Commons Sitting of 22 April 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Property Qualification; Registration of Partnerships; Universities (Scotland); Public Health Act (1848) Amendment.
2° Chancery Amendment; Exchequer Bills.

CASE OF DR. BERNARD.—QUESTION.
MR. ROEBUCK MR. ROEBUCK, seeing his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in his place, would put to him the question of which he had given him notice. He wished to ask if he could inform the House whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the indictment found against Dr. Bernard for conspiracy?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The subject to which the inquiry of my hon. and learned Friend relates is one of great importance, and it involves an ulterior question, which, as it appears to me, may form a matter for the very serious consideration of the advisers of the Crown. The prosecution against Dr. Bernard was commenced by the late Government. [Sir G. GREY: For conspiracy.] The prosecution against Dr. Bernard was commenced by the late Government. [Sir G. GREY: For conspiracy.] The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for a single moment. I was about to say that the prosecution was commenced under the late Government. In adopting that course I not only say it was a course which it was their duty to adopt, but I further say, that had they hesitated or shown any delay in adopting it they would have exposed themselves to just censure and animadversion. Certain circumstances had come to the knowledge of the advisers of the Crown in the time of the late Government which rendered it expedient, in their opinion, that an inquiry

1487
should take place, and that such facts as were then capable of proof in the due and ordinary course of law should be submitted to a magistrate of this metropolis. Counsel on the part of the Crown, under the direction of the late Government, attended before the magistrate, and in the course of the proceedings, as evidence accumulated upon evidence, the case assumed a form which led the learned counsel for the Crown, and the magistrate before whom the case had been brought, to entertain an opinion that it was the duty of that magistrate to commit the prisoner upon the capital charge of felony. At the time that commitment took place the case had come under the consideration of the present Government. The case for the prosecution was carried on in strict conformity with the laws and constitution of this country, and has now been brought to a conclusion. Dr. Bernard was put upon his trial under circumstances, to say the least, of strong suspicion that he had been a party to a great crime, attended by the most disastrous consequences, which was committed in a neighbouring country. He has undergone his trial, and he has been acquitted by a jury of Englishmen. It would not become me now to comment upon the verdict of acquittal; but since that verdict was pronounced it has been the duty of the law advisers of the Crown —at least I have felt it my duty as the law officer who conducted the prosecution against Dr. Bernard—to consider with great attention the remaining charge, with reference to which the proceedings at first commenced, and upon which, the grand jury having found a true bill, it would be the ordinary course that Dr. Bernard should be put upon his trial. In consequence of the similarity of the charge on which Dr. Bernard has been tried and acquitted and the charge on which he yet remains to be tried —the bill of indictment which has been found against him being a charge of conspiracy to assassinate the Emperor of the French—it has become my duty to consider, with most minute attention, the whole body of evidence adduced upon the late trial, and also what evidence it would be necessary to adduce, and what would be the substantial nature of the entire case if Dr. Bernard should be put upon his trial upon the indictment for conspiracy. Now, almost at the outset of this inquiry, and upon the first view of the case which I have felt it my duty thus maturely to consider, a maxim of our criminal law which
1488
has ever been held sacred by all who, in times past, have taken part in its administration in this country, forced itself upon my attention—"Nemo debet bis vexari pro eâdem causâ;'' and having very attentively and minutely considered the charge upon which Dr. Bernard has already been tried, and the charge upon which, in the ordinary course of law, he might yet be tried—namely, that of a conspiracy to assassinate the Emperor of the French— it appears to me, that although the two crimes as laid in the indictment may be different in name, yet the evidence in support of both is the same, and they are substantially identical. Under these circumstances, after very fully considering the whole of the evidence adduced upon the late trial, and the whole of the evidence which it is within the power of the Crown to bring forward upon any future trial, inasmuch as it appeared to me that the evidence would be the same, and that the question to be left to the jury by the Judges who tried the case would be the same, I have come to the conclusion that to proceed further with this prosecution, and again to put Dr. Bernard upon his trial, would be to violate the maxim to which I have adverted—a maxim which I, in common with all who are entrusted in any degree in the administration of the criminal law of this country, desire to hold sacred. I have, therefore to answer the question of my hon. and learned Friend by informing him and the House that the prosecution against Dr. Bernard for conspiracy will be no further proceeded with, and that he may, consequently, consider himself entirely discharged.
SIR RICHARD BETHELL: I desire to put to my hon. and learned Friend a further question; but, first, the House will perhaps allow me to say one word—that although proceedings with a view to the indictment of Dr. Bernard for conspiracy were taken by the late Government, proceedings with the view of indicting him upon the charge of murder, or of being an accessory to the crime of murder, were not only contemplated by the late Government, but they had decided that there was no reasonable ground upon which any man could expect that such a charge could he maintained successfully. I beg to ask my hon. and learned Friend, it having been stated in the public papers that after the accession of my hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) to office, Mr. Bodkin, the junior counsel for the prosecution, was

1489
instructed to state that he no longer intended to proceed upon the charge of conspiracy, but upon the charge of murder, whether that course was taken under the opinion, and by the direction, of the then and present Attorney General.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: In answering the question of my hon. and learned Friend, I may, in the first place, be permitted to doubt the accuracy of the statement that my learned Friend Mr. Bodkin—who originally attended before the magistrate, I presume, under the instruction of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Bethell), who was then Attorney General, ever intimated that it was not his intention or that of the Crown to proceed with the charge for conspiracy against Dr. Bernard. I should be exceedingly surprised to hear that Mr. Bodkin, of whose discretion and accuracy in all respects I have had long and satisfactory experience, should have taken upon himself to declare the intention of the Government upon a point on which it was utterly impossible that he or any other person could possess any knowledge of their intention, inasmuch as the question to which such alleged declaration refers had never even been raised for the consideration of any of the law advisers of the Crown. It is quite true, as I have already stated in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that when this ease was originally brought under the consideration of a magistrate at Bow Street, the prosecution proceeded, and the evidence was dealt with, entirely as upon a charge for conspiracy. At a later period, and when the evidence which was ultimately brought forward in relation to the part taken by Dr. Bernard in certain transactions (which evidence possibly, and I will believe most probably, was unknown to Her Majesty's legal advisers when the first measures were adopted against Dr. Bernard, but which came out in the course of examination) became known, it was perfectly manifest to my learned friend, Mr. Bodkin, who appeared on the part of the Crown,—and I am sure I may say it also became manifest to the learned magistrate who committed Dr. Bernard for trial,—that those to whom had been assigned the province of carrying on the prosecution, and the magistrate to whom the case was submitted, would have ill discharged their duty if proceedings had not been taken, and if the prisoner had not been committed upon the capital charge. I have heard with indignant astonishment
1490
the observation—the comment—just made by my hon. and learned Friend upon the nature of that charge. Not only was no doubt entertained by the learned Gentleman who attended before the magistrate, instructed by my hon. and learned Friend himself, on the part of the Crown,—not only did no doubt occur to the magistrate who committed the prisoner upon the capital charge—but I must remind my hon. and learned Friend and the House, that upon the trial of Simon Bernard before the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and two other learned and eminent Judges of the land, the prisoner being defended with great zeal, ability, learning, and eloquence by my learned Friend Mr. James, with the assistance of other learned Gentlemen, so little was it thought that there was no substantial ground for the capital charge upon which the prisoner was indicted and placed upon his trial, that my learned Friend Mr. James, instead of immediately claiming an acquittal as a matter of right, thought it wise and expedient simply, and in very few words, to state to the learned Judges the nature of the objections which might be afterwards raised in point of law to the application of the statute in the case of the prisoner; and the learned Judges, whoso names I have mentioned, again, without one moment's hesitation, considered these questions of sufficient gravity, difficulty, and importance, at once to reserve them for the opinion of the fifteen Judges; and accordingly, without further discussion, without a suggestion of any other course on the part of the learned and able counsel for the prosecution, these points of law were reserved, and for six entire days before these learned Judges the trial proceeded upon the capital charge. All that my hon. and learned Friend can say or suggest on the subject of the criminal law, or of any other branch of the law of this country, is entitled to weight, attention, and respect; but whatever may be the opinions which he has formed upon this question, I venture to say that no law officer of the Crown, no adviser of Her Majesty's Government at all connected or interested with the administration of the law of this country, would have done his duty if, under the circumstances which existed, he had hesitated for one moment to put that individual upon his trial on the capital charge.
SIR RICHARD BETHELL: We desire to have a plain answer to a plain ques-

1491
tion. The question is simply this:—Was the proceeding by Mr. Bodkin, altering the charge from one of conspiracy to that of being accessory to murder, a proceeding taken under the direction of Her Majesty's present Attorney General?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have no other answer to return than that which I have already given. I add—not by way of answer, but from a feeling of respect towards this House—that for what was done either before the police magistrate, or at the Old Bailey, or elsewhere, from the hour when the present Government came into office, and from the time that I had the honour to become Her Majesty's Attorney General, I stand here personally responsible, and I shall be at all times, and upon every fitting occasion, ready to vindicate the line of conduct I have taken.
At a somewhat later period of the evening.
MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKE MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKE, who had a notice on the paper in the usual manner, rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the late prosecution of the Queen v. Simon Bernard, charging him as an accessory before the fact, and also as a principal to the murder of Nicholas Battie, was instituted in pursuance of advice given by the law officers of the Crown, to the effect that, assuming the alleged facts to be true, the offence charged was punishable as a felony under the existing law of the realm; and also, whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department will lay any opinion which may have been given by the law officers of the Crown relative to the said charge on the table of the House?
MR. WALPOLE MR. WALPOLE, after observing that his hon. and learned Friend had put the question in a somewhat different form to that of which he had given notice, said, that any one standing in the position he had the honour to fill would agree with him that the effect of the advice given by the law officers of the Crown and the opinion given by those officers, were not a matter which it would be proper for him to communicate; for that advice and opinion the law officers of the Government were alone responsible. But as his hon. and learned Friend had put his question in a somewhat different form, he wished to inform him and the House, in answer to the question with reference to the proceedings in Dr. Bernard's case, not one was taken without the assistance and advice of his learned Friend the Attorney General, and
1492
he should be ashamed of himself, if in any matter of public prosecution, he should give any directions of any kind whatever without such assistance and advice. Perhaps the House would forgive him for making an addition to that statement, because it appeared from the way in which the question was put, that his hon. and learned Friend at least thought there was some holding back on the part of the Government in this matter. He (Mr. Walpole) assured the House there was none; and he also wished to assure them, in vindication of the course taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, that before the present Government came into power, the late Government, acting no doubt under the advice of the law officers, and in his (Mr. Walpole's) opinion acting most properly, issued a notice of reward as against Allsop, not for misdemeanour, but for felony, which must have been proceeded with in precisely the same manner as that in which the present Government had deemed it expedient to proceed against Dr. Bernard. He was anxious that there should be no mistake in this matter, and he made these observations as he saw that the House was a little distrustful of the communication made. He hoped not; but perhaps he might be permitted to add, that two legal questions would have arisen under the Act of Parliament in the case of Dr. Bernard—one, whether Dr. Bernard was one of Her Majesty's subjects within the meaning of the Act; the other, whether a person, either Her Majesty's subject or not, could be tried for a murder committed abroad, either as principal or accessory to that murder. The only difference between the cases of Bernard and Allsop was that Allsop was a natural-born subject, and Bernard owed only temporary allegiance to the Queen, but was not a natural-born subject of Her Majesty. As they had failed in that conviction, the questions of law which it involved was untried; but, after the statement made by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, the House must see that since the failure of that trial was a failure on the facts, it would be a most improper thing to proceed further on the trial for misdemeanour on the same evidence.

COURT OF DIVORCE—QUESTION.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill to facilitate the taking of affidavits

1493
in the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, and also to correct an error made on this and some other points in the Statute of last Session?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would take an early opportunity of communicating with the learned Judge at the head of the Court of Divorce on the subject alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had no doubt that some mischief had resulted from an oversight in the Act of last Session, and, when he had procured the necessary information, he would without delay take steps to put an end to the difficulties which now impeded the proper administration of justice in that Court.

SCOTCH PROBATE—QUESTION.
MR. COWANsaid, he would beg to ask the Lord Advocate if it be his intention, with the essential co-operation of the other law officers of the Crown, to introduce one or more Bills, whereby, by one operation, Probates or Letters of Administration in England or Ireland, and a Confirmation of Executors in Scotland, whether of testate or intestate succession, may be rendered valid and effectual throughout Great Britain and Ireland, so that the benefits partially obtained by the Act of last Session may be placed within reach of all the subjects of Her Majesty?
THE LORD ADVOCATEwas understood to say that there were difficulties in the way of legislation, but that he was at present engaged in the preparation of a Bill upon the subject.

CHELSEA NEW BRIDGE—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works what are the intentions of the Government with reference to the Foot Toll on Chelsea Now Bridge?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had given instructions for the preparation of a Bill, which he trusted would meet the approbation of the House, and he hoped in a short time to be able to introduce it.

THE MARBLE ARCH—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he also wished to put a question in reference to the proposal to place a clock on the Marble Arch at Cumberland Gate,—namely, whether the First Commissioner really intends to go on with that, which has been so much disapproved of?
LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied, that it was not intended to place a clock upon the Arch. The paper face that had been alluded to had already been ordered to be removed, and he believed it had been removed that day.

DECIMAL COINAGE—QUESTION.
MR. BLANDsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what progress has been made by the Decimal Coinage Commissioners since their preliminary Report, presented last May, and when their final Report may be expected?
THE CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that since the preliminary Report of the Commission had been presented they had proceeded to take further oral evidence, and in December last had submitted to Her Majesty the answers which had been received to certain questions drawn up by Lord Overstone, and replied to by Sir John Herschel, Professor de Morgan, and other distinguished persons. Some of the answers to those questions had not as yet, however, been submitted to Her Majesty, and it was the intention of the Commissioners, he might add, to take further oral evidence. With respect to the second question, he could only say that he was not in a position to state when the final Report of the Commissioners might be expected.

HUDSON'S BAY—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Colonies whether any answer to Mr. Labouchere's Despatch of the 22nd day of January, 1858, on the subject of the Hudson's Bay Territory has been received by Her Majesty's Government, and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for the settlement of the Hudson's Bay Question during the present Session of Parliament?
LORD STANLEYsaid, that no answer had as yet been received to the despatch to which the question of the noble Lord referred, and that as in that despatch a plan emanating from the Government of this country, and assented to by the authorities of the Hudson's Bay Company, had been submitted to the Legislature of Canada for their opinion, he deemed it better to wait for that expression of opinion before stating the course which Her Majesty's Ministers proposed to take in reference to the question.

THE "CAGLIARI" —QUESTION.
MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the opinions of the present law officers of the Crown in relation to the capture of the Cagliari will be laid upon the table of the House? He would also like to know whether a despatch demanding compensation for the English Engineers had been framed, and officially or unofficially communicated to the Sardinian Government?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the papers to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, as well as some further documents, were at hand, and would immediately be laid upon the table of the House. With respect to the second question, he could only say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had given him no notice that he meant to put it, and that, although he was generally acquainted with the subject to which it related, he should not wish to make any statement to the House in reference to it without further consideration. The House would therefore, perhaps, permit him to defer his answer to a future occasion.

RECEIPT STAMPS—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD BUXTONsaid, be wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number of Penny Bill and Receipt Stamps were issued during the last financial year? Also, what number have been issued during each year since the penny stamp had been adopted?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the questions were of a nature which ought rather to form the subject of a Motion for Returns than of an inquiry addressed to a Minister. In reply to the first question he might, however, state that 660,000 penny bill stamps and about 73,400,000 receipt and check stamps had been issued during the last financial year. As the hon. Gentleman had not given him notice of the other question which he had put, he was not, he regretted to say, in a position to give the House the information which they might desire to hare upon the subject.

STADE DUES—QUESTION.
MR. HUTTsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade when he proposed to move the nomination of the Committee upon the Stade Dues, and what the special subjects were that he proposed to refer to that Committee?
MR. HENLEYsaid, that it was his intention to move the Committee alluded to, and to place the terms of reference upon the table of the House within one or two days, and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been in communication with the noble Lord at the head of that Department with a view to a settlement of the shape which those terms should take.

DIPLOMATIC SALARIES AND PENSIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. WISE MR. WISE, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given notice upon this subject, said he wished to impress upon the House the necessity of revising the system upon which our diplomatic service was conducted, and of placing it upon a more efficient footing than that upon which it now stood. The evils arising from mistakes committed at home were limited in extent, but if our foreign representatives committed mistakes, the consequences were unlimited, and might prove dangerous to the interests of the empire and fatal to the peace of the world. He thought, therefore, he need not apologize for introducing this subject to the notice of the House. In taking up such a subject a Member always exposed himself to the charge of making personal attacks, but he begged to repudiate such an imputation. He only desired, as a representative of the people, to obtain such information and to propose such measures as should be for the public good. He had also strong sympathies with a portion of the diplomatic body, and regretted much to hear that such able men as Lord Stratford and Sir Hamilton Seymour were about to quit the public service. Even in asking a question on a former day which might appear to be tainted with personality he had only been actuated by a desire to elicit information to which he conceived the public had a right:—when despatches were laid upon the table raising charges against public servants he should be wanting in his duty were he not to do his best to ascertain the real facts. As far as the British Minister to Sardinia was concerned, he gave him every credit for being a useful Minister and a firm supporter of constitutional government; and with respect to the other gentleman, Mr. Erskine, be was known to be an energetic and able public servant, who he hoped, notwithstanding his one error, would be soon again employed. Having said so

  1497
  much as to his motives, he would address himself to the merits of his Motion. Until the death of George IV. all diplomatic salaries were charged upon the civil list; but at the accession of William IV. the subject was investigated by a Committee of that House, who recommended that the diplomatic charges should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but the salaries of the consuls wore to be subjected to the annual vote of Parliament. He mentioned that fact, as he might be met by a statement that there had been a bargain with the Crown; but that argument was unfounded. The salaries of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Treasury, as well as of the consuls, were, during the reign of George IV., paid out of the civil list; but a Committee of the House of Commons thought proper to transfer them to the annual vote of Parliament. If the House bad power to do that with respect to one class of salaries, he apprehended it had the same power now to act with regard to diplomatic salaries. He thought the present state of things showed there was a kind of financial caste existing. He never could see the distinction between the consular and diplomatic bodies, and could not imagine why the expenses of one should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund and those of the other class be dependent upon an annual vote. The Estimates for the military and civil services were laid before Parliament, and there was no reason why the diplomatic service should be otherwise dealt with. Were the duties discharged so irreproachably—was the patronage so admirably distributed that no Parliamentary supervision was needed? When he remembered certain events which had happened in Spain, America, and elsewhere, he thought it was most desirable that ' there should be more frequent opportunities of discussing in that House the duties and salaries of our Ambassadors: abroad. Another reason for the change he advocated was, that, if our diplomacy was to become more national, the representatives of the people must take more interest, exert more influence, and acquire more information in all that concerned it. He fancied that the tendencies of the Foreign Office of late years had been of too secret and confidential a character. Those tendencies he believed to be mischievous, as he held publicity to be in all public affairs the best guarantee for tranquillity and order. Many of our diplomatic diffi-
  1498
  culties had arisen from secret correspondence. The Secretary of State wrote a private letter and also a public despatch; but when he retired from office there was no record of the former. Such a practice appeared to him to be fraught with danger in these times. He did not undervalue true diplomacy — he thought every attempt should be made to maintain peace and concord throughout the world; but, unfortunately, the history of the Foreign Office and the annals of diplomacy led him to the conclusion that, instead of being the promoters of harmony, they had rather been the causes of misunderstanding. He did not know whether the new Foreign Office was begun to be built; but, if it had, he hoped the windows would be very large, so as to admit the air of public opinion, that the door would be kept permanently open to the public in the shape of the patronage, and that the secret system would not he continued any longer or the patronage distributed to a select few. He would next advert to the financial part of the subject, but before he did so he might be permitted to remind the House of a saying of the celebrated Talleyrand. ''Happy the nation," said he, "which had no frontiers." He (Mr. Wise) believed that this country would be much happier than even Talleyrand anticipated, if we could get rid of that mischievous industry and irresponsible activity which existed in ail the Courts of Europe in the shape of "Missions," which formed a perpetual hot-bed of strife. His desire would be to promote as far as possible the efficiency of the gentlemen who had to discharge those important duties; he thought, therefore, the House ought to call for such an investigation as would lead to a revision, if not a reorganization, of the system; and as we could not keep our diplomatic corps in quarantine, we ought at all events to endeavour to have a clean bill of health. He came now to the financial part of the subject. By an Act passed in the early part of the reign of William IV. the Government of the day was empowered to fake £180,000 a year from the consolidated fund, and to pay out of it the salaries of Ambassadors, Charges d'Affaires and other such expenses year by year. It must not, however, be supposed that £180,000 a year was the full extent of the expenditure occasioned by the diplomatic service. On the contrary, he found scattered about among the Estimates various other charges connected with the service, and amounting

  1499
  in the aggregate to an enormous sum. Last year the charge on the Consolidated Fund for Ambassadors was £159,530; the miscellaneous expenditure amounted to £37,500; the outfit to £7,390; and the cost of repairs of embassy houses to £6,912; making a total of £211,335. The Foreign Office expenditure was £67,169; and that of the consular service £205,089, which, with the £211,332 he had just mentioned, amounted to £483,590. The average of seventeen years was £320,258, and therefore the expenditure of the last year was considerably above the average. In 1792 the total cost of the two services was £11.3,927, showing a very great difference in the expenditure between that time and the present. Again, independently of the £9,000 or £10,000 a year paid for house rent, we had paid for our Paris embassy house £89,000, and the House was told last year that it was in a bad state of repair. The house at Constantinople had cost £90,000, the estimate being £33,000. Then at Paris, Vienna, Madrid, St. Petersburg, the Netherlands, Constantinople, and Berlin, we found services of plate for our Ambassadors. Again, "the extraordinary expenses" were gradually increasing. In 1851 they amounted to £16,000. and last year they bad increased to £37,500. And independently of the salaries charged on the consolidated fund during the last ten years the expenses had been as follows: — Miscellaneous, £208,099; outfit, £52,973; special missions, £91,915; rent, £98,000. It appeared also there were eighteen foreign service messengers, and, as if they were not sufficient, there was an item for three extra ones. He might add that if all he heard of one of these messengers appointed last year was true, if such an appointment was made it was a disgrace to the man who made it. Then, in these days of railways and telegraphs there was a sum of £32,000 put down in respect of couriers, and another item in connection with that part of the service of £6,564, making together £38,564. For Foreign Office postage there was a charge of £9,500, and for Ambassadors' postage of £4,013. There was another item still more extraordinary perhaps than any of the preceding ones—namely, £8,113 for interpreters and translations. When he saw that, he asked what the secretaries of legation did? Then there was a charge of £42,000 in respect of the secret service, £32,000 of which was voted by
  1500
  that House, and the remaining £10,000 was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Why one portion of that charge should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and another portion he placed upon the annual Estimates be could never understand, and he submitted that it would be much more simple and desirable if the whole charge were made to appear annually in the Estimates, and voted in one sum. To continue his statement—last year the Government asked that House to expend £10,500 in the purchase of the English Protestant chapel in Paris. He was glad that the House did not accede to that proposition; notwithstanding, as he had been informed; their decision had been characterized by the Ambassador as being excessively absurd. Since the reign of George IV. this country had expended no less a sum than £218,820 on the chapels of our embassies abroad. In 1844 the expenditure under that head was £4,000, but in 1857 it amounted to £8,000. Then, again, the salaries of the chaplains of embassies amounted to upwards of £1,500 a year. If he were to put all those items together they would amount in the aggregate to a sum which would astonish the House. But after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, in which the right hon. Gentleman said he was sincerely disposed to economize the public expenditure, he (Mr. Wise) hoped he was in safe hands; and that the right hon. Gentleman would begin with the Foreign Office, where there was such ample scope for retrenchment. In 1850 the House appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter of official salaries. That Committee, which consisted of, among others, Lord John Russell, Mr. Wilson Patten, Sir John Trollope, Mr. Ellis, Sir W. Molesworth, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Walter, reported very strongly in reference to this diplomatic expenditure, and made a great number of recommendations; but nothing had been done. Why? Because the amounts being charged on the Consolidated Fund were only laid on the table of the House twelve or fifteen months after the money was spent. In 1854 he called the attention of the House to this very point, and asked for a confirmation of the Resolutions of the Select Committee of 1850. He carried his Motion by a majority of 55, and among those who voted with him were the present Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General for England, and the Se-

  1501
  cretary of the Board of Control also acted with him as teller on the occasion. The noble Lord then at the head of the Government stated that some of the recommendations of the Committee would be curried into effect, and that a change was going on at the Foreign Office by winch many improvements would be effected. He was free to acknowledge that some beneficial changes had taken place, and that there were at this moment in the diplomatic service men of whom the country might well be proud. The Report of the Committee of 1850 contained the following Resolutions, which were passed unanimously—
  "First. That it be recommended to the Government to propose to the Government of France and Turkey to convert the Embassies now maintained between those countries and England into missions, and that our diplomatic establishments at Paris and Constantinople be put on the tooting of first-class missions; secondly, that it be recommended to the serious attention of the Government that a single mission at some central point in Germany may be substituted for the several missions now existing at Hanover, Dresden, Stutgard, Munich, and Frankfort, without detriment to the public service; thirdly, that it be recommended to the Government to make arrangements for uniting the mission at Florence with one of the Italian missions; fourthly, that no diplomatic salary shall exceed £5,000 per annum exclusive of an allowance for a residence; fifthly, that it be recommended to the Government to revise the salaries of the whole diplomatic service, regard being had to the relative importance of the various missions, and that in certain eases a union of missions might take place, or a Consul or consular agent be substituted for a mission, whereby considerable saving might be effected without injury to the public service."
  Now, he asked the House to consider what had been done with this Report, of the Committee of 1800. In 1851 there was a Treasury Minute, ordering that the Ambassador at Paris should have a salary of £8,000 a year; but a short time afterwards the Foreign Office made another order, raising the salary to £10,000. He was not saying whether £10,000 a year was too much or too little. Paris was an expensive city; the Ambassador was called on to give many dinners, and they had the authority of one of their diplomatists for saying "that dinners were the soul of diplomacy." The salary of £10,000 was given during the war, but he had never heard of the additional £2,000 being taken off after the war ceased. At Constantinople the salaries were £14,000 and £8,000 for allowances. This was a large sum, but if there was one establishment to which more than another he would consent to give a liberal expenditure it would be to
  1502
  that of our Embassy in the East. Nothing could be more important than our mission there. The Eastern question was only adjourned, There could be no doubt that Russia, Franco, and England looked to the East as a kind of Naboth's vineyard, and nobody could say what events might occur; therefore, if we would maintain a good position in the East, we must keep able and energetic men in that part of the world, and especially in Egypt. In Egypt we had great interests. Mr. Bruce, our Consul General, received a salary of £1,800 a year, and he had been to China, discharging the duty of secretary to our Ambassador in that country. Surely Egypt should not be dealt with after this fashion. Our trade with Egypt had greatly increased, our exports to that country being £2,500,000, and our imports £1,000,000, while our transit trade was of the greatest possible importance. To carry on our business in the East we required not only men of great energy, but men instructed in the languages of the East. We paid not less than £6,000 a year for dragomans, and lot the House only consider what our position was at Constantinople and elsewhere when we had to depend on the fidelity of these men. In one case we employed a man as dragoman whose brother was dragoman to other Powers. In this respect we acted in a manner totally different from other countries. France, Austria, and, of course, Russia had their own countrymen taught in the Oriental languages, while we alone did not employ our own subjects. It was a great misfortune that £6,000 a year should be spent in native dragomans. He was aware that young men had been sent out from Oxford or Cambridge, but he believed that the experiment did not succeed, and he thought the most likely mode of getting good interpreters was to train up the young sons of consuls for the work. Turning from the East to the West, what did we find in Germany? At the important Court of Hanover our Minister had more than £4,000 a year; at Bavaria, £4,500; Saxony, £3,000; and Wurtemburg, £3,000, the kingdom of Wurtemburg not even thinking it worth while to send a Minister here in return. It was said these envoys at small Courts were the eyes and ears of the Foreign Office; but he thought the maintenance of Ministers at Frankfort, Vienna, and Berlin was quite sufficient for the service of Germany. With regard to Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, and

  1503
  one or two smaller missions the Committee of 1850 had a right to say that it was worthy of consideration whether a great deal of money might not be saved by revising these missions and leaving Chargés d'Affaires to manage the business. In Italy we had usually three Ministers, with the following salaries: — Naples, £5,000; Florence, £3,200; and Turin, £4,850. He generally found that some of these smaller missions, such as Florence especially, were hold either by influential incapacity or incompetent patricans. They were places for men rather than men for places. They were in fact a kind of disguised misappropriation of the public money. You could not go to the Treasury and put your hand in the national sack, but it was easy to create a place that was not wanted and to create a salary. The present Emperor of the French told a story of his great uncle, who getting up very early one morning in the middle of summer, and taking a walk through the apartments of the Tuileries, found a little boy in one of the drawing-rooms heaping up a mass of beechwood upon a roaring fire. When asked what he was doing, the boy replied— "I am making ashes for my father; they are his perquisites." Many of these diplomatic places were in like manner what Napoleon called in the case of the ashes "consommation inutile." Then there was a double expenditure going on, only a part of which came before the House. At Lisbon we had an Envoy at a salary of £4,000, a Secretary of Legation at £500, an Attaché at £200, making a total of £4,700. There was a convenient item of sundries of £457; but we also paid a Consul £600 a year, and a Vice Consul £300, and they also received fees to the amount of £400. When Sir Hamilton Seymour, who had been Minister at Lisbon, was examined before the Committee, he gave the following evidence: —
  "I understand you to Say that you are frequently engaged in attending to applications from Oporto and Madeira. Are those from English merchants at those places?—Yes, constantly.
  "Are they for the redress of grievances as against the Government of Portugal? If any Englishman have a cause of complaint he will write to me immediately.
  "Would not his application, in the first instance, be to the consul?—There seems to be no rule on the subject.
  "Are you aware of the salary which is paid to our consul at Oporto?—I am not.
  "Nor at Lisbon?—No.
  "But it is understood to be their duty to attend to the merchants and shipowners who have busi-
  1504
  ness in those ports, and to see that they have justice done them in their ordinary transactions? —Yes, that is their business.
  "They are paid for that?—Yes.
  "Are the Committee to understand that, notwithstanding the consuls are paid for performing that duty, the duty really devolves upon you?—I really do not know why it should be so, but there appears to me to be a very decided preference in general for having recourse to the Minister instead of the consul; so it is, that I have constant applications of all descriptions.
  "I suppose those are matters which could be arranged by the consuls?—In many case I have no doubt about it, and with great advantage.
  "Is it not irregular that we should first pay consuls high salaries, and that we should pay an embassy with a large establishment to do the work of the consul?—The consul has business in which the mission does not take any sort of part."
  It thus appeared that there was no regular division of labour in the diplomatic service. He would recommend to the attention of hon. Members a little book published by Mr. Cavendish, précis writer to the Foreign Office. If Mr. Cavendish had wished to break up the present system he could not have done it more effectually than by writing this book, because it contained an exposé of the whole system, and enabled him to allude to the mode of patronage prevailing at the Foreign Office. The staff of the diplomatic corps consisted of 136 noblemen and gentlemen. This was not a question between patricians and plebeians. He should be the last to desire that the aristocracy should not participate in all the honours of the State. He wished, on the contrary to see them struggle with other classes for the possession of political power, the situations of ambassadors and any other posts for which they might be qualified. He should be sorry to see the young nobles of this country like those of Italy and Sieily. From the advantages they possessed, however, in regard to wealth and education they would, under any circumstances, have the very best chance of getting the most desirable places and appointments. It appeared from Mr. Cavendish's book that out of 136 diplomatists more than 100 were either Peers or the sons, nephews, and near relations of Peers. It was singular, also, to find that, from the year 1740 to 1858, the five missions of Austria, Prussia, France, Russia, and Spain had been filled by 146 ambassadors and Ministers, 115 of whom were Peers. The missions to Frankfort, Persia, Denmark, and the Hanse Towns being inferior posts and not so pleasant, only furnished 10 Peers out of 98 diplo-

  1505
  matists. Under a well devised system of competition, all England might have an opportunity of entering into this department of the public service. The best linguists and those who possessed the best knowledge of international law might then have a share in the prizes of diplomacy. He held in his hand a work written by a gentleman who had long taken an interest in the diplomatic service, and who had himself been in the service of the Crown. This writer said—
  "In France, in Prussia, in Russia, in America, and in most of the other countries in the world, men rise in the diplomatic service by the mere force of great merit, of singular aptitude and ability. But in England, high birth, considerable fortune, Parliamentary connection, or aristocratic influence are the chief passports to the best employments in embassies and foreign missions. In the most commercial country in the world—in the country with the largest number of colonies and with the greatest interests at stake in every quarter of the globe, in a country in which ten years hence the chief business likely to be conducted will be principally commercial—we select for ambassadors, secretaries of legation, altachés and précis writers, men of title and Parliamentary connection—scions or younger brothers of great houses just escaped from college. We appoint not men as judges, or confide our fleets and armies to admirals and generals because they are the sons of this duke, the cousin of that marquess, or the sons-in-law of that peer. Why, then, it may be asked, in the selection and nomination of ambassadors, ministers, and envoys do we pay such homage to the influence and recommendations of great houses,—to Parliamentary influence,—to backstair patronage and support?"
  So that the country was well served he was indifferent who was appointed, and whether they were the sons of Barons or burgesses. But the great blot was in the organization of the staff, which was at the very commencement unjust. A youth of 19 was, perhaps, launched, without salary, as an unpaid attaché upon one of the most extravagant capitals of Europe. He was in principle opposed to any public servant being unpaid, and he thought it would be a wise course to consider the expenditure at some of the minor Courts, to determine the number of attachés required, and to pay them all proper salaries. England begrudged nothing which was proper, and all she sought was efficiency; but he was quite certain that the principle of not paying attachés was mischievous to the country and injurious to the young men. The diplomatic service became a fashionable and ornamental employment. There was no inducement to study; and it was deeply to be lamented that a great number of gentle men, several of whom were Members of
  1506
  that House, who, had they remained in the service, would have arrived at a distinguished position, left it because they felt disappointed that, in fact, there was no prospect of promotion. To have a good service they must encourage those who were in the service. There were occasions when the rule should be broken; but, generally, when vacancies occurred the claims of those in the service ought to have the first consideration. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office had most judiciously and wisely acted upon that rule, and in the recent selections which he had made he could not have appointed more proper persons than had been appointed to Vienna and Madrid. The paying no salaries was a bar to entering the service, because, unless a young man was allowed a comfortable income by his parents, however qualified he might be, he had no chance of living in Paris, Vienna, or St. Petersburg. Many men went into the diplomatic service just as others went into the Horse Guards, with no intention of remaining in it. They did not look forward to being ambassadors, as law students looked forward to being Lord Chancellors. They were often the eldest sons of men of fortune, who, upon their fathers' death, succeeded to vast estates and quitted the service. He also thought that attachés left this country a great deal too young. With views unformed, and their education scarcely completed, they were sent abroad at nineteen or twenty to be attachés, with no salary and very little to do. It would be a great deal better for them that they should be brought up for some years in a public office, especially the Foreign Office. But if the Executive intended to have a real reform, they must consider whether they could not in some way amalgamate the diplomatic and consular services. A young man who had entered the diplomatic service would jump at a good consulship, and if he were qualified he ought to have it. There were consulships of £1,500 or £1,600 a year at Constantinople, Tunis, and Tangiers, and no end of consulships through the East, varying from £700 to £500 a year, which would be a great inducement to young men to qualify themselves and to join in competition for those appointments. He did not see why, to some extent, the two services should not be united. He was satisfied that our Ministers and envoys ought to have a knowledge of the commercial interests of the country. He could conceive no degradation, dishonour, or loss of caste in a

  1507
  young man having been for a year or two at Hamburg, or any other port. Having important duties to discharge as secretary of legation he would know the meaning of commerce, whereas now a great many attachés and secretaries of legation looked down upon all trade, and thought it degrading. He did not see why we should not encourage a knowledge of Oriental languages, by establishing scholarships in connection with our colleges after the French system. A wonderful future was destined for the East, and the more our representatives knew of the Eastern languages the better it would be for our diplomacy. Under the French system, no less than seventeen gentlemen, who had been Ministers and Ambassadors, commenced as pupil consuls at some humble consulate. They learnt their business, and obtained the promotion which they deserved. Such a system would infuse life and energy into our diplomatic and consular services, and lead to the young men who held those appointments receiving a far wider range of instruction. What with railways and telegraphs, the Cabinets of Europe, at all events, might correspond directly as well or better than by writing so many despatches; but he was afraid he should receive very little support in advocating the abolition of permanent embassies. He was quite convinced that they must get rid of what was called secret diplomacy. The system of not giving information to Parliament, until the time was passed for Parliament expressing any opinion, must be given up. Papers presented by command, usually, did not give half so much information as the "second edition" of The Times; and he was sorry to say they were, very often, not half so well written. We had no chance with foreign diplomatists. We were too truthful and too sincere, and he hoped we should always retain those diplomatic faults. Some people might talk of the prerogative, the right of the Crown to nominate Ambassadors, and to throw all the charges on the Consolidated Fund. He wished there were no charges at all on the Consolidated Fund. It was a mischievous system. The whole public service ought to come before the House, and his object was to bring before the House every year the Voles relating to the Diplomatic Service. He believed that (if he might use the expression) it would purify the air and be of immense advantage, by giving an opportunity to have all those matters discussed. He had laid before the House
  1508
  his reasons for the Motion. He thought many would agree with him that reform, revision, and reorganization were necessary. He was convinced the country thought so; and he should, therefore, ask the House to sanction the Resolution he was about to propose, which had for its object to remove the charges of the Diplomatic Service from the secret recesses of the Consolidated Fund to the more constitutional folios of the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. KINNAIRDseconded the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That it is the opinion of this House that the Diplomatic Salaries and Pensions now charged upon the Consolidated Fund should be brought under the more immediate view and control of Parliament, and be paid out of a Vote annually provided by the House of Commons for the purpose."
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDAlthough it is not my intention to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House through the various points of the very wide question to which he has called our attention, I am quite willing to admit that the question itself is one of the utmost interest and importance, not only for the reasons advanced by the hon. Gentleman, but because it affects a body of men whose services are of the greatest importance to the country, and whose mistakes or misconduct too often result in the most serious consequences. It is important, also, not only because the amount of money annually paid in respect of diplomatic services is large, but because it relates to a service which, to use the eloquent words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) is one of the highest triumphs of civilization, inasmuch as its object, in the disputes of nations, is to avoid the necessity of the last appeal to arms, and to bring to the settlement of the contests of peoples and of nations that spirit of conciliation and calm deliberation which we desire to see maintained in private life. The hon. Gentleman, it is fair to say, has manifested a singular constancy of purpose with reference to this subject; and I am free to say that in that respect his efforts have been extremely praiseworthy. On this occasion, however, he has somewhat narrowed, in terms at least, the question which he has introduced to our attention, because the present Motion has reference only to the method adopted in the payment of salaries and pensions for diplomatic ser-

  1509
  vices. I certainly, therefore, did not expect that on this occasion we should have heard any of those sweeping accusations with respect to the extravagance of Ambassadors, of their houses, chaplains, and outfits, to which on former occasions the hon. Gentleman has so frequently referred. All those observations with respect to the expense of the ambassadorial establishments, and the extravagant scale on which our foreign political missions are carried out, really have nothing at all to do with the question before the House. But, Sir, constant as the hon. Gentleman has been in his endeavours to bring the House to bear upon this question, I am afraid that I can only express the same dissent to his conclusions, the same opposition to his views, which upon various occasions have been expressed by those who have preceded me in the office which I have at present the honour to hold. I do not complain of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has brought the subject forward, or question the accuracy of the account which he gave of the way in which this charge was placed upon the Consolidated Fund. Up to 1832 it was a charge upon the Civil List; and when the hon. Gentleman expresses his fear that some opposition might be raised to his Motion, on the ground that it trenched upon the prerogative of the Crown, I assure him that—although I think it is a point which should be touched with great delicacy, and one which should not be undervalued or overlooked—I should be the last person to interfere with the just claims of the House to deal with the expenditure of any portion of the public funds by making an appeal with respect to the strict prerogatives of the Crown. In 1831 the reformed House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to take this subject into consideration; and, after giving it their fullest attention, alter discussing the question in all its bearings, after availing themselves of every aid, and by the best evidence they could procure to enable them to arrive at a sound conclusion, that Committee of 1831—came to the following conclusion, upon which the whole of the present system rests. In their Report, they say:
  "The next branch of expenditure which your Committee proceeded to examine was that of the diplomatic service; and on this subject their inquiries were aided by the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs, who attended for the purpose of giving any explanations that might be required from his department; but, before they applied
  1510
  themselves to the examination of the details of this Estimate, it appeared a matter of serious consideration to examine in what manner it might be most consistent with the public interest to provide for the diplomatic servants of the Crown. Hitherto this branch of expenditure has been borne on the Civil List; and at the accession of His present Majesty it stood as follows:—£196,950 for the effective and non-effective diplomacy. The Select Committee of 1831, having excluded this charge from the Civil list, the first point to be decided by your Committee was, whether the diplomatic expenditure should be hereafter charged on the Consolidated Fund or should be voted annually in Supply."
  That is the exact question which the hon. Gentleman has now brought under the notice of the House. I will now proceed to read the decision of the Committee:
  "In either case, the expenses of foreign missions would be brought under the full knowledge and control of Parliament; but it appears to your Committee, after the fullest information upon the matter, that it would not be expedient to introduce charges of this character into the annual Estimates."
  So that that the Committee, appointed by the House specially to consider this question, after hearing every argument which could be urged either on the one side or the other, came to a deliberate conclusion, which the hon. Gentleman now asks the House to reverse. The Report proceeds:
  "Your Committee, therefore, recommend that a provision should be made for this service, chargeable on the Consolidated Fund. This arrangement will insure that all savings which may be made shall at once go to the public account, and will enable Parliament at all times to take cognizance of, and pronounce a judgment upon, any diplomatic expenditure which may properly be made the subject of inquiry or animadversion. In order to afford an additional security against abuse, it is the opinion of your Committee that a statement of these accounts should be annually laid before the House."
  That recommendation was afterwards embodied in an Act of Parliament, and has been substantially adhered to by the Foreign Office down to the present time. The next recommendation of the Committee is worthy of remark:
  "These arrangements appear to your Committee to be at once calculated to protect the public interests in the foreign relations of the State, and to guard against improvident or lavish expenditure."
  The result of this recommendation of the Committee was, that an annual charge of £180,000 odd was placed on the Consolidated Fund, with a view to the discharge of all diplomatic salaries and pensions, and the result of that, far from being, as the hon. Gentleman has tried to persuade the House, conducive to an extravagant expenditure, was the very best means of securing

  1511
  economy; for, although the amount of £180,000 was by law chargeable upon the Consolidated Fund for diplomatic services, yet at the end of every year since 1842 a very large sum, amounting in some instances to nearly £20,000, had been returned and made available for the general services of the country. The hon. Gentleman has advocated that the salaries and pensions connected with the diplomatic service should be submitted every year in the same manner as the ordinary Estimates, and in illustrating the question he alluded to the case of the extravagant expenditure of £87,000 for an ambassadorial residence at Paris; £90,000 for that at Constantinople; £10,000 for a chapel at Paris, and other items Why, Sir, is the hon. Gentleman aware that every one of those items is dependent upon the annual Vote of Parliament? It is in fact in the fixed part of the expenditure of the Foreign Office which is thrown on the Consolidated Fund — the salaries and pensions—that the most careful economy is displayed; while those very charges which the hon. Gentleman brought under its notice as points of extravagance, are those very items which are annually submitted to the House, and the expediency of allowing which it is open at any time to any hon. Gentleman to question. But, Sir, I ask whether our experience of annual grants is not that year after year they have a tendency to expand, and whether it is not the fact that many an annual grant which in its origin was insignificant —or at least trifling—has, owing to the way in which the Estimates are voted in this House, become so large that it has been the subject of general attention and animadversion? So far from increasing economy by obtaining additional control over the expenditure for diplomatic services, which is the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman, experience shows that it would be likely to lead to the most extravagant expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has referred to one subject of considerable importance. He has stated that the result of bringing the question of the salaries of the diplomatic service under the control of Parliament would be, that it would be perfectly within the power of the House to discontinue certain small missions, more particularly those in the smaller German States. He stated that he thought all our relations with Germany might be satisfactorily carried on by Ministers at Berlin, at Frankfort, and at Vienna. Now, upon that point I will quote the opinion of
  1512
  the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston)—and I will say that whatever may be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen with respect to the general Foreign policy of the noble Lord, there is but one opinion in this House, that as regards everything concerning the administration of the Foreign Department, and particularly that portion of it to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of this House, there is no man in this country who is capable of giving so authoritative an opinion as that noble Lord, who has so long and so ably presided over the Foreign Office. The noble Lord in 1853 expressed his opinion in this House to this effect:—
  "Having had several years' experience of these matters, be could assure the Committee of the value and importance of this means of diplomatic intercourse with the members of the German States, and that those means could not be supplied by our Minister at Frankfort, because he was accredited to the Diet there, and the representatives of those several Courts had no authority to deal with the general policy of their respective Courts, but were only charged with relation to the aggregate functions of the Germanic body. Besides, it was to be remembered that the smaller States often acted an important part in the affairs of Europe, and it often happened that we got important information through diplomatic intercourse with those States with regard to the proceedings of more important States."—[3 Hansard, exxvii. 460.]
  Now, I do not pretend myself to have much experience with reference to this matter; but what little I have leads me, especially with respect to the States of Germany, to agree most cordially in that opinion expressed by the noble Lord. The hon. Gentleman would be very much astonished if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter) did not pay any attention to the vote of an individual Member of the House because he was not a frequent speaker or so important as some others. That, however, if I am rightly informed, is not the policy which is pursued by the right hon. Member for Wells; and in my opinion it would be the height of folly in any British Government to disregard the opinions and the policy of the minor Courts of Germany, when at Frankfort as individual members of the Diet they can exercise such an important influence. It is not at Frankfort that you can learn the opinions and policy of the smaller Principalities to which the hon. Gentleman has directed attention; that knowledge can only be acquired by direct intercourse carried on through the accredited representatives of the Sovereign. There

  1513
  is another point upon which I wish to say a few words. The hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable to bring the diplomatic establishments under the direct control of the House, because he says it would bring popular opinion to bear upon the subject; and that, having hitherto been the refuge of incompetent patricians, the diplomatic service would be thrown open to other classes of greater knowledge and ability. Now, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to state what he thinks of the present representatives of the Sovereign in foreign Courts. Who is our Minister at the Court of St. Petersburgh? Sir John Crampton, who is certainly not an incompetent patrician, but a man who has fairly earned the distinguished position he occupies, In Spain, our Minister is Mr. Buchanan—is he again an instance of patrician incompetence? Lord Stratford, our Minister in Turkey, I admit is a nobleman; but why is he so? He is a nobleman, because the brilliant services he has rendered to the country have raised him to that position. Who have we at Vienna? Sir Hamilton Seymour; and where will the hon. Gentleman find a more distinguished Member of the diplomatic service than that Gentleman: then Lord Cowley, our Ambassador at Paris, is a nobleman; but his peerage was conferred for diplomatic services rendered by the first Lord. Any attempt, therefore, to cast odium on the diplomatic service, by Baying that it is the refuge of incompetent patricians, and to upset a system established on the recommendation of a Committee of this House, after the greatest deliberation, on the plea of throwing it open to able plebeians—for that, I believe, is the term which the hon. Gentleman used—is, to say the open truth—and I do not mean to speak disrespectfully in the least — nothing more nor less than clap-trap, which I am sorry should have been used. Another advantage which the hon. Gentleman thinks would be gained, by bringing these appointments under the direct control and sanction of Parliament is, that the merits and sufficiency of any one of the Ambassadors might be brought under review, and that a ready means would thus he obtained of controlling the expenditure of the country in this department. It seems to me that nothing could have been more invidious, nothing more injurious to the public service than the adoption of such a line of argument. When we send a man to represent us at a foreign
  1514
  Court, we do so because he has distinguished himself by a particular knowledge of the bearings of questions likely to arise, and is presumed to have peculiar claims to public confidence and respect; but if, according to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, the services, merits, and salaries, of our diplomatic agents are to be made year after year the subject of public discussion and objection in this House, I believe no more ready course can be taken to impair the efficiency of our diplomatic service and lower the position of those engaged in it. The hon. Gentleman stated, that it was not only to the smaller missions in Germany that he objected, but also to foreign missions to such States as Naples. I must frankly express my opinion, that the hon. Gentleman could not have referred to a more unfortunate illustration of his argument than that of the Neapolitan States, for I sincerely believe that, if at the time of the seizure of the Cagliari we had had a regular accredited representative at Naples, the whole course of events would have been altered; we should not have had to regret the lengthened imprisonment of our fellow-countrymen, and to regret equally, if not more, a state of circumstances which, up to the present moment, has tended to produce most embarrassing, if not most dangerous questions. For these reasons, which I have very shortly stated, I venture to hope that the House will not give their sanction to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. If I do not follow him into the other subjects to which he has drawn the attention of the House; if I do not refer to the question of unpaid attachés; to that of the necessity of a training for the consular office; if I do not refer to the importance of the study of Oriental languages, or enter into a discussion with him as to the merits of our system as compared with that adopted by France, I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman that it is from no disrespect, from no wish to undervalue the importance of these questions, but simply because the Motion has reference solely to the payment of the salaries and pensions of Ambassadors, &c, and as to the expediency of placing the charge in the Estimates instead of upon the Consolidated Fund. I do not think that those other matters come within the scope of the Motion, or can be properly the subject of discussion under it, I hope that the House will refuse its assent to this proposition. I do not believe that it would conduce to greater efficiency or

  1515
  greater economy; and there are so many evils to which it would, in my opinion, be likely to conduce, that the House ought to pause before it introduces a change in the system under which services so important and so distinguished are rendered, and with reference to a department in respect to which this nation is as well, as efficiently, and as honestly served as any country in the world.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he could not consent to give a silent vote upon a subject of so much importance as that now under the consideration of the House. He saw no reason why the diplomatic expenditure should not be placed among the Estimates, so that it might be brought under the annual cognizance of Parliament. If it was necessary that our Ambassadors at foreign Courts should give expensive entertainments, and thus keep up the reputation of the country for hospitality, he would not begrudge the necessary funds; but as for maintaining what were called ambassadorial functions, he had been quite unable to discover any necessity for it whatever. In this age of telegraphs and railroads he could not but regard the diplomatic service in any other light than as a snug retreat admirably adapted for the scions of the aristocracy. He adopted the view taken by an ancient writer, who maintained that an Ambassador was "a man sent abroad to tell lies for the good of his country;" but we did not want anything of that kind. The appointments of Ambassadors at foreign Courts enabled them to get up quarrels, and when things had gone a certain length we sent out Envoys Extraordinary to make peace. The differences which last occurred between America and England arose from the fact that Mr. Crampton never read the despatch which he had received from the Earl of Clarendon. He had acted in utter ignorance of the facts and of the intentions of Ministers in this country, and hence the misunderstanding which so nearly embroiled two great nations in war. Then as regarded treaties, he should like to know when were treaties ever kept? It had been said by Voltaire, and with some truth, that the only treaty he had ever known to be kept was that in which the name of the Deity had not been invoked—namely, Penn's Treaty with the Indians. He should support the Motion, because he believed if the ambassadorial services were voted by Parliament in the
  1516
  Estimates, and the state of our diplomacy in every quarter brought annually in this way under the notice of the House, we should speedily got rid of that exclusive and aristocratic policy which was the curse of the country, the source of innumerable difficulties and of incalculable expense. He would, moreover, remind the House that it was the dictum of a Premier (the late Lord Melbourne) that, in order to secure perpetual peace, it was required only to shut up the Foreign Office.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he would not trespass long on the attention of the House, but he did not think they would be treating the subject with the respect due to its importance, if they did not express their opinions upon some of the points involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford. His hon. Friend had made a very simple proposal, which he (Mr. Horsman) considered it would be very difficult for the House upon any sound principle to refuse. That proposal was, that the same principle which had been so beneficially applied to our home expenditure should also be applied to our foreign expenditure, and that as the home expenditure came annually before the House of Commons, the same sound and wholesome principle should be adopted in regard to our foreign expenditure. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. S. Fitz Gerald) had rested his opposition—which he (Mr. Horsman) confessed he heard with some regret and surprise—upon the Report of a Committee appointed nearly thirty years ago, and nominated, as he said, by the reformed House of Commons. Now, as the hon. Gentleman attached so much importance to a Report proceeding from a Committee of the reformed House of Commons, he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that he was quite in error with regard to the source from which the Report emanated; and as it had, in fact, proceeded from a Committee of the unreformed House of Commons, he was bound to suppose that the hon. Gentleman would not attach any importance to it. The speech delivered by the hon. Member for Stafford was, it should be remembered, made after considerable experience and much consideration of the subject. He had illustrated it with great ability, and the hon. Gentleman opposite had made as good a reply as he could be expected to make to

  1517
  a speech in itself so unanswerable. Cut the hon. Gentleman had used similar arguments to those which were used in opposition to the changes made in the year 1831. Amongst the changes then made was one with reference to the payment of the great officers of State; and the Duke of Wellington in reference to the change, and using the same arguments of which the hon. Gentleman opposite had availed himself, declared that it would be dangerous and degrading to make the salaries of those persons dependent upon the caprice of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman opposite, following in the wake of the Duke, declared that it would be degrading to our Ambassadors to have their remuneration included in the annual Votes; but surely it would not be more degrading to them than to the hon. Gentleman himself, or to the First Minister of the Crown, whose salaries were voted annually. What, he asked, was the distinction between voting the salary of the Head of the Foreign Department, and that of the gentlemen nominated by that Minister? The objection, in his opinion, would not hold good for a moment, because experience showed that the House of Commons had never been niggardly in rewarding known and acknowledged services. Since the year 1831 the salaries of all the great officers of State had been annually voted by Parliament, and no inconvenience had arisen from the practice, neither had there been any reason to regret the change. On the contrary, there was, he believed, no class of public servants who felt that their salaries were safer than those who depended upon the Votes of that House. His hon. Friend the Member for Stafford had said that the system of keeping permanently from Parliament any circumstances connected with our foreign administration was unwholesome. He (Mr. Horsman) entirely agreed in that observation, as he considered that great injury arose, and much distrust was created, by the secrecy in which our foreign transactions were involved. Everybody would admit, that while diplomatic negotiations were being carried on, great injury might result to the public interest from publicity being given to them; but, on the other hand, under the present system our ignorance with respect to foreign affairs was, he thought, inconsistent with the principles of constitutional government There were diplomatic transactions which had been carried on for years, but which never met the eye of any one out of the
  1518
  Foreign Office. The arguments used by the hon. Gentleman opposite in favour of the principle of secrecy might have been equally well applied thirty, forty, or fifty years ago. In this respect, at least, we had made no progress and no improvement. He was of opinion that the same principle of improvement which had been carried out at home of late years should also be applied to our administration abroad. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fitz-Gerald) had read to the House rather unnecessarily the names of four or five eminent diplomatic servants; but his hon. Friend the 11 ember for Stafford had no wish to impugn the character of our agents abroad— he merely said, and truly enough, that while foreign governments had men trained and educated for this special service, this country took no pains to secure the requisite attainments. There were, it was true, high political and personal morality, and great integrity of character, among our diplomatic officers, which served as a safeguard; hut they had not those special attainments which were found in the diplomatic servants of other Governments—they had not even in many instances a knowledge of the language of the countries to which they were accredited. For these reasons he thought the House ought to feel indebted to the hon. Member for Stafford for the pains with which he had addressed himself to the subject. It was only occasionally, and, as it were, by a lucky accident, that the House was enabled to penetrate the mystery in which our foreign relations were enshrouded; and if the House did not avail itself of the opportunities thus afforded, it would be impossible to make any progress in the reform of our foreign administration. Holding these views, he tendered his personal thanks to the hon. Member, and he hoped the House would not concur in the objections taken by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which were not based upon sound or constitutional principles, and which he did not think had been supported with anything like solid argument.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI wish to state very briefly the reasons which will prevent me from concurring in the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford; and I trust that the House, in dealing with this question, will not found its decision upon any preconceived opinions or upon any party views, but will regard the subject simply as one involving a material point of national importance. It is upon that

  1519
  ground only that I wish to address to the House a few observations. In the first place, I must remark that the Motion tends to reverse a decision which was adopted deliberately by this House after full consideration, as to the manner in which diplomatic salaries and retired pensions should be paid. It is, I think, incumbent upon those who propose to alter that arrangement to show that public inconvenience arises from it, and that public advantage will accrue from the change which is recommended. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) has said that the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has opposed the Motion (Mr. S. FitzGerald), did not rest his objection upon any constitutional grounds. Now, I do rest my objection to it upon constitutional grounds. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) diverged in his speech far beyond the limits of his announced Motion—he wandered into topics upon which those who were prepared to resist his proposal have had no opportunity of informing themselves, so as to be able to deal with the very extensive range of his observations. One of the main arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and which has been repeated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman), and which we have often heard, is, in my opinion, founded upon a complete fallacy—namely, an objection to what is called the secret system of diplomacy. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) desires that the diplomatic transactions of the Government should be brought under the constant supervision of this House. Now, I hold that to be a most unconstitutional doctrine, and one totally at variance with the interests of the country. There appears to me to be no medium between those two courses: Parliament must either place confidence in the responsible Ministers of the Crown with regard to our foreign relations, holding those Ministers answerable for the result of their conduct of such relations; or it must appoint a Standing Committee of diplomatic relations, and thus take the administration of those affairs into its own hands. It is almost unnecessary for me to say that the latter course would be neither consistent with the principles of our constitution nor compatible with its interests. Why, there could not by any possibility be a worse machine for conducting diplomatic transactions than a popular assembly. Two rations whose diplomatic relations were conducted by popular assemblies would inevitably be involved in perpetual difficulties and disputes. We had an instance of
  1520
  this not many years ago in the case of France and America. A question arose between the Governments of those two great countries; that question was taken up by the popular assemblies on both sides of the Atlantic; and had it not been for most earnest exertions on the part of friendly powers, a very serious rupture might have occurred between the two nations. When the secrecy of diplomacy is objected to, I would quote the admission of my right hon. Friend who last addressed the House, that while diplomatic transactions are in progress, it is impossible that they should be made public. How, then, is this House, whose transactions must be public, to deal with diplomatic relations? If the doctrine of my right hon. Friend is just—and just it is—that diplomatic transactions must, as a matter of obvious State necessity, be secret until a result is arrived at, we all know that under the present system the result of diplomatic arrangements is always made public. When the result is attained, Parliament has the power —and the exercise of that power is its constant practice—of calling upon Ministers to afford information with regard to questions of national interest, and to lay upon the table the papers necessary to enable it to understand the details of a particular transaction. We need not go further than a recent event for an illustration of this fact. I will venture to say, that if there had been at the present moment a popular assembly in France, exercising the same right of political discussion with regard to public affairs which takes place in this House, the recent occurrences would have led to a very different state of relations between England and France from that which now happily exists. I say, then, that the proposal of my hon. Friend to transfer these charges to annual Votes, instead of leaving them upon the Consolidated Fund, and thus to give Parliament the opportunity of detailed and constant intervention in the transactions connected with our diplomatic relations, would lead to consequences which I think there might be great reason to regret—would tend to the disturbance of all order, and to the constant disquietude of our foreign relations. My hon. Friend, going far beyond the limits of his Motion, dilated at great length upon Votes of this House for diplomatic expenses, which he considered to have been improvident and extravagant; and he then argued that because he had shown that the House of Commons, by its annual

  1521
  Votes, had sanctioned expenditure which he thought improvident and unnecessary, a Resolution ought to be adopted transferring that portion of the diplomatic expenses now chargeable upon the Consolidated Fund to annual Votes, although, as he contended, the House had not exhibited a due regard to economy of the public money in assenting to such Votes. Why, my hon. Friend must either abandon his opinion, or he must admit that one portion of his arguments answers and refutes the others. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) says it would be no degradation to the diplomatic body if their salaries were voted by this House; and he observed that no degradation attached to Ministers of the Crown in whose case that course is pursued. In one respect I perfectly admit that my right hon. Friend is quite right in that opinion; and so far as regards the feeling and impression in this country, instead of being deemed a degradation, it may be rather satisfactory to any officers employed by the Crown that the salaries awarded to them should receive the annual sanction of Parliament. But as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. FitzGerald) well observed, I think it would have an injurious effect on the position of our diplomatic relations generally, that the question of the salaries of our reprentatives abroad should be made the subject of an annual Vote by this House. The hon. Gentleman opposite evidently did not allude to the impression which such a practice would make here, but to the impression it would be likely to make abroad. I think it is manifest that such a system would impair and weaken the influence of our diplomatic servants abroad if every year the observations and criticisms, which would no doubt occasionally arise in respect to those salaries, were to be published in the newspapers, and to be read at those Courts where our representatives resided. He must be a. fortunate diplomatist who succeeds in performing his duties without giving unintentional offence to some of his wandering countrymen that are to be found in the different cities on the Continent. A traveller whom he had, perhaps, unintentionally offended would be sure to write home a volume of abuse to some Member of this House, who, knowing nothing more of the matter than what he reads in the letter, would nevertheless feel it his duty when the Estimates came on to repeat in the House all the criticisms and fault-finding which were contained in the written com-
  1522
  munication. The diplomatist whose conduct was impugned would have no opportunity of defending himself, and the Ministers of the Crown in this country could not know whether there was or was not any foundation for the charges; but these charges would go forth to the Court at which the diplomatic agent was stationed, and must tend to lower him in the estimation of the society in which he moved, and with the Court to which he was accredited, and must impair his means of rendering useful public services. I need not refer to the other objection, that those who were dissatisfied with the political action of a particular Minister would naturally, when his salary came to be voted, express their opinions upon his conduct, and that is, I think, a strong reason for not adopting the Motion of my hon. Friend. Having had considerable experience with regard to questions of this kind, I do entreat and conjure the House not to sanction a proposal which, I believe, would be attended with most serious and injurious consequences to the public interests as connected with our foreign relations. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into many of the topics not immediately connected with the Motion which he introduced into his speech; but I may make one observation. We have been told that this House ought to do certain things because they are done by other countries. Now, I think that argument falls short of a legitimate conclusion. Those who tell us that the arrangements which exist in other countries ought to be introduced in our own should prove that such arrangements are more beneficial than those which we have already adopted. My hon. Friend has used an argument on this subject which I think is somewhat contradictory. In the first place he would reduce very materially the salaries, and impair therefore the position of the missions and embassies that we have abroad. And then, on the other hand, he says that the diplomatic service ought to be improved and reformed; that young men ought to be induced to enter into it with an expectation of promotion. So that while, on the one hand, he wants to bring young men in with this expectation, on the other hand he advises us to diminish their temptation to enter by rendering the chief positions such that it would answer no man's purpose to fill them with the salaries which he wishes to confine them to. It was stated by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. FitzGerald) that, so far from the diplomatic

  1523
  service having been prodigally administered, there was a limit of expenditure which could not be exceeded. In fact, it will be found that many of those who hold offices under this department are obliged to economies their expenses to the amount of the salary attached to their office. That, in itself, I think, is a sufficient proof that the Foreign Office has limited the expenses of those functionaries to a reasonable amount. And I would ask, which department is the most able to judge what is the proper salary to be paid to Ministers—that department which is in daily correspondence with such Ministers, and which knows all the circumstances on which the decision as to the amount of salary depends; or this House, which cannot by possibility possess the requisite information? It is perfectly clear that it is the responsible Government alone which ought to be left to determine the amount of the salary in each post, varying that salary according to circumstances, and according to what they consider should be the proper amount for each specific place. My hon. Friend says there ought to be a fusion of the diplomatic and consular appointments. To a certain extent that has taken place—not that there are instances, as far as I remember, of consuls being brought into diplomatic situations; but there are many cases in which men have been transferred from diplomatic to consular appointments, where the functions of those consular appointments have partaken in some degree of a diplomatic character. I will not, however, weary the House by dwelling upon details which are, perhaps, more suitable for the consideration of a Committee upstairs; but I entreat the House not hastily and rashly to agree to a Resolution which, in my humble opinion, founded on considerable experience, I think would be extremely detrimental to the interests of the public service.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that it might be presumption in him to attempt to answer the noble Lord, but he hoped that his noble Friend would not be dissuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord from taking a division. The noble Lord founded his opposition to the Motion on constitutional grounds. Why, if the expense of the consular establishments were submitted to the House in the Estimates, should there not be Votes for the diplomatic service? He thought that neither the Government nor the noble Lord had answered his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had
  1524
  been accused of bringing forward extraneous matter in making his Motion; but he was sure that when the speech of his hon. Friend was read out of doors the country would feel that they owed a deep debt of gratitude to him for the information he had brought forward. He should cordially support the Motion.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I think, with regard to the particular Motion before us, the answer of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. FitzGerald) proved that, in all probability, if these Votes were submitted to the consideration of the House instead of being paid out of the Consolidated Fund, it would tend rather to confusion than to economy. I believe that to be a sound argument, and I am therefore contented with the present mode of paying the salaries of Ministers. At the same time I do not like to vote, as I shall vote, against the Motion of my hon. Friend without saying that I think there are many of his observations, having no immediate reference to this Motion, which are well worthy of attention. In the first place, with regard to the service itself, I think the plan of having unpaid attachés is a bad system, inconsistent with our usual practice, and that every person who enters the service (perhaps he should not be admitted so young as is at present the case) should have a certain salary apportioned to his position and duties. In the second place, it seems to me that it would be useful to have a general revision of our diplomatic services; for while, on the one hand, there are men in high posts who do not receive salaries proportionate to the stations which they occupy, there are posts or many minor places which might well be abolished. The result of such a revision might not be to effect any great economy, but I think the service generally would be the better for it. In the last place, although I do not agree with all that my hon. Friend has urged upon the subject, I think if diplomatic papers were more frequently submitted to the House of Commons, that, instead of being injurious they would be useful to the public service; because very often false rumours are current which might be removed by the production of those papers. While, therefore, I shall think it my duty on these grounds to vote against the Motion, I must say that my thanks are due to my hon. Friend for the important subjects which he has brought under our consideration.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 114; Noes 142: Majority 28.

DESTITUTION IN DONEGAL,

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. BAGWELLrose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the destitution existing in the Guadore and Cloughanelly district, county of Donegal. The hon. Member said that his Motion had particular relation to the northern part of that county, with a wild mountainous district with large tracts of barren land, where the people were living in a state of wild poverty. The state of that part of the county was brought under the notice of the Devon Commission, and Lord George Hill, one of the great proprietors of the county, in his evidence before the Commission, gave a graphic description of the condition of that part of it. He showed that the people were in the habit of living on very small farms, eking out their subsistence by means of grazing a few cattle upon the neighbouring mountains. Mr. Nicholls, a gentleman engaged in the Poor Law inquiry, corroborated the statements of Lord George Hill, as to the condition of Donegal, especially in its northern and western parts. Latterly, the proprietors of this mountainous district were anxious to get rid of the cottier system, and introduce sheep farming, and they had brought in a number of Scotch tenants and Scotch sheep. This did not meet with the approbation of the native inhabitants, who were thus reduced from a state of rude plenty to one of destitution. Lord George Hill stated that each inhabitant had three dwellings, one in the mountains, one on his farm, and another on the sea-shore; and families were always changing their residences according to the means of obtaining grazing; the people were quiet and inoffensive, and naturally of kind manners; many of them, especially the women, did not understand English, and among their peculiarities they disliked living in detached houses, which they considered to be lonely. In the same year Lord George Hill gave evidence before another Commission, which went to Ireland to obtain information, with a view to the establishment of the poor law; and Mr. Nicholls, in his report to Lord John Russell, said of Donegal that the people congregated where the soil was most easily cultivated and no exertion was necessary; while, in order to get their rent, they depended on
  1526
  a few cattle. It must strike every one that the system lately introduced into Donegal was only a repetition of that which had been done in Scotland a few years ago, when Sutherlandshire and the mountainous parts of the country were almost entirely depopulated in order to make room for sheep, and the people either sent to America or located on the sea-shore. His (Mr. Bagwell's) feeling and opinion was against any one's having the power to deal with his fellow-creatures in that way. He believed, indeed, that the Duke of Sutherland had carried out the system on his estates with all the humanity that was to be expected from him; but he (Mr. Bagwell) wished to know how such clearances would be regarded abroad? All the world looked up to the institutions of this country, and when it was possible to find a flaw in them republicans and the friends of despotism were equally ready to pick holes in them. Sismondi said— "This driving away of people from their firesides may be legal, but will any man dare to say that it is just?" and a writer in the Quarterly Review declared that the Highland clearances were a scandal to a civilized country. He did not think the plan of transporting the people from a country and replacing them by cattle at all calculated to improve the condition of that country. As an instance of the consequences, he might state that a short time ago the nation was startled from its propriety by a statement which appeared in the newspapers, signed by ten of the Roman Catholic clergy, in reply to which a resolution was drawn up by a board of guardians. The Government sent down an inspector (Mr. Hamilton) to investigate the matter, and the report of that gentleman was so much at variance with that of the clergymen, that if the case rested on that alone a further inquiry was necessary in order that the blame might rest on the parties who were in fault. The taxation that had been imposed on the district was most frightful. In one part the police tax amounted to £490 4s. 11 d., and the sheep tax to £864 12 s. 7d., making a total of £1,354 17 s. 6d., being considerably over the property valuation. The total valuation of the district was £2,080 11 s. 8 d., whilst the taxes raised amounted to £2,000 15 s. 4d. The payment of these taxes proved that the people did not wish to evade the law, but had paid them to the utmost. In consequence of the address issued by the clergymen to whom he had

  1527
  alluded, a committee was formed in London for the purpose of raising subscriptions, and similar committees were formed in different parts of Ireland. The contributors included many landed proprietors who had made inquiries into the matter, and amongst them he might mention Mr. Sharman Crawford, who stated his belief that the complaints which had been made were well founded; and many other persons of name and station also contributed, thus affirming their conviction of the existence of destitution. He thought it due to the charitable individuals who had contributed to the relief of these poor people that some means should be devised for ascertaining the truth of the statements which had been put forward, and trusted the House would agree to the appointment of a Committee for that purpose. He demanded this in the name of justice, in the name of humanity, and, above all, in the name of the Irish landlords, many of whom believed that property had its duties as well as its rights.
  MR. M'MAHONseconded the Motion.
  SIR EDMUND HAYES SIR EDMUND HAYES, as one connected with that part of Ireland to which reference had been made, begged to say, that the statements issued by the Roman Catholic clergymen were without foundation and without truth; and he would further add, that those gentlemen had in their power the means of ascertaining that they were not justified by facts. The hon. Gentleman opposite had passed over far too lightly the evidence taken before Mr. Hamilton, who, as a Government officer, had no motive for bias in the inquiry which he had conducted, and who had reported, after hearing evidence, and going personally through the districts which were represented to be plunged in a state of destitution, that the statement of the Catholic priests was unfounded. He denied that Lord George Hill had ever ejected a tenant from his estate at Guadore, and he believed that he might say the same of almost every landlord immediately connected with that part of the country. When the noble Lord to whom he referred came to that part of the country fourteen years ago, there were no roads, no sort of cultivation. Now there were good roads, a corn-mill, post office, schools, a model farm, and a great many carts where there were none before. He did not know whether the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would assent to the appointment of this Committee, but he wished to say on
  1528
  behalf of the owners of that district, that they not only were willing, but wished to have a Committee to inquire into the real state of that district, to test the truth of the contradictory statements which had been made in respect to it, and to report upon the manner in which they had discharged their duties to the poor of that district.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that he thought the hon. Gentleman who had moved for this Committee could not have visited the district in question, or he would not have made the Motion, for in that case he must have known that the statements upon the authority of which he had moved for it were unfounded. He must protest against the attack upon Mr. Hamilton, who was one of the most able and zealous of the poor-law officers in Ireland, and whose report he believed to be entitled to entire credit. And with respect to the amount of contributions which were said to have been collected for the poor of this district, he did not believe that one-tenth part of the money raised by charity was appropriated to the poor of this district. For his own part, he knew the county of Donegal well, and he must say that he had never seen a county progressing more rapidly than this had lately been. It was true that a great outrage had been committed by a section of the community who had taken possession of property to which they had no right, and that the Government had thought it right to lay on an impost to protect property. But the fact that that impost was paid was a proof that the district was not in such a state of poverty as had been represented. He objected to the appointment of a Committee of inquiry of this kind, which, not having the power to examine witnesses on oath, could end in no good, and would not attain the object of ascertaining the truth of the contradictory statements which had been made on this subject.
  MR. P. O'BRIENwished to know whether the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had visited the district in question, as he asserted that the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) ought to have done? He did not wish to attack Mr. Hamilton or the integrity of his report, for he had no doubt that that gentleman had reported what he believed to be the fact; nor did he wish to say one word against Lord George Hill (knowing what that noble Lord had done for that district) nor against the landlords of Donegal

  1529
  generally: but they had the statement of ten Roman Catholic clergymen that such a state of things existed in that district as no man could wish to exist, supposing it to be true. Nor was the evidence taken by Mr. Hamilton inconsistent with this statement, because most of it was given as matter of opinion; and he believed that a feeling of pride led many of the witnesses to endeavour to conceal those privations which the clergymen, with their larger opportunities of investigation, were able to detect. On account of the discrepancy which existed between these two statements, and of the reasons which existed for doubting that of the witnesses examined by Mr. Hamilton, be thought there should be an inquiry by a Committee of that House. It had been said that a large quantity of sheep had been destroyed in this district, for which the grand jury had assessed a compensation upon the district, and that therefore any burden which might have resulted from that was justly inflicted. But it was certain that several of the sheep supposed to have been destroyed had been afterwards found, and that their disappearance was a case, not of wanton destruction, but of felony. A very strong feeling had been excited on this subject, and, therefore, without impugning the conduct of the magistrates, or the poor law authorities, and merely contending that the inquiry which had already taken place was incomplete and inconclusive, he thought there ought to be another before a Committee of the House of Commons, which alone had the power of arriving at the real facts of the case. He should therefore support the Motion.
  LORD NAASfelt it his duty, from the position which he held, to state briefly to the House the opinion he entertained on this subject, and also to place before them the information at his command with regard to the condition of the district in question. When the House had heard his statement, they would perhaps agree with him that this was one of the most extraordinary cases that had ever been submitted to their consideration. The representations made on either side had been directly contradicted one by the other, and it would be for the House to form their own conclusions as best they could from such conflicting-testimony. The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had not made out a very strong case for a Committee; he had abstained from entering into specific details, confining himself merely to general
  1530
  statements, and giving the House to understand that a system of depopulation was now going on in parts of Donegal similar to what occurred some years ago on the estates of the Duke of Sutherland in Scotland. But as the hon. Mover had given few facts, he would call their attention to the statement which had been published by ten Roman Catholic clergymen of the districts of Guadore and Cloughanelly respecting the conduct of the landlords and the distress among the population. This was the statement on which this Motion is founded. Before proceeding with these gentlemen's allegations, he ought to state that the people of this part of Donegal were, and always had been, very poor; they bad been rarely visited by strangers; and perhaps there was not in Ireland, or in the western islands of Scotland, a wilder district, or, he might add, a wilder population. It was asserted that all the landlords of that locality, save one, had simultaneously deprived these poor people of their mountain grazing, and given them to Scotch and English graziers; and that in other cases they had doubled, trebled, and even quadrupled their rent. He held in his hand a statement put forth on the part of the proprietors which declared that no tenants had been evicted; that the landlords had not sold any goods by distress warrant for rent; and that they had not interfered with the tenants' right in any case. That alone ought to convince the House of the doubts and difficulties that hung over the case, owing to the contradictory statements put forth on both sides. Up to a recent period there was a large tract of waste mountain in that district which was occasionally used by the population as a run for their cattle. This property seemed to have been held very much in common by the inhabitants, who paid their rent more according to the number of cattle they possessed than according to the actual quantity of their land. It went by the name of the "run-dale" system. That was a state of things which nobody would say was satisfactory. Numberless disputes among the tenantry arose under this system, which were productive of the worst results. Some years ago certain of the proprietors took up a considerable portion of this mountain waste land and let it to Scotch and English graziers for the purpose of its being turned into a sheepwalk; the proprietors alleged, however, that they still left in the hands of the poor people a

  1531
  sufficient extent of land for depasturing the number of cattle they possessed, the remainder being surface drained and otherwise improved. In one district, where there were 2,000 acres of this mountain land, which the landlord let, reserving 700 acres for the people, the greater part of it never had been used by them. In another case, a landlord gave his tenants 500 acres, at the same time paying his tenantry to dig a ditch for the purpose of separating the 500 acres from the 1,200 that had been let for a sheep walk, though he believed that since then the landlord added the 500 acres to the rest. Lord George Hill reserved 9,500 acres of mountain land for his old tenants, besides paying for them their poor rates and their income tax. If these waste lands were thus used for grazing, while the land of the poor tenants was cut off and reserved for their separate use, surely such conduct ought not to be held up to opprobrium in that House, and represented as though it were accompanied by wholesale eviction. The statement often Roman Catholic clergymen, in their appeal for charity for the peasantry of these districts, was certainly very startling. They said: —
  " There are at this moment 800 families subsisting on seaweed, crabs, cockles, or any other edible matter they can pick up along the seashore or scrape off the rocks. There are about 600 adults of both sexes, who through, sheer poverty are now going barefooted, amid the inclemency of the season, on this bleak northern coast. There are about 700 families that have neither bed nor bedclothes, but are forced to he on the cold damp earth in the rags worn by them during the day. There are about 600 families who have now neither cow, sheep, nor goat, and who, from the beginning of the year to its close, hardly ever know the taste of milk or butter."
  This statement was published in newspapers both in England and Ireland. The Poor Law Commissioners, acting under the direction of the late Government, very properly ordered an inquiry to be instituted into the truth of these allegations. The officer selected to conduct the investigation was Mr. Hamilton, a public servant of great experience and ability, who had been employed under the Poor Law Board throughout the whole of the famine. There was no public servant whose character stood higher. Before Mr. Hamilton arrived in the district, the Board of Guardians of the union in which it was comprised, namely, the Dunfanaghy Union, met and agreed to the following resolution:—
  "That having seen with regret and astonishment in the newspapers an appeal signed by ten
  1532
  Roman Catholic clergymen setting forth a dreadful state of destitution at present existing in this union, we consider ourselves called on, as the guardians of the poor, both from our own local knowledge and upon inquiry, to say such a statement is quite false and without any foundation; and we think we are borne out in this by the fact of having only twenty-two paupers in the workhouse from the entire union."
  As an additional proof of the incorrectness of the statements that had been made as to the destitution of the people, the guardians asserted that in the month of February last there were only twenty-two paupers in the workhouse from the entire union; and they recommended that, as the "appeal" had been published for the purpose of raising money, the Poor Law Inspector should be instructed to inquire into the facts on the spot. Mr. Hamilton proceeded with his inquiry, and examined on oath as many persons as he could find likely to give evidence. Among these was the clerk and master of the workhouse, and he stated that only twenty-seven persons had applied for relief since the late harvest, they were all admitted, and no applications for provisional relief had been made at the workhouse. The master went on to say that—
  " If distress 'such as is described' in the appeal he has read existed in the Gweadore and Cloughanelly districts, he is satisfied people would seek relief in the workhouse, as they did during the famine years. He swears that the dietary table at present in use in the workhouse is quite sufficient for the several classes."
  According to Mr. Hamilton the Dunfanaghy Union contained an area of £125,667 acres, was valued at £10,715, and by the census of 1851 had a population of 17,320. What did the House think the number of inmates in the workhouse was? In February, 1856, they were 41; in February, 1857, 28; and in February, 1858, 22. That he (Lord Naas) thought would show the extraordinary character of these misstatements. Mr. Hamilton called on the only four Roman Catholic clergymen who resided in the union who had signed the document, for the purpose of getting information as to the particular localities in which distress existed, but did not find any one of them at home. He said, however—
  "I met the Rev. Mr. M'Fadden, P.P., and I told him I was making inquiry respecting the destitution described in an appeal which he had signed, and asked him to mention the localities in which the greatest destitution existed. He said ' it was general, and attributed it to excessive taxation, and to the landlords having raised their

  1533
  rents. I asked Mr. M'Fadden why the people did not apply for relief in the workhouse if destitution existed to the extent described. He said, that in consequence of the ' Gregory Clause' they could not be relieved under the Poor Law."
  Mr. Hamilton visited the poorest villages in the Guadore district in company with Collector Gallagher, and he stated that in almost every house he visited during the early part of the morning he found from two to five or six head of cattle lying in the same apartment with the people. Their beds appeared to be very wretched, principally straw, but they all seemed to have bed clothes. He went on to say—
  "I visited one house in Crossroads electoral division, and I was credibly informed the owner of it had twenty cows, nine pigs, two horses, and forty sheep, and I think the inmates of this House were as dirty, as badly clothed, and had as few comforts as the majority of the Guadore people."
  Mr. Hamilton added, he found potatoes at every house, either stored inside or in pits outside the premises; and he saw an abundance of the potatoes pitted in the fields throughout the whole of the district, and there were unmistakeable marks of cattle in almost all the dwellings. He also said—
  " In the course of my walk T did not see a delicate looking person, nor did I meet with a ease of sickness in any of the houses; and I think the population were as well if, not better clothed than the peasantry along other parts of the west coast of Ireland. I saw no person without sufficient covering; the majority of the people had no shoes, hut that is not an unusual circumstance in the county Donegal."
  Mr. Hamilton then quoted the testimony of Mr. Foster, agent to Lord George Hill, who said—
  " As to the rents, every shilling due to Lord George Hill on the 1st of November was paid me before the 10th of November; and the tenants came to the rent office in such numbers to pay their rents I was obliged to get an extra hand to assist me in receiving the rents, and several paid me £5 notes in mistake for £1 notes. They had a most extraordinary fine summer to make kelp, and they also got a great price for it. The sale of kelp alone brings several thousand pounds to the district; and the lobster fishery lately established has also been of great assistance, as the average sale is 500 dozen a week. They had a good crop of potatoes last year, and I am certain they never were so well off; of course the payment of the extra police tax, and for the destruction of sheep, has taken a very large sum from them, but I am not aware of any tenant in Guadore having sold a cow, horse, or sheep to make those payments. It is most difficult at present to get labourers in the Guadore district, except at exorbitant wages, and when there was really distress there was no end of the persons coming to look for employment.
  "It is quite impossible to judge of the state of the people from their appearance, or the way they
  1534
  live in their houses, as they have not the least idea of either cleanliness or comfort, nor do they wish to be improved, or that strangers should come and settle in the country. I know numbers that have at this moment several hundred pounds, and you would not suppose from the appearance of themselves, houses, and families, that they were better off than any of the rest."
  It was a painful thing for him (Lord Naas) to be obliged to contradict statements made by Roman Catholic clergymen. He feared the only object for which those extraordinary statements had been put forward was the collection of money; and holding the position he did, he should have been wanting in his duty to the House if he had not shown them that those statements were to a great degree exaggerated. But there was another painful feature in the ease to which he must direct the attention of the House. He was sorry to say that for some time past most extraordinary and serious outrages on property had been committed in the Guadore district. Mr. Hamilton stated that,—
  "In the year 1853 Lord George Hill set a portion of his mountains to an English sheep farmer, and I am informed by his agriculturist that in setting this mountain he did not deprive his tenantry of any right they had hitherto been entitled to. In December, 1855, sheep were first put on the mountains, and for one year they remained there unmolested. In January, 1857, about 200 of the sheep were maliciously destroyed, and from that date to the present time the malicious destruction of sheep has gone steadily on. On Lord G. Hill's mountain about 1,130 sheep have been destroyed; and on the estates of Mr. Olpherts and Mr. Woodhouse about 425, making in all 1,555 sheep destroyed. The tax called the sheep tax is levied off the district for the purpose of paying the owner of those sheep the value of his property thus maliciously destroyed. There is but one English sheep farmer in the district; he has still about 1,300 sheep on the mountains. No later than last Saturday 21 sheep were destroyed, the carcases of some of which were discovered while I was at the hotel."
  An attempt was made to show that the sheep were lost in the snow and from other causes; but that could not be, for numbers of them had been found buried in bogs, with stones round their necks; and it was only at the last assizes for Donegal that two persons were convicted for the offence of maliciously destroying sheep. [The noble Lord then read extracts from the charge of Baron Pennefather, the Judge who presided at the last spring assizes—in which this wanton and malicious destruction of property was characterized in fitting terms.] He had submitted all those facts to the House and he now left the matter in their hands. He

  1535
  doubted that the Committee contemplated in the Motion before the House would be of any use. But as ten Roman Catholic clergymen had signed a statement asserting, in the most decided terras, that the people of this district were suffering severely from the oppression of their landlords, and as charitable people in England and Ireland had contributed largely to their relief, he felt that a Committee might be appointed to inquire further about the matter; and if the labours of the Committee should elicit the truth neither their time nor that of the House would have been wasted.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he had been gratified by observing during his absence from the House, that there had been a cessation of discussions of this kind; which he had the satisfaction of imputing to the improved circumstances of Ireland; and he was proportionately grieved that such a debate should have arisen immediately that he returned to Parliament. He felt it his duty, however, to say a few words. It appeared to him to be very questionable whether the Committee now asked for would be productive of any beneficial results. He had been very much struck by some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion, and if his statements had gone nnanswered, he should have felt it his duty to support the appointment of the Committee; but he thought that in the course of the discussion which had since taken place his allegations had been satisfactorily disposed of. Ten or eleven clergymen had made statements of a most serious and alarming character, and he was not about in any way to question their veracity, for they might have been assured of the accuracy of these allegations, and yet be much mistaken. Upon the alleged distress being made known to the guardians, they instituted the fullest inquiry, and the conclusion they came to was, that the allegations were not correct, and besides, the House had before them the sworn evidence of four persons to the inaccuracy of the statements set forth in the appeal. Those gentlemen stated the people were well off and that their rents had been punctually paid. So that the case stood thus—ten clergymen made a, statement, and four sworn witnesses gave an entirely different version; but these latter had made their statement before a competent gentleman, Mr. Hamilton, sent for the special inquiry
  1536
  by the Irish Government. Under such circumstances, he asked whether the House was disposed to nominate a Committee, and thus waste the time of hon. Gentlemen who had many most important public duties to attend to. He contended that there was not a single circumstance to justify the appointment of such a Committee.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he entirely disagreed with the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken. He could not conceive how the time of hon. Gentlemen could be wasted by serving on a Committee such as that which was now asked for. They had had Committees upon such trumpery matters as turnpike gates, and now that a whole population was plunged into misery he thought the least they could do was to admit that the circumstances was worth some attention on the part of the Government and a Committee of the House. He (Mr. Maguire) saw some time since a series of letters written by a gentleman who was personally known to him, and whose honour and honesty of purpose were only equalled by his ability. He alluded to Mr. Holland, the conductor of the Ulsterman, published at Belfast. That gentleman went into those districts to which the appeal referred in order to judge for himself, and the conclusion at which he arrived was that he had never seen a more horrible picture of misery. Upon the experience he had gained, and the facts he had elicited, he wrote those letters; wrote upon his legal responsibility to all those who had property there; and yet not one statement of Mr. Holland's had been brought under the notice of the House. If it were only for the purpose of having Mr. Holland examined, he thought an immense deal of good would arise from the appointment of the Committee. There were ten or eleven Catholic clergymen publishing to the world that these wrongs were inflicted and that these miseries existed; but, on the other side, certain members of the poor law board of guardians said there was not a particle of truth in their statements. He (Mr. Maguire) believed every word that had been uttered by the clergymen was true, and he believed that a great deal of the evidence which had been cited against them was not true —that it could not in any way be relied on. Mr. Hamilton himself said that the people were lying on straw, and the relieving officer admitted that some of them

  1537
  were in great distress. He was sorry that the noble Lord (Lord Naas) did not read that portion of Baron Pennefather's charge which stated that the people of the districts referred to were in a condition of opulence. Mr. Holland had described what that state of opulence was. He had taken his readers from Lord George Hill's splendid mansion, from the perpetual curate's house, and from the hotel at Guadore, to the mountains, and to the miserable hovel, to get at which he had to jump down a ditch. There was in that house a man with his wife and four children, and the mountain cow. They had a small deal table in the room, no chair, and only an old stool to sit upon. For their bed they had a heap of rags. For their dinner they had stinking potatoes and miserable seaweed. So horrified was Mr. Holland with this state of things, that he recommended any one who witnessed them to go hack to the Guadore hotel and to get a strong tumbler of punch. Mr. Holland expressed it as his deliberate opinion that the landlords had combined and taken from the people the mountain commonage, and raised the rent of the land which remained to them, in order to exterminate them; and was not this, he asked, a case worthy of serious inquiry on the part of a Committee of the House of Commons. One circumstance which pressed heavily on these poor people was what was known in Ireland as "the Gregory clause," a most iniquitous piece of legislation. That clause provided that if a man held more than a quarter of an acre of land, he should not get relief. It was not that relief which was obtained in England, it was imprisonment, it was social extinction. There was no hope of redemption for a man who was placed in that position. A small farmer, if he once quitted hold of his land and capital and went to the workhouse, became to all intents and purposes socially extinct. In the time of famine, the people, under the most horrible misery, died in their houses rather than surrender their places, in the hope of ultimate redemption. The Irish poor were not treated as the English, for the workhouses of Ireland were the most terrible engines of cruelty, the most horrible oppressors of. the poor. He believed that the clergymen who had signed the appeal would come well out of any inquiry that might be instituted; but, at the same time, as a Catholic Member, he bad no hesitation in saying, that if it should be proved that
  1538
  they bad stated what was not true, they would be worthy of the strongest and most solemn condemnation of that House.
  MR. WHITESIDEagreed in all that had been said as to the duty of inquiring into the causes of destitution, but he did not like the notion of inquiry being instituted under false pretences. If this was to be an inquiry to investigate in what way landlords in Ireland dispose of their property, he warned the House of the consequences of consenting to such an investigation. It was proposed to inquire into destitution in Donegal, and to that he was willing to subscribe; but the hon. Gentlemen who asked for this inquiry first assumed that great destitution existed, and then ascribed it to the misconduct of the landlords. He could not forget that twelve months ago grave charges were brought against a Scotch gentleman who had bought large estates in Ireland, and at first the House was disposed to grant a Committee of inquiry; but a statement was afterwards made by one of the friends of that gentleman which showed that there was not the least pretext for an investigation. It appeared from the papers before the House that the tenants in the part of Donegal referred to, paid their rent to a day. What did the late Government do when ten clergymen signed a paper which not only justified but demanded inquiry? They deputed a Poor Law Inspector to make an inquiry on the spot. He did make an inquiry, and stated the facts which had been noticed by his noble Friend. Those who spoke of destitution should bear in mind these facts. The petition for inquiry which had been presented to the House had 2,039 signatures of persons calling themselves "farmers, occupiers, and inhabitants" of the district. The Committee on Petitions, however, in giving their opinion of it, stated that there were three signatures attached to it which appeared to be different, but that all the subsequent names seemed to be in the handwriting of one and the same individual; there were also many marks, and these wholly unattested. Such was the character of the petition for inquiry. The fact was admitted by the last speaker, that the object of the Committee was to investigate the conduct of the landlords. The Member for the county and the gentlemen of the county were all anxious for a Committee, conscious that their conduct would bear investigation, and under such circumstances it was not for him to object; but he begged to remind the House that

  1539
  the precedent now set might be applied to England and Scotland. Several prosecutions had been raised against those who had destroyed the sheep on these mountains, and the law allowed to the owner of the sheep, a Scotch gentleman, full compensation for his loss. The people of the district had to pay for the sheep a sum of £1,354 17 s. 6d.; and the Lord Lieutenant, on hearing what was going on, sent down a sufficient force of police, which they were also called on to pay; and he must say that the tax for the sheep and the tax for the police were Loth paid with the greatest readiness. It should be recollected, too, that there were not more than 22 persons in the poor-house by the last accounts from the district. It seemed to be the wish of the House that there should be an inquiry, but he must repeat that he thought it might prove a dangerous precedent.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid that, as it appeared to be the opinion of the House that the Committee should be appointed, he should not oppose the Motion; but he wished to make one or two remarks upon some of the arguments that had been advanced. They had been told that there was great destitution in the country, and that it was borne testimony to by several Roman Catholic priests. He was ready to give perfect credence to their statements; but he would ask hon. Members whether they thought that by any general law they could remedy this evil, and what they thought, if they granted this inquiry, it could possibly result in? He would grant that great misery existed, as had been alleged; but bow did that misery arise? He was told that it arose in certain parts of Donegal from certain persons having been excluded from their runs upon mountain districts, that the landlords let their property there for more money to Scotchmen, and that the people consequently suffered. Proprietors had found that by letting their mountain lands to Scotchmen they could get more from them than by keeping them in their old state; and hence it is said arose the destitution of the people on the property. Well now, he wanted to know if the House was prepared to meet that difficulty? He had, be would say, for the purpose of argument, a wild district in England, and he found that certain persons were prepared to take that district from him, to farm it, to make it productive to themselves and remunerative to him. But there were certain persons living upon it who did not pay him any-
  1540
  thing, and from whom he derived no benefit of any kind. Could those persons step in and prevent him making use of his property? The hon. Gentleman said the poor people were eating sea-weed in the districts he had mentioned; but at the same time they were told that there were only 27 or 29 people in the workhouse. Why was that the case when there was a law which said that if a man had six children, and sent three of them to the poor house, he must go there also? Was the House prepared to alter that law? When that appeal was made to the Irish Members, they said, "Oh, dear me, no; for that would increase the poor rates." What could the House possibly say to arguments of this kind? He, as an Englishman, was, perhaps, like a man thrusting his hand into a beehive in meddling with Irish questions, but what was he to do? We were a United Kingdom, and an injury done to Ireland thrilled through England, and he felt as much sympathy for an Irishman as for an Englishman. But again he asked, what could they do by general legislation for this subject?—and that was the real inquiry before them. It was not enough to paint a picture of great disasters—it was not enough for eleven Irish priests to propagate a statement in reference to great distress and great disasters—they might get charitable persons to support them; but in coming to that House they could do nothing more than ask for a general law; and he asked therefore, what was really intended by that inquiry? Even should the inquiry make out all that the priests insisted upon, what was the House to do? It could do absolutely nothing. This was a mischief belonging to human nature— not to Ireland but to the world—and they could not by any general law, provide against that mischief. He was quite convinced that the result would be, after this Committee, that the House would be compelled to lay by its hand, and to say that for this mischief there was no remedy.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he was quite sure that if the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had been aware of the difference between the laws of England and Ireland, he would not have made the statements he had done. It was true that 1500 sheep were lost; but it was true that although a few were maliciously killed, the great bulk were not; and if such things as had occurred in Donegal had taken place in England, the law would have been appealed to in the usual way, and all the

  1541
  necessary formalities would have been gone through; but in Ireland the grand juries had all the power and acted upon their own free will. There were no summonses of any kind, but they placed their warrants in the hands of the constables, who went at once and seized everything they could get hold of, made a complete razzia amongst the people, and spread desolation and ruin around. In the late cases the inquiry would prove that persons sat upon the grand jury who investigated their own claims, and decided the amount of compensation which was due to them. Some of the owners of the sheep alleged to be destroyed actually adopted that extraordinary course. If this Committee were appointed such facts would be clearly established, and a great deal of good would be done for Ire-laud by such an exposure before Parliament. He (Mr. M'Mahon) condemned the Gregory clause, which he held to be productive of the greatest distress in Ireland, and believed it had been enacted for the purpose of exterminating the people. There was nothing like it in England or in any other part of the civilized world. The grand jury law was equally open to objection. He hoped that one of the results of the inquiry would be to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland in this respect. He was quite certain that if the grand jury law were altered and the Gregory clause abolished they would never have to appeal again to the House of Commons for the appointment of such a Committee.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to deny the destruction of the sheep. ["No!"] Then he admitted it—any way the hon. and learned Gentleman liked. Whichever assertion was true equally contradicted the statement of the ten priests, for they declared that these Scotch sheep were so averse to Irish grass that they would not live there. Now, he believed Irish grass to be the richest in Europe, and Scotch sheep to be as wise as any other kind of sheep. No doubt a statement had been made by ten most holy and most reverend priests. Now, it happened in the case of Mr. Pollok that a most awful case was made out by hon. Members opposite; but when he got the petition into his hand he found it signed by only two priests. There was a long paper, not affixed to the petition, which contained the names of a great number of people, who it was said could not write; but on inquiry almost all of these turned out to
  1542
  be mythical persons. The experience they gained in that case ought to make the House a little shy in believing any assertion upon the faith of these rev. gentlemen. It was curious that they were told that several sheep were taken to market and sold—so that sheep would live and would fatten, notwithstanding all the priests, and they did live and did fatten, and, moreover, were stolen and were sold. In this awful Bill of indictment there was not a single fact which was not contradicted totisdem verbis by respectable people on their oaths. But then it was sought to impeach the veracity of these persons, because they were officials—that was to say, because people whose duty it was to inquire did their duty and did inquire, they were to be held up as persons wholly unworthy of credit. Let the House observe how this thing (the petition) was worded. It was said that "the inhabitants of these wilds were Celts of the pure old race, with the pure old faith." If they were of the pure old faith, it was not the Roman. Every theological term came from the Greek, and the pure old faith was Greek. It complained of Englishmen and Scotchmen grazing their sheep in Ireland. Surely they had as much right to graze their sheep in Ireland, as the Irish had to come over to graze in England? That was part of the offence. Then it was said there was a great deal more behind. He believed there was a great deal more behind. He believed that this exaggerated inflammatory petition was nothing more than a mask by which it was endeavoured to foment discord between Irish landlords and their tenants. The hon. Gentleman was equally wrong in his law. The law of England was that a man should not receive relief out of the house. The hon. Gentleman said, "But he does receive relief out of the house." When a man with a large family applied for relief it was a question whether the rates would be more saved by giving him a small pittance to keep him out of the house or by taking him in; but that did not alter the law of the land. Then, it ought to be remembered that those who were pressing for this Poor Law and complaining that relief was not given were the very same persons who denounced the Poor Law from one end of Ireland to the other, Dr. M'Hale declaring that the intention was not to relieve the poor, but to make the lands of Ireland pass into the hands of foreigners. An hon. Gentleman, not then in his place, was the leader of the opposi-

  1543
  tion to the Irish Poor Law, and it was only carried by a majority of English and Scotch Members. Every charge in the petition had been answered verbatim upon oath. They were going to examine people not upon oath, and ho, for one, would not believe one word they said.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, that those rev. gentlemen had never had an opportunity of confronting Mr. Hamilton, upon whose evidence so much stress had been laid by the Irish Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. BAGWELL MR. BAGWELL, in reply, expressed his opinion that the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had done wisely and rightly in agreeing to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman altered the words of his Motion, limiting the inquiry into the destitution of the districts of Guadore and Cloughanelly.
  Motion made and Question put,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the destitution alleged to exist in the Guadore and Cloughanelly district, in the county of Donegal."
  House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 111: Majority 36.

PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. LOCKE KING MR. LOCKE KING, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Property Qualifications of Members of Parliament, said, that it would be in the recollection of the House that last Session he introduced a Bill upon the same subject, which was rejected upon the second reading solely because the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, then at the head of the Government, thought fit to make the excuse that, as he had promised to bring in a Reform Bill this Session, it would be unwise to deal with this portion of the general question per se. He did not agree with the view then expressed by the noble Lord, and he divided the House upon that occasion; but the noble Lord being then in the zenith of his power caused the Bill to be rejected. Seeing that at this time there was no probability of any Reform Bill being introduced he thought that it was a very fitting opportunity for bringing in his Bill again—especially as recent disclosures in the court of law with reference to property qualifications rendered it essential for the character of the House that something should be done, and that an end should be put to that conventional understanding by which Members evaded the Act of Parlia-
  1544
  ment, and made a declaration that they were the actual bonâ fide possessors of property, when, in point of fact, they were not so. There were many topics connected with the anomalies and injustice of the existing law which, if it were desirable, he could urge; but, as he had been officially informed that no opposition was to be offered to the introduction of his Bill, he thought that he should best consult the convenience of the House by deferring any lengthened statement upon the subject to a future time. He should content himself, therefore, with simply moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Property Qualifications of Members of Parliament.
  MR. COLLIERseconded the Motion.
  Leave given.
  Bill to abolish the Property Qualifications of Members of Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE KINO, Mr. HENRY GORE LANGTON and Mr. COBBETT.
  Bill presented and read 1°.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATErose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make provision for the better Government and Discipline of the Universities of Scotland, and improving and regulating the course of study therein; and for the Union of the two Universities and Colleges of Aberdeen. The hon. and learned Lord, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that the Scottish Universities sought to provide a liberal education for a larger proportion of the inhabitants of Scotland than any corresponding system in any other country in Europe; and it was possibly to this distinguishing peculiarity— which had gained for them the high character they had obtained—that were to be attributed some of the defects which the proposed measure was calculated to remedy. The admission of students into those Universities had never been trammelled by any religious distinctions, and although it had originally been the policy of the Universities to require every professor to be a member of the Established Church, a measure had been passed about four or five years ago for relaxing that rule, and the consequence was, that any man who was properly qualified to be a professor might be admitted to a chair without regard to the religious community to which he belonged. The result of the system was, that these Universities had been open

  1545
  to the whole youth of Scotland, and that the scope of the education imparted there had been very liberal. At the same time, he was bound to say that certain imperfections had arisen from the system which it was indispensable to remove. It was one of the consequences of their seeking this very wide field of operation that the Scotch establishments had lost sight of the main objects of the Universities, and their educational standard had descended below the requirements of the age. From this it had resulted that great excellence in any department of science was no longer one of the distinguished characteristics of the students of those Universities. That which appeared to him to he at the root of the existing evil was the want of value which was attached to the degrees in arts, and any measure, therefore, which should have the effect of enhancing the value of those degrees and of creating an intelligent body of graduates, would prove very advantageous. He was bound to say, however, in justice to the professors, that within the last ten years a great improvement had taken place. There was nothing novel in the Bill which he proposed to introduce. It was founded, in a great measure, upon the Report of a Commission which had been presented to Parliament so far back as 1830. That Commission was appointed in 1826. The Commissioners conducted a most elaborate inquiry into the whole system of the Universities. They were persons of the highest weight and ability; and the Report which they presented contained a mass of valuable and instructive matter upon this most important subject. He should further state, that in framing his measure he had been under great obligations to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Moncrieff), who, having had himself a measure on the subject in preparation, had furnished him with his materials and the sketch of his plan; and he (the Lord Advocate) had endeavoured to put in the form of a Bill such provisions as he thought would introduce into the Scotch Universities those improvements which were desirable. In the first place, in order to enhance the value of a degree in art, and at the same time create a body of enlightened men in connection with the Universities, he thought it essential that some means should be adopted to associate the graduates more intimately with the Universities by conferring on them a certain share in the administration of their affairs, and thereby to attach
  1546
  them to the Universities after the course of education there was brought to an end. He trusted that by this means it would be possible to improve the standard of qualification, and greatly to increase the aggregate amount of learning in the Universities without interfering with what was a most important element in respect to the efficiency of the Universities—the instruction and education of what were called "occasional students," who went to the Universities, not for the purpose of going through the regular course, but only for instruction in those particular branches of education which might be valuable to them. The raising of the qualification for degrees in art—the raising of the standard of excellence in all departments—would not prevent the Universities from affording instruction, as heretofore, to that class of occasional students. But it seemed indispensable, with a view to improvements in the Universities, that some change should be made in the government and administration of their affairs. As the matter stood at present, the whole administration, as well as regarded property and revenues as other matters, was vested in a body called "the body of teachers," composed of the Principal and professors of each University. The single exception from this arrangement was in the University of Edinburgh, where a great deal of the power, if not the whole, was lodged in the town council of the city, a body of whom he would venture to say that they were not better qualified for the purpose than the governing bodies of the other Universities. He thought that the way to improve the administration of the Universities was to adopt another most valuable suggestion contained in the Report to which he had already referred, and to institute what might be called a "University Board." It was important that a considerable amount of control should be placed in the hands of such a board, when it was considered what sort of questions were likely to come before a body of that kind for determination. In the first place, there must be many cases in which the professors of a University had different interests. He did not mean to say that those cases frequently occurred, but when they did they were at present productive of inconvenience, on account of the soreness and heart burnings they occasioned, the professors themselves having the power to decide on them. In the second place, there might on certain questions arise dif-

  1547
  ferences between the professors and the students, and it was extremely desirable that with respect to such questions there should be a power of appeal from a body composed entirely of professors. He also conceived that the control and disposal of the property and revenues of the Universities might more safely be entrusted to other hands. It was necessary that there should be some body whose duty it should be to regulate from time to time the course of the students, to introduce improvements into it, and to institute fresh subjects of study; and all these matters might be more beneficially placed in the hands of a body differently constituted from the existing governing power. He proposed, then, that this Board should in each university be composed, in the first place, of the Rector, an officer known in all Scotch Universities, and also of the Principal. In the next place, it should also consist of a body to be called "Assessors," who should be nominated by the professors and the graduates. Of course he should not now enter deeply into detail respecting all the powers to be exercised by such University Board, having sufficiently for the present purpose sketched out the nature of the Board. He now came to consider what improvements were necessary with respect to the position of the professors themselves, and he was bound to say that the professors, in many cases, had very just and well-founded cause to complain of their position. There could be no doubt that in some Universities the endowments of the professors were singularly inadequate. This arose from various causes. In the first place, it arose from the circumstance that their salaries had been fixed in money payments at a very distant day, and had remained stationary, while the relative value of money had very much altered. In the second place, a very great proportion of the revenues and funds belonging to the Universities accrued from tithes or "tends," and were subject to a diminution in value from time to time by the augmentation of the payments to the clergy, which formed the primary charge on them. Thus, as the necessities of the times required an augmentation of the stipends of the clergy, just in the same proportion were the revenues of the Universities diminished. [The hon. and learned Lord here road a statement on this subject in reference to the University of St. Andrew's.] He proposed that such a stipend should be allotted to the professors
  1548
  as would secure the services of able and learned men. He also proposed that moderate and reasonable retiring pensions should be awarded to aged and infirm professors, which would prevent them from continuing to occupy their chairs when they were disqualified for the active performance of their duties. In some of the Universities, also, additional chairs were absolutely required, and the Bill would provide for meeting that necessity. He further proposed that the professors of each department should continue at the head of their respective departments, but that they should receive the assistance of tutors or assessors to such an extent as might be deemed necessary. He proposed the appointment of what he might call an executive commission for the purpose of carrying out the details of the proposed improvements. He might add, that he did not think it would be necessary to interfere to any extent with the patronage of the chairs; and that no scheme of reform of the Scotch Universities would be perfect or satisfactory if it did not provide for the union of the two Universities of Aberdeen. Clauses would therefore be included in the Bill providing for the union of those Universities. The subject was one of great importance. He claimed no merit for originality; but he trusted that the measure he proposed would be found adequate to an object so much desired as the improvement of the Scotch Universities. He would now move for leave to bring in his Bill.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had not had the good fortune to hear one-half of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and therefore, without offering any objection to the introduction of the Bill, he could give no pledge as to the course he might hereafter pursue. The object the right hon. Gentleman had in view was one which was popular in Scotland, and if properly carried out it would no doubt secure to the people of that country many educational advantages. The right hon. Gentleman proposed the union of the two Universities of Aberdeen. Now, the term "union" admitted of various constructions, and the union proposed by the Bill might be exceedingly acceptable to the citizens of Aberdeen and to the Universities; but if the right hon. Gentleman meant to propose a fusion of the two Universities, he (Colonel Sykes) could not promise to support such a project.
  MR. MONCREIFFexpressed his complete and cordial concurrence in the measure, the object of which, he understood,

  1549
  was substantially to appoint a Commission to carry out, as far as they might think it desirable or expedient, the recommendations of the Commission which reported on this subject in 1830. It was a singular fact that that Report should have lain upon the table from 1830 down to the present time without any attempt having been made to carry out its very wise provisions, and he trusted the main details of this measure would meet with the unanimous approbation of the representatives of Scotland. His right hon. Friend bad truly said that for the last four or five years no Professor in the Scotch Universities had been bound to take any test upon his admission to office, and he had added that the teaching in the Universities was of the most catholic and liberal description. That was the fact, and one consequence of this state of things was that persons of all denominations were able to unite in doing all in their power to promote education in the Universities of Scotland. He hoped this example would not be without its effect, and that when, by united efforts, an endeavour had been made to improve the University education of Scotland, the same union and energy would be applied to the improvement of the schools of that country.
  LORD ELCHOhad, like the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes), boon unable clearly to understand what bad fallen from the Lord Advocate, but he thought the circumstance was mainly attributable to the inattention with which the right hon. Gentleman's statement had been received by the House. The subject of university reform bad engaged much public attention in Scotland, and he regretted that the noise which had prevailed in the House had prevented him from catching accurately what was the nature of his right hon. Friend's Bill. If it was, as he had no doubt was the case, a carefully considered measure, it would be received with general satisfaction by the people of Scotland.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he had occupied a position in which he had had the good fortune to hear the lucid statement of his right hon. and learned Friend. He believed the Bill would be regarded with great satisfaction by the people of Scotland, and would be attended with very beneficial results. With regard to the union of the two Universities of Aberdeen, as an official connected with one of those institutions he would say that any plan of university reform in Scotland which did
  1550
  not embrace that object would be extremely fallacious. The measure of the learned Lord would receive his cordial approbation and support.
  MR. BUCHANANsuggested it was desirable that the Bill should be laid on the table and circulated before the second reading came on. There bad been a general expectation throughout Scotland that when the number of graduates was increased, and a higher scale of education was adopted, there should be an application for a representation of these Universities in Parliament. Many advantages would flow from such an arrangement, and he would suggest the desirability of adopting it, and also of settling the relative status of the Professors on the old foundation and the Regius Professors.
  Leave given,
  Bill to make provision for the better Government and Discipline of the Universities of Scotland, and improving and regulating the course of Study therein; and for the Union of the two Universities and Colleges of Aberdeen, ordered to be brought in by the LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary WALPOLE.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

REGISTRATION OF PARTNERSHIPS BILL.

  LEAVE—FIRST READING.
  VISCOUNT GODERICH VISCOUNT GODERICH, in moving foe leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the Registration of Partnerships, said that as he understood that the President of the-Board of Trade did not intend to oppose his Motion he should not trouble the House at any length, but he thought it right to state shortly what were the objects of the measure, and in what manner it had originated. The question of the general registration of partnerships had engaged the attention of commercial persons for some time past; and in 1856 the Commercial Association of Manchester, in concert with another body in that city, the Law Association, prepared the heads of a measure for this purpose, which were submitted to the Conference held in London in the commencement of 1857 on the subject of mercantile law. That Conference was presided over by Lord Brougham, and a resolution was passed at it, expressing the opinion of the members that a measure of this description was desirable. That proposal was subsequently sanctioned towards the end of last year at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Social Science at Birmingham, and a large number of the Chambers of Commerce and other commercial associ-

  1551
  ations bad since passed resolutions favourable to legislation of this description. The object of the Bill was simple. It was merely to require that all persons engaged in any partnership, all associations of persons which entered into trade under the style of any company, which did not come within the provisions of the Joint-Stock Companies Act, all those who were trading in any other than their individual names, should be required to supply the public with exact information as to who and what they were. Those who were at all acquainted with commercial affairs were aware of the great difficulties which very often existed, when you had to transact business with a firm or company, in ascertaining who were the persons with whom you had to deal. It often happened that the name of a firm was retained, while the names of those persons who now carried it on did not appear; there were cases in which a single individual traded in the name of a company; while, again, a man might belong to several concerns, though his name appeared ostensibly in but one, and he thus obtained a credit which people, perhaps, would not give him if they knew that he had so many irons in the fire. Far be it from him to say that all these arrangements were reprehensible; but this uncertainty opened a wide door to fraud, and entailed great injury on the public, and the want of the information this Bill proposed to enforce frequently interfered with the easy prosecution of legal remedies; and it would also give aid towards the improvement of our bankruptcy laws, a portion of the law which required much amendment. The measure would, he believed, supply a remedy for some of the frauds which had of late cast such discredit upon our commercial character. It required that every person engaged in a partnership or company which did not come within the provisions of the Joint-stock Companies Act should register the names of the partners and the places of business at which they carried on their occupations. To this provision, however, he made an exception in the case of persons engaged in banking, whom he exempted because they were already required to be registered, and because there was already applied to them the principle which he desired now to extend. For the accomplishment of the object thus proposed he did not ask the House to establish any new machinery, or appoint any fresh officers with large salaries. He proposed
  1552
  that the superintendent registrars—who existed in almost every Poor Law Union throughout the country—should be charged with the new duty. He also provided that copies of the registers should be sent up to the office of the Register General in London; so that in London there would be a central registry for partnerships. That was the only machinery which would be necessary for carrying out the objects of this Bill. He proposed to enforce obedience to the provisions of the measure in two ways. In the first place, it would be proposed in the Bill that firms which did not comply with its provisions should not have the right to sue; and in the next place it would be provided that the registrars should have the power to call upon partners to register themselves, or to show cause why they should not do so, and that if they disobeyed that call, two Justices should have the power to inflict upon them a limited penalty. He trusted that those means would be found sufficient to carry out the provisions of his Bill, which he could not think were of a vexatious character, because all he asked was that persons who engaged in a certain kind of partnerships should once for all register their names, and that they should reregister them upon any change, but not otherwise, paying a small foe upon registration for the purpose of covering the expense of carrying out the Act. Such being the provisions and such the object of his measure, he hoped the House would permit him to lay it upon the table tonight. It was his intention to give ample time for its consideration. He admitted that the subject was one which would require consideration from the Government, the House, and the country. He would be most ready to receive any suggestions which might be made with regard to it, and give them the best consideration in his power; but the Bill which he now sought leave to introduce was approved, at all events, by a large portion of the commercial community; he believed it was calculated to guard their interests, and to prevent, to a great extent, those frauds which had cast discredit upon our commercial character. He did not propose to make people either wise or honest by Act of Parliament. All he wanted was publicity, and that persons who engaged in partnerships should be required to state plainly and honestly to the public who and what they were. Nor did he propose in the present Bill to touch the question of

  1553
  the liability of partners. He had no clause which rendered a man legally liable as a partner because he was registered. Of course, the fact of being so registered would be strong evidence that he was a partner, but beyond the effect which that evidence would have upon a court of justice he did not propose to interfere with the legal question of the liability of partners. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. TURNERseconded the Motion. He confirmed the statement of the noble Lord, that the Bill was brought forward at the instance of the Commercial Association and the Lay Association of Manchester. The lawyers considered the measure necessary in order to enable them to ascertain who were the acting partners in firms; while the commercial community believed it to be for their interest that they should have an accurate knowledge of those persons with whom they were dealing. The Bill had been discussed by the Law Reform Association of London, presided over by Lord Brougham, and had received the cordial assent of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to its introduction.
  MR. HENLEYhad no intention on the part of the Government of offering any opposition to the introduction of the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Goderich), considering his position in that House and the importance of the interests which he represented, had no need to make an apology for bringing forward any measure which he thought likely to contribute to the public welfare. The present was an entirely new subject to the House, and, he might say, to the country at large, with the exception of the discussion which had been referred to, and it was one which well deserved consideration. He was glad that the noble Lord proposed to allow some time to elapse before moving the second reading, for the question was not so easy as might at first sight appear; and in agreeing on the part of the Government, to the introduction of the Bill, he must be understood as reserving to himself full power to take upon a future occasion whatever course might seem best for the interests of the commercial community.
  Leave given,
  Bill to provide for the Registration of Partnerships ordered to be brought in by Viscount GODERICH Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. CHEETHAM, and Mr. TURNER.
  Bill presented and read 1°.

THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1848) AMENDMENT BILL.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. ADDERLEYthen rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Public Health Act (1848). The grounds upon which he made this application might be briefly stated. The Public Health Act of 1848 constituted certain officers, of whom the head was the Chief Commissioner of Works, as a General Board of Health for five years. That General Board, exercising the powers conferred upon them by the Act, called into existence local boards, in various towns throughout the country, and then became to those boards their referee in a multitude of cases; serving at the same time as a court of final appeal. In 1854, when the five years had expired, another Bill wa3 introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who then filled the office of Home Secretary, the object of which was to reconstitute the General Board, but placing it under the Home Office. The House, however, wished that the General Board should be placed under a responsible Minister and erected into a separate department; and the Bill of the noble Lord failed to pass through Parliament. At a later period of the same Session another member of the Government of the day—the late Sir William Molesworth—who was then the Chief Commissioner of Works, proposed a Bill, which ultimately became law, constituting the General Board of Health into a department of State, with a President and offices of its own. The first President was the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall); and no sooner was he installed than he dealt with the subject of the public health largely and decisively. In 1855 he introduced two Bills, and after reading them a second time, referred them to a Select Committee. One —the Removal of Nuisances Bill—he succeeded in passing into law, and, with some little modification and addition, it might be considered a satisfactory and permanent settlement of a difficult and important subject. He also passed in the same year two Bills, which dealt with the whole subject of public health as far as the metropolis was concerned. But the Bill which he introduced relating to the whole kingdom failed to become law, and Parliament sanctioned a mere Continuance Act for one year. In the year 1856 the question was again dealt with by the right hon. Gentle-

  1555
  man the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), and subsequently by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey), but upon both those occasions the measures which had been proposed had failed to pass into a law; and the result was that several continuance Acts had been passed, under the operation of the last of which the General Board of Health, and with it a number of local boards, would cease to exist in the month of September next. He had under those circumstances felt it to be his duty to introduce a Bill upon the subject, and in doing so he had clone his best to deal with it upon a permanent footing. The general principle of the measure which he was about to ask the House for leave to introduce was one the object of which was to decentralize the whole system; to allow the General Board of Health to expire in September; and to enable all those towns which desired to possess the power of self-administration to constitute local boards through the medium of meetings of owners and ratepayers, two-thirds of whom must consent to the adoption of such a course; it being open to town councils or commissioners, who fairly represented the inhabitants of large towns, to exercise similar powers in that respect as the owners and ratepayers to whom he had just adverted. The Bill further provided that due notice should be given of the time at which the meetings for the constitution of local boards were to be held, and gave a power of appeal in those cases in which such notice was not duly given. He also proposed that the boards which might be constituted under the Act, as well as all the local boards now in existence, should have the amplest powers of self-administration extended to them, and should be no longer subjected to the necessity of referring to a central board in London. Those powers of self-administration would, however, be placed under proper check by granting to individuals who might feel themselves aggrieved by the action of those local hoards a power of appeal, and also by rendering it necessary that they should annually undergo re-election. The appeal would be made to the Secretary for the Home Department. Having stated thus much he believed he had put the House in possession of the various provisions of the Bill. The general medical functions of the Board of Health, as contrasted with its towns' improvement functions, he proposed to deal with in a separate measure, the
  1556
  former being distinctly central and Governmental functions, the latter essentially local.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Public Health Act (1848), ordered to be brought in by Mr. ADDERLEY and Mr. Secretary WALPOLE.
  Bill presented and read 1°.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND HEADING PUT OFF.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAMmoved the second reading of this Bill, which he said was intended to correct some of the deficiencies of the existing law on the subject.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that while he fully appreciated the objects which the noble Lord had in view in bringing forward the measure of which he had just moved the second reading, he must express a hope that the noble Lord would see the expediency of not pressing it upon the attention of the House. The fact was, that the main objects which the Bill sought to attain were provided for under the existing law, while the additional provisions proposed by the noble Lord were of a character so unreasonable that they ought not to be embodied in a legislative enactment. In the first clause of the Bill, for instance, occurred the words "or by wilful or avoidable negligence causing suffering to any animal." Now, the word "avoidable" was one the construction of which might lead to the infliction of considerable hardship upon persons who might not fairly be open to the charge of intentional cruelty to animals; while the provision for licensing slaughterhouses—the license for which might now be obtained by proper application at any time, but which under the operation of the Bill could be obtained only once a year—was equally open to objection on account of the inconvenience which it would cause. Without at all undervaluing the benevolent intentions of the noble Lord, he should feel it his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he was sorry the noble Lord would not withdraw his Bill, for under the guise of a Bill to pre-

  1557
  vent the infliction of cruelty upon animals it was one for inflicting cruelty upon man. It was full of pains and penalties. He would recommend him to go to France, where there was a society for protecting men against animals, who on one occasion proposed to give a reward for the person who brought over an ox without horns. If this Bill were passed his constituents would be prevented from dealing with any kind of animals, and amongst others, he supposed, with those minor ones which were so great a nuisance in London houses.
  SIR JAMES BULLER EASTthought that, although the Bill contained some objectionable, it also contained some useful provisions, and he therefore hoped that the House would allow it to be read a second time, with a view to amendment in Committee.
  Question, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

CHANCERY AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR RICHARD BETIIELLthought that some Amendments might be introduced into it, with a view of defining more clearly the power of assessing damages which it conferred upon the Court of Chancery. He would be happy to co-operate with the Solicitor General in passing the Bill, with some Amendments.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALhad no doubt that the language of the Bill might be open to some Amendment, and would be glad to have the assistance of his hon. and learned Friend. He should propose that it be read a second time, for the purpose of having it committed pro formâ, with a view to the introduction of Amendments.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

  COMMITTEE DEFERRED.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that in the absence of the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) he would postpone the Order to the following day, when his hon. Friend would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
  1558
  make some arrangement to proceed with the Bill, so that they might come to that division of which the right hon. Gentleman was disappointed the day previously.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-after Twelve o'clock.