Commons Sitting of 8 February 1859

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.—For Enniskillen, v. The Right Hon. James Whiteside, Steward of Hempholme; For Greenwich, v. John Townsend, esq., Steward of Northstead.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Linlithgow (County), Charles Baillie, esq.; For Boston, William Henry Adams, esq.
PUBLIC BILLs.—1o Sale of Poisons; Marriage Law Amendment; Church Rates Abolition; Church Rates Commutation; Elections, &c.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if a gallery for pictures is building, and in what locality? If so, what will be the expense of such building, and out of what moneys voted by Parliament will such expense be defrayed?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The question of the hon. Baronet refers to a matter of greater importance than might be at first supposed. It really refers to the question of a National Gallery. The House will recollect that last Session, wearied by the continued unsettlement of the question, and having no confidence that any further inquiry by Select Committees or Royal Commissions would produce a very satisfactory result, there seemed to be a general feeling that the Government should attempt to cut the Gordian knot and bring the question of the National Gallery to a final settlement. I undertook on the part of the Government, in deference to the feeling of the House, to obtain that result if possible, and I have the pleasure of informing the House that I have succeeded in accomplishing that which appeared to be the general wish of the country. The whole of the building in Trafalgar Square will speedily be entirely devoted to the National Gallery. I was so anxious on the part of the Government to bring this long-vexed question to a satisfactory settlement, that I was prepared to offer to the Royal Academy terms which were conceived in a liberal spirit. We were prepared to recommend Her Majesty to grant them a site, and I may say we are prepared even now to recommend this House to vote a sum of money to raise a building. But the Royal Academy, animated by a spirit which the House will appreciate, and which is worthy of that distinguished body, considered that if the expenditure for that purpose were defrayed out of the public funds, their independence would be compromised; and being in possession of sufficient property themselves, they announced their determination to raise the building for themselves, and declined any public contribution. Taking into consideration, however, various questions, into the merits of which we need not enter, the position they occupied and the claim they might be said to possess from having had a residence furnished, if not granted, by the Crown originally, and enjoyed so long, the Royal Academy came to the con-
182
clusion that in accepting the offer of a site their independence would be not at all compromised. I hope and trust that the House will agree that the view which they took was the just, proper, and honest one. This being the state of the case, and it being settled that the building in Trafalgar Square shall be devoted to its original purpose, and its original purpose alone—namely, the reception of the pictures for the National Gallery—an announcement was made about that time by the proper authorities, on the part of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, that he expected his residence, Marlborough House, would be ready for his reception with all convenient despatch. His Royal Highness required that it should be ready for him next November, and we ascertained that it would take not less than eight months to put that residence in a proper state for the reception of his Royal Highness. The House is aware that for many years, through the gracious kindness of Her Majesty, Marlborough House has been at the service of the public. It became necessary, under these circumstances, to perform our part of the agreement with the Trustees of the National Gallery—that the Vernon and Turner collections should be placed in a proper receptacle until they can be received in the building in Trafalgar Square, and not only placed in a proper receptacle, but so completely under the control of the trustees and authorities that, wherever they might for the moment be deposited, no question could be raised hereafter as to whom they belonged, to what collection they pertained, and what authorities had the control and custody of them. Our first idea was to prepare the building known as the Carlton Ride for their reception; but when it was examined into it was found that the expense would be very considerable, that it would take not less than £3,000 to place the building in a condition to receive the pictures, and that, after all, it would not be fireproof. It was almost impossible to engage a building suitable for the purpose, and under those circumstances it was suggested that we might erect a gallery on that part of the land at Kensington Gore, which I may say is rented of the Royal Commissioners, under the arrangement of last year, for the convenience of the Government; that such a gallery would receive the Turner and Vernon collections until the building of Trafalgar Square is ready to receive them, and that

183
they would be connected with the collection granted to the country by Mr. Sheepshanks. It was, of course, impossible, as Parliament was not sitting and could not be consulted, to settle the question definitely, but as is usual on such occasions, the Treasury had thought fit to take the responsibility of ordering the necessary alterations. As far as expense is concerned, the first estimate which was made for this building at Kensington was not as great as the expense which would have been incurred in the temporarily fitting up of Carlton Ride, although it was thought expedient afterwards that the expense should be increased. It was thought expedient for this reason—it is necessary that the curators of the National Gallery, the agents of the Trustees, shall have complete control of the collection, that they may not pass under any other authority; and therefore it is necessary that apartments shall be prepared for them, and also that accommodation shall be given for the overflow of pictures now accruing to the National Gallery. Although, in consequence of this, there has been some considerable addition made to the original estimate, I believe the whole sum to be expended on this temporary gallery will not amount to the annual rent of the premises which we once contemplated engaging for this purpose. I trust the hon. Baronet will feel that every care has been taken that the expenditure shall not exceed a reasonable amount. The result will be that, I hope, at the end of two years the Royal Academy will be established in their new building on the new site; that the building in Trafalgar Square will be completely devoted to the national collections of pictures, including the Turner and Vernon collections, as well as others which may hereafter be left to the country; and that there will then be left to the country, for the expenditure which they are now incurring, a building at Kensington which will be of the greatest use to the Government on many occasions and for many purposes, when, as all who have had the management of affairs of this kind know, a want of accommodation springs up in an accidental and casual manner, the non-supply of which is of great injury to the public service. I trust that the explanation which I have now given—which I should otherwise have given upon another occasion, but which I thought due to the House after the inquiry of the hon. Baronet—will prove satisfactory.
MR. KINNAIRDinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman could inform the House what site would be granted to the Royal Academy for their new building?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.—Part of the ground round Burlington House. The Royal Academy will be connected with other public buildings. The interior will be left to the disposition of the Academy; the exterior will be subordinate to the design of the Government, if the Government insist upon that condition.

MANNING THE NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he would beg to inquire of the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Report of the Commission for Manning the Navy, with the evidence taken before the Commissioners, will be laid on the table of the House; and also when the Return of Deserters, moved for last Session, will be laid on the table of the House?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that in answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Admiral's question, he could inform him that the Royal Commissioners on the question of the best means of manning the Navy were now considering their Report, and he had every reason to believe that he should receive it in a week or ten days, when he should at once lay it on the table of the House. He could only hope, with respect to the latter portion of the question, that it would be borne in mind on both sides of the House that returns of this character took a great deal of time and labour. The return of deserters could not be prepared in less than two mouths from this time at the earliest. Six clerks had been employed on this one ever since last August, and it would probably cost the country not less than £500. Perhaps he ought to blame himself for granting it, and certainly had he been aware of the expense and labour it entailed he should not have done so. He hoped the hon. Member, on future occasions, would abstain, as far as possible, from moving for returns of this nature, which involved an enormous expense, without being of a commensurate value or utility.

MILITARY HONOURS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAURIEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War when it would be probable that the Turkish medal,

  185
  so long promised by the Sultan, will be issued to the army engaged in the Crimea; and whether it is intended that a medal should be awarded to the troops engaged during the Indian campaign; and if the report is correct that several of the Queen's regiments are now ordered home?
  GENERAL PEEL, in reply, begged to inform his hon. Friend that about half the Turkish medals had arrived in this country, and would be distributed to the troops immediately, those present with their regiments receiving them in the first instance; 47,000 had arrived, of which 10,000 had been appropriated to the Navy. He stated last year that Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to grant a medal to the troops serving in India, with clasps for those present at the capture of Delhi and Lucknow, and the relief of Lucknow, and also to the garrison of Lucknow. With reference to whether troops had been ordered home from India, he could only say that none had been ordered home except those who would, in the natural course of their service, have returned last year, but who were detained in consequence of the breaking out of the mutiny. He believed that about seven infantry regiments and one cavalry regiment would return.

  THE CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General whether, seeing the probability of an early dissolution of Parliament, it is his intention to deal with the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, so as to endeavour to correct its tendencies, or to permit the electors of Great Britain and Ireland to elect Members under its present enactments.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that the question was one of very great importance. The subject had received, and would continue to receive, the anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. He could not admit that the question had been left unconsidered in the last Session of Parliament; nor was he able at the present moment to state with any precision what course the Government intended to take. An early opportunity would be taken by some Member of the Government to bring the subject under the attention of the House, and to make a statement which he hoped would be satisfactory. Possibly that opportunity would
  186
  offer itself when the Reform Bill came under the consideration of the House.

THE ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it be true that Her Majesty's Government are about to grant a guarantee or subsidy to the Atlantic Telegraph Company; and, if so, upon what conditions?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that several applications had been made to the Treasury for a subsidy for the purpose referred to; but, as no Resolution had been come to of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, it was not in his power to answer the question.

FUNDING OF EXCHEQUER BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to inquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any funding of Exchequer bills had recently taken place; and, if so, to what extent, and by what authority?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there had been some funding of Exchequer bills, he believed to the amount of £7,600,000, by the authority of the Commissioners of Savings Banks. This course had been rendered necessary by the financial operations of the war. Several Votes had been taken in the shape of Exchequer bills, but the number in existence was such that it was not thought desirable at that moment to place more of them in the market. The same operation had been frequently resorted to by the Treasury, even under circumstances of less perplexity than the present, and of course it made not the slightest difference in the liabilities of the country.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not know if he had caught the right hon. Gentleman's words correctly—that certain Exchequer bills authorized to meet votes of credit had not been issued. What he wanted to know was, whether the Exchequer bills which had been lately funded were in the hands of the Commissioners of Savings Banks, or whether they had been previously issued by the Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him, if he supposed he had said that these bills had not been issued. Of course they had been issued. What he had meant to convey was, that from the large amount of those securities in the

  187
  market, they were not in the position which those whose duty it was to administer the financial affairs of the country could desire.

THE WEEDON COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NICOLLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any Report has yet been made by the Royal Commission appointed in pursuance of a Vote in this House in the last Session, with the view to inquire into the system upon which the books and stock have been kept at Weedon, as well as the general mode in which the business of that establishment and other similar departments of the Public Service has been conducted; and, if such Report has been made, when will the same be laid upon the table?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that no Report had yet been forwarded to him from that Commission. He believed that the delay had arisen from the illness of one of the Commissioners; but the Report would soon be made, and it would speedily be laid on the table of the House.

  CHURCH RATES.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to ask what course the Government intended to take with reference to the Bill for the abolition of Church Rates, which he intended to move for leave to introduce that evening.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the question was rather an unusual one, but, as far as the Government were concerned, if an opportunity were given them of stating fully the course which they thought ought to be taken with reference to this question (and he had given notice of his intention to make that statement on Friday week), they would offer no opposition to the introduction of the hon. Baronet's Bill. This, however, would be on the understanding that the second reading would not be proceeded with until after the Government had had an opportunity of making known their own views and proposals on the subject.

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he begged to inquire of the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has not received papers relating to the finances of India up to a later date than April, 1857? If the noble Lord could give any returns that had been recently received they might go far to
  188
  elucidate questions that must soon come under discussion. He also wished to know, Whether it was the intention of the Government to remove the political department for the affairs of India to the west end of the town?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that as to the first question, in the course of the next two months he expected to receive the accounts for 1857–8, and when they arrived they would be laid upon the table of the House. He did not think it expedient to lay the estimates simply for that year on the table, but should have no objection to produce a despatch containing a general summary of the accounts of the year. With respect to the other question, he might say that the site for a building had been selected at the west end of the town for a new India Office; the plans were being drawn, and the building would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  VISCOUNT BURYmoved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to legalize Marriage with a deceased Wife's Sister."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he could not but congratulate the noble Lord on the rapidity with which he had opened his campaign this year on the question involved in this Bill, and the manner in which, as it were, he had taken the Session by the forelock. Every hon. Member must recollect the Bill of last year—they must remember the number of petitions presented, the cases that had been brought forward, and the statements that had been so ingeniously marshalled in favour of the proposed change. The Bill, such as it was, passed that House at every stage; it went to "another place" and was there summarily disposed of. If, therefore, the grievance so pertinaciously urged, and the misery so strenuously asserted by the noble Lord, last Session, had really existed in one tithe of the intensity represented, it was not too much to expect that that summary rejection of the measure would have raised some measure of discontent or some slight ebullition of feeling from some corner or other of the United Kingdom. But no voice had been raised to protest against the decision of the other House, except it may be in some obscure paper; the case for the Bill had been discredited by the apathy of the community, and there was the strongest con-

  189
  clusive evidence that the agitation which had been got up on the subject was fictitious or a mere matter of business. At so early a period of the Session, when there was so much real legislation to be done, was it worth while to take up the time of the House in discussing a Bill which, whatever its fate might be there, would not, for a very long time certainly, become the law of the land? If the measure passed that House it must be thrown out elsewhere. It marshalled against itself the respectability of England; and the Presbyterians of Scotland and the Roman Catholics of Ireland, distinct from each other in almost every shade of thought, were at one upon this matter. It would upset the social condition in this country, and the chief object of its promoters was to save from the penalties of the existing law a few persons who had not restrained their passions, but who had overleaped the easy restraints of our tolerant marriage law, and then asked for indemnity for their offence. Those who violated the existing law were not the persons to come forward and plead the violation of the law as their excuse for seeking a change in that law. The noble Lord had already acquired for himself not a little distinction in the eyes of his fellow-countrymen. He had shown himself master of the Hudson's Bay question, and in his speeches, which had come back to us from America during the recess, had confirmed his reputation, and he besought him not to damage his reputation by lending himself with irritating pertinacity to an aimless agitation, and by arraying against himself the regrets and worse of earnest and thinking men by pressing on the House a Bill which others had unsuccessfully endeavoured to pass into a law. Other honourable and distinguished Members had brought the question forward once, some had done so for a second time, but no one yet had been found to press it for a third Session. He trusted his noble Friend would not be the first to place himself in this position; anyhow, if he was pertinacious in his advocacy of the change, he would not weary out the patience of its opponents, but he would find them on every occasion ready and prepared to resist him with an equal pertinacity. If, however, the noble Lord pressed the Bill to a second reading, he ought to be prepared with some better argument than had yet been advanced in favour of it; because the fact that the existing law was violated, might with as much justice
  190
  be brought forward as a reason for repealing any other law in the Statute-book which pressed upon men's desires, and of legalising any system of immorality down to the doctrine of "free love" itself. But he (Mr. Beresford Hope) would not argue the question at that stage of the Bill. A Bill on this subject having already passed the House, the present one had an ostensible claim for a first reading. But the Motion having been made without an accompanying statement, he could not allow it to pass without protest, and if any hon. Member would move for the rejection of the Bill at that stage, he should be most happy to vote with him. He trusted other hon. Members would, at least, protest with him against the introduction of the measure, and promise the noble Lord the same strenuous opposition which they had the pleasure of giving him last year.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 85: Majority 70.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount BURY, Mr. SCHNEIDER, and Mr. MONCKTON MILNES.
  Bill presented and read 1o.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE—MOTION.
  MR. W.EWARTsaid, he rose to move,
  "That on every Tuesday and Thursday (being nights on which Government business does not take precedence) the House do not sit later than twelve o'clock at night."
  He believed he was justified in saying that this Motion was strongly approved by the late Speaker (Lord Eversley), one of the most able and experienced Speakers who ever presided over the House. He was convinced of the necessity of bringing their debates to a close at an early hour, and had repeatedly expressed an opinion that the debates on Wednesdays, when the sitting terminated at six o'clock, were the best and most practical be ever heard within those walls. He (Mr. Ewart) concurred with the late Speaker: the Motion was expedient in every sense of the word. It was not a party Motion; Members on both sides of the House were in favour of it if they would venture to speak out; and he should imagine that Her Majesty's Government were not, in their hearts, disposed to offer any opposition to it. The plan he proposed would be to adopt a rule similar to that observed on Wednesdays; that every Tuesday and Thursday nights at the hour of half-past eleven, measures should be taken to close all the opposed business,

  191
  and then to proceed with the remaining business on the paper which was not of a debateable nature, so that the House might rise at twelve. He had endeavoured to anticipate what objections could be made to the plan; but on ordinary nights he could not see any objection at all. In fact, it would make a very slight change from what was the practice already. The business on such nights was now generally and virtually closed at twelve. It was found that to prolong a debate beyond that hour was of no advantage whatever. The proposed change would only be following the tendency of Parliamentary Practice. The difference might be that of an hour or two. But that hour or two after midnight was now wasted on the mere externals of business. It ought to be objected that the change proposed would prematurely close a debate about to be adjourned. But, even if a debate were adjourned over Tuesday night, the adjournment itself was generally made before midnight. It might be said that the rule might prevent a debate already adjourned from coming to a close on the Tuesday night; but he thought there was no reason in this objection. If Members once knew that the debate must close at a certain hour, they would adapt their speeches to the necessity of the case, and by rendering them shorter make them more satisfactory to the House and to the country. The rule might be considered as somewhat encroaching on the freedom of debate for independent Members; but if an independent Member did not now bring on his Motion before twelve o'clock he had no chance of bringing it on at all, and he would scarcely be worse off than at present. He hoped no hon. Member supposed that the House gained time by its extraordinary late sitting; he believed that, on the contrary, they caused a great loss of time. He could as easily think that prodigality in money matters was the same thing as economy, as that prodigality of time was equivalent to a saving of time. At a certain hour they were all aware that all must yield to that inevitable and inexorable power, the power of sleep. On it no argument, no eloquence could prevail. Dean Swift, in his celebrated sermon on Eutychus falling from the third loft, said that preaching might confirm the penitent, or convert the most hardened sinner, but it could have no effect on the determined sleeper. If a foreigner entered the House during a debate
  192
  prolonged to a very late hour what would he behold? There lies the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "like Palinurus nodding at the helm." There the Admiralty, the impersonation of the naval power of Britain, prone, or rather supine, on its beam-ends. The Home Department, the great regulator of the prisons of the empire, is itself imprisoned in the bonds of sleep; and even the Woods and Forests seemed to be nodding to their fall. Behind them their brave and faithful followers—fortisque Gyas, fortisque Cloanthus—their brave and faithful followers successfully imitated the conduct of their superiors. But why need be pursue the subject? In these matters the House seemed to have retained the more extravagant habits of the days of Pitt, Fox, and Sheridan. The Crown had set them a better example, and the House would do well to imitate it. His proposal was only an approximation to a further reform in this respect. He thought they would transact their business a great deal better if they took part of the "solid day" for it; in short, if their legislation were diurnal instead of nocturnal. It would be more satisfactory both to the public and their own consciences. But, in the meantime the slight alteration he proposed would be a relief to the House, to its officers, and, above all, to the Speaker, on whom, when almost all others had retired, the remaining business fell, as the residuary legatee of the labours of Parliament.
  MR. LAURIEsaid, that he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion, which he thought one that the House would do well to consider. He felt a great objection to long speeches at late hours of the night. They must have all observed the wearisome appearance of those who sat up to daybreak in the course of the last Session. He had heard it said it would be impossible to pass the Government measures if the House were prevented doing any business beyond "the witching doing of night." Now he thought that that was by no means a creditable state of things. He was asked the other day to take the chair at a meeting of the Early Closing Association; but he felt he could not consistently do so, as he belonged to a House that frequently sat up to a late hour of the morning. He was of opinion that if they limited their time of business and shortened their speeches, and thus allow themselves and others to get to bed soon after twelve o'clock, they would

  193
  enjoy a much longer life, and render their legislation more effective.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he was sorry to differ in opinion from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) in his proposition to curtail the very few hours that were given to independent Members. The Government, in all probability, would not refuse their assent to the proposition, as it was one which did not materially affect them. He thought if the hon. Gentleman would but extend the principle of his proposition to the other days of the week he thought it would be one of more equal justice; he would find that the Government would not consent so readily. Sleep was as necessary to hon. Members on Monday and Friday nights as on Tuesday and Thursday nights. He trusted that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he conceived that the hon. Member opposite merely wished to call the attention of the House to what he thought a very good regulation for them to observe—namely, that they should all curtail their speeches as much as possible, to enable them to get to bed at a reasonable time. The hon. Gentleman could scarcely be serious in imagining that it would be of any advantage to public business for them to lay down a fixed rule binding them to close their proceedings on certain nights at a particular hour. It was perfectly true that Tuesdays and Thursdays were the only evenings on which independent Members could bring forward their Motions. It would not be quite reasonable for the Government, at least, to seek to abridge the opportunities which those hon. Gentlemen had of stating their views on any particular question. Besides, the hon. Member might derive a lesson on this point from what happened on Wednesdays, when the House at present attempted to limit the hours of debate. It was found that any hon. Member then wishing to throw any Motion over had it in his power to effect that object by prolonging his speech till six o'clock, when a postponement must necessarily take place. That circumstance weighed so strongly on his own mind that he thought it would be much wiser to rely upon the good understanding which prevailed in the House, as well as upon the good sense and good feeling of individual Members, for bringing the public business to an early close on these and all other evenings, than to adopt a stringent and unbending rule
  194
  which might operate most inconveniently.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, his objection was that the Motion did not go far enough. In his opinion it was more important to apply its principle to Government nights as well as to those on which independent Members had the precedence. Hundreds of Bills were now passed between one and two o'clock in the morning, when it was impossible that their defects could be properly corrected before they became law; the consequence was that they all had to be amended the next Session.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was quite willing to do justice to the motives of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), and he concurred in the general object of his Motion—namely, that they should endeavour to compress their debates within as narrow limits as were compatible with the proper consideration and full discussion of the subjects brought under their notice. He was sorry, however, that he could not agree to the terms of his proposition. In the first place, it was very unadvisable that the House should bind itself by self-denying ordinances which were not absolutely necessary for the conduct of business. Subjects of the utmost and most pressing importance frequently came under their consideration, and the public service would suffer if they were prevented, by a rule requiring them to close their proceedings at a fixed hour, from bringing those matters to an issue on the night on which their discussion commenced. Suppose an important Motion to be brought on upon a Monday. It might often be impossible to conclude the debate to which it gave rise in one night, in which case it must be adjourned till Tuesday. It might happen to be of serious consequence to the public interests that it should be terminated on Tuesday; but under the rule proposed by his hon. Friend, it would be quite easy for anybody resorting to the practice hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to spin out the debate till twelve o'clock, when it must inevitably stand adjourned to Thursday. The same course might be pursued on Thursday, and the debate would again have to be adjourned till Friday. Great inconvenience might result from these frequent postponements, and he was, therefore, disposed to leave the House unfettered in dealing with questions of public importance, according to their urgency. There was a general feeling among hon. Gentlemen in favour of

  195
  closing their debates as early as practicable, and it would, therefore, be much better to trust to the judgment of the House at the moment in all such cases, than to tie its hands by an inflexible rule which, however well intended, would often work prejudicially to the public service.
  MR. W. EWART, in reply, said, that the objection with regard to speaking against time existed now on other days as well as on Wednesdays. He would willingly cede his opinion to the noble Lord and other hon. Members who had spoken, but he had quoted the opinion of the most experienced person in the proceedings of that House, the late Speaker, and sheltering himself under that authority, though with great respect for the opposite opinions which had been expressed, he felt it to be right to take the opinion of the House on the subject.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 28: Noes 237: Majority 209.

EAST INDIA (MEERUT).

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to move for an Address for copies of the proceedings of the court martial held at Meerut in April, 1857, on the eighty-five troopers of the 3rd Light Infantry, and of all correspondences that had taken place relative thereto, and also of the correspondence and other papers, relating to the 36th Regiment Bengal Native Infantry having, at Umballah, expelled from their caste those of their comrades engaged in learning the Enfield rifle practice at the depât of instruction at Umballah. He regretted exceedingly that he was obliged to bring this personal question before the House, but he had no alternative. He held in his hand a paper on this subject, which had been presented to the House. This paper was designated "Further Papers, 8 A, Insurrection East Indies," and he had seen it in manuscript at the India House in the spring of last year, when it was shown him with an intimation that it would be laid on the table of the House. He then stated that if it was laid on the table he would be constrained to move for further papers, as important documents had been omitted. The idea of laying it on the table of the House was then withdrawn, but it had nevertheless appeared during the recess. The paper comprised some selections from the correspondence that had taken place, and ex-
  196
  tracts from the proceedings of the court-martial which sat at Meerut; but these did not embrace all the information that might have been given. He would call the attention of the House to one passage of a letter from the Judge Advocate General of the army, signed "H. Young, Lieutenant Colonel," to the Military Secretary of the Chief Commissioner, in which it was stated that the Chief Commissioner would have seen the erroneous account of the mutiny at Meerut, which Colonel Sykes was said to have laid before Parliament in August last; that, coming from such high authority, the statement would be received not only in England, but in India, as a correct version of what had occurred at Meerut, and that as it would be some time before Colonel Sykes would have an opportunity of explaining the error into which he had been led by some ignorant or designing individual, the effect would be most injurious, as it appeared as if an officer of the cavalry had endeavoured to "force the greased cartridges on the men, and that the Commander in Chief of the Army abetted him in so insane a proceeding." Now, he asked the House whether, in justice to himself, he was not bound to answer such an accusation, and above all, whether, when he found his informant a person of the highest honour and truth, who had been an eye-witness of what he had stated, recklessly and unjustifiably described as "an ignorant or designing individual," he was not bound to come forward in his defence? Possibly the House might find traces in some quarters of that aberration to which Lieutenant Colonel Young had alluded. If his Motion were agreed to, it would be proved that a letter was written by one of the officers of the 3rd cavalry at Meerut the night before the mutiny, to the commanding officer, explaining the peculiar circumstances under which the men were placed, and their alarm and distrust, and urging him not to force the men to disobey their officers. That document had been kept back, and, contrary to the usual practice, the proceedings of the court-martial had never been sent home. The papers in the hands of hon. Members only contained selected statements, and from them the whole truth could not be known. He held in his hand a memorandum from good authority of what took place at the neighbouring station of Umballah. Umballah was a depât for Enfield rifle practice, and the greased cartridges were conse-

  197
  quently used there. The memorandum was as follows:—
  "Each reigiment of Native Infantry received instructions to detach one smart officer and a party of Sepoys to the school of instruction, for practice in the use of the Enfield rifle. The 36th Native Infantry, at the time of the issue of these instructions, composed part of the escourt of the Commander in Chief, General Anson. The quota furnished by this corps left his Excellency's camp at Agra for the school of Musketry at Umballah, commanded by a promising young officer, Leiutenant A. W. Craigie (since dead of wounds received at Narnoul, in the encounter with the Joudpore Legion). The Commander in Chief continued his tour of inspection, and after passing through Bareilly arrived at Umballah (in March or April, 1857). The detachment of the 36th came out to meet their regiment on its marching into the station, but were repulsed by their comrades, and by the native officers of their regiment, and were declared "Hookah panee bund," or excommunicated, in consequence of their having lost caste by the use of polluted cartridges at the school of Enfield rifle instruction. The men explained to their regiment that there was nothing polluting in the cartridges and nothing which any Hindoo or Mussulman could object to. The regiment was deaf to their explanations, and treated them as outcasts. The unhappy men then repaired to their officer, Lieutenant Craigie, and informed him of the fact. Wringing their hands, and with tears in their eyes, they described their miserable state. They said that they were convinced of the purity of the cartridges, but that they were ruined for ever, as their families would refuse to receive them after what had happened in the regiment. The circumstances were brought before the officer commanding the depât, who communicated with the officer commanding the 36th Native Infantry. This officer assembled the Native officers, stated to them the facts as reported to him, and censured them severely for permitting such unwarrantable treatment of the men. The Native officers replied that there was no substance in the complaint, and that the refusal to eat or smoke the hookah with the men of the depât had been simply a jest. Here, unfortunately, the matter was permitted to rest, and such was the prevailing conviction in the minds of the Natives on this question that the unhappy detachment of the 36th Native Infantry attending the school were never acknowledged again by their regiment.
  On a former occasion he (Colonel Sykes) explained to the House the diredful consequences of this communication, involving social degradation, breaking the dearest family ties, and affecting the future state of the outcast. These facts were known at the neighbouring station of Meerut, and an order for a parade to teach the men of the 3rd light cavalry a new method of loading their carbines caused great distrust. Combining that circumstance with what has taken place at Umballah, they told their officers the night before the parade was to take place that they could not use these cartridges. He would now read to the
  198
  House a letter from the Adjutant General of the Army to the Secretary of the Government of India, which proved that the authorities were aware of the dangerous grounds upon which they were treading:—
  "Head-quarters, Simla, May 4, 1857.
  "Sir,—Referring to previous correspondence regarding the target practice of the Native detachments at the several rifle depâts, the Commander-in-Chief considers it will be satisfactory to the Right Hon. the Governor General in Council to learn that at all three depâts the practice has been commenced, and that the men of all grades have unhesitatingly and cheerfully used the new cartridges. In communicating this information to his Lordship, I am to beg you will be good enough to add that a confidential circular has been addressed to officers commanding regiments, enjoining upon them to take every precaution in their power to prevent the depât men upon their rejoining their corps being subjected to any taunting or ill-usage from their comrades with reference to their having used the Enfield rifle cartridges at the depâts.
  "I have the honour to be, &c.,
  "C. CHESTER, Colonel."
  He Colonel Sykes had carefully read over his speech of August 11th, 1857, and he had not a word to alter or unsay in it, and the documents he asked for would testify to its accuracy. If the documents he now moved for appeared to gainsay anything that had fallen from him, he would willingly acknowledge his error, but till they did so would emphatically repeat the opinion he had before expressed, that nothing but the most lamentable ignorance of the Native character, the most pitiable want of tact, and indifference to Native prejudices caused the outbreak at Meerut, and that when it broke out nothing but the most fatuous inaction prevented it from being crushed out. With two European regiments at hand, the men might have been prevented from getting to Delhi, and a mutiny, which had cost 100,000 lives and twenty millions of money might have been avoided. He would therefore move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence between the Commander in Chief's and Judge Advocate General's Departments and the Military Authorities at Meerut, whether Divisional, Brigade, or Regimental, respecting the Court Martial at Meerut in April, 1857, upon the 85 Troopers of the 3rd Light Cavalry; together with Copy, in ex tenso, of the Proceedings of the Court Martial and Correspondence consequent."
  "And, of all Correspondence, Reports, or Proceedings relating to the 36th Regiment Bengal Native Infantry having, at Umballah, in March or April 1857, expelled from their Caste [excommunicated] those of their comrades, constituting a de-

  199
  tachment of the 36th Regiment, engaged in learning the Enfield rifle practice at the Depât of Instruction at Umballah."
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that as certain statements made by the hon. and gallant Member on a former occasion had been contradicted, nothing could be more natural than that he should desire to vindicate his accuracy. For himself, he had no evidence before him on the subject, and he should decline to offer an opinion upon the matter. He had ascertained, from inquiries he had made, that the papers for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had moved were not to be found in the Indian department. He was ready to write to India for them, but as some of these papers appeared from their titles to be confidential, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would allow him to see them before he undertook that they should be printed. It was quite possible that all these papers were of a character to be laid on the table, but the correspondence between the Commander in Chief in India and the Judge Advocate General might be of a character not usually made public, and he should like to have an opportunity of seeing it before he promised that it should be laid upon the table. In that case, it would perhaps be better for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, as, if it were carried, he (Lord Stanley) would have no alternative but to produce the whole should they be forthcoming.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he should be happy to place himself in the hands of the noble Lord.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNY SIR JOHN TRELAWNY moved for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Church Rates.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he must protest against the title of the Bill, which, if it were introduced in so rapid and unobserved a manner, might prejudice the entire question, and render any Amendment of the measure afterwards inadmissible. The Bill ought to be introduced under a neutral title, such as "to amend the law relating to Church Rates;" this would allow the discussion to proceed fairly; but under this title, as "a Bill to abolish Church Rates," it would admit but one way of settling the question. It was not likely
  200
  that either House of Parliament would allow church rates to be thus summarily swept away, without any consideration of the interests involved in them. He could understand that such a proposal suited the political purposes of hon. Gentlemen anxious to win the applause of popular constituencies, but he did not believe the country would approve of it, or that the honest religious Dissenters wished to carry into effect so intolerant a design. He would not offer any impediment now to the introduction of this Bill, but only protest against the free judgment of the House being fettered by the title of the Bill.
  MR. PACKEasked if the Bill was similar in its provisions to that of last Session?
  SIR J. TRELAWNYsaid, that it was precisely the same as that which he introduced last Session, and which was carried through the House by a great majority. Having understood from the Government, that if he did not ask for the second reading of his Bill until they had had an opportunity of laying their own measure upon the table, they would not oppose his having leave to bring it in, he had deferred all explanation of its provisions, and proposed to fix the second reading for to-morrow (Wednesday) fortnight. He wished that this question should be settled, and that every one should have a fair opportunity of being heard with regard to it. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Griffith) objected to the title and scope of the Bill, it was quite open to him to introduce under another title such a measure as he should prefer to it.
  MR. H. DRUMMONDsaid, that if the title of this measure were "A Bill to amend the Law relating to Church Rates," no objection could be raised to its introduction, because there could be no doubt that the application of the machinery of the ecclesiastical courts to the raising of these rates ought to be done away with. At the same time they must remember what occurred last year, when a periodical of great circulation and conducted with some talent, said, "Gentlemen, do not be cheated by sounds; we do not care a farthing about church rates themselves, we want to get rid of tithes." Hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted the abolition of both church rates and tithes. He did not know whether they meant to put tithes into the landlord's pockets, but they certainly intended to put the church rates into their own. As this Bill received the sanction

  201
  of the House last year some deference ought to be paid to that decision, and as there had been an understanding between the hon. Baronet and the Government, he would not, although most determinedly hostile to its principle, oppose the introduction of the Bill. Members, however, who were opposed to the object of it had a right to stipulate that no advantage should hereafter be taken of the title.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that there had been no particular understanding between the hon. Baronet and the Government. The hon. Baronet asked him a question without notice, which he answered, and answered advisedly. The Bill for the abolition of church rates had passed through all its stages in that House last year and went up to the other House. He had answered, therefore, that if the Bill to be brought in were the same as that of last Session, no opposition would be offered to it by Government at this stage. He had himself given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill which he thought would provide a better settlement of this question than that of the hon. Baronet, but he thought that the fairest mode of dealing with the subject was, that all propositions likely to be made upon it, should be before the House, and then they would be in a position fairly to discuss them. In assenting to the introduction of this Bill he did not assent to its principle. He had only informed the hon. Baronet that, provided the Government had a fair opportunity of laying their own measure before the House, before he asked for the second reading of his Bill, he would not oppose his having leave to bring it in.
  SIR J. TRELAWNYexplained, that he had not said that there was any understanding between himself and the Government.
  Leave given.
  Bill "to abolish Church Rates" ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN TRELAWNY, Mr. DILLWYN, and General THOMPSON.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

IRREMOVABLE POOR.

  SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT moved that a Select Committee be appointed "to consider the operation of the Act 9 & 10 Vict., c. 66, which enacts that no poor person shall be removeable who shall have resided five years in any parish; and of the Act 10 & 11 Vict., c. 110, and 11 & 12 Vict., c. 110, which enacts that the
  202
  relief given to such irremovable persons shall be charged upon the common fund of the Union." In accordance with the usage of the House he had placed that notice on the table; but the Motion was, in reality, one for the appointment of a Committee such as that which was appointed last year, and one reason for the urgency of such Committee arose from the circumstance that the last-named Act was to expire towards the conclusion of the present Session of Parliament. It appeared to him that, after nine years of experiments and temporary Acts, the time had arrived when the House might make up its mind on the question what should constitute irremovability, and in what manner the charge of relieving the irremovable poor should be defrayed. That would be the subject of the inquiries of this Committee. In a very few words he would lay before the House the present position of the matter. In the year 1834 the New Poor Law Act passed, and by that statute all means of acquiring a settlement were taken away, except birth alone. In ten or twelve years it was found that this operated harshly on the poor man. Under the former law he had the means of acquiring a settlement wherever his industry called him; but this had been taken from him. With a view of meeting the case, Parliament, in 1846, passed an Act which declared that any poor person having resided five years in any parish should be irremovable from that parish, and this was one of the statutes which he desired to bring under the consideration of the Committee. No sooner had that statute passed than it was felt that it involved a great additional expense on different parishes on whom the five years' residence operated. In the following year, therefore, another Act passed, which cast the expense of these irremovable poor on the whole of the Union in which their parish happened to be situated. A Select Committee, of which the present Speaker was a Member, sat in 1847 for the purpose of determining the great questions of settlement and removability. They examined many witnesses, they brought much ability to the discussion of the questions, and after laborious investigation they determined on several resolutions, any one of which would have effected an important alteration, but the result was that when the question was put that the resolutions be reported to the House, to the astonishment of many the question passed in the negative, and the

  203
  whole of the proceedings became useless. Time passed on and nothing was done, but from year to year these temporary Acts were continued. In 1855 a Committee was appointed to consider one branch of the subject, the removal of Irish and Scotch poor persons; but that Committee found itself compelled to consider the main question, and passed a resolution recommending that the term of five years should be reduced to three, and that the area of irremovability should be extended from the parish to the Union. In the following year the right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), then the President of the Poor Law Board, introduced a Bill to carry those recommendations into effect, bat that Bill was withdrawn, and now the question was as far from being settled as it was in 1846; indeed at the end of thirteen years from the passing of the first Act they were in a rather less satisfactory position than in 1834. The two Acts which he desired to submit to the consideration of a Select Committee stood on the threshold of the whole question. It was time for the Legislature to determine whether the propositions of those Acts should be maintained, and if so, on what conditions? And if they were to be swept away, then it would be for the Legislature to find a substitute. It would not become him to anticipate what would be the determination of the Committee, but he hoped to be able to induce those hon. Gentlemen who served on the Committee last year to serve again, and when they should have reported on this branch, he did not despair of their directing their Chairman to move the House to give them further instructions to consider the other branches of this great question. At the same time, if the House obtained no more than the solution of the legitimate and direct subject indicated in the order of reference, the Committee would not have been uselessly reappointed. He did not know of any objections to the Motion, or of any desire that he should go more fully into the question. He begged to move the appointment of the Committee in the terms of his notice.
  MR. HENRY HERBERTsaid, he thought it would be impossible to discuss one question, without others forcing themselves under consideration; and he hoped that, although the tenor of the Motion referred to England only, some Irish members would be placed on the Committee, as the interests of the Irish poor were deeply involved in the question.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT: I propose the same names as last year, and the hon. Member will see that I have taken care that the sister country is properly represented.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose not to oppose the Motion, but to express his regret that it was limited to an inquiry into two statutes only. The right hon. Gentleman had made it apparent that it was quite impossible to consider two isolated statutes for any useful purpose, without at the same time examining into their relation to the whole system of Poor Law relief; but he had shown also that though, in some respects, the administration of the Poor Laws had continued many years—nay, centuries—yet, in point of fact, the system of Poor Law relief had been entirely changed in character and effect. Any inquiry before a Select Committee should embrace the whole scope of the administration of the Poor Laws in every department, and not only in England, but in Ireland. If the Motion had been deferred, he might have been tempted to move an Amendment to enlarge the scope of inquiry; but perhaps it might be as well that they should commence with the particular relief which was embraced in the present Motion, and while this was proceeding he might bring the general subject before the House. The area must be settled. They could not have a system of settlement depending on casual employment, if the area of relief, of rating, and of management were confined within very narrow limits. Formerly, the system of poor relief depended on the parochial relations, and these again depended on the accident of birth in the recipients; and men were supposed to have a right to relief in the locality in which they were born. They were not even allowed to go out of that locality, except with a certificate, which would compel them to return to obtain relief in it whenever they might want it. But all this had been changed. It might be rational to say, that the master ought to support his labourer if he became poor; that he who had reaped the advantage of the man's work, should support him when he could not labour. That was at least a consistent system. But the master roust then have a right to command the labour of the servant, and this was therefore the system adopted in slave states. The moment we departed from this, there was no reason why one set of persons rather than another should bear the burden of relieving

  205
  the poor when out of employ. In conclusion, he might say that he should probably take the opportunity of bringing the whole subject before the House on an early day.
  Motion agreed to. Select Committee appointed.

SALE OF POISONS.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. WALPOLE: I rise, Sir, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the keeping and sale of poisons. I am not aware whether the House wishes me to go into the details of the Bill now, or to do so on the second reading, but perhaps I may he permitted to state this:—At the end of last Session a Bill for regulating the sale of poisons, founded on the Report of the late Commission, unanimously passed the other House of Parliament. When it came down here great objections were taken to it on two grounds—one that the late period of the Session at which it had come down did not allow sufficient time for its consideration, and the other that the trade and business of druggists would be interfered with by certain clauses and restrictions in that Bill. With regard to the former objections—that arising from the late period of the Session at which the Bill was presented for consideration—that objection is rectified by my bringing forward a Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. With regard to the second objection, I may state that I think I have obviated the main difficulties which stood in the way of the Bill of last Session. But all the reasons which urged the propriety of such a Bill last summer are increased, I think, to an amazing extent by the fearful occurrence which took place in the autumn at Bradford, and I am sure no one holding the high place which I have the honour to do would be doing his duty, nor would Parliament be doing their duty, unless they endeavoured by some regulation to prevent those accidents and mistakes in the sale of poison by means of which even whole populations may be put in peril. The object of the Bill which I venture to propose is entirely to regulate the sale of poisons, and I found my proposal partly on the provisions in the Act which has been passed for further Regulating the Sale of Arsenic. The Arsenic Act was passed seven years ago, and contained certain provisions for regulating and restricting the sale of that mineral. Where a person wishes to purchase arsenic, the fact of
  206
  the sale, the names of the parties concerned in the sale and purchase, and other circumstances attending the transaction must all be registered at the time. It is therefore a useful question for the House to consider whether those provisions have answered the purpose for which they were intended? According to the evidence of Mr. Bell and other gentlemen representing the Pharmaceutical Society, Dr. Taylor, and other famous chemists, given before a Committee of the House of Lords, the Arsenic Act has, to a great extent, tended to diminish the number of poisonings from arsenic. I will only quote Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor says:—
  "Arsenic—and this is one point to which I beg to call attention—certainly appears to have become less frequent as a poison, for in the last three years there were only two cases brought to Guy's Hospital. Now, generally speaking, there were two or three cases a year in former times, before the Arsenic Act came into force."
  Again he says:—
  "In the two years, 1837 and 1838—before the Arsenic Act—the poisons chiefly used were: opium 196 cases, and arsenic 185 cases; that is to say, a little over 92 cases of arsenic in each year; but if you look at the Registrar General's Report of last year, you will find that in 1857 the arsenic cases were only 27."
  I think, therefore, there is reason to believe that the provisions introduced into the Act, as regards the sale of arsenic, have to a certain extent succeeded. But I ought not to conceal from the House that the effect of the Act has been to drive persons to the use of other poisons, instead of arsenic. Well, then, those provisions of the Arsenic Act having succeeded to a certain extent, the question is, first of all, whether they have succeeded so completely as to meet all the difficulties of the case? I am clearly of opinion that they have not, for in the sad calamity at Bradford, by the sale of a deadly poison by mistake for an article supposed to be more or less innocent in itself, the population of a whole neighbourhood was put in peril. The provisions regulating the sale of arsenic merely would not prevent the recurrence of such an accident as that. What you want is, a provision regulating the keeping as well as the sale of poison. If, then, the Arsenic Act has to a certain extent succeeded, while it has failed in other respects, we have to consider in what respect its defects may be supplied. By the Bill of last year it was provided—and that was a clause much objected to—that there should be a separate place—a poison closet—in which all

  207
  poisons should be kept by chemists and druggists, distinct from other medicines in which they deal. The objection taken to that clause—and which I think was a sound one—was, that the business of a chemist and druggist could hardly go on if he was compelled to keep everything in the shape of a poison in a separate and distinct place; and that objection was so strongly urged that I thought it desirable at that late period of the Session not to go on with the Bill. But I do not think the same objection applies to a suggestion which was made in a Committee of the other House, and the difficulties of the case may, to a considerable extent, be met, with reference to certain poisons, by requiring the parties who sell them and the parties who keep them to have the boxes or vessels containing them labelled in a conspicuous manner with the word "Poison;" and, if those poisonous articles are sold, to label every wrapper or cover in which they may be enclosed in a similar manner. All the evidence before the Committee went to show that such a regulation would have the effect of diminishing, if not of preventing altogether, the fearful accidents which through mistakes frequently happen from poison. Such an arrangement as that is provided for in this Bill; but that alone will not, I am afraid, be quite satisfactory. I believe, in addition to that, you must impose certain penalties on the parties who break the law, and you must have persons whose business it will be to see that the law is observed. I have therefore given power to justices in session to order any constable to enter any shop where those poisonous articles are kept or sold, to see that the law is duly observed. I believe that will have a good effect in inducing chemists and druggists to keep their poisons in a more distinct and separate manner than they have hitherto done. I ought, also, to mention that a great impression was made on the Committee of the House of Lords by the desirability of raising the standard of education and qualification among chemists and druggists; and I think anything that can tend to raise that standard would assist, with other precautions, in lessening the number of accidents from the causes in question. At the same time that would be a measure rather for improving the character of those who compound and dispense all drugs and medicines, rather than a measure which is intended for regulating the sale of poisonous articles. I am anxious
  208
  to confine this measure to the latter purposes. In referring to the amount of deaths which occur from the inadvertent use of poisons, you will find, according to the best testimony, that the articles are few by which the great majority of those deaths are occasioned. I hold in my hand an extract from the evidence of Dr. Taylor, in reference to the years 1837 and 1838, and one from the Registrar General's Report for 1857. I think the two will give an interesting view of this subject, and will also confirm the opinion I stated at the commencement of my remarks—that the Act regulating the sale of arsenic has, in point of fact, had a beneficial effect. Dr. Taylor says, in answer to Question 789:—
  "I have the statistics of Guy's Hospital for the last few years. From the return of 1837–8 it appears that the mortality occasioned by taking opium was 37 per cent., and by arsenic 35 per cent., making 72 per cent. for these two poisons; so that very nearly three-fourths of all the deaths were caused by opium and arsenic; by sulphuric acid, or oil of vitriol, 6 per cent.; prussic acid, 5 per cent.; oxalic acid, 3½ per cent.; corrosive sublimate, and mercurial preparations, 3 per cent.; and the rest were made up of other poisons, such as tartar emetic, nux vomica and others, varying from 1 to 1½ per cent.; but I have given the principal, making 89½ per cent. altogether—opium, arsenic, sulphurie acid, prussic acid, oxalic acid, corrosive sublimate, and mercurial preparations.
  That refers to the years 1837–8, and I will advert now to a period 20 years later. I find in the last report of the Registrar General that
  "Four-hundred and one persons died annually of poisoning, and in nearly 113 cases the poison is not specified. Opium is the principal specified poison; by that drug 125 persons are said to have died—namely, 89 by laudanum, 34 by opium, and 2 by morphia. Thirty-four persons were killed annually by prussic acid, including 15 by the essential oil of bitter almonds. Arsenic stands next, and to it 27 annual deaths are referred. The salts of lead kill 23 persons annually, the salts of mercury kill 10, oxalic acid kills 13, sulphuric acid (oil of vitriol) kills 15 persons annually. The deaths from these poisons are understated, as the 113 deaths from unspecified poisons are chiefly caused by them, and in some cases the poisoning is not discovered, and the death is ascribed, erroneously, to disease. The deaths by poisons are murders, manslaughters, suicides, or accidents. They would be greatly diminished if solid opium, laudanum, prussic acid, essential oil of bitter almonds, arsenic, sugar of lead, corrosive sublimate, oil of vitriol, and oxalic acid were only retailed upon the production of a medical prescription. Quack medicines, overdoses, and improper medicines are stated to have caused 183 deaths in five years."
  These statistics are sufficient to show the House that of the number of deaths which

  209
  occur from poison many arise from accident. But there is another point to which it is necessary to draw your attention. A common notion prevails that it is possible to diminish the number of deaths occasioned by poison, where the poison is given to others for the purpose of taking away life, or where it is taken by persons themselves with that view. But with regard to self-destruction, I am convinced that you cannot, by any regulations, altogether prevent that form of the evil. It is a crime which people, if prevented in one way, will commit in another. With regard to murder by poison, there are provisions in my Bill which may assist in detecting the perpetrator; but I cannot hold out any hope that it will have a material effect in stopping that crime. If you refer to the Registrar General's returns, you will find that eight-tenths of the cases of self-destruction are by the halter, drowning, or the knife—and there are only two-tenths which can be referred to poisons and other causes. Therefore, it would mislead the House if I held out any hope of being able greatly to diminish the number of suicides by the provisions of this Bill. And as to murders, it may occasionally facilitate detection and promote evidence, but I do not pretend it will do more. Its chief object is to regulate the keeping and sale of poisons, so as to prevent the deaths which occur by accidental poisoning. The other question which I have to submit to the House is, what things should be included in the schedules of the Bill as poisons. In the Bill of the other house there were twenty-three articles in one schedule, and I do not know how many in the other. It was utterly impossible, with such schedules, that the business of a chemist could be carried on. Nor was there any necessity to include all these articles in them. According to the statements I have already made, it will be perceived that the cases of death by poison arise from the administration of a very few articles, and I have therefore cut the number down from twenty-three to thirteen; and I shall be very glad if any hon. Gentleman will point out to me how that number can be further reduced. The only article about which I entertain a difficulty is opium, because it is one of those things which are constantly asked for by the poorer classes of people in small quantities; and if you put a difficulty in the way of giving it in small quantities to persons who desire it, you may interfere inconveniently with
  210
  these requirements as well as with the trade of the chemist. I propose to get over the difficulty by providing that, where any poisonous article is required by a medical prescription, or where opium is asked for in small quantities, the stricter provisions of the Bill shall not apply. The subject is one of considerable difficulty, and I invite the serious attention of the House to it, in the hope of framing such a measure as will meet completely the end we have in view. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.
  Leave given.
  Bill to Regulate the Keeping and Sale of Poisons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Mr. HARDY, and Lord JOHN MANNERS.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

COLONIZATION AND SETTLEMENT (INDIA).

  SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. W. E WARTsaid, he wished to move the re-appointment of the Select Committee "to inquire into the progress and prospects, and the best means to be adopted for the promotion of European Colonization and Settlement in India; especially in the Hill Districts and healthier climates of that country; as well as for the extension of our Commerce with Central Asia." The hon. Member proposed that the Committee should consist of eighteen Members, whom he named, stating that among them were three new Members.
  MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid, he must object to any increase in the numbers of the Committee. Two vacancies had occurred in the Committee since last Session by the appointment of the hon. Members for Guildford(Mr. Mangles) and Leominster (Mr. Willoughby) to the Indian Council; and the hon. Gentleman not only proposed to fill up these, but to appoint two additional members. He was sure every hon. Gentleman who had sat on the Committee must agree that the Committee was too numerous already. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India might justly complain that as yet he had derived no benefit from the deliberations of the Committee; but if the same system of procedure were followed this Session as had obtained last year, he was afraid they would again separate without drawing up a Report.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he wished to express his opinion that one of the hon. Mem-

  211
  bers for Manchester ought to be on the Committee.
  MR. W. EWARTexplained, that two of the new members were proposed in the place of two others who had retired in consequence of appointments in India. The third was Colonel Sykes, whose appointment was considered appropriate in consequence of the interest he represented.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was certainly the custom when a Committee was reappointed to confine it as much as possible to those persons who had shared in its previous labours. By the regulations of the House fifteen was the usual limit to the number of a Select Committee; but the hon. Gentleman, without assigning any reason, proposed to increase the number of this Committee to eighteen. Perhaps the hon. Member had better postpone the nomination of the Committee for a day, to give an opportunity for its consideration.
  Mr. W. EWARTsaid, he had no objection to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.