Commons Sitting of 28 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—10 Inclosure (No.2).
20 Crown Suits Limitation; Book Unions.
30 East India Council, &c.

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. C.P. VILLIERSsaid, a misapprehension prevailed that the Bill introduced a new principle into the law of settlement. It introduced no new principle, but simply carried out more effectually the beneficial objects of a Bill passed in the last year in which Sir Robert Peel held office, and of a Bill subsequently passed. That Bill was recommended by Sir Robert Peel, partly for the benefit of the poor, but chiefly to compensate the agricultural interest for the losses they apprehended from the withdrawal of protection. At that day the burden of the poor was greatly aggravated from the circumstance that they used to leave the villages and go to the manufacturing towns when trade was prosperous, and in seasons of distress return to the agricultural districts. The Bill of Sir Robert Peel provided that no poor person who had resided for five years in any place should be chargeable on the place of his settlement, and by the 11 & 12 Vict., it was provided that the charge of that new class of paupers should be cast upon the common fund of the union, and not be a charge upon the parish. The principle of the Bill was subsequently extended by a Bill introduced by Mr. Buller to other classes of paupers. The common fund was levied on each parish on an average of its payment of poor rates for three years. It soon, however, became evident that there must be an alteration of the principle by which that common fund was constituted. As the poor were to be maintained by the

  29
  establishment, and were to have the services of union officers, it was thought at first only fair that the parishes should pay in proportion to their demand for that service. So long as that was the only charge cast upon the fund there was no complaint. But when other charges were cast upon it, it became necessary to constitute the fund differently, and to render liable the property of the union. It was, therefore, deemed necessary by the late Government to institute an inquiry to ascertain what grounds there were for the complaints which had never ceased to be made by the parishes for the charges cast upon them. Accordingly, in 1858, a Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject, and that Committee came to certain Resolutions, on which and on the evidence taken before it the present Bill was founded. The first of these Resolutions was that the period of residence should be reduced from five to three years; the second, that the area of residence should be extended to the unions; and the third, that some improvement should be made in the mode of raising the common fund. The reduction of the period of residence and the extension of the area seemed to be generally approved. It was exceedingly difficulty at present for the parochial authorities to discover whether a man had a five years' residence or not; but the fact would be much easier ascertained if a three years' residence was provided for, and the proposal for three years was made in deference to the wishes of the Committee. If the shorter time were agreed to it would be a means of circulating labour, while at present the law was little else than a trap to deceive the poor. If the House believed there was any good in the inquiries of Committees it would have no hesitation in passing this measure. The most important change proposed in the Bill was that in the 9th Clause, by which the common fund would be levied, not on the average of three years' relief given by a parish, but according to the valuation of the rateable property. In the Committee a proposal was made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Estcourt), and agreed to, to combine the element of population with that of the rateable value of property, and his right hon. Friend had given notice that he would move in Committee an Amendment to that effect. That was a proposal to which he could not agree, and he hoped it would not be sanctioned by the House. It was unnecessary to tell the House that at
  30
  present the relief of the poor fell very unequally upon parishes. It often happened that wealthy parishes had the advantage of the labour of the poor, while some adjoining poor parish had to bear all the burden of their relief when they required it. This injustice was not one that arose between the conflicting interests of the trading and agricultural districts, or between town and country parishes. The injustice was often experienced in the case of two parishes situated in the same district. For instance, in the parish in which the Bank of England was situated there were almost no poor. In the parish in which St. Catherine's Dock was placed few poor were to be found; while adjoining parishes from which the labour came were swarmed with them. The same state of circumstances occurred in agricultural districts, so that one or two fortunate proprietors were frequently exempted from the support of the irremovable poor, while their neighbours were overburdened. He believed the new mode of contributing to the common fund proposed in the Bill, by the rateable value of each parish, would do much to remove the injustice that now existed. The new proposal had the recommendation of those in all parts of the country who were best able to judge of its probable effects. He thought the measure an exceedingly moderate one; and should it be rejected by the House, he begged them to remember that there was an organized movement for an equalization of poor rates all over the country, and that they would act wisely in not giving strength and energy to such a movement.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair."
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that no notice of any Amendment having been given, he apprehended that it was not intended to offer any opposition to the Bill. He, for one, was ready to give his best support to the Bill, because, with one exception, he thought its clauses would tend to simplify the administration of the Poor Law, would benefit the poor, and be a relief to the guardians. He believed that the Select Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was most impartially constituted; and its decisions certainly had nothing about them of a party character. They had viewed the question simply as one of local administration. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was fair to make the rateable value

  31
  the basis of the assessment for the common fund, but he thought at the same time that the element of population ought to be added with the rateable value, and then they would have a satisfactory result. The Amendment which he had carried in the Select Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman had omitted from his Bill, and which he should move to restore, was to combine population with rateable value in calculating the share of each parish's assessment. Take the case of two parishes, each rated at £10,000 a year, but in which there was a population in the one case of 10,000 and of 1,000 in the other. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to assess both alike; but he (Mr. Estcourt) would assess one at £10,000 and the other at £11,000—that is to say, he would add to the rateable value £1 per head of the population. On the face of it, the parish which had the larger population would be likely to make a greater demand upon the common fund than the other. He contended, therefore, that the Resolution which he had carried in the Select Committee, and which he should endeavour to introduce into the Bill was required by the principle of common fairness. With respect to the accusation which had frequently been made, that cottages were pulled down, or were not built, because the landowners and farmers wished to relieve the parish of the poor rate—in his belief that accusation was utterly false. The real reason why such cottages were not built being, that as speculations they were not remunerative. Cottages were usually built by speculators, and it was asked why could not landlords do the same? The answer to that was, that the landlord refused to screw out of the cottager the same amount of rent which persons not connected with the land had no hesitation in doing. He thought, therefore, that the accusation which had been brought against the landowners in this respect was a most unjust one. They did not build cottages, not because they wished to avoid the introduction of a class of persons liable to become chargeable to the union, but simply because the building of cottages was not remunerative to them. It was said that the Amendment would not lead to any practical result. But even admitting that, he contended that it would be good policy to adopt it, because if they did not do so, all charges would be put upon the common fund; and if that were done, it would lead to union, to county,
  32
  and even to national rating. No doubt there would be much theoretical benefit in adopting a national rate; but it would at the same time tend to much practical mischief, because it would entirely destroy the idea if responsibility, and the consequent wise and judicious management of the fund. It was exactly because we had small areas, and that every one in a neighbourhood knew the nature of every item he had to pay in the shape of relief, that such excellent results in the administration of the new Poor Law had been obtained. It was easy to say that the parochial system was a remnant of feudalism; but it lay at the root of the Poor Law, which, notwithstanding all the attacks that had been made upon it and all the obloquy that it had excited, had admirably fulfilled its object. With regard to lunatics, it had been proposed to place them on the common fund, because by so doing it was hoped that it would encourage sending them at once to the asylum, in which case they should stand a chance of being amongst the 75 per cent who were cured, if they were subjected early enough to proper medical treatment; whereas if the expense were left on the parishes they would be apt to keep them in the work-houses till their cases had become hopeless. When they went into Committee on the Bill he should have opportunities of explaining his views on all the points to which he might wish to address himself, and would not, therefore, now enter upon all the topics introduced into the Bill.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he rose to make an earnest appeal to the House not to enter into a general discussion of the subject with the Speaker in the Chair, but to proceed at once to the Committee, when each individual clause could be discussed. He himself being responsible for a great change in the Poor Law, he naturally took a deep interest in the subject, and especially in the measure before the House, which would affect the poor as well as property, though they did not seem so directly represented in it. He had served on the Select Committee, and was under the full impression that they would go into Committee on it to-day; and although it was natural enough that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would make some explanation of the measure in moving that it be committed, he did not think the present time was a proper one to discuss its principles, and, therefore, he entreated the House to

  33
  proceed at once to the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, he had voted in Committee for the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) with respect to population, but he had done so under a misapprehension. He had been greatly influenced by the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman; but on further consideration he was satisfied that he had been in error.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he must protest against any attempt to choke discussion on a Bill, which went further than that of Mr. Baines, and which the country had not had an opportunity of considering. It had been read a second time at half-past one in the morning without a word of explanation as to its objects, and now they were asked to proceed with it without any discussion. The effect of the Bill would be to establish union rating in more than half the parishes of England in one year; and it would transfer many millions of property from the hands of one class to those of another. The real question was whether the poor were to be supported in small or large areas—in neighbourhoods, or in large masses? Large areas had often been tried and had always broken down. In the very first instance the Poor Law was established with petty sessional divisions. After a few years it was necessary to reduce the area to parishes; and even those were afterwards divided in some cases into townships. In Ireland and Scotland large areas had at first been tried and had signally failed. Those large areas had been reduced, and then the Poor Law had worked admirably. The House had actually passed a Bill that very Session for the purpose of dissolving combinations of parishes in Scotland. In Norwich, where forty-three parishes had been united for rating purposed in the reign of Queen Anne, the Poor Law had failed; and the City was more heavily taxed than any other part of the country. In the City of London, where the parishes were ridiculously small (some of them being only half an acre in extent) the Poor Law had not broken down. There were in fact in the City ninety-eight parochial staffs to look after the poor instead of one; and the work was, therefore, well done. Even the existing law of irremovability had worked ill. More out-relief was allowed to the union poor, and they were much worse attended to than the parish. There had been very few complaints of the Poor Law except from places like Norwich.
  34
  In London the only complaints were from St. George's-in-the-East and Fulham, where the work-people, the dock-labourers, and the market gardeners, were paid, not by the day, or by the week, but by the hour; and the meaning of the outcry was that the public should pay their wages for them. Other parishes, even while they complained of the inequality of the rating, admitted that they had never paid so little. A union rating would not remedy their complaints, because there would be some which would only pay 6d., whereas others would pay 3s, 6d, or 4s. The case of overburdened parishes had altogether broken down. The worst case at starting was Spalding, but it turned out that the labourers from Deeping Fen carried into the town £10,000 a year in wages. Spalding had, moreover, all the retail trade of the district. The rateable value of the town had risen from £17,000 in 1815 to £66,000 in 1843, and the poor rate had been gradually becoming less, so that with all its grievances Spalding was growing fat. All the other cases had broken down in a similar manner. It would be far better, both for the poor and for the ratepayers, to extend the rating all over the kingdom at once, and have a national rate; for a national rate would be far less injurious to individuals than a union rate would be, and which, as he had pointed out, would effect an immense change in property, whereas from its greater diffusion a national rate would not. It was idle to attempt to smuggle the Bill through as a small measure, and he sincerely hoped that the House would not interfere with the five years' settlement.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say this Bill involved no great principle, and that any discussion upon it might take place on going into Committee. Now, it appeared that it involved great and dangerous principles, and was very much objected to by his constituents of the borough of Southwark, whom it would materially affect. The 1st Clause said the chargeability should be on the union; but in the borough of Southwark all the large parishes were unions of themselves. Where the Bill read "union," the people of Southwark read "metropolis." They complained that the poor lived, to a great extent, in their parishes, while those in other parts of the Metropolis, who enjoyed the benefit of their labour, paid nothing for their support. Legislation had driven the

  35
  labouring classes into poor parishes, and to that extent benefited the rich. The Earl of Derby had over and over again called the attention of the House of Lords to the removal of numbers of poor by the making of railways; but by the metropolitan improvements many thousands of poor persons had been driven over the water, where there was space for the erection of a class of houses suitable for the poor. No less than 2,000 poor persons were removed when Victoria Street was opened up, and when the Dean and Chapter were remonstrated with, and asked, "What is to become of the poor?" the reply was, "That is their look out; they must go over the water to Lambeth;" and so, nolens volens, they were obliged to move. The same removal of poor was occasioned by other metropolitan improvements, commencing with Oxford and Regent Streets, while the same thing was about to be done in the removal of a large number of poor people's houses in the neighbourhood of the Strand, in order to provide for new law courts. It was not, therefore, necessary to travel down to Spalding and other distant places to point out the evil. All that the people of Southwark asked was that as legislation had created these evils, so legislation should provide a remedy. The Bill declared that a person should be irremovable after a residence of three years. This made matters worse, and his constituents, therefore, recommended that the area of rating should be extended to the whole Metropolis.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved, that the Bill was one of great importance in three different respects, and required the careful consideration of the House. In the first place, it introduced union rating. Now union rating might be a good or a bad thing, but it was undoubtedly a change in the law of the country, and ought not to be introduced without a full and free discussion of the principle it involved. In the second place, the Bill involved the interests of the removable poor throughout the country, which was a matter of no slight importance. In the third place, it touched the interests of a much smaller class numerically, but still a class which, like every other class, was entitled to justice — he meant the proprietors of extra-parochial places; and it touched their interests in the face of a distinct pledge given by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) in 1857, that their interests should not be
  36
  further interfered with than by the last Poor Law Bill. Those were all important questions, and it should be also remembered that the Bill passed the second reading at two o'clock in the morning, without any discussion, and in consequence of an appeal made by the Government, which was consented to by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, on the clear understanding that before the Bill went into Committee its principle should be fully discussed. And now, when they had scarcely entered into the discussion the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, one of the most experienced Members in the House, proposed that all discussion should be stopped. He could not allow such a course to be adopted without saying that it was a most unusual one, would form a most objectionable precedent, and would make the House extremely cautious how they acceded to the wishes of the Government on an understanding which might not be afterwards adhered to. With regard to the merits of the Bill he had always taken rather a different view of the first question to that of a great many of his hon. Friends on that side of the House; for he had been disposed to favour the adoption of union rating, thinking it might be an improvement on their present Poor Law system, and, therefore, so far as that principle was involved, he was not inclined to take exception to it in the Bill. He was also of opinion that the five years' Act had proved a great and valuable boon to the labouring classes in this country; that it had worked extremely well, and accomplished the end for which it was intended. He raised no objection to the reduction of that five years to three, believing that it would be advantageous to a still larger class of people. With reference to the extra-parochial part of the question, all he asked was that the understanding which had been come to should be adhered to, and that burdens should not be thrown upon the proprietors which they could not be called upon in reason or justice to bear. On that point, when the Bill went into Committee he should move an Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not see that the right hon. Baronet was justified in the observation that he had made in regard to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. The object of the right hon. Gentleman was not to stifle discussion, but that the discussion should be attended with some benefit, and not prove

  37
  a mere waste of time. He wished the full discussion should take place on the clauses, so that when they suspended their sitting they would at least have made some progress. He could not agree that there was such a change of principle as had been indicated, and at all events, as all the observations which had been made had reference to particular clauses of the Bill, they might as easily have been made in the Committee.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he acquiesced in the principle of the Bill. He had always thought that union rating was a necessary consequence of the principle of union management, which was put forward as one of the principle advantages of the new Poor Law. He was no admirer of the new Poor Law, but the principle of union management which it introduced was a new principle, by which the old parochial system was broken up and demolished. It had always appeared to him that the area of rating should coincide with the area of management. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that there was no ground to be taken up between national rating and parochial rating. He did not see the question in that light. If the area was not too large for purposes of management, why should it be considered too large for the purposes if rating? If the labour of the country was so equally distributed through all the parishes that every man lived in the parish in which he worked, there would be no difficulty in the case. But that was not so. The theory of the Poor Law was that a man was, or ought to be, relieved in a particular locality, not merely because he resided in that locality, but because he worked there. Now, the tendency of parochial rating in small parishes had been to discourage the building of small cottages, and to enable landlords to avail themselves of the labour of persons living in other parishes. That was a system opposed to justice and sound policy. He thought there was a great deal of force in what the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had said when he urged that the Bill did not go far enough, and that the rating of the metropolitan parishes should be extended to some larger area—he would not say an area including the whole Metropolis, but certainly one going beyond the range of single parishes. With regard to the details of the Bill, he would make no remarks upon them till they went into Committee.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that he did not think that the country or the House would object to the time that had been spent in discussing the principle of the Bill. Having had a considerable experience in the working of the Poor Law he thought that the principle of union rating would have a fatal effect upon rural districts. He did not understand the argument of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) with regard to the Metropolis: for if the rating area of the Metropolis was to be extended at all, the whole Metropolis must be introduced, and he need hardly say what a state of things that would originate. The great inducement of guardians in rural districts to attend was to prevent the ratepayers from being imposed upon; but if the area was enlarged to the whole union that feeling would be greatly weakened. As to the Metropolis, if there was only one board of guardians, the work would soon become so onerous and so little honourable that it would practically fall into the hands of very few persons, and those the hands of very few persons, and those probably not the best qualified for the task. If any one would move that the Bill be committed that day three months, he should give the Motion his most earnest support.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, the main principle of the Bill was to extend the beneficial influence of the law of irremovability, and the principal objection urged to it related to the question of rating. He thought that a point which could be very well considered in Committee. The Bill left Southwark in exactly the same position in which it now stood.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was very strongly in favour of the Bill, which he believed would most favourably affect, not only the pauperised, but the non-pauperised portion of the labouring poor. It was a great hardship that there should be such a temptation, not to the landlords—who he believed would always resist it—but to the farmers of a district, to resist the building of proper houses for their labourers. No more fruitful source of demoralization existed than this system of open and close parishes. It seemed to him that the chargeable area should be made co-extensive with the employing area. There were reasons also which operated very strongly in large towns which made this Bill most desirable, and his constituents in Bradford had urged him to support it.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYcontended that the Bill would a prejudicial effect on the labouring poor. There could be nothing more desirable than the improvement of the cultivation of the soil, and the Bill would militate against such improvement, because if two parishes were contiguous, and one was well cultivated and the other not, the one that was cultivated would have to bear the burden of the badly cultivated one. They were all greed as to the removal of the poor, but he hoped the House would not agree to the proposal for union rating. Indeed, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not divided his Bill into two parts.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, there were principles in the Bill that involved neither more nor less than confiscation, and the destruction of the principle of local self-government. The country was not prepared for a union rating, or for an equalization of rates. They were in point of fact by this Bill striking a blow at the root of the parochial system. The only grievance they had a right to complain of was the system of close parishes; but surely the right hon. Gentleman was ingenious enough to find a remedy for that evil without altering the whole incidence of the Poor Law. Therefore, considering that the Bill was one of an extremely dangerous character, he would give the hon. Member for Westminster an opportunity of opposing the present further progress of the Bill. He moved that the Bill be committed that day three months.
  MR. WARNERseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—instead thereof.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was surprised that the proposition of the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), to go at once into Committee, should have been supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because when the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Poor Law Board, brought the Bill before them, he went minutely through every clause; but not content with that he did his best to pull the proceedings of the Committee all to pieces; and then, when it was proposed to discuss the measure, up jumped the right
  40

  hon. Baronet, the Member for Morpeth, and said, "Oh, let us get on; you can discuss it very well in Committee." The right hon. Gentleman told them that there was not a single reason which was advanced in favour of the five years' irremovability which did not apply with tenfold force to the proposed three years' irremovability; but if so it would apply with fifty times more force to a proposition for irremovability, with no limitation as to the period of residence, and as sure as a stone set rolling on the side of a hill would roll to the bottom, the union ratings would extend to county ratings and national ratings. With irremovability they must necessarily have a national rate; but, as it had been well said, with a wide area it would be impossible to check pauperism. In a small area the employers did not discharge their workpeople in the winter months. Taking the Saturday night and the rate together, there was not that difference between the two classes of parishes which people supposed; and it was a singular fact that in what were called town parishes, where the rates were high, the rent of land was also high—a sufficient proof that there was more equality than was imagined. He really did think, then, that the House should take a little more time before they proceeded with the Bill, and should afford the country a better opportunity of considering the question. The Bill, indeed, had been so curiously managed that the country knew nothing at all about its nature and what its effect would be, and, therefore, he had had but little communication from his constituents on the subject. It would not be just and right to do away with irremovability to the extent proposed, without some shifting of the burden, and at present they had had no Returns to show how far the incidence of rating would be changed, and what had been called confiscation would take place. From a communication which he had had with the clerk of one of the boards of guardians of a parish contiguous to Oxford, it appeared that it would increase the proportion of the common charge of that parish from one-eighth to a third. Therefore, he did not think it either just or right to run such a risk as they would of ruining parishes, if they passed the measure in the absence of all information. It was an unsatisfactory thing that they were asked to pass a Bill on the mere faith of the Report of a Committee, when a Member of the Government immediately afterwards got

  41
  up and pulled the Committee to pieces. As to a union rate it would make people wholly careless of what became of the poor. The area would be so large that it would induce a general carelessness, and labourers would be paid off even to half a day, and packed about their business with a total indifference as to what became of them. He was opposed to a national rating, and should be extremely sorry to see the parochial system broken up. For these reasons he should vote for the delay of the measure.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS:This Bill is only a Bill to facilitate the development of principles recognized in our existing laws, but as it has been said that the country and the House are ignorant of the grounds on which it rests I shall take the liberty of making a few observations regarding it. The first Act of Parliament referring to this matter originated with Sir Robert Peel, who stated, in bringing forward the repeal of the Corn Laws, that there were certain securities he wished to afford to the agricultural interest, and that one of these was the principle of irremovability. An Act was passed in 1846, by which a person residing for five years in a parish should be irremovable, but that Act did not in any way interfere with the law of chargeability as regarded the irremovable poor. In 1847 a Bill was introduced, which first established the principle that the relief of the poor made irremovable by the Act of the previous Session should be charged to the common fund of the union, and not to the parish. That Bill was afterwards extended by Mr. Buller to other classes of poor, including lunatics and the casual poor, and I may here state that the common fund was to be made up by assessments based on the average of relief given in each parish for the previous three years. Now, what are the changes proposed in the present Bill? The first change is to diminish the term of five years, which constitutes irremovability, to three years. That is a question of degree, not of principle. It is embodied in the Scotch law, where it is known as the principle of industrial residence. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) says that if you once make this change you will be led further, and will ultimately come to the abolition of all settlement. [Mr. HENLEY: I said, irremovability.] I consider the terms to be the same. The very essence of settlement is the power of removing a man from a
  42
  place where he is now chargeable. I am so much a heretic as to wish to see the law of settlement entirely gone. I believe its abolition to be perfectly practicable and safe. There is no connection between the law of settlement and union rating; and the abolition of settlement is perfectly compatible with chargeability. According to the law of Ireland a poor person is chargeable to the electoral division in which he resides, and there is no law of settlement in Ireland. In this case Irish legislation has been founded on our English experience. The second change proposed by the Bill is that when a person has resided three years in a parish that residence will confer the benefit of a residence in the union. It will prevent him from being removed in many cases in which he is now liable to be removed. I am not alone in being an enemy to the law of settlement. Mr. Pitt, in 1796, declared himself to be opposed to what he called the "striking grievance" of the law of settlement, and if he had been allowed to legislate according to his own views, he would have abolished the law of settlement altogether, having founded his views, no doubt, on a well-known passage in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The first two changes in this Bill, then, cannot be considered very dangerous. The third change is contained in the 9th Clause, and it alters the principle on which the union charge is calculated. The charge for the maintenance of persons on the common fund is diffused over the different parishes of the union. What the clause proposes is to calculate the common charge, not according to the average of three years' relief, but according to the valuation or absolute property of each parish. It is merely a change in the mode of calculating the constituent elements of the common fund, and it is, I admit, a fair question for the consideration of the Committee. Wherever there is a common fund raised there the advantage of an area having a unity of management will be experienced; and it seems to me a fair principle that you should make the charge equally on all the property of the union. I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that if we admit the principle of calculating the common fund in the way I have described it leads, by any logical or probable consequence, to the introduction of national rating, or rating on any large area. No person can be more strongly opposed to national rating, or even county rating,

  43
  than I am, but I believe that a union rating is within a manageable area. I believe with the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) that there is an essential distinction between that and a larger area, and I cannot believe that the House of Commons will be deterred by any fear of national rating from changing the assessment now based on pauperism to one based on the absolute value of property. There are halting places between a parochial and a national rate which we may prudently occupy, and I hope that will be the opinion of the House.
  MR. BARROWsaid, that the Bill proceeded altogether on the principle of union rating, and he objected to deparochializing the parishes as much as he did to national or county rating. It was quite fair that in the first instance a common fund had been raised on the averages of the individual parishes, because at that time they required money to build the workhouse, but what he objected to was that when the irremovable poor became union paupers the charge was still placed upon the parishes, instead of on the whole of the union. That was unfair in the highest degree, inasmuch as many of the parishes of different unions returned no average charges, and, therefore, escaped liability altogether. He thought they ought to go into Committee to remedy that evil.
  SIR BROOK BRIDGESsaid, he believed that there would have been stronger representations on both sides of the House with regard to the Bill if it had been made more thoroughly known to the country. He considered that the present parochial system gave enormous advantages to the poor man, and that those advantages would disappear entirely with the enlargement of the area. The farmer would no longer continue his exertions to employ labourers all the year round, and he believed that this was the thin end of the wedge to introduce union ratings and extended area, which he looked upon as an unmixed evil, and, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 44: Majority 143.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  MOVEMENTS OF THE CHANNEL FLEET.—QUESTION.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended that the Channel Fleet, or any portion of it, are to anchor in Belfast Lough during the cruise of the Fleet this Summer?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that no orders had been issued to the Channel Fleet to put into any port in particular.

  HARBOURS IMPROVEMENT BILL. QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Why the Clauses which he intimated would be added to the Harbours Bill, to enable Harbour Commissioners in Ireland to borrow money for the Improvement of Harbours in that country, have not been added; and, whether any such Clauses were sent to the Irish Office for consideration; and, it so what course was taken there about them?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the Government were desirous of extending the districts in Ireland to rate themselves, and so afford a security for loans under the Harbours Improvement Bill, and a Clause had been prepared for that purpose by the Board of Works in Ireland. It was afterwards sent to the Irish Law Officers of the Crown, and they saw a great deal of difficulty with regard to the question, because it would provide new areas of taxation; so that on the whole the Government had thought it better to give up the Clause, rather than delay the passing of the Bill. But so far as the measure itself went, whatever advantages were possessed by England would be extended to Ireland. The object of the Board of Trade was to extend a special advantage to Ireland, and he was sorry they had failed to do so.

  PLANS FOR THE NEW FOREIGN OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had on the Paper a Notice to ask the First Commissioner of Works, When he will submit the Gothic and Italian Plans for the new Foreign Office to the inspection of Members, and whether he will name a day on which the decision of the House on the question of style shall be taken? but since he had given notice of this question the right hon. Gentleman had deposited the

  45
  Italian plans in the Tea-room of the House of Commons; therefore, he would merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he still adheres to his decision not to exhibit some of the intermediate designs, which, he understood, have been viewed with considerable favour? He had a second request to make—namely, inasmuch as the number of new buildings was now so great, that his right hon. Friend, after communicating with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, will name some day for the discussion of the still disputed question of the styles?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the designs for the elevation in the Italian style recently made by Mr. George Gilbert Scott were now in the Tea-room. As the noble Lord also wished to have the Gothic plans, he (Mr. Cowper) had endeavoured to select those which he thought most calculated to meet the noble Lord's wishes. The last Gothic designs were now in the exhibition of the Royal Academy. Considering this, he (Mr. Cowper) thought the noble Lord might wish to compare those which originally obtained the premium. With regard to the time for taking this discussion, he thought the legitimate opportunity was when the House was called upon to vote a sum of money in the Estimates for these buildings. He (Mr. Cowper) could not say when that Estimate would be taken, but it would come on in its order, in proper course, in the Miscellaneous Estimates. Due notice would be given of the day when these Estimates would come on.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that at the present moment there were in the tea-room two designs—the Gothic design, which was originally drawn by Mr. George Gilbert Scott; and the Palladian design. There was also the amended Gothic design, and a round-arched Italian design; so that those who were in favour of the Gothic style might contrast it with the Palladian, and with the round-arched early Italian. The Gothic designs of last year were in the Royal Academy. Had the right hon. Gentleman any objection to exhibit the amended as well as the original Gothic designs if the Royal Academy would consent to their removal? Also would the right hon. Gentleman state with some greater degree of certainty the day when the Vote was likely to be taken in the Miscellaneous Estimates?
  MR. COWPERsaid, with regard to the time when the Vote would be taken, he
  46
  could only say it was the tenth Vote of the first class. The Votes would be taken in order, and when the ninth was disposed of, the tenth would come on; but how much time would be consumed in passing the first nine Votes was more than he could say. With respect to the exhibition of the designs, he would consult with his noble Friend, and endeavour to meet his wishes.

  COMPULSORY REMOVAL OF POOR TO IRELAND—QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to an Order of the House for "Copies of all Informations and other Documents relating to the compulsory removal of Rebecca Kearney to Ireland from Glasgow;" and whether, inasmuch, as such Return does not contain the "Informations" and "Orders" required by Law in all cases of compulsory removal of poor persons to Ireland, he can furnish the House with any explanation on the subject?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he regretted that he could not furnish the hon. Member with the information wished for. In the Return of the Board of Guardians from the parish in Ireland he found a Resolution that the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland should be requested to apply to the Board of Supervision for information respecting Rebecca Kearney. They had not, however, received any such application. He (the Lord Advocate) had applied to them, and they had informed him that her removal had been effected without their intervention. At that moment he did not know from what parish Rebecca Kearney had been removed, but as soon as he received information on the subject he would communicate it to the House.

THE GARIBALDI FUND.

  RESOLUTION.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read;
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the proceedings of a society advertised as the Garibaldi Fund for the Unity of Italy, which was presided over by the hon. Member for the Ayr District of Burghs, while other Members of the House were on the committee of management. He intended no disrespect to the Members of the House whose names he should have to mention,

  47
  nor did he desire to excite any angry discussion upon the affairs of Italy. The position of affairs in that country was much too critical for any hon. Member to desire to excite any great difference of opinion upon the subject, and it was on that account that he must protest against the conduct of certain hon. Members of that House in associating themselves with committees such as that to which he should have to refer. As to mere opinions upon foreign affairs, he might hold to old traditions and old monarchies, while other hon. Members of a more speculative turn of mind might prefer new alliances and young republics; but he trusted that the course which had been adopted by the committee, the conduct of which he was about to call in question, would meet with the reprobation of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had recently on one or two occasions spoken of Austria in terms which were much more likely to be beneficial to this country than those which he adopted in the early part of last year. The advertisement of the committee to which he referred, and which appeared in the columns of The Times, was as follows:—
  "Garibaldi Fund for the Unity of Italy.—Committee:—E. H. J. Craufurd, Esq., M.P., chairman; W. Coningham, Esq., M.P.; J. Stansfeld, Esq., M.P.; J. White, Esq., M.P.; Gore Langton, Esq., M.P.; P.A. Taylor, Esq.; W. Austin, Esq.; W. J. Linton, Esq.; Frederick Lawrence, Esq.; W. H. Ashurst, Esq., treasurer; and J. Sale Barker, Esq., hon. sec."
  It would go abroad that such a committee as that existed, and that Members of that House were members of it, and how prejudicial must that be to the interests of England in foreign countries! What were the objects of the Committee? The advertisement said—
  "The emancipation of Italy has yet to be accomplished. One step towards it was made by the annexation of Tuscany and the Æmilia to Piedmont. The expulsion of the Bourbons from Naples and the extension of the Constitutional Government of Victor Emmanuel to Southern Italy, formed the second step. It yet remains to free Venetia and install the Italian Government at Rome. To promote this end the above committee has been formed at the desire of Garibaldi, and will act in concert with the Central Italian Committee at Genoa. Its object is to collect funds, and, in Garibaldi's own words, 'to take whatever steps may seem advantageous for vindicating to the British people the aims of the Italian patriots, and otherwise promoting the interests and independence of Italy.'"
  ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheered that sentiment, and they had a perfect
  48
  right to hold that opinion as to what might be for the interests of Italy; but what he protested against was that a committee composed of these gentlemen should raise subscriptions to be sent to a country with which we were in strict alliance, in order to rob it of part of its territory. Last year the subject of another Garibaldi Committee was brought before the House by his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy); and he would prove, from the observations which were then made by the Solicitor General and the late Attorney General, that at any rate this committee must be considered illegal. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said—
  "I do not deny that in the case of a foreign loan attempted to be raised here for the purpose of fomenting revolution in a foreign country in amity with us, the Court of Common Pleas, in an action on the contract, has held that the contract could not be enforced, being tainted with the character of illegality."—[3 Hansard, clviii. 1376.]
  That was a case in point; a fund was being raised for the purpose of exciting revolution in a foreign country with which we were in alliance. The late Attorney General (now the Lord Chancellor) spoke more strongly. He said—
  "I quite agree, therefore, that according to the common law of England any subjects of the Queen who, either directly or indirectly, may supply money in aid of the revolt of subjects of any nation or Power with whom we are in alliance commit an offence at common law. …. An hon. Gentleman has said that the committee formed for the collection of subscriptions is open to an indictment for conspiracy. I must, however, observe that, according to the papers, almost the whole of that committee is constituted of foreigners. Now, I do not mean to say that the principle of the law does not extend its prohibition to all persons who are permanently resident in this kingdom, and who owe allegiance to, as they receive protection from, the Crown, but I do not believe that principle has ever been established upon authority."—[3 Hansard, clviii. 1381–1383.]
  It was evidently the opinion of Her Majesty's late Attorney General that the committee then complained of was only not illegal because it was composed of foreigners, but that a committee of Englishmen would have been decidedly illegal. How much stronger was the case when the committee was composed of Members of the House? He would not for a moment go into a discussion of the merits or demerits of the King of Naples or those of the Papal Government. All he desired was that the principle of non-intervention should be carried out honestly and fairly. He simply said that we had no right to

  49
  interfere at all in the matter. Suppose a subscription was being raised to restore to their country the Princes of the House of Orleans—a family which had endeared themselves to the people of England by the nobility of their character and their benevolence — would not representations be made by the French Government, and would they not be attended to by that of England? But then it would be said the Government of France was a powerful Government, and one with which we could not trifle. Again, suppose the members of the French Senate formed themselves into a committee to collect money to revolutionize Ireland or the Ionian Islands, would not the English Government insist upon such a committee being broken up? Let them act on the Continent upon the principles of justice, and adhere strictly to a policy of non-intervention. More especially was that necessary now, for what had been the state of Italy since the death of Count Cavour? They read in The Times the other day that twenty-three men had been shot at Syracuse, that two villages had been burnt by the Piedmontese, that all the inhabitants had been deported, and that five had been shot. Outbreaks were occurring in every part of Italy. The present state of things was at once the eulogy and the condemnation of Count Cavour. It was the eulogy of his abilities as a Minister because he, and he alone, with the aid of Garibaldi, produced the revolution in Italy. It was his condemnation, because every Italian paper now stated that no dependence could be placed on the stability of affairs in Italy. With respect to Sardinia, what had they to trust to? Hon. Gentlemen thought that they had the support of The Times, the most influential paper in this country; but, although that journal was now favourable to what was called Italian unity, it on the 2nd of March last thus described the conduct of Sardinia during the last two years—
  "An able publicist may convict Sardinia of a gross violation of Vattel or even of higher authorities. Sardinia entered into a war against Russia, not being a party to the Treaties respecting the Porte. Sardinia provoked Austria deliberately, and Austria fell into the trap laid by her enemy. Sardinia took advantage of the popular commotion to annex Tuscany and the Legations, although the Grand Duke and the Pope had taken no part in the war of 1859. Sardinia invaded the Papal States without a declaration of war and under a shallow pretext. Sardinia connived at the expedition of Garibaldi, and reaped the fruits of his daring enterprise. Sardinia is pro-
  50
  bably now meditating how she can reduce the most ancient Sovereignty in Europe to a name, and annex the city of Rome to her rapidly extending dominions. Finally, she threatens an attack on an empire with which she made a solemn peace less than two years ago, and does not conceal her desire to wrest the Province of Venice from its legitimate master."
  Every hon. Gentleman had a right to sympathize, if he chose, with the desire for what he (Mr. Cochrane) considered an impossibility—a united Italy; but with regard to a nation so important to this country, as the noble Lord had declared Austria to be, with whom we were so perfectly in accord as to wishes and objects that an eminent man remarked that the battles of Solferino and Magenta were as fatal to us as if fought on the soil of Sussex or Kent, he protested against any steps being taken to disturb what slight chance of repose existed in Northern Italy. The noble Lord's despatch to Sir James Hudson, written on the 21st of March, exhibited an admirable spirit. The noble Lord said—
  "The obligations of the various States of Europe towards each other, the validity of the treaties which fix the territorial circumscription of each State, and the duty of acting in a friendly manner towards all its neighbours with whom it is not at war—these are the general ties which bind the nations of Europe together, and which prevent the suspicion, distrust, and discord that might otherwise deprive peace of all that makes it happy and secure. It is not without a purpose that I have made these general observations. My despatch of the 31st of August last need not here be repeated, but the sentiments there expressed continue to animate Her Majesty's Government. After the troubles of the last few years Europe has a right to expect that the Italian Kingdom shall not be a new source of dissension and alarm."
  Those were excellent sentiments. But, on the one hand, while Europe entertained expectations with regard to the Italian Kingdom, Italy had a right to require that those occupying high places in this country should not conspire to raise war against a country with which we were in strict alliance.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "The existence of any Society, formed for the purpose of raising funds to assist a revolutionary party in any Country with which we are in strict alliance, is inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention."
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL:It is hardly

  51
  necessary for me to answer the hon. Gentleman at any length. I thought some person who was more directly aimed at by the hon. Gentleman would have risen to speak with regard to this Garibaldi Fund. So far from being a revolutionary association, I believe the Purpose for which the Garibaldi Fund was set on foot was to support the Italian Government. I cannot say that I approve of it, or that I think it desirable to maintain that society, but I really do not think it is a matter which requires the attention of the House at all.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Do I understand it to be the noble Lord's impression that this society was formed for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in Italy?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I really know so little about the society that I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Perhaps the noble Lord will not think it beneath him to institute inquiries and satisfy his mind whether this is really an innocent society, or whether its object is to raise civil war in the dominion of a friendly Power?
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he thought inquiry perfectly unnecessary, as the Italian Kingdom had now been recognized.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member, and he wished to point out one inconvenience which resulted to Englishmen from this direct violation of good faith, and the principle of non-intervention. The habit of foreign travel is known to be much improving, and to be most popular in this country. Many English families are in the habit of visiting the Austrian dominions, heretofore they had always been received with great courtesy and kindness, and were looked upon as friends and allies. But a great change has lately taken place. Since the establishment of societies, such as this one, headed by the five gentlemen already named, and since English travellers and writers have declared themselves to be such warm partisans of the enemies of Austria, and so openly express opinions antagonistic to the Austrian Government, and completely subversive of the existing state of things, they have ceased to be regarded as citizens of a friendly state. Recently an English gentleman and his family were exposed to great inconvenience. What was the history of the case? They wanted to proceed to a part of Austria little visited by travellers from the Kingdom of Sardinia, and, their baggage being subjected to a very close search, there were found
  52
  among it some photographs of Garibaldi. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but it was really no joking matter for English travellers, as this party found—for they were immediately surrounded by police and treated with the greatest harshness. He believed they owed all this discomfort to the hon. Gentleman and his four colleagues; for the subscriptions to the Garibaldi Fund were for the avowed purpose of creating civil war; and this English family having been led by their natural admiration for a very remarkable individual to possess themselves of his likeness, were exposed to the suspicion of being agents of this improper and revolutionary society. He believed hon. Gentlemen who had become supporters of this society were merely actuated by a desire to see their names figuring in the public papers with that of a great man; and if any of them regarded the matter in any more serious light he would ask, did they believe they were going to take the Quadrilateral? The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office must surely feel that existence of such a society was contrary to his own sense of good faith and honourable English feeling, and he trusted that he would take steps to put an end to such a nuisance.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he felt it difficult to express in Parliamentary language his opinion of the answer which had been given by noble Lord. Could he mean to tell the House as a gentleman that he believed the only object of this society was to maintain the status quo in what was now called the Kingdom of Italy? A great many things were publicly said under the guise of debating dexterity which he would pay the noble Lord the compliment of declaring that he would shrink form averring in private. The character of the society was stamped by the name which he bore—that of Garibaldi—the most aggressive man in the world. What danger threatened the Kingdom of Italy that it could be said this was merely a defensive organization? The noble Lord, surely, had not heard the advertisement, which stated distinctly, "It yet remains to free Venetia and to instal the Italian Government at Rome". If that did not mean aggression against the Emperor of Austria and the Pope there was no meaning in the English Language. If the noble Lord heard the terms of the advertisement, he was still more astonished at the reply which he had ventured to give. We were

  53
  at peace with the Courts both of Austria and Rome. It was true the Queen had no regular representative at Rome, but there was a diplomatic agent, a near relative of the noble Lord, who resided on the spot, and practically there could be no doubt that the Pope was recognized as the lawful Sovereign of his dominions. The Emperor of Austria had a representative in London, and we had one in Vienna. Now, he maintained, without fear of contradiction by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that any person within these realms, whether actually subjects of the Queen, or but temporarily resident beneath her sway, who levied money for the purposes of aggression against any Sovereign at peace with the Crown of England was guilty of an offence against the law of England. He would not go into the question of the state of Italy, for he hoped before the Session closed they should have an opportunity of discussing fully and fairly the important events which had taken place in that country; but he must observe that the noble Lord, when he detailed what he believed to be the state of things in the Kingdom of Naples, spoke doubtless what he believed, though it was the reverse of fact. To prove what he said he would quote an authority hostile to the Bourbons and the King of Naples, and friendly to the Revolutionary party; and he would ask the noble Lord whether in the letters of The Times' correspondent, who wrote in the strongest manner, not only as a partisan but almost as an advocate, proofs of the grossest oppression were not visible showing that Naples had been treated as a conquered country? It was perfectly untrue that the Piedmontese came as deliverers and were welcomed as such; everything which had transpired proved such a statement to be utterly false. They came there by false pretences, by treason, and corruption, and they kept down the people since their arrival by the rigour of military discipline and by the cruelty of military executions. They knew from the accounts sent home by The Times' correspondent, that there was anarchy in Naples and Sicily, and that in those countries there was no law at all. The loyal subjects of the King of Naples who endeavoured to maintain their rights were called "brigands;" but call them what they might, there was no doubt that the people were opposed to the Piedmontese, and that the latter had shot scores—hundreds of men for no crime but loyalty. It
  54
  was equally certain that the prisons were full. One viceroy after another had been sent from Turin to keep the peace in those countries, and yet there was no safety for life or property. That was the liberty which the noble Lord's friends had brought to the people of Southern Italy; that was the freedom which that people were forced to accept by the bullet and the bayonet. That the votes for annexation were mere folly and delusion was perfectly well known. The noble Lord was aware of it. He knew that they were worth as much as, and not more than, the votes received for the annexation of Nice and Savoy. Everything which had happened since the annexation itself showed how worthless was that ceremony of taking votes, and that the votes themselves did not express the feelings of the people. All that had occurred since showed that the people desired the return of the Sovereign, and they would yet see his return. The people were at present very cruelly treated; and, therefore, his observations bore directly on the Motion of his hon. Friend, because they went to show that if hon. Gentlemen to whom the Motion alluded were banded together for the purpose of aiding in the further conquest of Italy by the Piedmontese, they were banded together to extend the same system of cruelty, dishonesty, and revolutionary aggression which now prevailed in what was called the Kingdom of Italy, in Sicily, and Naples. The state of things now existing in the South of Italy could not last, and ought not to last. It was impossible to know anything of what was going on in that part of Europe without feeling that it could not last.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that with sincerity he could say that he was as ignorant as his noble Friend had professed himself to be of the organization, combination, and objects of the society to which particular reference had been made; but he must observe that the proposition contained in the Motion before the House was not directed in form, and ought not to be regarded as directed, against the particular society to which the hon. Member for Honiton had thought fit to call the attention of the House. It was what might be called an abstract proposition of international law, and it was to this effect—that the formation of any society established for the purpose of raising funds to assist any revolutionary party in any country with which Great Britain was in strict

  55
  alliance was inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention. He ventured most humbly to express his opinion that it would be a mistake of the House to discuss that abstract question, and that it would be a still more grievous mistake for them to arrive at any such conclusion as that to which the hon. Gentleman invited them. The discussion of such a question could not possibly be attended with any good results, while it might be productive of the greatest mischief. By passing a Resolution to the effect suggested they would be simply and spontaneously giving a handle against themselves to foreign Governments. It was not the function of the House of Commons to be debating or deciding abstract propositions of law of any kind. There was much more useful business to which the House could apply themselves at the present moment; and whatever opinion he might entertain he would not be drawn into an expression of opinion on that abstract proposition.
  MR. HENNESSYobserved that the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, unwilling he now appeared to be to vindicate English law, was certainly drawn into an expression of opinion on the subject last Session. The Solicitor General then told them what his opinion was; and when he (Mr. Hennessy) ventured to question the judgment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, every lawyer who took a part in the debate coincided with him in the opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not pronounced what the law of England was on this important subject. Seeing that, for his part, he could not bow to the decision of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this was not the time to discuss a question of this importance. He thought it was a fitting time; for they had had hon. Members of that House, they had had Ministers on the Treasury bench, upholding the doctrine that they might wage war against a State with which the Sovereign of Great Britain was in amity, and wage it in the most cowardly and underhand manner. That was a question of the deepest importance. He confidently stated again, as he had stated before, that the people of the South of Italy were in a state of siege—that martial law was in operation against them, and that the proceedings which had led to that unhappy position of affairs had been, to a great extent, promoted by the acts of this country. He thought it was of great importance to ascertain this—
  56
  whether the gentlemen who were subscribing money for Garibaldi were subscribing money to oppress the people of Southern Italy. He had on two or three occasions asked the noble Lord to give the House Whatever information he possessed about what was called the reactionary feeling of the people of Southern Italy. He certainly had not made a Motion; but he had asked the noble Lord for the papers on that subject, but he had not laid them on the table. It appeared to him that, on a matter of such grave importance, information ought not to be withheld by the Government. However, in the absence of information from the Government, they had been supplied with some by the correspondent of The Times, and he should quote a few passages from the letters of that gentleman, as they were the only authority they had in addition to the private letters which some hon. Members were in the habit of receiving. In quoting The Times correspondent he would be citing the authority of one who wrote in a spirit antagonistic to the ancient institutions of Italy, and in favour of the Piedmontese Policy. There were three particular stages of the revolution described in the correspondence to which he would ask the attention of the House. With reference to the popular feeling towards the King of Sardinia, The Times correspondent, under date November 23, used these observations, in speaking of his Majesty's entry into Naples—
  "The unfortunate wretches cry out they are being invaded. This cry is eagerly taken up by the Tuscans and Lombards. Victor Emmanuel has not made that impression on the minds and hearts of the Neapolitans which might have been desired. …. It is a misfortune that it should be so in a man who presents himself in the new character of king of Italy."
  Alluding to the King's departure, the correspondent, in his letter of the 1st of December, remarked—
  "The Renown and Hannibal fired a Royal salute to Victor Emmanuel. The bowsprit of the Admiral's vessel was manned. …. A few Neapolitans assembled in Santa Lucia to gaze, as it were, on a pretty sight. But there was no life, no enthusiasm. … They are still in their shrouds. …. A pretty danseuse, with a good ankle, would have driven them into fits."
  When a united Italy was proclaimed, and the People were told that for the first time they were free, how did they manifest their joy? In his letter of the 4th of June, the same correspondent stated—

  57
  "The national fete is over, and were I an Italian, as, thank God, I am an Englishman, my blood would be at freezing point. This is strong language to use; but I get disgusted with the apathy and puerility, the impatience, and the egotism of the people, and long to seize them by the shoulders and shake them into some kind of life. …. Early in the morning the ships in the harbour were dressed. The forts and vessels of war fired salutes, in which the Exmouth joined, at midday, and the people were fairly in for their rejoicings. I went through the city to mark how far the counsel of the syndic to the inhabitants to hoist flags had been followed. Long rows of streets exhibited scarcely a banner. The Toledo had a fair sprinkling, and so had some of the side streets leading into the great artery. I remarked another fact, too, and it was that in private houses, with one or two exceptions, no preparations had been made for the illuminations, or, if any, just such as conventional usages appointed."
  The next extract which he would read to the House was one from a letter which had appeared in The Times within the last day or two. The House would recollect that it was not more than about six months since General Cialdini, when invading the country, proclaimed that he would shoot all who might be taken in arms fighting for their King. The Times' correspondent, however, in that day's paper (June 28), stated that the reactionary movements were increasing. He said—
  "The reactionary disturbances—call them by whatever name you please—occastion much disquietude and increase in audacity.…
  . There are many here who affect to ignore or pooh-pooh them (though they admit their frequent occurrence) by saying that the bands are small and are always put down. Yet, however small they may be, they are found more or less in all directions; they increase and multiply, and show a general dissolution of society. … It was not long since the Piedmontese were repulsed in an action with these canaglia, and we have reports continually of the members of the National Guard being, shot, and lately a small detachment of them was massacred. …. Within the last few days the audacity of the bands has been shown within a few miles of the capital."
  In a discussion of this kind hon. Members may be reminded of an attempt at a subscription for the Italian cause, got up not in London but in Italy. How had that subscripton succeeded? He would refer hon. Members on this point to the same authority—The Times' correspondent—which ought to be regarded with so much veneration by hon. Gentlemen opposite—
  "Dukes have put themselves down for 3s. 6d., Ministers (Piedmontese), at the most, for £1; and the vast majority of those whose voices were making the welkin ring with their sympathy and admiration of their brothers have not been ashamed to write themselves down for 4d., 6d., 8d.—aye, for the'feriti di Garibaldi.' The sum contributed cannot have been great. I cannot tell the gross amount; but I have published lists, and they
  58
  have been formed in the way I have described. I have no hesitation in saying that the foreigner has shown ten times the amount of substantial sympathy that the Neapolitans have shown."
  He met some English Garibaldian officers in Italy, and he heard one of them, an officer occupying a post of high authority, say that he was never more mistaken than he had been about the feeling of the people. He said that there was but one sentiment, indeed, among them, and that was detestation of the Piedmontese. Reference had been made to the presence of the British fleet; but when so much was said about the British policy of non-intervention, he must tell the House a story he heard, but for the precise accuracy of which he could not of course vouch, namely, that an aide-de-camp in the British Garibaldian's Legion, was in daily Communication with General Garibaldi on the one hand, and the British fleet on the other. The aide-de-camp in question was the eldest son of a Cabinet Minister, who presided over the department of the Admiralty. That the eldest son of one of the Queen's principal ministers should have acted as a military secretary or aide-de-camp to a Colonel in the Garibaldian Legion, and should still have held his commission in the 4th Dragoon Guards, was not creditable to Her Majesty's service, He regretted that the English people should thus take any share in the oppression of the people of Southern Italy, and he hoped that discussion would do something to inform and modify public opinions on the subject.
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he should like to know what the House was called upon by this Resolution to do? Was it called upon to express its sympathy with the Government of Austria and Rome, or to affirm some plain constitutional principle, or was it intended to urge the Government to set the detective force to work to get up evidence for a political prosecution against the supposed offenders? He thought that the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had acted with sound judgment in refusing to be drawn into a discussion on the subject. If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that the society ought to be prosecuted, it was open to them to collect evidence, to prefer a Bill before a Grand Jury, and to get a common jury, if they could, to convict. Those hon. Gentlemen might sympathize with Austria or Rome as much as they pleased, but they would

  59
  never induce an English jury to convict any one brought before them for subscribing to such a society.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he thought it would be extremely difficult for the Government to interfere with advantage in the matter, or to institute a prosecution against the society. But the Government might interfere in an indirect manner—by the more open and decided expression of their opinion in that House against a course of conduct and policy on the part of private individuals which seemed likely, if it became general, to involve the country in great difficulties with foreign Powers. The tendency of that and all similar proceedings was to compromise the character of the country, and render England unpopular on the Continent. A great moral responsibility, therefore, rested on persons who set up this sort of private society to carry on a kind of buccaneering expedition. He trusted that they would succeed in eliciting from the Government some strong expression of disapprobation of that kind of private war-making. It was in itself a breach of the common law of the country, it led to a breach of the law of nations, and might mix up the country in a foreign, struggle which it might be our wish and policy to avoid. Suppose a society of the same kind was to arise for the purpose of taking a part one way or the other in the delicate and difficult questions now at issue on the other side of the Atlantic. In the present state of exasperated feeling against this country which at the present moment existed so causelessly in the Northern States, what would be said if a society, headed by a Member of Parliament, and containing other representatives of the people among its members, evinced a disposition to interfere on one side or the other? Why, such a society would defeat the whole policy of the Government, and probably plunge the country into a disastrous war. A course of conduct which would be wrong in that case was equally objectionable in the present instance. A policy of non-intervention in Italy was, he believed, the policy of England, and individuals were bound to concur in that general policy.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he did not suppose that the House would follow the course which it was now called on to take; and if the society to which he had the honour of belonging was so heinous in its character, the proper course of proceeding would be that which the law pointed
  60
  out. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Cochrane) drew attention to a particular society, and asked the House to pledge itself to an abstract Resolution, which impliedly seemed to impute revolutionary designs to that society. The hon. Member, however, had stated no facts against the society, and, if the hon. Member had, he would not have entered upon his defence in that House, for it was not his duty to implicate the House in any expression of feeling, either of sympathy or otherwise, with reference to the policy which as a private member of society he thought proper to pursue. He felt grateful to the hon. Member for having so effectually advertised the society while laying no ground whatever for a Resolution condemnatory of it. He believed that the House would not be willing to entertain the suggestion made by the hon. Member, in language so vague and general that, if affirmed, it could lead to no practical result.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that if the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Honiton were not withdrawn the House would be placed by it in rather a curious position. Hon. Members had listened to a speech and had heard an advertisement read, but he could not connect the Amendment with either one or the other. The few lines of which the Amendment consisted appeared to express something very like a truism, and he did not know whether the Government meant to negative that truism.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLexplained that the Government would vote in favour of the question that the words proposed to be left out of the original Motion—namely, that the Speaker leave the chair—should stand part of the question.
  MR. HENLEYobserved that that was a way of getting rid of the difficulty by a sort of side-wind, but it was very like negativing a truism. In the existing state of things in the world he certainly did not think that it would be a very convenient course to negative a proposition such as that before the House, but upon the whole he thought it would be a good thing if it could be got rid of by a side-wind, in consequence of the way in which the question would be put.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir John Walsh) that there was great inconvenience in the establishment of societies of the description referred to. He much regretted, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General should

  61
  last year have given it as his opinion that such societies were not absolutely illegal. He was glad to find that his hon. and learned Friend, who was undoubtedly a year older, had also become wiser, and had found out that it was no part of his duty to answer abstract principles of law. His sympathies were strong with the Italians in their attempt to maintain their liberties; but he supported the principle of the strictest non-intervention in these matters. He asked, however, if societies were formed to collect subscriptions to aid particular parties struggling in a foreign country, whether it could be said that strict neutrality was preserved in this country? Supposing such things to be permitted, societies might be established here avowing themselves the respective partizans of the American Northern and Southern States, and the result might be a struggle between the contending parties in this country. If the present proposition went to a vote he felt it would be impossible to negative a truism; and he thought the course suggested by the noble Lord would be the proper course to adop, but he trusted that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Cochrane) would not insist on going to a division. The best way to avoid all misconception on the subject was, he thought, that his hon. Friend should withdraw his Motion.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in explanation, said it was mistake to suppose that he had at any time pronounced an opinion in public as to the legality or illegality of such societies as those in question.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion in deference to the general feeling of the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:Sir, I wish to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the present state of public business, and in doing so hon. Members will not, I trust, think I am unduly interfering with the course of that business which stands for this evening on the paper. We are now come to the 28th of June, and there remain, I believe, 200 Votes in Supply yet to be disposed of, besides which there a great many Bills of considerable importance, and which it would be very undesirable to drop owing to the circumstance that the House had not sufficient time to deal with them, still awaiting
  62
  our consideration. So far as the Votes in Supply are concerned it is not, of course, for the Government to suggest to hon. Members the expediency of suppressing any observations which they may deem it to be their duty to make whenever the rules of the House admit of their doing so, but I would at the same time remind them that each of the last two Votes in Supply occupied the greater portion of an entire evening, and that if it should be thought necessary to discuss the remaining 200 Votes at equal length, a considerable amount of time must obviously elapse before we can bring our labours in Supply to a close. Now, the only conclusion which I wish to draw from that statement is, that when the Motion that you, Sir, leave the Chair in order that the House may go into Committee of Supply is made, it would be desirable—except, perhaps, on Fridays, for of those days I will not say anything, inasmuch as they are avowedly set apart for those amateur discussions in which we hebdomadally indulge — that hon. Member should refrain from interposing Motions except they happen to relate to matters of really urgent importance or are of a nature which may reasonably be expected to lead to some practical result. Mere statements of opinion on general questions it would, I think, be for the advantage of the public business, on those occasions, as far as possible to avoid. I may add that there are now lying on the table Bills of great public utility which it would be very undesirable that we should not pass this Session, and if, owing to protracted discussions on going into Committee of Supply, those Bills should be thrown over to a very late period of the Session, many hon. Members will complain—and not, perhaps, without some reason—that they are called upon to deliberate upon important measures at a time when the attendance in the House is small, when those who are interested in the business under discussion are away, and they will in all probability urge on the Government the postponement of those measures to another year. That course being, as a matter almost of necessity adopted, the House of Commons as a body, and the Government as forming part of it, are reproached with having done nothing, and with having allowed the Session to go by without passing any measure of great public utility. That, however, is, in my opinion, a reproach which is very often unjust so far as the Government are con-

  63
  cerned, and which is not, I think, quite fair as far as regards the House of Commons in the aggregate. Hon. Members will, I trust, excuse the liberty which I have taken in making these suggestions, and will be as sparing as possible in the exercise of their privilege to raise discussions upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he was of opinion that the noble Lord had not made the observations which had just fallen from him one day too early; and, as an example of the necessity for adopting the advice they contained, he might refer to the inconvenience to which he, as well as other hon. Members was subjected, by the circumstance that public business of importance was not proceeded with—owing to the interposition of Motions on every variety of subject—in the order in which it was set down on the notice paper. That very evening no less than fifteen such Motions stood in the way of the House going into Committee of Supply, while upon the last occasion on which the order for Supply stood at the head of the list a single Motion, the discussion of which occupied five mortal hours, but ended like a flash in the pan, intervened to the detriment of the public business, while a most important measure, the Scotch Industrial Schools Bill, could not be brought on until just a quarter of an hour before midnight. Now, he had heard it advanced as a charge against the Government that they did not take steps to keep a House on those occasions; but he could quite understand how it was that hon. Members kept away in the early part of the evening when they knew that the really important business set down for consideration was not likely to come on until an advanced hour of the night. There, were, he might add, on the 21st ult., twenty-nine Motions on the paper on going into Committee of Supply, of which eleven stood in the names of Irish Members—a fact which showed how zealous they were in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties. He trusted, how-ever, the remarks just made by the noble Lord would have some effect in making hon. Members somewhat more chary of bringing forward such Motions, while he would also express a hope that hon. Gentleman would endeavour to compress their addresses to House within as small a compass as possible.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he did not think that Irish Members had taken
  64
  up any undue share of the time of the House. The noble Lord said that there were still 200 Votes of Supply to be taken. He (Mr. Scully) at the end of last Session gave notice of a Motion, which was placed on the records of Parliament, that all the Votes ought to be taken before the 1st of May, but he had not seen any attempt on the part of the Government to bring them forward. The noble Lord had, with his usual tact, selected the time for making the suggestions which had just fallen from him most admirably, seeing that while every word which he had uttered was sure to go forth to the public, there was not a single Member sitting on the front Opposition bench, and the only distinguished Member of the Opposition (Mr. Henley) present was actually walking out of the House. Indeed, the only undoubted supporters of the Conservative party upon whom the noble Lord on looking across the table could fix his gaze were the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball), so that it might very fairly be said there lay before him a perfect vacuum. With such a prospect to encourage him the noble Lord was kind enough to concede to private Members the privilege of indulging themselves on Fridays, while the other days of the week he wished to absorb for Government business. As the Government did not support his Motion for inquiry into the evictions, the matter would have to be brought forward in another form. He had another very important notice to bring forward on going into Committee of Supply. It was to move for a Select Committee to inquire what was the best mode of securing authentic and accurate reports of the debates in the House. Nothing could be more ridiculous and absurd, for instance, than the reports in the morning papers of the debate on the Indian Bills last night. It was impossible to conceive anything more imperfect of contrary to what really occurred. That was clearly a very important subject, and he could not understand why the noble Viscount should wish to shirk a debate on it. In the absence of hon. Gentleman opposite he protested against the suggestion that Members should give up their independent Motions, and allow the Government to do what they pleased.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL:Sir, I hope the House will attend to the speech of my noble Friend, and not to that of the hon.

  65
  Member who has just spoken. I cannot help being struck with the great change which has take place in the proceedings of this House, more especially in regard to Supply. It is, no doubt, the true constitutional doctrine that hon. Members have a right to discuss any matter of grievance, important questions of any internal or external policy, before going into Committee of Supply, but that principle has been employed in order to introduce abuses, which, I think, cannot be allowed to exist any longer. The very purpose of Supply is defeated by these interruptions. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) has said very often and very truly that there is nothing more important in this House than the Supplies by which all our great establishments are maintained, and which are the cause of the burdens which the country has to bear; but, if these questions do not come on till half-past eleven or half-past twelve at night, it is quite impossible that they can be discussed. The hon. Member for Lambeth and others who take an interest in these matters are either obliged to make speeches in an impatient House, or to give way to a Vote against which they have many reasons to allege. This is, perhaps, the most important business which the House has to perform, and yet it is entirely set aside, not in order to consider some important grievance or grave question of policy, involving possibly the existence of a Government, but in order to discuss some question of detail which might be brought forward on a notice day, and which probably is hardly worth the attention of the House at all. I have a very strong impression on my mind that, although the Committee which sat early in the Session did not think it desirable to recommend the change, the time will come when that good practice will be extended to Supply which prevails with regard to Bills; that, after the House has once gone into Committee on a Bill, when the Order of the Day is read, you, Sir, should immediately leave the Chair on the question of Progress. If the House knew that at five or six o'clock the Committee of Supply would come on, and that certain items would be considered, hon. Members would be in their places prepared to discuss them. Some process of that kind must certainly be adopted if the House means to maintain its character and to resort to its old mode of proceeding. There are days for notices when private Members can bring forward their Motions. There
  66
  is another point of material importance which deserves to be mentioned—I mean the introduction of Supply at an early period of the Session. There are certain forms and proceedings which take up about ten days at the beginning of the Session, and which, according to an old constitutional maxim, require to be gone through before the House can deal with the Estimates. I think, however, that on the second day of the Session, on the Report of the Address, the House might pass the Resolution "that a Supply be granted to Her Majesty," and that the Estimates might then be printed. The House having seen the Estimates would proceed to provide for them. I am persuaded that some thorough amendment of the present practice is required, not to introduce innovations, but to re-establish the old mode of proceeding.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord at the head of the Government in lamenting the state of the public business during the present Session. The remedy he had to propose had, in the main, been anticipated by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—it was that immediately on the meeting of Parliament the Estimates should be laid on the table. If the House thought it desirable that the Estimates should be proceeded with earlier than usual, there would, he apprehended, be no difficulty in accommodating the constitutional forms to which the noble Lord had referred to so beneficial an arrangement. At present the first ten days or fortnight of the Session were always completely wasted, and the Army and Navy Estimates were not commenced till near Easter, when the renewal of the Mutiny Bill rendered it necessary that certain Votes should be passed; and, having got the large Votes, the Government allowed the consideration of the small to be set aside for other business. The result was that when the remaining Estimates were brought forward, there was no possibility of procuring the attendance of those Members who ought to be present when they were discussed. He had never heard any reason why the Estimates should not be presented on the meeting of Parliament. That would be certainly more convenient for the Government, as the attendance of Members would be comparatively small, and the Votes would be passed with less delay. It was said that much delay was caused by Motions upon going into Committee of Sup-

  67
  ply. At the commencement of a Session hon. Members wishing to make Motions naturally expected that opportunities for making them would be afforded, but, as the Session advanced there was great difficulty in bringing on Motions upon the regular days, and thus Members were driven to the necessity of making them on going into Committee of Supply. Having regard to the desirableness of getting through the Estimates at an early period of the Session, and at the same time looking at the importance of allowing opportunities for a full discussion of them, and further considering that nothing tended so much to delay the general progress of business as the uncertainly which prevailed as to the precise time when particular business would be taken; upon all these grounds the question was well deserving of attention whether some arrangement should not be made for improving the mode of conducting business in that House. With respect to another part of what had fallen from the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, he must say he should view with great jealousy any attempt to curtail those opportunities for discussion of which every Member had a right to avail himself. The time might come when some such step must be taken, but he should be adverse to adopting a new rule which might abridge the safeguards possessed by a minority against an overbearing majority of the House, unless the most absolute and imperative necessity could be shown for it.
  MR. WHITEthought the time had arrived when the House would be compelled to assent to a curtailment of what were called the privileges of the House, and to allow the allocation of one day for the purposes of Supply. He regretted to say that, judging from the experience he had had of the temper of the House, and the flood of talk with which they were deluged, he despaired that either of the recommendations of the noble Lords would have the effect of abolishing what had become an acknowledged nuisance. Those who, like himself, were constant in their attendance in the House felt as irksome, and, indeed, intolerable, the opportunity which the Motion for going into Supply afforded for the utterance of much that was neither useful nor creditable to that House. If it should happen that any event occurred which would render it necessary that the attention of Parliament should be immediately directed to the subject, there could be no difficulty in sus-
  68
  pending the Standing Order, which appropriated a special day for the purposes of Supply.
  MR. E. BALLsaid, that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had complained, and very properly, that there was so much matter not immediately connected with the business of the House before it, that the effect was to retard its progress, and thereby to inflict injury on the public service. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Vincent Scully) had also complained that those (the Conservative) benches were generally nearly empty. If that complaint were true, it only proved that they, at all events, did not cause delay, and they stood completely exonerated from the complaint made by the noble Lord. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down despaired of any remedy being found for the evil of which the House complained. Now, there were two very simple remedies which be applied. If the ordinary mediums of communication between that House and the public would occasionally give to the country verbatim reports of the speeches delivered, not polished up, without giving sense to that in which there was no meaning, without adapting to the rules of grammar all that was ungrammatical, they would put a damper upon those hon. Gentlemen who were notoriously guilty of occupying much time in an unprofitable manner. He would also suggest that any hon. Member speaking in a debate should be compelled to remain in the House until the debate was closed. The Conservative Members of that House had not been inattentive to public business, as the division lists would show. Upon the various measures connected with the Budget they had omitted no opportunity of discussing those important matters, but when great items of expenditure were settled by the decision of the House, they did not conceive it to be necessary for them to attend continuously to discuss details for which the Government were responsible. Indeed, it was impossible for them to do so when they were required to serve upon Committees, which, instead of affording—as was sometimes believed out of doors—large emoluments, only occupied their time and increased their labour.

  THE SUEZ CANAL.—EXPLANATION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to explain a misapprehension which had arisen as to some observations which

  69
  he made a few nights ago upon this subject. He then stated that one of the objections urged by the noble Lord at the head of the Government against the canal was that it would give foreign nations a start on the road to our Indian possessions. He had in a public journal been accused of having, in making that statement, misrepresented the noble Lord. To clear himself from that imputation he would read a statement made by the noble Lord on the 17th of July, 1857, which was to the following effect:—
  "In a political point of view it is objectionable as regards England, especially in connection with our Indian possessions; for it is plain that if a great canal were cut from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea there are other naval Powers with which we may have difficulties, which would have a very important start as compared with ourselves with regard to any operation that might be undertaken in the Indian Seas."—[3 Hansard, cxlvi. 1705.]
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee, Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £261,014, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Educational and Scientific Branches, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862, inclusive."
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he did not propose to enter into a discussion of the new plan of education to be pursued at Sandhurst, but it must be obvious to the Committee that if they granted money to carry it out they would make themselves parties to the plan, and be responsible for it. They were, therefore, justly entitled to ask for full information, and he desired to know when papers would be produced, showing how the money voted would be expended?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the detailed regulations, which would show in every particular what the new system of education would be, were nearly completed, but had not been submitted to the Queen for Her approval. If approved they would be published, and laid before the House. That course would take only a few weeks, and then any hon. Gentleman who objected to the arrangements would have an opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to his objections.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he desired to know whether the hon. Gentleman would give a pledge that the money voted the
  70
  other night should no be expended in the meantime?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that on a former occasion he offered to do so if the House would follow the course he then proposed. It refused to agree to his proposition, and he was now not prepared to give any such pledge.
  MR. MONSELLasked why the age at which cadets were to be admitted to Woolwich had been altered?
  Mr. T. G. BARINGsaid, that in accordance with the opinion of the Committee of Council on Military Education, the maximum age at which cadets could be received into the College had been fixed at nineteen instead of twenty years as formerly.
  MR. MONSELL, with great respect for the Council on Military Education, must say he differed very much with them. The system hitherto had been entirely successful. It was notorious that the Universities were great feeders of the Military Academy, but the change of the maximum age from twenty to nineteen would practically shut out young men at the Universities, and he understood there had been a strong protest from Cambridge on the subject. The subject had been brought before the House of Commons some four or five years before, and the House refused by its vote to agree to change now made by the Government, and he believed there had been something like a pledge on the subject. He believed it was an effort on the part of the Government to defeat the new system of examinations, and he for one protested strongly against a course which would lead to disastrous results.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he would promise to consider the subject. He was not aware that any pledge had been given by the present Government.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES—ROYAL IIIBERNIAN MILITARY SCHOOL.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, I am most anxious, Mr. Massey, to spare the time of the House as much as possible, and personally to avoid making an undue trespass upon its attention; but I feel convinced that it will be felt that I have good and substantial reasons for bringing forward the subject of which I have given notice. It is one which involves a great principle, affecting the feeling and interests of all classes of the people of Ireland. We have been promised that sometime in July we shall have the Return of the Census for

  71
  Ireland; but until that document is placed on the table, and that it exhibits to the contrary of what I believe to be the case, I am justified in asserting, on the authority of the last census in which the different religious denominations were set forth, that Ireland is still a Catholic country—that four-fifths, or, at the very least, three-fourths of the population are of the Catholic faith. The army of the United Kingdom is largely recruited from Ireland; and in the numbers supplied by Ireland, as her contribution to the army, it will be found that they fairly represent the religious belief of her people. Thus, that at least three-fourths are Catholic, while but one-fourth are Protestant or Presbyterian—that, in fact, in the ranks of the Irish soldiers the same preponderance of Catholics over Protestants prevails as among the civil population. Now it certainly ought to be the policy of the Government to conciliate the people from whom they draw so large a proportion of their military resources in the hour of emergency; and I need scarcely say, in the presence of several gallant Officers, that which they well know, and could bear willing testimony to, that the Irish soldier has ever been found foremost in the post of danger, and in the hottest of the fight, in all those great battles which have enhanced the glory of this country. Those who themselves have breasted the tide of battle can bear testimony to the fidelity and valour of the Irish soldier. Now, the Royal Hibernian Military School, in Dublin, was established for the education and protection of the orphans of Irish soldiers. From a Return for which I moved early in this Session, I find that on the 26th of February, 1861, the number of boys in this school was 410. Were one to judge by the number of Catholic Irishmen, when compared to Protestant Irishmen, in the army, one would naturally suppose that the proportion of Catholic and Protestant boys in this school would nearly represent the proportion of Catholic and Protestant soldiers. But what will be thought when I state, on the authority of the Return I hold in my hand, that the number of Protestant boys was, at the date I mention, 278, while the number of Catholic boys was only 132? Thus, the relative proportions within the school were then, and are now, exactly the reverse of those which existed outside of it. And this proportion seems to have been strictly maintained; so that while
  72
  there were, at the very least, three, or say two, Catholic soldiers for every one Protestant soldier in the army, there were in this school two Protestant orphans of Protestant soldiers for every one Catholic orphan of a Catholic soldier. How is this anomalous state of things to be explained? How does it act? When the poor widow of some Catholic soldier, who had died in defence of the honour and interests of this country, applies to have her orphan child admitted to this school—this school established for the education, care, and succour of the orphans of those who have given their life and blood for the glory of this empire—she is told there are no vacancies for Catholic boys, although there are, or might be, vacancies for Protestant boys. Poverty, necessity, and desperation are sad tempters, and the unfortunate Catholic mother has been induced to sacrifice her strong religious feelings, and consent to have her orphan child entered as a Protestant, because there were no other means of securing his admission. But suppose no case of this kind had ever occurred, such a temptation ought not to be held out. But let us see in what manner the staff of this establishment is constituted to which is confided the education of 132 Catholic boys. The entire number of persons holding offices or employments of all kinds, from the highest to the lowest grade, is 69; and while every one holding a post of any rank, authority, or influence, is a Protestant, none but the situations of the most subordinate and even menial kind are given to Roman Catholics. Out of the sixty-nine officials in this list but nine are Catholics. Let us see what offices these nine Catholics hold. The first is the "Officiating Catholic clergyman," a non-resident, and who only visits the institution. Then there is an assistant-sergeant; then a sergeant-gardener; then an assistant-shoemaker; then an assistant-tailor; then a hospital servant; then a woman in charge of the schoolrooms; then a ploughman; and lastly, a farm labourer. But, on the other hand, all those in command, all the masters and teachers, all who have authority or who possess influence, are Protestants. I ask, is this fair and equitable, and whether there is still to be a ban placed upon Catholics in a Catholic country? A Catholic soldier surely has as good a right as a Protestant soldier has to have his orphan child educated and taken care of by the State, as well as protected from the base and insidious arts of the

  73
  proselytiser. Not only is the state of things in this institution bad of itself, as I shall show, but it works evil in other ways. This system produces the most pernicious fruits, through its influence and example. The Government seems to sanction a proselytising school—a school, at least, in which all the influences tend in that direction; and why, therefore, should not schools supported by private resources adopt the same? Thus, from this Government institution flows a poisoned stream which is conducted through the country in a hundred different channels, disseminating a noxious influence, fatal to Christian concord, and keeping alive those evil passions which, as an Irishman, I wish from my heart were banished from my country. Now as to its immediate results. I find, by a Return laid before this House, and ordered on the 10th of May, 1854, that in the preceding four years no fewer than seventeen boys had changed their religion, and become Protestants; and, in addition to this fact, I state that in the month of February, 1858, as many as five Catholic boys declared their intention of becoming Protestants. Two of these boys were under fourteen years of age. Now, I can easily understand how it is that a man changes his religion, and adopts a different faith; but how a boy, a mere child, so situated could do so, except under the influence of his superiors, I cannot well conceive. But I freely admit that a Catholic boy of this tender age must be singularly precocious, or wonderfully strong in his faith, if he resisted the Protestant influences of such an institution. In this school the teachers are Protestant, the books are Protestant, the very atmosphere is Protestant ["Oh, oh!"]—yes, the very air they breath is Protestant, and every influence that is brought to bear upon these helpless and unprotected boys is antagonistic to their faith. I, of course, prefer that these boys should grow up and remain Catholics; but it would be better that they should grow up good Protestants than bad Catholics—that they should have some faith than no faith at all. And is not the system adopted just that which has a tendency to make them infidels?—which, in my mind, is the most fatal as well as degrading condition to which the human being can fall. The Catholic clergymen tells them that their religion is the true religion; but their Protestant school-books and their Protestant teachers are
  74
  constantly telling them the contrary. All that is respectable, that is to be admired, that is to be emulated, is Protestant; whereas all that is Catholic is low, and to be despised. What can the Catholic priest do against fifteen Protestant teachers, and against the moral influence of this intensely Protestant institution? The principal books used in the school are the same books which have been condemned by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, and these are taught to Catholic boys by Protestant teachers. Is it too much to ask that these 132 boys should have fair play—that they should be allowed to grow up strong and secure in their faith—that which would one day be their solace and support and their best protection in the hour of trial and temptation? I contend that they should have Catholic teachers, and that, in a word, fair play should be given to those Catholic boys. Above all, their faith should be protected, which is not the case at present. I said that the whole atmosphere of the place is Protestant; and this statement cannot be better illustrated than by reference to the case which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of Ireland told me the other night, in answer to my question, was under investigation—I mean that of an orderly-sergeant named Harrison, who being very ill, and feeling himself on his death-bed expressed a wish, through his wife, to see the Catholic clergyman. The Catholic clergyman would not visit the sick man without the sanction of the authorities, but that sanction was refused to him. He proposed that the Protestant clergyman, with himself, and some one in authority should visit the sick man, and that he should be asked which of the two clergymen he desired to see; but this fair proposal was rejected. The wife became more pressing and urgent in her application that her husband might be allowed to see the Catholic clergyman in his dying moments; but the resident authorities would not consent to the admission of the priest. At length, after travelling for hours about Dublin, the priest finally procured an order from the General commanding the district, to be admitted. Armed with this order he again went to the institution. He presented the order, which was taken to the resident officer in command; but the priest was left at the door for an hour and twenty minutes, and in the meantime, or rather ten minutes before the priest was admitted, the poor

  75
  man died, no clergyman, Protestant or Catholic, having been present while he breathed his last. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] This, then, is the institution in which 132 Catholic boys are educated at the expense of the State—and this the institution in which the religious faith of the orphan children of Catholic soldiers is so carefully protected. I do respectfully solicit the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, to look into this case, and to see that, for the future at least, these Catholic boys are properly attended to. An expression of honest opinion on their part would have a most useful influence on the school; and it was with the intention of bringing the matter fully before their notice, as well as to the attention of the House, that I brought forward the subject—which, I trust, I have dealt with in a fair spirit. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking for explanations with respect to the constitution and character of the staff of the establishment referred to, "having relation to the religious faith of the boys educated therein."
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to say a very few words on the subject, although he had had no opportunity of referring to the authorities of the Hibernian School. The Government had the means of doing so, and, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would be enabled to give an ample answer to the hon. Member. The question, he believed, had been brought forward in consequence of a pastoral of Dr. Cullen, and the return to which it led ought never to have been granted. The whole affair was part and parcel of that system of Roman Catholic aggression which was going on in Ireland, and which he feared was too much sanctioned by the Government. This Return was the first that had ever been granted in such a form—giving the religious persuasion of the officers and inmates of schools and hospitals in Ireland. It had been placed on the paper when the Earl of Derby was in power, but was refused in accordance with immemorial usage. If Returns of this kind were allowed it would be most unjust, according to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, to allow the majority of the heads of any establishment to be of one religion while those inferior to them were of another. He might call for a Return of the Bar of Ireland and the Judges of Ireland with reference
  76
  to their religion, and it might be found that of the Bar three-fourths were Protestant, and of the Judges eight out of the twelve were Roman Catholic. Such Returns would be extremely invidious. This particular school was founded in the time of the Irish Parliament. It was an exclusively Protestant institution. In 1841 no Roman Catholics, either as teachers or boys, were allowed. That rule was then relaxed, and very properly; but it was relaxed with considerable difficulty, because there were very large bequests made for exclusively Protestant purposes. He did not think there was much reason to complain when in the interval which had elapsed they found there were 132 Roman Catholic boys to 278 Protestants. He also understood, from a friend who knew a great deal about the school, that all the Roman Catholic boys attended service in Chapel Izod up till 1851, and after that a Roman Catholic chaplain, at a salary of £80 a year, was appointed. He believed that no attempt at proselytism had ever been sanctioned, and the military officers at the head of the establishment were not at all likely to lend themselves to such proceedings, as it was well known that of all men military officers were most free from religious prejudice or sectarianism.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, it was necessary, in the first instance, to explain that Her Majesty's Government had no power whatever over the Hibernian Military School, which was governed by Commissioners appointed under a Royal Charter. He felt bound to say, however, that in a school where there was so large a proportion of Catholic boys, it was a remarkable fact that the main part of the officials should be Protestant, and he thought the Commissioners would exercise a wise discretion if they were to give a certain number of the appointments to Roman Catholics, provided they could find suitable persons. But, as the religious instruction was entirely conducted by chaplains of the respective denominations, it was difficult to see how the purely secular education imparted in the school could have any injurious effect. The Charter of 1846 contained precautions against interference of any kind with the religious opinions of the pupils. The statements of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) were in the substance the same as those contained in the pamphlet published in 1858 by Archbishop Cullen. The case which he had put of widow compelled

  77
  to sacrifice the religious belief of her child to procure him admission to the school was embodied nearly in the same words in that pamphlet; and Colonel Colomb felt it only due to the character of the school to call on the Archbishop to name the particular instance. On inquiry, it was found that Robert Anderson, the boy alluded to, was the son of a private soldier in the Royal Artillery who was married in the Protestant church of St. Michael's, Limerick, and that the boy himself had been baptized a Protestant. According to the rules of the institution, he was entered in the religion of his father, and the mother, who was a Roman Catholic, not only made no remonstrance, but two of the boy's sisters had previously been in the same school. The sequel of the story was rather remarkable. The mother, who was at service in Dublin, came to the school and asked to be allowed to take the boy out for a day, but from that period he was lost sight of. His sisters, who were Protestants, made strong representations on the subject, knowing that the mother had no means of providing for the boy, to the effect that he had been taken away to be brought up in the Roman Catholic religion. So that, so far from its having been necessary, as represented, for a Roman Catholic child to change his religion to gain admittance to the school, the fact was that a child whose father was a Protestant and who himself had been baptized in that religion was taken away from the school, it was supposed with the object of being reared a Roman Catholic. So far from any proportion being observed in the admission of children of different religions, he had the most distinct assurance that they were admitted entirely according to the claims of their fathers. Those boys were first taken in who had no parents; next, those who had lost their fathers; and then those who had lost their mothers, their fathers being abroad. The small proportion of Roman Catholic children was not much to be wondered at, when two very strong pamphlets against the institution had been written by right rev. gentlemen, the tone of which was anything but encouraging to Roman Catholic soldiers to send their children to the school. Of course, when such numbers of boys were constantly passing through the school, it was impossible that changes of religion should not sometimes occur; but the strongest possible orders had been given against proselytism. The five boys named by the hon.
  78
  Member for Dungarvan were not only cautioned against the step they were about to take, but were compelled to consult the priest and their own friends and companions. Three were of an age at which they could voluntarily alter their registry; the other two were not entered as Protestants till the priest wrote to say that, in consequence of the scandal which the public declaration of their intentions had given rise to, he could no longer permit them to attend his ministry. The Roman Catholic chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Kelch, appeared to be acting in perfect harmony with the governor of the school; and had any attempt been made at proselytising the children, the person making it could not fail to have been exposed. On the contrary, it appeared from the letter of Mr. Kelch that there was not only the fullest opportunity for instructing the boys in the principles of their religion, but the greatest facilities were also given for all the services of the Church. Judging from all the information he had received, he did not believe that any encouragement was given to the conversion of Roman Catholic children in the school. If such encouragement were given it would be perfectly inexcusable, and deserving of the severest reprobation. He thought it was a pity that more Roman Catholics were not employed in the management of the school; but, with that exception, he was persuaded there was no just ground of complaint. The school was governed with impartiality, and the children sent to it received, and would continue to receive, a good education.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would not go into the question of proselytising. He believed that what was gained in one way was lost in another, and, except when the minds of men were profoundly agitated, he always had a suspicion of cases of conversion. His object in rising was to repel the charge of illiberality which had been brought against the Hibernian Military School. There was no institution against which such an accusation could be brought with less justice. The Hibernian Military School was founded as an exclusively Protestant institution, for the education of children in the Protestant religion, and yet the trustees had voluntarily extended the benefits of the charity to the children of Roman Catholic parents. They might have retained the charity exclusively for the benefit of the members of their own religion, but they had, in a most liberal

  79
  spirit, consented to throw it open to Roman Catholics; and the only complaint that could be made against them was that they had kept a portion of the foundation for themselves in a case in which they might have retained the whole. He challenged any hon. Member to show that Roman Catholic trustees of an educational institution had ever practised the same liberality towards Protestants.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he was astonished at the remarks of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. The Hibernian Military School was supported by the State to the extent of £12,000 a year, and it could not be regarded in the light of a private trust. Everybody agreed that children should be brought up in the religion of their parents. Was that principle adopted in the Hibernian Military School? The hon. Under Secretary for War had satisfactorily explained the case of the five children who changed their religion. It must be admitted that everything was done with perfect fairness, but why was the atmosphere of the school such as to induce these young children to change their religion? The reason was that, in an institution where a large number of the children were Roman Catholics, all the superior officers were Protestants. A Roman Catholic soldier could not wish his children to be given up to Protestant schoolmasters and schoolmistresses; and the House could not do better than refuse to vote any more money unless they found that the institution was properly conducted. He begged of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who took such an interest in the army, to declare that a grievous injustice, which would not be tolerated in the case of Protestants, should not be allowed to exist in that of Roman Catholics.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, it was quite true that the Hibernian Military School was originally a Protestant institution, and the degrees by which it had become available for the benefit of Roman Catholics had been gradual and recent. But he agreed with his right hon. Friend who had just down that, whatever might have been the origin of the institution, it was now to be regarded as a public establishment maintained for the general benefit of the Queen's Irish subjects serving Her in the field. He believed it to be perfectly true that the institution was an excellent one, in which the children of Roman Catholic, as well as those of Protestant soldiers, received a good education, and in
  80
  which proselytism was strictly interdicted. Roman Catholics were educated twice a week under the special care of their own chaplain, and provision was made for securing that freedom and liberty of conscience which it was the principle of Parliament to provide for in every institution of the kind. At the same time he must express his cordial concurrence in the wish uttered by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War, that when vacancies occurred in the establishment such a selection of officers would be made as would show regard to the feelings of all classes of the community. With regard to the case referred to of a private soldier who was supposed to be a Protestant, but whose wife applied to the Roman Catholic chaplain to attend him in his last moments, and experienced, as it was called, a want of facility and kindness in procuring such attention, he could not say much at present, having only seen the one-sided statement which had been submitted to his noble Friend, and upon which an inquiry was about to be instituted. But it appeared that the very moment Sir George Browne heard that the man was desirous of obtaining the services of the Roman Catholic chaplain, he gave immediate directions that his wishes on the subject should be ascertained and carried into effect; but the man died before a Roman Catholic chaplain could be taken to him. Inquiry would be instituted, and if it should turn out that there had been a want of consideration or kindness on the part of any officer of the establishment, measures would be taken to prevent the recurrence of anything of the kind in future.
  COLONEL NORTHasked whether the professor of military hygiene at Chatham was to be selected from the medical department of the army or not? He referred to some papers to show that military medical officers were alive to the necessity of sanitary measures for preserving the health of the troops before the time when attention was called to that subject by medical gentlemen not connected with the army.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that he would remind the hon. and learned Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield), that the Reports of the Charity Commissioners and of the Commissions on Universities showed that enormous Roman Catholic charities had been appropriated to Protestant purposes, and that, too, without the consent of those who might be supposed entitled to a voice

  81
  in their appropriation. The Hibernian School was an institution for the children of Irish soldiers. The majority of the Irish soldiers were Roman Catholics, but the majority of the children in this school were Protestants. Out of sixty-nine officers of the institution, including all the more important, sixty were Protestants, and only nine were Roman Catholics. He should be glad to receive from the Government an assurance that, as vacancies occurred, a fairer distribution of the patronage would take place.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would move a reduction of £1,000 from the item for the Hibernian School. He did this in order to prevent any military ruse for diverting attention from this subject. The hon. and learned Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield) had asked where was there an instance of such liberality on the part of Roman Catholics? He (Mr. Scully) would tell him. There was not a chance of a Roman Catholic being returned for any constituency in England, and yet the Roman Catholics of Ireland returned Protestants to that House, not to defend Roman Catholic interests, but to defend Protestant interests against them. The hon. and learned Member ought to have been the last to tax the Roman Catholics with illiberality: they had returned him an Ultramontane Protestant, if he might use the term—a man who had come down to defend the Derryveagh evictions, as he had done the other night. The hon. and learned Member had an instance of Catholic liberality in his own person. While a third of the children in the institution were Roman Catholics—there ought to be two-thirds—there was not a single officer in it a Roman Catholic. He might illustrate this system of exclusion by an instance taken from the Select Committee of the working of the Irish poor law.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTErose to order.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was out of order in referring to what had taken place in a Select Committee which had not then made its Report.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that since he was precluded from illustrating his subject he would merely add that it was the fault of the Roman Catholics themselves. Why, when they saw those consequences before them, did they enter the British service at all? They knew if their children ever entered those institutions they would be proselytised. He
  82
  would move his Amendment, in order to allow hon. Members to express their opinions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the item of £13,565 18 s. 4d., for the Royal Hibernian Military School, be reduced by the amount of £1,000."
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that they whole of the discussion appeared to have arisen from the mistake made by Dr. Cullen, in supposing that the school was intended entirely for the children of Irish soldiers. The school was, however, founded for the children of soldiers in Ireland, and when there was a larger proportion of Protestant soldiers in Ireland the number of Protestant children proportionably increased. In the case of the alleged proselytism of the boy Anderson, a board of officers was called together composed of the ten senior officers who were in the garrison of Dublin at the time. The cases of alleged proselytism were two. In 1858 five Roman Catholic boys wished to become Protestants. It was proved that the boys were in the habit of going to see their friends in the city, and that they were converted not within but without the walls of the school. The rule was that boys above fourteen were allowed to change their religion, and as three of these boys were above fourteen, the governor had nothing to say. The other two were not allowed to become Protestants, and were sent to their chaplain. The second case referred to of a Roman Catholic boy being converted was just the reverse, for it was a Protestant boy, who, going out on leave, was met on his road and had never been heard of since. Whether the servants of the college were Protestants or Roman Catholic was not a matter to which the governors looked.
  MR. WALDRONsaid, he confessed he heard the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Mallow with some surprise. It seemed to him strange that in a Catholic country like Ireland, and in an institution supposed to be mainly intended for the instruction of children belonging to the Catholic faith, that none of the officers should be members of that faith. He would certainly support the Amendment.
  MR. LONGFIELDexplained that he did not complain of Roman Catholics seeking to get the benefit of the institution. What he said was that there was no institution in Ireland of which it could be said with less justice that it

  83
  acted illiberally, for it was an essentially Protestant institution, built and endowed up to 1846 by Protestants, when the archbishops and bishops who were trustees voluntarily surrendered their exclusive privileges. As for what had been said about himself personally by the hon. Member for Cork, he would acknowledge his obligations to his Roman Catholic supporters most unhesitatingly; but those Roman Catholics would despise him if, where he thought an unjust accusation was made, he were to yield to any fears of their displeasure, and not stand up and refute it.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHobserved that last year the item amounted to £12,348, while in the present year the sum asked for was £13,563. He wished to know the reason of the increase?
  MR. T. G. BARINGstated that the increase in the Vote was in a great measure owing to the increase in the price of provisions.
  MR. MAGUIRE, in reply, said, that he hoped the hon. Member for Cork would withdraw his Amendment, as it was not his (Mr. Maguire's) intention to deprive the institution of one farthing of the sum proposed. He denied what had been implied, if not asserted, that Catholic members were the mere puppets of their clergy, and said that the charge was not only untrue, but specially unfair when they had to condemn or expose a real grievance. It was quite true that Dr. Cullen, whom he unfeignedly respected, had ably exposed the state of the Hibernian School; but was it because a Catholic prelate addressed the Irish public on a matter of grave importance, that, therefore, a Catholic Member should not feel interested in the question, enquire into it, and bring it before Parliament? But when the Secretary for Ireland and the Under Secretary for War endeavoured to show that there was no such rule as that of limiting the number of Catholic children to one-third, he would say that in 1858 the number of Protestant children was 238; that of the Catholic 127. In 1861 the Protestant children were 278; the Catholics 132. As Catholic soldiers had shed their blood as liberally for their Queen and country he could not understand why they had not as good a claim as Protestants. He had been charged by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) with having brought forward isolated cases. Surely five cases in one month, and seventeen
  84
  from 1850 to 1854, could not be said to be isolated cases. He relied upon these twenty-two cases as showing that the Protestant spirit of the establishment was prejudicial to the faith of the Catholic boys. Then as to there being no vacancy. There had been a vacancy lately, and a Catholic teacher was promised to him (Mr. Maguire); but, if he was rightly instructed, he was refused by the local authorities. If by next year they should find that substantial justice was not done, they should have to deal rather harshly with this Vote.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the salary of the Vice-president of the Council of Military Education, which was £1,000 a year; there were also three members at a salary of £600 a year each, one member whose salary was £485, and a secretary who received a salary of £400 a year. He should like to hear from the hon. Under Secretary for War the nature of the duties which these officers had to perform. He also wished to know what were the duties of schoolmistresses in connection with regiments. The soldiers, no doubt, had daughters, but he did not know that they were educated by schoolmistresses connected with the regiments.
  COLONEL J. F. D. STUARTexplained that there were infant and other schools in all the garrison towns, and even in the camps at Aldershot, Shorncliffe, and elsewhere, and the superintendence of trained schoolmistresses was of great service to the children of the soldiers.
  CAPTAIN JERVISasked why the late circular which in the case of engineer officers dispensed with the necessity of passing through the Staff College at Sandhurst previous to holding Staff appointments should not be extended to artillery officers?
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, Artillery officers were as competent for employment on the Staff as the Engineers, and by the present system the authorities excluded men eminently qualified to serve as Staff officers. It was a very invidious distinction to keep from them the advantages enjoyed by the engineer officers.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he cordially concurred in the observation that it was a foolish and unwise course to allow such a distinction to exist.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked for

  85
  some explanation as to the number of children who were really being educated in the military schools.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, in 1858 there were 12,000 children in these schools. Since then the number had increased, but there were no very accurate returns. The Council of Military Education had the supervision of the department, and full details as to what had been done during the year would be found in a blue-book lately presented. As to the distinction between the Artillery and Engineer officers, he admitted that the grounds of that distinction were not very clearly defined, and that it was hardly warranted by the previous course of study of those two branches of the service. The attention of his noble Friend the Secretary for War would be called to the subject, but he wished to say that there had not been the least desire on the part of the War Office to draw any invidious distinction or to excite any jealousy between the Artillery and Engineers.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHcalled attention to the fact that the Governor of Woolwich Academy only received £500 a-year, while the Governor of Sandhurst received, very properly, £1,000 a year. They were both gentlemen of similar capacities and standing, and had duties equally onerous to perform. He did not think it was right such a distinction should be made in salaries. They ought to feel indebted to the Government for proposing Votes for the Engineer establishment at Chatham, as that institution had done much to raise the corps of Royal Engineers to its present state of efficiency. The Engineers were not justly liable to the imputation of incompetency, and he regretted to hear any observations tending to lower them in the estimation of the House. He was at a loss to understand who the persons were who had feathered their nest, as he was sure they were not the contractors, every one of whom had been ruined by undertaking the works at too low a price.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSasked, whether the cadets at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich paid as much as was sufficient to defray the expense of their education?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, at page 107 of the Votes it would been seen that the receipts last year from the cadets had been £18,795 17 s. 4d. The institution was not self-supporting, though it was nearly so. The amount received could not be taken into account for the reduction of
  86
  the Vote, as it had to be paid into the Exchequer. With respect to the salary of the governor of Woolwich Academy it must be remembered that he received his full pay besides, while the governor of Sandhurst was not in receipt of his fully pay.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, the governor of Sandhurst received an additional £1,000 a year for command of a battalion.
  MR. WYLDcalled attention to the permanent character of the Votes for the survey. He did not find fault with the present management of the survey, as one of the most distinguished men in Europe was at the head of it. The Ordnance Survey commenced in 1784, and, including military pay, had cost upwards of £2,000,000. The area of England was 58,000 square miles, of Ireland 30,000, and of Scotland 33,000, making together 121,000 square miles. The area of France, including Corsica, was 201,000 square miles. France commenced her survey at the same time, and had completed nearly 100,000 square miles of the enlarged survey and one-third of the cadastral survey. The cost had been only about £1,200,000, and he could not account for the difference, except by the English survey having become a permanent department. At that moment a large portion of Scotland was unsurveyed, and he thought the House ought to require the Director of Ordnance to complete the whole survey of these islands before commencing any new work. He held that the expenditure for the topographical survey was an utter waste of public money. The topographical department entered into competition with private persons, and sold maps at less than cost price. He was afraid that the publication of some maps might lead to inconvenience, and, possibly, to political difficulties. Before the Italian war the Austrian Government had a new survey of Lombardy made, and refused to supply copies of the maps. But the topographical department made a private copy of the maps, and published them at 1s. a sheet. France could not get the maps from Austria, but the topographical department supplied the French Government with some 500 copies. He did not propose to reduce this Vote, but he wished to call attention to these facts.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he hoped that nothing would be done to prevent the topographical department reproducing maps which were of great use. When a map,

  87
  which was not confidential, was published, it was sold through the mapsellers, and their interests were regarded by their having an allowance of 25 per cent. The map of Lombardy was of the greatest possible use to our officers, and if the French bought copies through some mapseller in London, it only proved that the topographical department of England was better than that of France.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he did not understand what was meant by confidential maps. Within the last few days maps had been published, showing the fortifications of Fort Pickens and of Fort Monro. With reference to the charge for the maps, the hydrographic department of the Admiralty charged more for their maps than the topographical department.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the maps were not sold less than cost price.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £24,300, Rewards for Military Services.
  GENERAL LINDSAYobserved, that he was well aware it was by no means an agreeable duty to select from the great body of officers who had served their country well the individual officers on whom rewards were conferred, but he wished to take that occasion to call the attention of the hon. Under Secretary for War to a class of men who were fast passing away, and who had rendered somewhat distinguished, and certainly very meritorious, services during what was called the revolutionary war. Those officers had in the course of time obtained high rank in the service, but they nevertheless were in receipt of no higher pay than belonged to their last regimental rank—that of captain and major. They had been placed on half-pay principally in 1826; their promotion took place to what was called the unattached list, and having been once placed upon that list the military authorities were unable to put them on full pay. The consequence was that they remained to that hour on half-pay, and he would under these circumstances ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether, considering that those officers were very few in number, and those few fast dying out, he would not look favourably on the claims which they possessed to the notice of the Government? They were only about eighteen or twenty in number; they now held the rank of Generals; they counted on an average fifty-three years' service, and
  88
  might be said to be on an average seventy years old. Three of them held Peninsular medals with one clasp; three with two, six with four, two with five, two with six, one with seven, and one with no less than nine clasps, representing nine general actions. Having said so much he thought he was justified in asking the Government to take the claims of these distinguished and meritorious officers into consideration.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that upon the list of officers who had received rewards for distinguished service this year, there were some who had entered the army as far back as 1800, 1806, and 1814, so that such rewards were not confined exclusively to those who had distinguished themselves very lately. So far as he was able to understand the statement of the gallant General, the officers to whom he alluded had in reality ceased to belong to the army since 1826, and he could not, under those circumstances, conceive how they could on an average count fifty-three years service. Be that, however, as it might, the gallant General might rest assured that every consideration would be shown those officers in the distribution of rewards.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he had used the word service as specifying the length of time which had elapsed since the entry of the officers in question into the army.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £78,600, General Officers.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he wished to remark that last year a Committee had been appointed to consider the claims of seven General officers, and had reported in favour of those claims. The Committee recommended that they should receive their pay from the date of their receiving the rank of general officer, but the Treasury had only given them the allowance from the date of the recommendation of the Committee. He wished to know on what principle the Treasury and the War Office had proceeded in taking this course?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the case had been fully considered by the Committee, and the claim made was carried by a narrow division of five to four. On the matter being brought to the notice of the Treasury they considered these officers ought not to receive retrospective pay, and gave it from the date of the Committee's Report. They pay was given to them as a boon, and not as of right, and no injustice had been done to these officers.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he could not recognize any principle in the hon. Gentleman's statement. The officers were entitled to the pay claimed from 1805 and 1807.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £490,669, Reduced and Retired Officers agreed to.
  (5.) £181,363, Pensions to Widows, &c.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the hon. Under Secretary for War to the case of the Widow of an officer of the Royal Regiment who was wounded at the Redan, sent home, and at the end of four years died from the effect of his wound. He had purchased his first commission, but when the widow applied for a pension, the answer was that as the officer had not served ten years the widow was not entitled to a pension. That was a very proper rule in regard to officers not on service, but this officer could not serve his ten years because he had received a wound in the head, from the effects of which he died. He could not believe that any man in the country would wish that, in order to increase the reserve fund, the unfortunate widow should be deprived of the sum which her husband paid for his commission.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Member would give him the circumstances of the case of which he had not before heard, he would inquire into them. It was, however, necessary to adhere to the regulations, although in some exceptional cases they might appear to operate rather hardly.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £42,953, Pensions for Wounds.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, the change recently made by the noble Lord the Secretary for War was liberal and kind, and he was entitled to thanks for the new warrant in this respect, but no warrant could include every case and, therefore, he would call the attention of the House to Colonel Henry, a gallant and distinguished officer. He went to the Crimea in April, 1855, and having performed an act of distinguished bravery he received a brevet-majority. In consequence, however, of the scarcity of artillery officers, in which service he held his commission, he was obliged to continue in the command of a very important and dangerous post, and while thus employed was so severely wounded that his arm had to be taken out of the socket. The intrepid bravery and coolness of the officer, under an al-
  90
  most unprecedented fire, had met with the highest praise; but upon applying at the War Office for his pension as a field officer, he was told that he was not entitled to receive it, as when wounded he was performing the duties of a captain of artillery, although he was actually promoted to the rank of field officer. He last Session, when moving for the revision of the old wound warrant, proposed that if an officer of inferior rank was wounded at a time he was performing duties of a superior rank he ought to receive the pension of the higher rank. That the noble Lord at the head of the War Department had acceded to, but the case he now mentioned of Colonel Henry was the converse of that proposition. It was true that Colonel Henry did not come within the warrant, but he thought that in consideration of his conspicuous bravery an exception should be made in his favour, and that he should receive a field officer's pension.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that as Lieutenant Colonel Henry himself admitted that he was not doing duty as a field officer when he received his wound, Lord Herbert saw no alternative but to abide by the regulations. Lieutenant Colonel Henry was, no doubt, a distinguished officer; but if they began to make exceptions of the kind suggested, it would cause great confusion in the service.
  GENERAL LINDSAYthought that Colonel Henry had strong claims on the consideration of the War Office.
  CAPTAIN JERVISstated, that the Russian guns at Sebastopol having on one occasion concentrated their fire on one of the English batteries, Colonel Henry was selected, as an officer of great coolness and experience, to take command of it. He was subjected for twenty-four hours to what The Times' correspondent called an "infernal fire," and discharged his duty to the admiration of the whole army. He urged the Government not to deprive Colonel Henry of the field officer's pension on a mere technical ground, as if the claims of so gallant an officer were ignored it would be no encouragement for any other to continue to perform the duties of an inferior officer, however urgent the necessity might be, after he had been promoted.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYcalled attention to the fact that no less than £40,000 was taken on the Vote for 1859–60 more than was required.
  MR. T. G. BARINGexplained that that was owing to some of the pensions not being called for.

  Vote agreed to, as were also
  (7.) £32,409, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
  (8.) £1,124,363, Out-Pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, &c.
  (9.) £138,151, Superannuation and Retired Allowances.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought some of the retired allowances were given to persons comparatively young, and with short periods of service. Some reason ought to be stated why these pensions were allowed.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the retired allowances were regulated by Act of Parliament.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  (10.) £750,000, Customs Department.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, the Vote ought not to be pressed at so late an hour. It involved the effect on the expenditure of the department of all recent reforms.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the Committee would proceed; till the Estimates were got through there was no prospect of the end of the Session. The changes in the Revenue Department, in consequence of the abolition of some offices, had effected a saving of more than £100,000 on the year, though it would be balanced for a time by an increase in superannuations. That was really the whole case.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was inclined to believe that the Committee knew nothing whatever of these Estimates. He wanted to know why they had stopped short in the Army Estimates, and why the hon. Under Secretary had not gone on with the Vote in excess? They had stopped short on a subject of which they knew little, and they were now asked to go into a question of which they knew nothing. He never expected much good to accrue from bringing these Revenue Estimates before the House. Its only effect had been to remove the responsibility from the hears of the Customs and Excise, who did understand the matter, and to lay on this House, who understood nothing of it at all. He should like to know what was the meaning of this Vote in excess.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he was not surprised that the Chancellor of the
  92
  Exchequer should deprecate discussion if the Government themselves relied upon the accuracy of the Revenue Departments without knowing the facts. He would like to know whether there was any balance form previous Votes. It appeared that no fewer than 450 persons had been discharged from the public service, either with compensations or on superannuations. Was there no way of bringing those persons into other departments of the public service?
  MR. PEELsaid, that in passing from the Army to the Revenue Estimates they were strictly following the order on the notice paper. There could be no balances under this head, as all savings were returned to the Exchequer at the end of the year. Of course it could not be expected that officers who had filled situations at the head of Departments should be called upon to assume a subordinate position; but subject to that restriction persons under sixty years of age were at any time liable to be called upon to act in the public service.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was glad that the hon. Gentleman opposite called attention to the amount of the superannuation list, which was increasing at a rate that was perfectly marvellous. He insisted that the Vote in excess ought to have followed the Army Estimates. The result, however, of the recent changes in the conduct of business had been to deceive the House, lengthy discussions occupying the early portion of each evening, so that no one could tell what business would really come on.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that the Vote in excess of the Army Votes formed no portion of the Army Estimates, and, therefore, the Estimates for the Revenue Department were now properly taken. In fact the hon. Gentleman blamed them for adhering strictly to the course of which they had given notice. He feared there was too much truth in the charge of the increase in the superannuation list, but that did not apply to the Customs Department, which were so well managed by the heads of that Department that no fault could be found with them. The Estimates for that Department had been passed for some time in the same quiet way that a long lapse of time was dispatched in Scripture, in a single sentenc—
  "And the land had rest forty years."
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that the ex-

  93
  perience of the last few weeks showed that the mode of proceeding with regard to voting the public money was anything but satisfactory. It would be well in a future Session if Government would see whether they could not begin the Estimates at an early hour in the evening, and not to be interrupted by questions about Garibaldi or anything else.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the present disturbance in the Revenue Department was one of great magnitude and importance. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a large majority of the officers of the Inland Revenue and Customs had not expressed to the Government a sense of certain grievances under which they laboured, and also whether in regulating the salaries and future allowances of those gentlemen Government would not adhere to the precedents which had been established?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHQUERsaid, he was not aware that any general discontent existed in the Departments referred to; on the contrary, he believed that general contentment prevailed. The hon. Gentleman's second question scarcely required an answer, because it would be the duty of Government to adhere to former precedents.
  Vote agreed to, as was also
  (11.) £1,440,000, Inland Revenue Department.
  Motion, made, and Question Proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,050,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charges for Post Office Services, and the Collection of the Revenue, which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1862."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask whether the Estimate furnished by the Post Office was not £2,161,133, and whether the Post Office had not been in the habit of late years of asking for a sum considerably more than they required? He hoped such a whole sale practice on the part of any Department would be discouraged by the Government. Perhaps that was the proper time to call attention to the discontent which prevailed amongst the Post Office officials. They complained that they had never been able to ascertain what were the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee that was appointed to investigate certain matters of which they complained, or what decision had been arrived at. Without reference to the particular
  94
  merits of the case, it was very undesirable that questions materially affecting the interests of a large body or men should be kept thus in suspense.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government ought not to adopt a wholesale manner of dealing with the Estimate. That was a very proper subject for comment; but he believed that in one of the discussions on the finances of the year he apprised the House that they had taken this year the Post Office Estimate closer than had been done in former years, when the Revenue Estimates were always voted to the extent of £300,000 or £400,000 more than was actually necessary. The Government did not think that was at all desirable. With regard to the other point alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, there had no doubt been differences of opinion amongst persons of great weight in the same Department, a circumstance which necessarily occasioned delay in the answer of the Government. Those differences were now entirely removed, and the final answer of the Treasury was sent to the Post Office authorities about a week or a fortnight ago. The matter was concluded, and the measure consequent upon it was now in such a shape as to be soon submitted to the House.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was glad to hear that the absurd and objectionable practice of voting more money for the Revenue Departments than was necessary was about to be checked.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he believed that they were voting at least half a million in excess of what was requisite for the Department. There were balances of £600,000 in the Exchequer at the commencement of the last financial year. He would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £50,000.
  MR. PEELsaid, it was possible that last March there might have been £600,000 on account of the Department in the Exchequer, but then the March quarter's salaries would be paid out of that.
  MR. HENNESSYcondemned the practice of paying men who discharged the laborious and responsible duties of lettercarriers the paltry pittance of 18 s. per week.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charges for Post Office Services, and the Collection of the Revenue, which will come in course of payment

  95
  during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1862."
  Put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (13.) £538,574, Superannuations.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
  Committee to sit again on Monday next.

LONDON COAL AND WINE DUES CONTINUANCE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 7 (Drawback upon Coals to continue to be allowed),
  MR. AYRTONcomplained that, while by a recent treaty the French manufacturer would obtain English coal free from taxation, the Government proposed to burden the London manufacturer with a duty of 13 d. per ton on that article. In Dublin, where there was a similar tax, a drawback was allowed. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, for the allowance of a drawback on all coals used by manufacturers.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved that it was a mere repetition of a discussion which had already occupied the attention of the Committee during a whole morning's discussion. He proposed to continue the coal duties to the amount and in the form in which they were now levied. At present there was no drawback allowed to manufacturers in London, and his reason for not acceding to the proposal was that it would materially diminish the produce of those duties, which were estimated at a certain amount, and only sufficient for the purposes to which they were to be applied. It would be remembered that the London manufacturer lived in the vicinity of his markets, and that more than countervailed any disadvantage created by the imposition of the duty.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the duty of 13 d. per ton pressed very severely upon the London manufacturer when he came into competition with the country manufacturer, who paid perhaps not much more than 8s. a ton for his coals. In the present state of competition between trades, this duty was just the last hair which broke the camel's back. He regretted the non-attendance of metropolitan Members to support the interest of their constituents.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, the hon. and learned Member had counted without his host. He (Lord Fermoy) was a metropolitan Member, and was prepared to support the imposition of the tax as an octroi duty, not as an improper duty. Moreover, the manufacturers of London would benefit more than any other class by the improvements which were to be carried out by the application of the coal tax; and he certainly could not consent to benefit them at the expense of the poor consumers of coal.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the noble Lord has spoken, not in the interests of the poor ratepayers, but of the rich coal consumers of Marylebone. An octroi was a tax placed on articles of consumption, and not on those of prime manufacturing industry. It would be an insult to the understanding of the Committee to discuss questions of political economy which were so well established. But he thought it too bad that, after the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gained popularity for his Government by asserting one set of doctrines, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in order to ingratiate himself with particular interests, should come forward and advocate wholly different principles, which were opposed to the views of a great majority of his supporters. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer one single intelligible argument in support of the course proposed, for he denied that any had yet been given. He should certainly afford hon. Members an opportunity of recording their inconsistency.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

INLAND REVENUE ACTS.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved the following Resolutions:—

  "(1.) That there shall be charged and paid for an upon every Licence to be taken out by any person not being a Distiller or Rectifier of Spirits, or a Dealer in or Retailer of Beer, Spirits, Wine, or Sweets, authorizing him to sell Methylated Spirit in any quantity not greater than One Gallon at a time, the Duty to Two Pounds and Two Shillings.

  97

  "(2.) That, in lieu of the Drawbacks now payable upon the Exportation of Beer from the United Kingdom to Foreign Parts as merchandize, there shall be allowed and paid in respect of all Beer which shall be so exported the following rates of Drawback (that is to say):—

  "For and upon every barrel of thirty-six gallons, and so in proportion for any greater quantity of Beer brewed or made by any entered or licensed Brewer of Beer for sale in the United Kingdom, in the brewing of which Beer the worts used before fermentation were of the specific gravity of not less than one thousand and forty degrees, the sum of four shillings;

  "And for every additional five degrees of specific gravity, up to the specific gravity one thousand one hundred and twenty-five degrees, the further sum of sixpence per barrel.

  "(3.) That no return of Stamp Duty paid upon any Probate or Letters of Administration in England or Ireland, or any Inventory of the estate and effects of any deceased person in Scotland, shall be made or allowed in respect of any debt due and owing from the deceased, which shall be voluntary.

  "(4.) That no allowance shall be made to a Successor out of his Succession, under the Succession Duty Act 1853, in respect of any property which, upon taking such Succession, shall terminate or cease to exist.

  "(5.) That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to the Inland Revenue."

  Resolutions agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

WAKEFIELD WRIT.

  RESOLUTION.
  MAJOR EDWARDS, in rising to move a new writ for Wakefield, said, that it would be in the recollection of the House that about a fortnight ago the hon. Member for Finsbury gave notice of his intention of moving that the new writs for Wakefield and Gloucester should be issued. He could not understand what motive induced the hon. Member to abandon his intention, and submitted the Motion to the House because it was generally expected to be proceeded with, and most of the Members had made up their minds how they should vote. He knew nothing of Gloucester, but he felt it incumbent upon himself, from his knowledge of Wakefield and his intimate connection with the West Riding of Yorkshire, to take some decided step with regard to that borough. This important constituency was composed of interests that ought no longer to remain imperfectly represented in that House. It was not a small hamlet but a large and important town, with a population of more than 20,000. Its com-
  98
  mercial and manufacturing interest were increasing immensely year by year, and it was the great emporium of the corn trade in the north of England. The writ was suspended in 1859, and Wakefield had in consequence been without direct representation for two years. He need not say that a constituency of such importance must feel the want of a representative very keenly. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh, but there were few constituencies in the country who were more entitled to be represented in Parliament than the constituency of Wakefield. This was what he termed capricious legislation. The writ had been withheld without any definite Motion, or any decided act on the part of the Government. Other writs have been suspended, but were reissued within a shorter interval. Their temporary withdrawal of the privilege had the desired effect, and no ground of complaint against them had since been preferred. A very small proportion after all of the electors had indulged in the practices that had created so much scandal, and he thought it but an act of juctice to the majority that the writ should no longer be withheld. Why suspend the legitimate action of the Constitution for a longer time than is absolutely necessary? The House had already expressed its abhorence of certain practices, and that object having been effected, and the guilty section of the constituency having received a wholesome lesson, why should the House inflict this punishment for an indefinite period? Being an inhabitant of the West Riding he had been often called upon during the last two years to transact Parliamentary business connected with Wakefield, and he should now be glad to have that duty taken off his hands. Again, he insisted that Wakefield, having been deprived of a representative for two entire years, it had suffered sufficiently for the malpractices of a very small portion of the community, and therefore, he hoped the House would agree to his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the Electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Wakefield, in the room of William Henry Leatham, Esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he thought it impossible that so important a question could be discussed at that hour (quarter

  99
  past one o'clock), and he, therefore, begged to move the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he believed that they might discuss the question very well in half an hour. He was most anxious that the writ for Wakefield should be issued, not from any particular virtue that the constituency possessed, but because he did not conceive that Wakefield was in a different position from a vast number of other boroughs. He did not believe that the House had ever been in earnest in attempting to put an end to bribery and corruption. He should support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the case of Wakefield could not be disassociated from that of Gloucester. It might be argued that bribery and corruption were to be found in many boroughs; but in Wakefield and Gloucester there had been detection and conviction. There was on the table a Bill which he regretted he had not been able to bring under the consideration of the House at an earlier date, and which contained a clause providing that in boroughs which were in the position of Wakefield and Gloucester the writ should be suspended for five years. The Government did not feel justified in making that clause retrospective, but it would be competent for the House to do so in Committee. Believing that the question was too large to be dealt with at that hour he should support the Motion for Adjournment.
  CAPTAIN JERVISobserved that the House had had two years to consider the question, and they were as competent to come to an opinion on it now as they would be at any future time.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he was of opinion that any borough that had been proved to be guilty of bribery and corruption should be disfranchised. He should, therefore, support the proposal for adjournment.
  MAJOR EDWARDSsaid, that the Government in their overpowering strength had determined not to issue the writ. He had nothing to do with Gloucester; but as the inconvenience of the suspension had been excessive in Wakefield he could not consent to the adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 98: Majority 22.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, the House
  100
  had now been sitting eleven hours and a half. He was not prepared to sit there alt night while the whole of the blue book on the last Wakefield election was read. He, therefore, moved that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there was really nothing to discuss. He should support the Motion for the issue of the writ.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he also saw no reason why the House should not go to a division at once.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had some difficulty in accepting the division just taken as indicating the opinion of the House that the writ should issue. In the first place, there was but a limited attendance of hon. Members, at all events, for a question of so much importance, and a large number of Members must have been in a state of uncertainty whether a vote of this kind would be taken at so late an hour. If the House were determined to divide on the question, they ought to be reminded of the finding of the Commissioners on the last Wakefield election. They found that 98 persons committed corrupt practices and were guilty of acts of bribery in respect of the votes of other persons. They found that 86 persons committed corrupt practices and were guilty of acts of bribery in respect of their own votes. They found that 12 of the last-named 86 were guilty of acts of bribery, not on one side only, but on both. That was the picture drawn by the Commissioners, and the question was whether two years' suspension of the writ was a sufficient visitation for such a state of things? Hon. Gentlemen opposite who were now so anxious for the writ to issue forgot the arguments they advanced a short time ago, when the question of reviving the franchise of Sudbury and St. Albans was discussed. They then said that the House was proceeding with injustice and partiality, and that the same measure that had been meted to St. Albans and Sudbury ought to be visited on other delinquent boroughs, such as Wakefield and Gloucester. The House was then told it was too lenient to Wakefield and Gloucester, and now it was told it was too severe. He fully recognized the right of the hon. Gentleman (Major Edwards) to bring the subject before the House, and the issue of the writ was a matter peculiarly within the province, not of the Government, but of the House itself. He thought it likely that the leading Mem-

  101
  bers of the benches opposite would like to be present on a matter of such importance. That was a courtesy due to them, and he was surprised that so little regard for the opinion of those who presided over their deliberations was paid by hon. Gentleman opposite. If the House on the present division thought fit to re-affirm its former vote he should not object to the issue of the writ.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he saw no reason for delaying the issue of the writ.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that before hon. Members went to a division, they ought to afford to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Serjeant Pigott) an opportunity of stating the reasons on which the Commissioners had based their Report. If the House was ready to go into the discussion at that hour (a quarter to 2 o'clock), the Members of the Government would not object to the lateness of the hour. It was, however, due to his hon. and learned Friend to hear what he had to allege in support of the view taken by the Commissioners.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, there was no question that Wakefield and Gloucester were corrupt, but other boroughs were equally so. He saw in the House the Members for Hull, Norwich, Beverley, and Berwick-on-Tweed, and there were plenty of places equally corrupt with them.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 85: Majority 8.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would move that the House adjourn. It was impossible that the matter could be discussed at that time (nearly two o'clock). He considered the conduct of the Government excessively weak on this subject. They ought to have decidedly indicated to the House the course to be pursued.
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he had no wish, so far as he was personally concerned, for the adjournment; but there was a strong opinion that the writ should not be issued; and, whether issued or not, that there should be time for the discussion of a question which was said to involve the principle of purity of election. The discussion could not conveniently be taken at that hour, and it ought to be borne in mind that the House had already been sitting for twelve hours. A question of that importance ought not to be dealt
  102
  with in a corner and in the darkness of the night, when three-fourths of the House were not present.
  MAJOR EDWARDSremarked, whether the House was full or not, he had given seven days' notice of his Motion; and he must say that he had never seen during the present Session so full a House at that hour in the morning. He thought that after what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had just said, the Government were now bound to proceed with the discussion of the Motion.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he hoped the Government, which had so often shown a desire that the House should proceed with the business before it, when hon. Members desired to adjourn, would yield to the majority which had just been declared.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he was rather surprised at the opposition which was offered to those on his own side of the House by an hon. Gentleman who annually proposed his own nostrum for purity of election.
  MR. BONHAM CARTERsaid, he thought it was very evident that the supporters of the original Motion had already made up their mind as to how they should vote, no matter what discussion might take place. He hoped the adjournment would be agreed to.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONasked the House seriously to consider the Vote which they would give on the present occasion. What was the position in which the House stood in respect to the matter at issue? They were called upon to come to a decision with respect to a borough in whose case it had been declared that a number of persons had been found guilty of bribery and corruption. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had now a Bill before the House dealing with bribery and corruption at elections, and yet, pending that Bill, at two o'clock in the morning the House was called upon to issue a writ, the issue of which would practically preclude the extension of any penal enactment to the borough in question. Such a proceeding would, he thought, to say nothing worse, be liable to great misconstruction on the part of the public. Under these circumstances he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not persevere in the course which they were taking.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the noble Lord's observations might have done very well before the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Se-

  103
  cretary on the part of the Government, that he would not oppose the progress of the discussion after the last division; but after that the Government ought to keep their promise.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would go on dividing all night rather than the proposal for the issue of the writ should be carried by a majority that was evidently packed.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked, whether the House of Commons was to be controlled by a rash phrase uttered by a Secretary of State? It was one of the weakest expressions he had ever heard from the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman had promised the Government would not oppose the progress of the discussion after the last division, the House ought to take no notice of that, but insist upon the adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 81: Majority 7.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, after what had taken place he should suggest the House might allow the Resolution to be put.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the great question of purity of election was the real question at issue, and it seemed to him that hon. Members forming the majority did not care anything about it; he should, however, give them another opportunity of reconsidering their decision.
  VISCOUNT INGESTREsaid, he wished to know whether the Government were to be believed or not, after the conduct which had been pursued by one of their Members that evening?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that in the absence of the distinguished leaders on the other side, he would put it to the hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they would not be satisfied with the triumphs which they had already obtained, and gracefully agree to an adjournment.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he was ready to admit that it would suit the dignity of the majority if they were to yield. He believed that on a future occasion they would find themselves strengthened in dealing with the question at issue.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, especially as it was doubtful whether, technically speaking, seven days' notice had been
  104
  given of the original Motion, as it was given only on Friday last for the following Monday, and that the first day in which it appeared on the paper was Saturday as for Monday.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, whether the technical objection was sound or not, he would advise his hon. and gallant Friend to accede to the wishes of the minority.
  MR. LYGONappealed to the Government, as the debate could not continue much longer, to fix a day when the sense of the House might be taken on the question under consideration.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that looking to the position of public business, he could not fix any day for the future discussion of the question.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he considered that sufficient notice in compliance with the order of the House had been given.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that sufficient notice had been given.
  MAJOR EDWARDSannounced his readiness to consent to the adjournment of the debate until Friday next.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Friday next.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next.