantage. It was the organ of the nation, to provide things for the service of the nation; and it was its duty to

  1059
  provide those things in the cheapest and most effectual manner. He contended, therefore, that if there was to be a manufactory of small arms at Enfield, and a manufactory of cannon at Woolwich, it was essential that workmen should be got to perform the processes by which alone those small-arms and cannon could be provided. Talking of that, he begged to remind the hon. Member that the mortars which were employed in the bombardment of Sweaborg during the late war, and which burst in the operation, were manufactured by the trade; whereas, if they had been manufactured in the Government arsenal, he believed that that would never have been their fate.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it was necessary that the House should know the antecedents of the present Enfield establishment. The first attempt to manufacture small arms by the Government was in Allen Street, in the City. This factory was transferred to Lewisham; but after some years, it being found that the water power was insufficient, Enfield was added; and ultimately Lewisham was abandoned. Up to this period £500,000 had been lost in the abortive attempt to manufacture small arms. In February, 1854, the House granted £100,000 for Enfield, and the Government promised that by the aid of machinery the new weapon should not cost more than 30 s. The weapon with which the British army was supplied, up to the close of the last century, cost only 30 s. each; but at the beginning of this century certain improvements were made, and each weapon cost 48 s. Now, those weapons, aided by the stout hearts of British soldiers, had gained more battles than adorned the annals of any other nation. Recently the Minié rifle was invented—an instrument of long range. Now, although the British soldier did not prefer a long range, but rather close quarters, it was quite right that he should not be exposed to a great disadvantage. The Minié rifle was therefore introduced and taken to Enfield, and was now called by that name. But at what cost was it made? At the promised cost of 30 s.? No. Each rifle cost £3 8s. 6d. Now, if the British and Indian army were to be supplied with that rifle the cost would be about £1,500,000. But since the invention of the Enfield rifle (which was, in fact, the same as that invented by Minié, with a few alterations) a new rifle—namely, Whitworth's—had recommended itself to notice,
  1060
  and even another and yet another novelty might be devised. Of course, therefore, the whole of the outlay incurred on the Enfield rifle would be lost; for he presumed the existing machinery would not be suitable to convert the Enfield rifle into the Whitworth. Consequently there would be a further outlay, and hon. Gentlemen must not be surprised if next year the Army Estimates were considerably swollen on account of small arms. The British soldier was of course entitled to have the best weapon, at whatever cost, and no necessary outlay in that respect should be objected to by hon. Members. He thought that the Government had no right to interfere with the enterprize of individual tradesmen by setting up manufactories of their own at Enfield or elsewhere. As a small establishment to test the manufactures of contractors it might be justifiable, but if it was intended to supply the British and Indian armies with a new rifle, he thought it would be decidedly wrong on the part of the Government to produce the article in their own establishments. Such a policy would have a tendency to crush the competitive industry of the country. When anything went wrong in a Government establishment the officials justified each other and the Government justified the officials, and the public interest suffered; but in case of any negligence or inefficient work in a private establishment the country insisted upon getting its money's worth. He (Colonel Sykes) warned the House that £240,000 had been already granted to Enfield since 1854, and that the Vote annually for small arms would become not "small by degrees and beautifully less," but large by degrees and formidably expensive.
  COLONEL NORTHregretted the absence of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), to whom he had given notice that he should to-night direct the attention of the House to a speech of his, reflecting upon the officers employed in various departments of the public service. The hon. and learned Member said he knew that the really honest disinterested men in the country refused to have anything to do with Government contracts, because they were obliged to preface their proceedings by bribing the department—that he was not then speaking in a whisper, for what he was saying the gentlemen below him (meaning the members of the press) would tell to all England, and he was as sure as he was of his own existence that there was

  1061
  bribery and corruption from top to bottom of every permanent department in the country. [Mr. HAYTER: That was in a hustings' speech.] The hustings was not a fit place to cast a slur on the public departments. He (Colonel North) was at that moment serving on the Committee of Contracts; and as a Member of that Committee, had read with the greatest care the two Reports which had been laid upon the table of this House, and certainly, from beginning to end of these Reports, there did not appear to be the slightest cause for the speech of the hon. and learned Member. Throughout the whole of the evidence he found but one single case, and that was the case of a viewer in the Tower of London, who had asked for some money. His conduct was instantly reported to the inspector, and the man was most properly dismissed. For his part, he believed that there was no country in the world more faithfully, honestly, or honourably served by the public departments, and the persons employed in them, than our own. From his personal knowledge, he could only speak so far as the War Department was concerned. The work done by the gentlemen in the War Department was incredible, some of them sat up half the night to perform their duty, and did it without any grumbling. He needed only mention in the War Department his old friend Mr. Crooms, who had retired after a service of half a century; and Messrs. Kerby, Marshall, Richards, and Roberts; while in the Commander in Chief's department, he might name Mr. Keddle and Mr. Brake; and in the Adjutant General's department the gentlemen would be found equally meritorious and hardworking. He thought it hard, therefore, that when the service of the country was performed so admirably, these departments should be attacked on the hustings or elsewhere, and he regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who, he felt sure, would give some explanation as regarded a number of gentlemen who felt deeply aggrieved by his remarks. He (Colonel North) had been enabled to clear the character of General Ashburnham on a former night; but what he deprecated was, that such statements as had been made, and which remained uncontradicted, in consequence of that gallant officer having sailed, were calculated to prejudice him with at least one half of his army.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwas far from saying that the country was not honour-
  1062
  ably served by those connected with the Government departments. The Government, however, had set up a, factory at Enfield at the public expense to compete with the arms trade. Was it fair, then, that the officials employed at this establishment should be made judges of the arms supplied by private competitors? It must be obvious to every one, that while, on the one hand, these officers were urged by the Government, who were then employers, to make the Enfield factory excel the arms trade in production, both as to the quality and cheapness of the arms produced, they had no adequate inducement to do justice to the trade on the other; while over the trade they had almost absolute control. Even if they did not yield to this bias, their position exposed them to the imputation of unfairness which rendered their position unbecoming. The two offices were incompatible, and he hoped the noble Lord intended to give the trade fair play, but, if so, the superintendents of the arms supplied ought not to be connected with the Enfield manufactory.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman and his Colleague always assumed that the persons employed at Enfield had some personal interest in this question. He talked of competitive establishments as if he were talking of two rival companies making a profit by the superior quantity and quality of the goods they made. Now, it was no such thing. The Enfield manufactory was established for the purpose of supplying the public with weapons of the best possible description, and the private manufacturers were employed for the same purpose. It was necessary that somebody should be appointed to see that the muskets furnished by the trade were according to pattern and of the proper quality, and the question was who should be so employed. Why, naturally those who were most conversant with the manufacture, who knew how the different arms were made, and whether they were properly made. Surely, then, the persons connected with Enfield were the best fitted for this office. They obtained no profit from the quantity of muskets turned out at Enfield; and nothing could be further from the fact than to represent the Enfield manufactory in the light of a rival and a competitive establishment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that it had been repeatedly stated before the Small Arms' Committee that the establishment at Enfield was to compete with the trade,

  1063
  and that it had so competed was a fact which could not be denied. Surely, independent persons might be found perfectly competent to judge between the merits of the arms produced at Enfield and elsewhere. When the noble Lord asserted that none were so competent to judge as the officers employed at this factory, he (Mr. Newdegate) met him with the fact that the pattern of the so-called Enfield rifle was not made in Enfield more than was the Whitworth pattern rifle. As long as Enfield was used for its present purpose, it must be considered a competitive establishment.
  MR. CROSSLEYbelieved this factory had cost some hundreds of thousands of pounds, yet it had not produced a single arm up to the 1st of March in the present year. He strongly objected to the managers at Enfield being the judges of the arms supplied by the trade, because those gentlemen must be interested in giving patronage to the factory with which they were connected, and would be likely to overlook defects in their own manufactures, which they would condemn in those of their rivals. He thought the country would be a great loser by going out of its way to commence a manufactory.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had been rather alarmed by the noble Lord's statement that this was not a competitive establishment, for unless it was a competitive establishment he did not see why it should exist or what result was expected to accrue from it. No doubt, the noble Lord was correct in his statements, because of course, in his position, he must have the most ample means of information; but, irrespective of this, it appeared to him that there was ample evidence to show that Enfield was really not a competitive establishment. It had been stated, and the statement had not been denied, that as yet this manufactory had not produced a single rifle. He believed that Votes had been taken on account of it for nearly three years, and yet the public service had not been assisted in the slightest degree. It was, however, a very remarkable circumstance, according to his hon. Friend, that, although Enfield had not produced any arms, it had subtracted some of the most skilful artificers from Birmingham. The noble Lord had, he thought, rather misrepresented his hon. Friend when he said it was impossible to prevent the best models from being furnished from this country to foreign manufacturers, and that
  1064
  nothing could be more barbarous than to suppose that we could hinder improvements introduced here from being adopted abroad. Now what his hon. Friend complained of was, not that the best models were furnished from England to foreign countries, but that by the influence of our Government the best artificers were enlisted for service abroad, though without apparently accomplishing the object which the Government had in view. With regard to the present Vote he was not at all prepared to contend that on the version given of it, by the Under Secretary for War, it might not be worthy of support. Under the circumstances of the case he thought on this occasion the Committee were bound to put a most liberal interpretation upon the intentions of the Government when they considered the postion they were placed in at the period in question, but, even so, he conceived that the Government had committed a very great error in this matter. There could be no doubt that to make an advance to a manufacturer whom you employed, whether he were an American or an Englishman, was one of the greatest errors which in the transaction of business could by possibility be perpetrated. There was, indeed, only one greater error which could be committed, and into that also the Government had fallen—it was to make a second advance. That appeared to him to be an extremely indiscreet course. When they found that the first advance had led to so very unsatisfactory a consequence, it was a great mistake to make a second, and he was not at all surprised that the enterprise had resulted as it had. Still, the Government had been called upon to act in a moment of very great exigency; and whether they had acted prudently or imprudently it was one of those occasions on which their intentions ought to be regarded in the most favourable light; but the principle of advancing money to manufacturers was one which no Committee of Supply ought to sanction. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire had referred to a subject which deserved the grave consideration of Parliament; and although the Committee would not be called upon to express its opinion upon it by division, yet it was a most important question to consider whether the Government, with the capital of the country, should enter into competition with private manufacturers. The question was so grave that it must ultimately, and per-

  1065
  haps speedily, be brought to some conclusion in that House. He knew the arguments which were generally offered on this subject. They all resolved themselves into reasons of State. They could not be defended on economical or mercantile principles, and they resolved themselves therefore into political considerations. But if political considerations were, to be the test the public would demand that the result of the operations should at least be in unison with the State necessity which was alleged. If the public found that the competition which was carried on was contrary to all the principles which regulated commerce in this country, and that the consequence was so extremely unsatisfactory that the Government, employing and wasting the public capital, could not compete successfully with the private trader, it would be impossible for any length of time to maintain the present system; and the Government might rely upon it that when Parliament came, which it would inevitably have to do before long, to consider the financial position of the country, it would be necessary to arrive at some definite conclusion upon this matter. Although the subject of the Enfield establishment had been treated in a very light manner, the fact was that the whole of the important question to which he had referred was involved in it. In his opinion, it was impossible to answer the arguments which had been advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Was that establishment at Enfield a competitive establishment, or was it not? If it were, it was working against the private trader with public capital which was created by the public taxes of the country. If it were not a competitive establishment, it was a mere normal school of gun-making. They had then to inquire what was the expense of such an establishment, and whether the results were at all commensurate with the expenditure. These were questions which it would be impossible for Parliament to evade; the expense was so vast that before long a definite conclusion must be come to on the subject; but he (Mr. Disraeli) should not for the present offer any opposition to the Vote before the Committee.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the discussion appeared to turn very much upon the precise meaning which was attached to the word "competitive." If the Government were to set up a manufactory of things to be sold afterwards for the
  1066
  profit of the Government, he should say that in the strict sense of the word that would be a "competitive" establishment and a very impolitic thing it would be. But when the question was how things required for the public service were best to be supplied, his opinion was, that, as a rule, the more Government could have those things made by officers acting under their immediate superintendence and control, the better the public service was likely to be consulted. It happened, however, that no Government establishment could be on such a scale as to supply all the wants of the service, and there would, no doubt, occur times when more would be required than any Government establishment could produce. For example, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had a "competitive establishment," as the hon. Gentleman opposite would call it, for building ships; but when many gun-boats were required beyond what the Government Dockyards could supply he went to the trade. Formerly, when many more line-of-battle ships were wanted than the Government yards could furnish, forty were ordered from private builders; they were built—very bad they were, and they were called the "Forty Thieves." So it would be in every department if reliance were placed entirely on private traders; there would be no security that the supply would be so good as it ought to be. The advantage of having public establishments was, that we were sure of getting the things we wanted—that they would be good in quality, and as cheap as possible compatibly with the quality. In illustration of this subject, let them glance for a moment at the different things required for the army. The hon. Gentleman might complain that his noble Friend (Lord Panmure) had established a public manufactory of clothing in competition with the army tailors, and ask, "Why shouldn't he go to the trade—why should the clothes be made at Weedon?" The answer was, "Because they were better made there than by the trade—because the soldier had by this means better cloth, and was better clad than he had been before." On the same principle, why not go to the trade for cartridges? Because we had them better made under Government superintendence at Woolwich than we could get them from any private establishment. It was a mistake to suppose that public works of this description were conducted on so expensive a plan as to make the articles

  1067
  produced more expensive than they could be purchased for from the private trader. Take, for example, Lancaster shells. He had seen at Woolwich the manufacture of those shells, and he found that they were not only better than those supplied by the trade, but that they were manufactured at about one-third of the price. So it would be in all things. There ought to be the means of providing what was required for the public service under ordinary circumstances by Government establishments; they would give a standard of quality, and would supply a certain amount; but if a larger supply were required, recourse would then be had to private traders. When they were asking whether Enfield was a competitive establishment or not, his answer was that in one sense it was so—it supplied a certain proportion of the small arms required for the public service, but it was not expected that it would supply the whole amount of arms which would from time to time be needed. Under these circumstances he said that it was a wise thing for the Government to have establishments to supply, as nearly as possible, all those things which might be necessary for the public service.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the establishment at Enfield was opposed to all commercial and economical principles; but there was one thing which was even more important than commercial and economical principles, and that was that the country should be supplied with the best articles. There had been a great deal of advice offered to young Members in the course of the evening. He should not presume to lecture them, but if he might gently offer a hint, it would be to read the blue-books on all those subjects on which Committees had already sat. If they did so, they would find that "trusting to the trade"—to any trade—for anything to be good and honest would be a perfect delusion. They had a specimen of this in the "Forty Thieves," and in the case of every manufacture it was necessary for the Government to have a standard of their own. The freetraders might take an opposite view of the matter, but he would only say to them, "de te fabula narratur."
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, that as a free-trader he could not sit still and leave such remarks unanswered. He had no hesitation in saying that if the whole manufacture of these rifles and the building of heavy ships were thrown open to competition the work
  1068
  would be a great deal better done than now. With regard to the clothing which the noble Lord had alluded to, the Government might depend on it that they would get better clothing from the trade for the same cost.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £221,868, Wages of Artificers, &c.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONcalled the attention of the Government to the great distress prevailing among the workmen at Woolwich, upwards of 5,000 of whom had been recently discharged from one Government establishment, they and the neighbourhood being deprived of the benefit of wages to the extent of about £340,000 a year. These unfortunate men were driven on the parish for support, and a great deal of distress had been occasioned, not only to their families, but to other families in the town. The Government had said they could give no assistance, but he thought it was the duty of the Government to consider the case in a favourable view. He did not mean to say that the Government could possibly devote a special sum for the purpose of emigration, but it was the duty of the Government, if they had the means—and they might find many—to assist these artisans in some way. He did not believe that it would ever be found that a private establishment dismissed a large number of men without endeavouring to place them in a position to gain their livelihood, if not permanently, at least temporarily. If the Government could not afford to assist these men in emigrating, at least they might do what was done in the army and navy—they might place them where they could get work, or at all events remove them to the parishes where they were chargeable.
  SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSentirely concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. and gallant General. As Commandant of the garrison he had witnessed recently the wide-spread distress occasioned by the discharge of those men. The inhabitants had done all in their power to alleviate their wants, but the utmost of their endeavours fell short of the object in view. He trusted the Government would take the case into consideration as a very special one. They ought also to consider the peculiar position of Woolwich, being not only a Dockyard, but a military Arsenal, which when taken collectively was as great as all the military arsenals of France put together. The consequence was, that after the termination of a great war like

  1069
  the war against Russia, thousands of workmen were turned out of work weekly and thrown upon a town of very contracted population, and therefore the less able to bear the burden.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHrepresented the condition of the labourers at Woolwich, Portsmouth, Chatham, and Devonport, who only received 12 s. a week, and yet, in consequence of the dearness of rents in those localities were obliged, many of them, to lodge at a distance of two miles. That compelled them to accomplish a journey of eight miles a day, and thereby unfitted them to do their work properly. Even after they left at night they sought employment in private establishments in order to add to their income, and that unfitted them still more for the labour of the morrow. He was satisfied the Government would do the work cheaper and better if they rewarded these labourers on a more liberal scale.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEthought it not right to give these men such low wages as 12 s. a week, when agricultural labourers were receiving 18 s. a week. [Cries of "Where?"] In the north of Scotland—and he had himself not paid less than 15 s. a week during the last two years. At the present advanced rate of provisions it was perfectly impossible that these men could maintain themselves and families on 12 s. a week. He also complained that the Dockyard establishments were exempted from poor rates.
  MR. BRISCOEhad no connection with Woolwich, but he knew that the distress there was extreme, and he could not help joining in the appeal to the Government that some means might he provided for alleviating that distress. If they did so, he was sure it would he gratifying both to the Committee and the public.
  MR. TOWNSENDbore his testimony as to the distress existing at Woolwich, and trusted that the Government would be able to assist the distressed people to emigrate. The Government establishments at Deptford and Woolwich contributed nothing to the relief of the poor of the parish, while the existing state of things caused a great pressure on the ratepayers. He could assure the Committee that great misery and distress prevailed among the class of workmen who had been referred to, and he hoped the Government would devise some means for their relief.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the case of the workmen discharged from the public establishments at
  1070
  Woolwich had received the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and they were most desirous, if they could justly do so, of appropriating a sum of money to the alleviation of the distress which had been described. But there were great difficulties in the way of such a measure. It must be remembered, however, that this was not the first occasion on which workmen had been discharged in large numbers from public establishments, and it would not he the last; and if the Government once laid down the principle that whenever workmen were discharged under such circumstances they should receive temporary relief in the shape of gratuities, or should be furnished with the means of emigrating to the Colonies, there might be a draught upon the public Treasury which in many cases it would be extremely difficult to satisfy. On the one hand, then, they had to consider the danger of establishing a precedent, and on the other the great hardships endured by the workmen who had been discharged. During the war many persons who were not skilled artificers, but common labourers, had been employed to attend to the machinery at Woolwich, and, instead of receiving the ordinary wages of labourers, they had obtained for the discharge of duties which very short instruction enabled them to perform, wages as high as a, guinea a week. At the termination of the war the services of many of these persons were no longer required, and it became necessary to discharge them. They might, he believed, in almost every instance have returned to their previous occupations and have obtained as high wages as they received before they were employed by the Government; but not unnaturally, perhaps, they were unwilling to accept such wages, and they refused to engage in any work unless they received as high a rate of wages as they had obtained in the service of the Government. Under these circumstances some difficulty was felt in interfering with what might he considered the natural distribution of labour, for undoubtedly nearly all the persons who had been discharged might have obtained employment if they had been willing to accept it. The Committee had been told that if the means of emigration were offered to the men many of them would probably avail themselves of such an offer, but it was not thought desirable to adopt that course. A communication was made on the subject to the Poor Law Board, and they were

  1071
  requested to report on the subject. The Report which they had presented to Government did not, however, represent the distress as either so general or so intense as to-night it had been stated to be. He admitted that the case was one of great difficulty, but it was one in which the inclinations of the Government were not in accordance with their sense of public duty.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONsaid, that many of the discharged men had travelled about the country rather than become a burden to the parish, but their wives and children had experienced extreme distress.
  MR. BRISCOEhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make the case of these men an exception to the general principle laid down by him, in the justice of which he fully concurred.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) 278,570, Clothing and Necessaries.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYwished to know whether it was intended to alter the equipment of the Life Guards or Horse Guards. Minié rifles and conical balls had rendered the cuirass useless.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he was not aware that there was any intention to deprive the Horse Guards of their cuirasses, which, though they might not be impervious to a Minié bullet, would still be of great service in a close encounter.
  MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the comparative cost of clothing for the Horse Guards was double that of the ordinary cavalry, and that the clothing of the Foot Guards was also much more expensive than that of the infantry of the line. The present Duke of Somerset, when he occupied a seat in that House as Lord Seymour, pointed out the utter uselessness of maintaining three regiments of Horse Guards, numbering some 1,300 men, and said the duties they were called upon to perform could be discharged with equal efficiency by 400 men. The maintenance of this force was formerly defended on the ground that in the case of disturbance it constituted a sort of police for the metropolis; but, now that an efficient police force was established, he saw no necessity for continuing, on such a scale, this expensive branch of the army.
  MR. RICHsuggested that in future Estimates the number of rank and file in each regiment should be stated in a column opposite to the cost of the clothing. By so doing the matter would be better understood.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he
  1072
  wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the item relating to the Foot Guards. The total number of these troops were 6,310 men. He entertained no prejudice against them; on the contrary, if he had any prejudice it would be decidedly in their favour, and he would be the last to complain of the privileges they enjoyed if he thought those privileges were consistent with the interests of the public, He had to complain, however, that a captain in the Guards had the same rank as a lieutenant-colonel in the Line. That was a constant subject of dissatisfaction among officers of the line, and especially during the late war, when the effect of the arrangement was that lieutenants and ensigns were subjected to an extra amount of duty in the trenches. What was the case of the French army? He was informed that the French army went into the trenches with a division complete in all its parts—that General Canrobert himself went into the trenches—but that when Sir Colin Campbell on several occasions did similar service, an order came out that generals of division were not to go into the trenches. Again, he was informed that the detachment work was all done by the line and not by the Guards, and that this privilege of the Guards gave rise to great dissatisfaction in the line when the army was in Bulgaria. He thought also there must have been some influence at work which produced the result that, at one time, in August 1855, there was a commander in chief, a Guardsman; the chief of the Staff, a Guardsman; three generals of division, Guardsmen; and three generals of brigade, Guardsmen. He likewise complained that the Guards did not take their regular turn of duty in the Colonies, and were consequently not exposed to changes of climate as were regiments of the line. He had again to complain that officers in the Guards had another privilege which did not belong to those of the line, in that they were competent to hold certain staff appointments leading in three years to the rank of lieutenant colonel; that upon one occasion a young officer in the Guards, having from his rank had a right to command 2,000 men in presence of General Todtleben, it had been found necessary to "break the roster," as it was called, or in other words to place an inferior officer at the head of the force; that in seven battalions of Guards there were eighty officers holding the rank of colonel, while in 112 battalions

  1073
  of the line there were only 190 officers of the same rank. They had also another privilege which he might mention, though the House would probably think it a trivial matter. The Guards marched right in front (a laugh). Hon. Members might laugh, hut their marching right in front meant this, that the regiments which followed in the rear had to pick up all the stragglers and do all the dirty work. He denied that there was any thing in the argument that the Guards were entitled to these privileges because they paid more for their commissions than officers in the line, seeing that the addition was compensated by extra allowances. He hoped the hon. Baronet, the Under Secretary for War, would be able to afford some satisfactory explanation of the grounds of the invidious privileges to which he (Sir. J. Trelawny) had ventured to call his attention and that of the Committee.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he would remind the hon. Baronet that the Vote which the Committee was now discussing had reference to the clothing of the army, and even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the whole system of promotion in the army was utterly bad and indefensible, still he (Sir John Ramsden) did not see what logical connection there was between that subject and the particular vote under consideration, or that that should be any reason why the officers and men in the army should go stark naked for a year. It would be much more convenient if the hon. Baronet would raise this whole question on a separate and substantive Motion so that the House might argue the point, and come to some conclusion upon it, instead of bringing it under discussion in this incidental and irregular way.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he knew this was an unpalatable subject, but he was not going to be put off in that way. He certainly did not mean to propose that the army should go naked; but what, he would ask, could be more natural than that they should discuss the privileges of the Guards on a vote for the clothing of the army? He must now refer to a question which he brought under the notice of the Committee on Monday night—he alluded to the great hardship done to sergeants in the army at the present time under an order issued in the middle of January last.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must remind the hon. Baronet that he was now infringing
  1074
  a rule of the House by referring to a matter which took place in a former debate, and was also diverging from the subject immediately under the consideration of the Committee.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he would ask the hon. Baronet whether he had reconsidered the answer he had given the other evening to a question he (Sir J. Trelawny) had put to him with respect to the pay of the sergeants? [Cries of "Order!"] He would put three cases—
  GENERAL PEELrose to order. The question of the pay of the sergeants could not properly be introduced in connection with a Vote for the clothing of the army.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had already stated that the hon. Baronet could not then raise a discussion, with reference to the pay of the sergeants. The observations of the hon. Baronet with respect to the Guards had been quite irregular, although he had abstained from calling him to order. But he hoped that the hon. Baronet would then confine himself to the question before the Committee.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONsaid, the hon. Baronet could bring that subject forward upon a substantive Motion, and many hon. Members would then he inclined to enter into it. This was not, however, the proper time for so doing.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNY, in expressing his submission to the general wish of the House, said he thought the reply of the Under Secretary for War the other evening might have been more courteous.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had to ask what was the number of the infantry who were to be clothed, and whether the cost of the tailoring was included in the Vote of £174,000, and also where the clothing was made up?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the clothes and materials were sent to Weedon for inspection, where they were delivered out to be made up, and were again inspected when returned into store. It was the development of the new system which caused an increase of charge for the establishment expenses. The item of £174,000 was for the clothing of the whole of the infantry of the line. It applied to 69,722 rank and file and 7,630 sergeants, and was taken at the rate of £2 3s. 6d. per man, being 2s. per man extra, because there were a great many shakoes new this year.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he thought it would be convenient that the

  1075
  number of men in each, force should be put in a column with the cost of clothing per man, so that they could compare the charge in any one year with that of the year preceding.
  COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, it would appear, from the evidence that had been laid before the Select Committee which was inquiring into that subject, that the clothing of the army under the present system was very much superior to the clothing under the old system; but they had no means of determining whether it was also more economical.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, it certainly appeared that the clothing had become improved under the new system; but as that system had only come into operation on the 1st of April last, no very positive conclusion could as yet be drawn with respect to its precise value.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that when the system was changed by the Administration to which he had the honour of belonging, it was never contemplated that it would be productive of any saving of the public money. He was convinced that a more unfounded accusation had never been directed against any men than the charge put forward against the Colonels of regiments, that they had made a profit out of the duty entrusted to them of seeing that the men were properly clothed. It was thought desirable, however, that any odium which the Colonels had incurred in that case should be removed by relieving them of that business, and a hope was at the same time entertained, that by the adoption of a system of centralization a better material might be procured for the same outlay, but even that was very doubtful. If any saving could also be effected, that could only be regarded as an additional and an unexpected advantage to be gained by the measure.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought it would be better in making up the Estimates to follow, in that instance, the former practice, which showed the cost of clothing each regiment.
  MR. KERsaid, he believed that a portion of the contract for supplying the army with clothing might with great advantage be given to Irish manufacturers. The cloth manufactured in Ireland was better and cheaper than the cloth provided in this country.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £636,900, Provisions, Forage, &c.
  MR. RIDLEYasked, whether any additional expense was contemplated for billeting soldiers, or for recompensing the persons who received them on march? He did not think it would ever be possible to do away entirely with billeting in the case of a regiment on march, nor did he suppose that innkeepers wished to have it abolished; but what they did expect and what they had a right to claim was, that they should be paid the amount of their actual disbursements. He hoped that next Session, if not before, the Government would be prepared to submit some proposal on the subject.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, it was not in the contemplation of the Government to make any change in the present allowances for billeting. The subject was under consideration two years ago, and then an alteration was made. Billeting was a privilege which it was impossible for the Government to give up, but it was one which they used with the greatest care for the convenience of those who were subject to it.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYinquired whether accommodation had been provided for the wives of sergeants in barracks? He was told that sergeants and their wives slept behind a curtain in the same room with private soldiers.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENreplied, that the recommendations of the Committee which sat on that subject were being carried out in all the new barracks now in course of construction.
  COLONEL SOMERSETcomplained that the allowance granted to infantry officers for the keep of their horses—2s. per diem—was barely sufficient to provide the necessary supply of corn and hay, exclusive of other charges. He thought that commanding officers should receive an allowance for the keep of two horses each; one was insufficient, as field days happened more frequently now.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANremarked, that cavalry officers were in a worse plight than their brethren of the infantry, inasmuch as they had no allowance at all for the keep of their horses.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENstated, that the allowance of 2s. a day was fixed by the Government after great consideration. They were of opinion that it was sufficient to keep a horse, and in corroboration of that he might state that the contract price was only 1s. 6d. The case of cavalry officers was under consideration, but

  1077
  the Government did not at present feel justified in recommending any change.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANwas glad to hear that the subject was under consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONhoped that the commanding officers of regiments would be granted an allowance for the keep of two horses. They might occasionally have to discharge the duty of brigadiers, and it was therefore important that they should have a second horse to fall back upon.
  COLONEL SOMERSET, with reference to the statement of the Under Secretary, that the contract price was 1s. 6d. a day, stated that he paid 12 s. 6d. every week for his horse at Aldershot. He wished to know whether the claim of commanding officers for the keep of two horses would be taken into consideration?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENreplied that it would.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £400,191, Warlike Stores for Land and Sea Service.
  MR. AYRTONdrew attention to the circumstance that in these Estimates the same article appeared not in one, but in several places, and suggested that in future the several sums expended upon any one object should be brought together. At present the Estimates were unintelligible. He wished to find out the expense of the Enfield factory, but as the Vote was divided into six or seven heads, scattered over as many separate places, he could not do so.
  MR. RICHthought, that whenever a subject was mentioned twice, the fact should be stated in a foot note.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the sole object of the Government in framing the Estimates in their present shape had been to render them intelligible to the House. The principle that had been adopted was, to divide the expenditure under general heads, such as buildings, stores, &c., and it naturally followed that the same establishments appeared under several different heads. A paper had just been laid upon the table, and would immediately be printed, giving, under one head, the total expenditure upon the factory at Enfield up to the 31st of March last.
  COLONEL SYKESobserved, that the constant repetition of one establishment under various heads occurred in other instances.
  COLONEL BOLDEROremarked upon
  1078
  the difference between the Vote of £3,000 this year and that of £572,482 last year, for the supply of iron ordnance, shot, shells, &c., and especially wished to know something about two enormous mortars which had been constructed to throw shells thirty-six inches in diameter, and 470 lb. weight, and which he saw lying in Woolwich Arsenal when he went down the river the other day. He wanted to know whether they were the property of the Government or of the firm which manufactured them, and what was the price to be paid? He was told they cost £12,000 a piece. Those guns had never been tested, and, nothing was known of their merits. For what service were they intended? For sea or land?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought he was the best person to answer the question, as he had given the order for those guns. At the commencement of the last war two very ingenious and scientific men came to him with plans for mortars of a peculiar construction. Those guns were very much larger than any over before employed, and were to be made in segments to facilitate conveyance, which their enormous weight, as a whole, would have rendered most difficult, if not impossible. He sanctioned the construction of two guns, one of which was intended for service in the Baltic, and the other in the Black Sea. In consequence of the failure of the firm to whom the work was intrusted, the guns were not completed until the war was over. He had no doubt those guns would answer, but at present they had not been tried. He had full confidence in the skill and ingenuity of the engineers who had proposed them, and undoubtedly if they did succeed, they would be very formidable weapons.
  COLONEL BOLDEROdid not doubt the skill of the manufacturers, but he wished to know what was their cost, and to whom they belonged.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied that the guns were the property of the public, but he was not able to state the cost.
  COLONEL BOLDEROhoped notice would be given of the proof of those guns, as he should wish to be present.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, notice should be given to the hon. and gallant Member.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked whether Lord Panmure had the power of altering the proportions voted under

  1079
  each head, or were the items separately dealt with?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that the nature of the Estimates was, that the Government stated prospectively the sums that would be required under each head of service, but of course they could not be bound by their anticipations. One head might not require so much as was voted, while another might require a larger sum.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYthought the question was very important. The Committee were called upon to vote an aggregate sum of more than half a million under one head, divided among various items, but their discussions were entirely thrown away if the Secretary of State had power to appropriate the money as he chose. During the war no less than £9,800,000 was voted under one head, and if Lord Panmure had power to dispose of that sum as he pleased, without reference to the proportions in which it had been disposed in the Estimates, the deliberations of the Committee were a perfect farce. He thought it should be understood as a principle, that where a sum had been voted for a particular purpose and was not expended in that manner, the balance should be paid into the Exchequer as balance unexpended. He observed, also, that £700,000 was voted last year for gunpowder, and £82,000 was now asked. He wanted to know the stock in hand, as he thought, after the large vote of last year, there must be a considerable quantity in hand.
  COLONEL BOLDEROthought the hon. Baronet did not quite understand the facts of the case as regarded gunpowder. The siege of Sebastopol had required so enormous a quantity of powder that the stock in the magazines, large as it was, became exhausted, and the Government had to send to the colonies for powder, and to employ merchants to purchase gunpowder and saltpetre wherever it could be obtained. The army was in the same state as our fleet at Algiers, which would have been destroyed had the battle lasted another hour, their supply of powder being exhausted. He thought the Government were justified in replenishing our magazines to meet any event that might happen.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £163,133, Fortifications at Home and Abroad.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERwished for some explanation of an item of £300,000 under the head of "Portland."
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENexplained that it was for the defence of the commercial harbours of the United Kingdom.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERthought that £300,000 was a large Estimate, unless the particular harbours were specified. Commercial harbour was a very general word, and certainly £300,000 would go but a little way in fortifying all the commercial harbours of the country. He thought it would be bad policy to attempt to fortify all the harbours by placing a gun here and a gun there. It would be better to use some of our numerous gunboats for the purpose. He wished for further explanation.
  MR. DILLWYNasked if any part of the sum was to be expended in defences for the Bristol Channel, which was at present entirely defenceless.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the Estimate was one for the defence of ninety-one commercial harbours all over Great Britain and Ireland, by the erection of small batteries to keep off privateers. He could not state whether any part of the sum of £13,500, which was all that was proposed to be expended in the present year, was to be applied to fortifications for the Bristol Channel.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERthought that £300,000 was a large sum. Woolwich, where all our naval and artillery stores were, was simply defended by a garden wall; it was nothing better. He questioned whether it would not be much better to expend £300,000 in the defence of Woolwich. If any attempt was made upon the country, the first place attacked in force would probably be Woolwich.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHmaintained that Portsmouth was not so vulnerable as many hon. Members seemed to suppose. The subject was closely considered by the Duke of Wellington, the Marquess of Anglesea, and Sir John Burgoyne, and the Duke of Wellington recommended that a, line of defence exterior to Gosport should be established. A sum for carrying out part of this plan would be taken in the present Estimates. Intermediate works were also to be constructed, and when the line was completed, an enemy would have no chance of attacking Portsmouth on the

  1081
  sea face. Works were also planned which would make the defences equally strong on the land side.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERobserved, that he had not said one word about Portsmouth; but as the subject had been mentioned, he would make one observation. A great deal more money had been spent at Portsmouth than was at all necessary. He did not refer to the field works at Elson and Portsea, but to the great sums that had been spent in the town of Portsmouth. If a well-chosen hulk were properly sunk in the middle of the channel of Portsmouth harbour, all the purposes would be answered at a much less expense. He wished for some explanation of the intentions of the Government as to the fortification of Woolwich.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the subject of the fortification of Woolwich had occupied much of the attention of the Government. It was undoubtedly a very important consideration, but, as the hon. and gallant Admiral knew very well, the peculiar formation of the ground about Woolwich rendered it exceedingly difficult to defend that place by works to be thrown out on the land side. Any attack on the land side, he was afraid, must be resisted by troops; and as to an attack from the Thames, that could be easily provided against by stationing gunboats and floating batteries in the river.
  COLONEL BOLDEROthought the expenses for civil buildings ought to be separated from the Army Estimates.
  MR. BUTTasked for some explanation of the plan which the Government meant to adopt in the fortification of the commercial harbours.
  MR. RICHthought we should depend more on our army and navy than on any internal fortifications. He had no wish to see our commercial towns, like those of the Continent, surrounded with batteries. The best safeguard of the country was in the valour of the inhabitants.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that no one could, for a moment, doubt the very great reliance which was to be placed upon the valour of our gallant army, but as that army was at the present moment very small, it would be useless to expect it to do impossibilities. In his opinion Woolwich could, by means of throwing up a few redoubts, be put in such a situation as would enable a few men to defend it, and he trusted the Government would adopt the suggestion of throwing up some works there.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, Her Majesty's Government have had a great many representations made from several large commercial towns on the sea coast as to their totally unprotected state, in case an attack should be made by one or two cruisers running in upon them. The Estimate now before the Committee contains what would be the expense of defending by small batteries all towns so situated, but it is the intention of the Government to begin and carry on the erection of these works very gradually—only erecting small works in those towns that were most important. His notion was, that if we were unfortunately engaged in wars, small and very trifling works would be sufficient in these different towns—that volunteer artillery corps would be found to man the batteries for the defence of their own property, and that all the Government would have to do would be to construct the defences on scientific principles, and supply the volunteers with ordnance to defend the works.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYopposed the Vote as one that would lead to a great expenditure.
  MR. BUTTregretted that a larger sum had not been proposed.
  MR. AYRTONthought it would be satisfactory if the Government would state for what particular towns the expense of these works was to be undertaken.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould not state to what particular towns this expenditure of £13,500 would be applied. He would observe, however, that if the proposal was to begin a single great fortification that would cost £300,000, it might be urged, that if once begun and then stopped, the money expended would be entirely thrown away; but as the proposal was to fortify a great number of towns, each of which would cost but a small sum, should they not think it necessary to go on next year or the year afterwards voting these small sums, the money actually expended would not be thrown away. He was not prepared to say what towns would be first fortified, but Liverpool, Hull, Sunderland, and many similar places, had been represented to the Government as standing much in need of defence.
  COLONEL NORTHexpressed his regret at the reductions which had been made in the artillery.
  SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, it was most desirable that the fortifications

  1083
  under consideration should be proceeded with, if on no other account but for the reason that, during the late war, the French Government had adopted similar measures with regard to all the seaports facing the coast of England; and from this cause Nelson had been unable to stop the coasting trade. With regard to the subject of artillery, he was anxious to state a few facts to the Committee which would, he trusted, produce a salutary effect on the minds of the people. To take, for instance, a few of our foreign ports. The gallant General then went into a detail of the number of guns in each of our foreign military stations, and of the number of artillerymen to work them, showing that the latter was quite inadequate for the service they had to perform. In Gibraltar, for instance, there were 669 guns mounted, and only 800 artillerymen to ply them.
  SIR HENRY VERNEY: The opinion was very prevalent abroad that our colonial defences were next to useless, and he did not think the sums proposed to be voted would be sufficient for putting those defences into proper condition. Who could believe that £5,000, for instance, was a sum sufficient to put Corfu in a state of defence? He was sure that no army performed more arduous services than did the British army when employed on foreign stations.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHremarked, that it should not be supposed that a fortress mounting 500 guns wanted of necessity more than 500 men to defend it, for it might be one of twelve sides, and only two of which were assailable by the enemy at one time. It was, therefore, evident that the guns of the other sides would be silent, so that the men attached to them could be employed to defend the other two.
  SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, that Gibraltar mounted all her guns upon one face of the fortress; but all he meant to argue was, the necessity of having some fortification. It would be in the remembrance of many hon. Members, that Admiral Somers was defeated off Algesiras, and had to retire, not by the French fleet, but by two or three well-directed guns from a small fort.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHthought that was an exceptional case.
  MAJOR STUART WORTLEYwanted to know if Lord Palmerston had received any intimation from the inhabitants of the different seaports that, in the event of the
  1084
  military defences being withdrawn, they would be willing to defend those ports?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas quite satisfied that the public spirit of the country would prompt them to do so.
  MR. RICHthought, that before voting the money, it was desirable that the Committee should hear the reasons for the erection of each particular fort.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERadmitted that it was mainly upon the spirit of the people that we must depend for the defence of our coasts; but he would remind the noble Lord, that the first thing which would occur on the breaking out of war, would be the withdrawal of the coast-guardsmen and volunteers to man the fleet. These batteries must be left to the tradesmen and shopkeepers, who would no doubt fight very well if they knew how, but who were entirely wanting in that knowledge.
  MR. W. WILLIAMS MR. W. WILLIAMS moved that the Chairman should report progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed the Motion. The Committee had heard all that could be said upon the Vote, and upon a great variety of subjects more or less connected with it; he therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow this Vote to be agreed to, and progress might then be reported.
  After a few observations from Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas understood to say, that the first towns which it was proposed to fortify were those upon the Tyne.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Thursday next: Committee to sit again on Friday next.

MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had understood that the Committee was not to be taken until after Whitsuntide.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Yes; if there is any objection to proceeding now.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he entertained very strong objections.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSobjected to the Bill being discussed in Committee at

  1085
  that hour of the night (half-past Twelve o'clock). It was a most important measure, and one which involved a great principle. The Government were of opinion that there was in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland a considerable surplus which might be devoted to the support of those clergymen who were about to be deprived, under the operation of the Bill, of the stipends which they now enjoyed. It was, however, alleged, upon the other hand, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners possessed no such surplus, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) had moved for certain returns, by means of which he hoped that the matter would be put in a fairer light than had hitherto been the case. Under these circumstances, he trusted the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not press his Motion for going into Committee, but would adhere to what appeared to have been his original Resolution of postponing the Committee until the Monday after the Whitsuntide recess.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved for the Returns, had not expressed it to be his wish that the further progress of the Bill should he postponed until they had been laid before the House.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he had been prepared to give an explanation, with respect to the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in Committee, as he understood there would be no opposition to the Motion before the House, and he believed he, as much as anybody else, was responsible for any change of intention with respect to the progress of the Bill upon the part of his noble Friend at the head of the Government. He might, however, take that opportunity of making the explanation to which he referred. From certain returns which had been laid before Parliament, it would appear that the income of the Commissioners for the present year was £140,000, while it would seem that it had amounted to £98,000 in the year 1848. He had, however, been informed, that if those figures were taken to be correct, a false impression would he produced, inasmuch as they embraced several items which constituted rather the capital than the income of the Commissioners. From revised returns which he had given him, he perceived that the real amount of their income for the present
  1086
  year was only £99,000, while their expenditure, including the sum of £12,000 which they paid in the shape of ministers' money, was no less than £97,000, so that there remained a balance of only £2,000 a year in their hands. Supposing, therefore, that the obligation of making good the deficiency caused by the passing of the present Bill to be thrown on the Commissioners, no surplus would remain in their hands for the enlargement or building of churches. He should have made that statement before, had he been in a position to do so; but, as he had stated upon a former occasion, he had written to the Archbishop of Dublin, expressing his readiness to make any explanation with which the Commissioners might furnish him, and to that communication he had received no reply. He had, however, since learnt that a letter had been addressed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland giving certain explanations which it was requested should be made by him (Mr. Horsman) to the House of Commons. He had communicated with the Lord Lieutenant upon the subject, but had not been enabled to ascertain that any letter, such as he had mentioned, had reached him. Under these circumstances, he had not previously been in a position to afford the House the information which he should otherwise have been found perfectly ready to lay before it.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he entertained the strongest possible objection to the Bill under the notice of the House. It appeared to him to be a measure giving to the owners of houses in certain towns in Ireland, advantages to the enjoyment of which they possessed no just claim. He regarded the Bill as an infringement upon Church property as established by the Church Temporalities Act, and as laying down a precedent which might be made of most injurious application. He felt bound, however, to say, that it did not seem to him to be respectful to the House to persevere in a fruitless opposition to the Bill, after the decision which had been arrived at in its regard, while he was most anxious that the state of the property in the hands of the Commissioners should be placed in its true light before Parliament and the country. The fact was, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that their legitimate income was about £99,000, while their expenditure was £97,000 per annum, and the obvious operation of the Bill would be to deprive them of the power of applying any portion

  1087
  of their funds, with the exception of the balance of £2,000, between their income and expenditure, to the several important trusts which yet remained unfulfilled. He could not, therefore, help characterizing this measure as one of spoliation, and one calculated to establish a most objectionable and dangerous principle.
  MR. BUTT, as a friend of the Established Church in Ireland, protested against the doctrine that ministers' money was to be treated as the property of the Church. He should be sorry that the passing of this Bill should be regarded as a triumph over the Protestant people of Ireland; for there was an earnest desire on the part of the mass of the people of all religious opinions to get rid of a tax which it was not worth while for the interest of the Irish Church to maintain. During the last Parliament there was not one single petition against this Bill, and he believed he should best consult the interests of the Church of Ireland by voting for the measure.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYopposed the Bill on grounds entirely irrespective of the merits of the impost. The law had imposed an obligation upon certain corporations in Ireland, but they had set their faces against the law. They had not waited for the action of Parliament, but had struck at the very principle of law upon which their own authority exclusively rested.
  SIR ARTHUR ELTONwished to declare his opposition to the measure now before the House, and his regret, that he felt himself obliged to separate from the Liberal party on this occasion; but be did so, because he considered but crude statesmanship on the part of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, that with his large majority he had not brought in some wise and comprehensive plan for settling all these religious grants in Ireland. It was time that such grants as the Regium Donum, Maynooth, and ministers' money were disposed of, but it would be an essential ingredient of any general measure of this kind that fair compensation should be given to those religious societies from whom grants sanctioned by Parliament during a long period of years should be withdrawn. It was not the part of true statesmanship to allow individuals to get up night after night to advance the interests of their own religious community and to damage the interests of those opposed to them. It was wrong in the Government to allow an hon. Member on one
  1088
  night to move to withdraw the grant to Maynooth, and on another to attack ministers' money. By the bulk of the people such discussions were regarded as a victory of Protestants over Catholics, or of Catholics over Protestants. The Orangemen had an innings one night and the Catholics another. These questions would be best settled by abrogating all these grants, giving a fair measure of compensation, and not dealing with the grants piecemeal and hit by bit, but by a general and comprehensive measure.
  MR. HASSARDbelieved, that it was contrary to the wish of the Protestant population that ministers' money should be continued, and that the repeal of the tax would be most grateful to all classes of the people of Ireland. It was stated that the Commissioners of Woods and Works received £3,000 a year from quit rents and other charges upon ecclesiastical benefices in Ireland. This would be a very proper fund as a substitute for ministers' money.
  House in Committee.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed; Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3°, on Thursday next.

SAVINGS-BANKS BILL.

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it had been his intention to move that this Bill be read a second time pro formâ in order to its committal; but as he understood there were some objections to this course, and as he had some Amendments to propose, he should withdraw the Bill, and introduce another, which would be read a first time then, and would be read a second time after the holidays.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL (No. 2).
  Resolution, reported from the Committee on Savings Banks [12th May], read.
  Bill "to amend the Laws relating to Savings Banks, and to provide for the establishment of Saving's Banks with the Security of the Government," ordered to be brought in by The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. WILSON.
  Bill presented, and read 1° to be read 2° on Thursday next.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE. LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  On Motion of Mr. LOWE, Act read.
  MR. LOWE MR. LOWE moved, that the House do go into Committee, to consider the said Act.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee.
  MR. LOWErose to move—
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Joint-Stock Companies Act of 1856.
  This measure was almost entirely technical in its nature, being intended to cure certain difficulties which had arisen in the construction of the Act of last Session. Almost the only exception to this would be some clause inserted with a view to compel companies to come in under the Act which had not yet done so, and thereby to prevent two distinct systems of law from coexisting on the same subject. It was not necessary, then, to trouble the Committee by describing the details of the Bill; but it might be interesting to hon. Gentlemen that he should state the result of the Act of last year. That measure received the Royal assent on the 16th of July, from which date up to the present time 410 companies had been formed, nine of which had unlimited, and 401 limited liability. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution—
  Resolved, "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Joint-Stock Companies Act, 1856."
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FITZROY, Mr. LOWE, and Mr. WILSON.
  Bill read 1°.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER—CASE OF MR. F. R. BERTOLACCI—PETITION.
  MR. CONINGHAMrose to move that the Petition of Mr. Francis Robert Bertolacci, Auditor of the Duchy of Lancaster, praying the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the statements set forth in his Petition (presented May 19) be printed with the Votes. The hon. Member read a statement made by Lord Belper, when Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, bearing testimony to the high character and fitness, as well as to the public services of Mr. Bertolacci, and then referred to the circumstances under which that gentleman was, as he alleged, illegally
  1090
  and unconstitutionally dismissed from the post of Auditor of the Accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Bertolacci had held a patent office under the Crown, from which he could not be removed except for misconduct, and his only misconduct was that he had attempted to do his duty to his country. Moreover, it was a remarkable fact that the individual appointed to succeed him was a near relative of the Receiver General, whose accounts were impugned in the controversy which ended in Mr. Bertolacci's dismissal. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the petition be printed.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYhaving seconded the Motion—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Petition of Mr. Francis Robert Bertolacci, Auditor of the Duchy of Lancaster, praying the House to appoint a Select Committee, to inquire into the statements set forth in his Petition, presented upon the 19th day of this instant May, be printed with the Votes."
  MR. WISEopposed the Motion on behalf of the Select Committee on public petitions. That Committee had laid down certain rules with respect to the printing petitions, which were violated by this. It consisted of sixty folio pages, and the printing would cost £25. It entered into very lengthy details, and made charges affecting the character and conduct of noble Lords and Gentlemen who had no opportunity of replying to them in that House.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he had no personal knowledge of the transactions referred to in the petition, which took place two years before he became Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It contained charges which should certainly be met as promptly as possible. It was the desire of his predecessors in office that they should be brought forward at as early a day as possible, and they undertook, and he undertook on the part of the Government, that no difficulty should be interposed in the way of prosecuting the inquiry, and rendering it as full as possible. He was perfectly convinced that the noblemen and gentlemen implicated were ready to meet the charge; and he implored the hon. Gentleman to bring forward his charges as promptly as possible, and he undertook on the part of the Government that those charges should be met as fully and fairly as possible.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought the petition should be submitted to a Select Committee. He thought the best course for the hon. Member for Brighton would have been to have moved, not that

  1091
  the petition should have been printed, but that it should have been referred to a Select Committee of five Members, to be appointed according to the precedents in such cases by the Committee of Selection. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Motion on the understanding that the Government would interpose no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.
  MR. CONINGHAMassented to this course.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-after One o'clock till Thursday next.