Commons Sitting of 18 June 1869

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 17] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Militia Pay*.
Second Reading—Insolvent Debtors and Bankruptcy Repeal* [134]; Fines and Fees Collection* [159]; High Constables' Office Abolition, &c. * [160].
Committee—Bankruptcy (re-comm.) [97]—R.P.; Imprisonment for Debt (re-comm.) * [98]—R.P.
Committee — Report—Poor Law Board Provisional Orders Confirmation* [166].
Considered as amended—Local Government Supplemental * [90].
Third Reading—Endowed Schools* [168]; Local Government Supplemental* [155], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

POOR LAW—VAGRANTS IN SACKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether his attention has not been drawn to the custom of the Guardians of the Narberth Union of sending vagrants who are committed to prison for destroying their clothes, in all weathers, and for many miles, dressed in a thin sack, with the bottom cut off; whether it is a fact that, on the complaint of the committing magistrate, the practice was censured by the Poor Law Board; whether such practice has been discontinued; and, whether he will lay the Correspondence upon the Table?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that the attention of the Poor Law Board had been drawn to the practice alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member, and the facts stated were mainly correct. A letter had been written by the Board, drawing the attention of the guardians to the fact of vagrants having to walk long distances of twenty to thirty miles in going to prison, with insufficient protection from the inclemency of the weather, and requiring the guardians to discontinue the practice of clothing the paupers in sacks, which did not provide clothing to cover their limbs. No complaints had reached the Board since then, and he presumed the practice had been discontinued; but directions had been given to the inspector to keep Ms eye on the practice.

SUPPLY.
RESOLUTIONS [JUNE 17] REPORTED.
NAVY.—THE FLYING SQUADRON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAY: Sir, I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the rumoured despatch of a squadron on particular service, which I learn from the public papers is about to take place. I do so the more readily on this occasion, because I believe the policy which dictates it is one which not only leads to a wasteful appropriation of the sums granted for the service of the Navy, but also is likely to lead to an increase in the Array Estimates both in New Zealand and Japan, and is therefore germane to the present discussion. I understand, Sir, that a squadron, consisting of seven ships, and with crews of 2,500 men, is about to assemble under the command of an excellent officer— Admiral Hornby—for the purpose of exercise and instruction. Now I have no objection to the assembling of an experimental squadron. Such squadrons have frequently been assembled, either for the purpose of trying the qualities of the ships of which it has been composed, or for the exercise and instruction of those who command and man it. But such squadrons have always been kept in the Atlantic or Mediterranean; so that, in the event of any unforeseen disturbance, the vessels composing it have been at the disposal of the Admiralty at short notice. Now, I understand that the present squadron is not to be so available. I hold in my hand a paper, which purports to give its arrival and departure at and from various ports. The first-named is Bahia, from Bahia to Rio de Janeiro and the Cape of Good Hope. From that port it proceeds to the Australian colonies, and the Admiralty loses for more than a year the services of seven ships and 2,500 men. Of the ships I do not think so much. Four of them would make good cruizers against an enemy's commerce in time of war. The others may do well enough for training ships, but are not the class of ships in which we could wish the crews to be in case of hostilities. From the Cape this squadron proceeds to Melbourne and Sydney, omitting Adelaide and Hobart Town. The reason for this may be more obvious in the Cabinet than it is to me. From Australia the squadron, it appears to me, will proceed
  310
  in a course which may lead to grave complications. We all know the present disturbed state of New Zealand. The country has rightly or wrongly refused to give any aid to our suffering fellow-countrymen there; nothing, it seems to me, can be more tantalizing and heartless than to send 2,500 trained men to the harbours of New Zealand, and then to refuse to assist them in subduing the savages now in rebellion. It may lead, perhaps, to a deceitful calm by momentarily overawing the rebels; but this paper, which I hold in my hand, gives them ample warning that the visit of the squadron is evanescent, and that the mother country has no intention that it shall remain for purposes of war. But what of the colonists. They, if they are wise, will court a reverse before the arrival of the squadron, and will seek to embroil it in their defence against the express desire of this House and the country; and it will be hard, indeed, to have 2,500 armed men there, and to refuse to allow them to assist their fellow-countrymen. It is one thing to refuse here on grounds of policy to despatch ships or troops to assist a colony, it is another, when the ships or troops are there, to refuse assent to their employment in defence of those so closely allied to us by so many ties. Well, the squadron having fanned the embers of civil discord in New Zealand, is to proceed to Japan. We all know the difficulties of our policy in those seas, and I feel sure that the squadron being there, some belligerent office will be found for it to perform. Thence it goes to Otaheite, and I can only say that so large a force in those seas will be sure to excite the jealousy or the emulation of France; nor can I believe that it will conduce to cordial relations with the United States of North America that so large a force, with so ill defined an object, is roving at large in the Pacific Ocean. For these reasons, Sir, I desire to enter my protest against this mode of employing the men voted by Parliament for the sea service. My right hon. Friend may feel pledged to let it visit the Australian colonies, but I advise him to order it home from Sydney by way of Cape Horn, so that it may speedily again be in the Atlantic, and ready, if wanted, for the service of the State. A great deal has been said, Sir, of the advantage to be derived from practice in fleets and squad-

  311
  rons, and, no doubt, this description of training is occasionally desirable; but the whole responsibility of this long cruize will be on the admiral; and the individual officers and men who compose it would learn more, as single ships sent to perform services, where all the various duties which devolve upon naval officers would be experienced by each, bringing the talents and judgment of each individual into play, so as that they may gain experience and not fear responsibility. For these reasons, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that these rumours to which I have alluded as to the employment of a squadron on a particular service are incorrect.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not complain of the matter being brought forward; but he regretted the absence of independent Members who were, he knew, anxious to commend the expedition from a naval point of view. In introducing the Navy Estimates he explained the intention of Government in regard to this expedition; those intentions had not been departed from, and they were not challenged at the time they were stated, or the preparations for the expedition could have been delayed if the House had not been satisfied on the subject. The squadron which was about to leave Plymouth, would consist of six not seven vessels— namely, four wooden frigates—the Liverpool, with 515 men on board; the Endymion, with 485; the Phœbe, from Bahia, with 515; and the Liffey, with 515; and two wooden corvettes — namely, the Scylla, with 275; and the Barrosa, with 275 men, making a total of 2,550 men, of whom 1,763 were officers and men, 416 were boys, and 371 were marines. The squadron would visit all our distant stations with the exception of North America, India, and the Mediterranean, and would take with it for distribution 348 officers and men, including 200 boys, the supply of boys at home being somewhat excessive. The squadron, therefore, included a considerable number of men and boys who were sent for distribution over the distant stations, and this plan of distribution was much more economical than any other. At the same time the ranks of the squadron would be filled up by men whose time had expired and who had to be brought home. The squadron would further take a number
  312
  of officers and young gentlemen for distribution,—namely, twenty-four for the Brazils, seventy for the Cape, forty-one for Australia, and 121 for China; and it would also bring home a considerable number. The Bristol, which was to leave Plymouth with the squadron, would go to Bahia with cadets and stores, the Phœbe joining her; a corvette would be left at Yokohama, to be re-placed by the Pearl; and a corvette would be left at Vancouver and re-placed by the Satellite. These were some of the objects of the squadron; but there was another of greater importance, for, in the opinion of every naval officer to whom he had spoken, and especially in that of the naval advisers of the Admiralty, there was no question but that there was a great deficiency, both on the part of officers and men, of that sort of experience which was to be obtained only by cruizing, and especially by cruizing in squadron; and it was partly to afford an opportunity of acquiring such experience that the expedition had been fitted out for a cruize of sixteen months. The squadron would contain no armoured vessels that would be available for fighting purposes in the event of an international difficulty in this part of the world; and could the House believe that 2,500 men, out of the 60,000 of which the Navy consisted, was such a large number that they must be kept at home in order that we might be better protected in the event of difficulty? If there were a difficulty in this part of the world — that is, with any nation of Europe or with America—it was not with small corvettes and frigates it would have to be settled, but with our great iron-clad ships; and, therefore, the absence of three or four cruizers of the frigate or corvette class was not a matter of such enormous importance as the hon. Baronet (Sir John Hay) seemed to think. The idea that we could not spare the 2,500 blue-jackets and marines on board these ships for fear of an international difficulty was one the hon. Baronet would scarcely have started if he had sat on the other side of the House. The New Zealand colonists would scarcely seek to be murdered by the natives in order that the squadron might be induced to stay; and, as to Japan, it was complained only the other day that mischief would be done by taking a force away. As to the ex-

  313
  citing jealousy, the visits of squadrons usually produced a different feeling, which was evinced by officers and men being received with courtesy and hospitality. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office concurred in the despatch of the expedition, and it never seemed to have occurred to him, or any one else concerned, that France or any other nation would be jealous because a squadron of small wooden frigates and corvettes was sent on such an expedition. But there was another side to the question. We were reducing all our foreign squadrons, and fourteen vessels of different classes were now on their way home from the China, Pacific, South Atlantic, Indian West Coast, and other stations. Therefore, while it was true that 2,500 men would be sent out, it was also true that 3,963 were being brought home, and therefore, our strength at home would be increased instead of diminished. It was to be remembered that a squadron was much more within reach than individual ships, and we were within a month's communication by telegraph with Australia, while we could telegraph to California or China in a day; and practically, the stations at which the squadron was to call were as much within reach as the Atlantic, if not more so, for the purpose of strengthening any distant place at which a force might be required. The despatch of the squadron was connected with a policy of reduction which would be approved on both sides of the House; and he hoped the explanations he had given would be deemed satisfactory.

IRELAND—ROSCOMMON AND GALWAY LUNATIC ASYLUM.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Lord Lieutenant is about to sanction the issue of money for the purpose of enlarging the Lunatic Asylum for the counties of Roscommon and Gal-way; the Grand Jury of the former county, at the last Spring Assizes, having unanimously voted against the proposed expenditure, and expressed their strong disapproval of the conduct of the Governors?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied that the amount asked for was something over £3,000, and the matter had been gone into in the usual way, without the Government having any
314
right to interfere. It had not yet come before the Government in any shape; but the matter would be fully considered before they gave or refused their consent to the expenditure.
Resolutions agreed to.

BANKRUPTCY (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
BANKRUPTCY (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 97.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 15th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 130 (Compensation to holders of abolished offices.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he rose to move the first of the Amendments of which he had given Notice— namely, in line 1 to leave out "where."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to know if the Commissioners were to be allowed to retire on their full salaries. He could not think it advisable that any class of officials should be allowed to do this.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the 130th and 131st clauses had been amended with the consent of the Treasury. The intention was that the Commissioners only should have their full salaries, and that registrars and other officers, who held office during good behaviour, should have two-thirds of their salaries. He did not know what other employment could be tendered to the commissioners, who had held judicial offices, whose position, therefore, was different from that of the registrars. The whole amount of public charge which the clause involved was about £15,000 a year. He trusted the Committee would not see any difficulty in acceding to the proposal affecting the Commissioners; and that affecting the registrars and other officers could be discussed on the next clause.
  MR. WESTsaid, he was at a loss to understand the distinction between the two classes of officers, for they both held their offices during good behaviour, and by the same title—an Act of Parliament; and the registrars acted for the Commissioners in their absence, and therefore performed judicial functions the same as the Commissioners. Both classes of offices also were freehold offices; and a man deprived of such an office was surely entitled to receive his full salary. There was no precedent for the distinc-

  315
  tion which it was proposed to make. The registrars had a right to complain of being taken by surprise by the Government proposing these Amendments at the last moment. He would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
  MR. G. O. MORGANsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. West) as to the unfair way in which the registrars were treated by the provision in question. Most of those registrars were gentlemen who had given up lucrative professions for the offices they held.
  MR. DIXONsaid, he did not believe that the Attorney General himself could approve of the change made in the provision regarding those gentlemen. He (Mr. Dixon) felt it his duty to protest against it. Upon no rule or principle with which he was acquainted could such a change be made.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he was desirous of making his view of the matter perfectly understood. He did not hesitate to say that the rule laid down by the Superannuation Act was a good, convenient, practical rule, which might, with advantage to the public, be extended to all officers of all classes, to be hereafter appointed. But it could not, without breach of contract, be applied retrospectively to cases to which it was not at present legally applicable. It had been expressly stated, on the face of that Act itself, that it was not to apply to the class of judicial officers who were the subject of the present discussion. There were, he was aware, several Acts in which it was provided that gentlemen holding offices, of which the holders were paid by fees without salary, or by fees and a small salary, should receive compensation on their offices being abolished, at a rate which might be less than the maximum amount of the income actually received by them from all sources. But, in these cases, the public had entered into no contract for the payment of a fixed annual sum: nor had it undertaken to renounce its control over the regulation of the fees payable for business done, or over the distribution and supply of the business itself. There was not so much as one instance, that he was aware of, of the same thing being done upon the abolition of any freehold office paid by salary only. He therefore submitted that this was a matter of good faith with individuals who must be taken to have
  316
  accepted offices on the understanding that they were to have the right of retaining them for the rest of their lives, subject only to the proper discharge of the duties required of them. The rule laid down in the Superannuation Act was a fair rule, but to make it applicable by an ex post facto law to officers who had accepted their appointments on the express understanding that they should not be subject to it was unjust, unless it could be shown that it had been the practice of Parliament to apply the same rule of compensation in such cases; but the practice of Parliament had been universally the other way. Several recent cases were known to him in which Parliament had given the full amount of salary, and there was not an instance to the contrary. By all means let them reduce the number of these cases to a minimum, by finding employment for those whose offices were abolished, and let it be now understood that, in future, offices abolished would be dealt with on the principles of the Superannuation Act, but let them not now apply its principles by ex post facto legislation to those who had accepted offices on the express understanding that they should be differently treated.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Attorney General had placed the Committee in a difficult position, because he had first placed Commissioners and registrars on the same footing, and now he treated them differently. On behalf of the Government he asked them to do that which had never been done before. He (Mr. Henley) must protest against the injustice of the course proposed. He had failed to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman any distinction between the two classes of officers, who held their offices on the same terms and conditions; and, if there were no such distinction, he saw no reason why the one class of officers should be treated differently in this matter from the other. As it was impossible to say how many more Bankruptcy Bills might year after year be introduced, it appeared to him that it would be wise of the Attorney General to introduce a provision into this Bill to prevent any inconvenience here after arising in respect to such questions as those they were now discussing.
  MR. G. GREGORYsaid, he concurred in the views expressed by the

  317
  right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). The question, after all, only involved a sum of £7,000 a year, being the amount of the one-third of the salaries of the registrars, which they would be deprived of by the proposed arrangement of the Attorney General.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, it was notably the duty of the Government to get the services of the country performed at a moderate rate; but, if in future bargains, the retiring pension were left uncertain, the present pay would have to be raised. Gentlemen often gave up good practice and promising careers for a modest certainty for the rest of their lives. He knew the case of a registrar who, in order to accept that office, resigned a professorship at an University, a revising barristership, and a recordership. The clause, as it originally stood, ought, in common justice, to be retained.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he thought that the same rule should be applied in dealing with officers whether they occupied the highest or inferior positions. He would urge the Government to withdraw their Amendments.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, he should protest against such an arrangement as that every person employed in a law court, and whose office might be abolished, should receive his full salary for life, no matter how short the period of his previous service, from the messenger, in whose office he denied that there was any more a freehold right than there was in a situation in a warehouse, to the Commissioner.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he had no wish to do injustice; but whatever might be the technical bargain there was no natural right to such compensation. There was a difference between the retirement of a man advanced in life, and that of a young man who could take his talents into the labour market. The case of a man who retired at the age of thirty should therefore not be treated so liberally as that of a man who retired at the age of seventy.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he had been somewhat misunderstood on the last occasion on which he had spoken on this point. He had said that he thought it would have been better on the whole to leave the whole matter of compensation to be dealt with by the 131st clause. He must protest against the mode in
  318
  which these claims had been urged. Was there ever any contract with these gentlemen that a court of justice should be maintained for their benefit? He thought that they were there to perform their duties for the benefit of the public, and there was no contract binding the country to give those who had held an abolished office their full salaries for life. The House of Commons was always clamouring for economy in the abstract, but still was ready to support individual claims for extravagance. At present the nation was paying£4,800,000 a year for non-effective services, and whenever the Government made any attempt at economy they were met by pretensions of freehold offices—pretensions which had no firmer foundation than the ideas of the lawyers, and were told they must wait for the next case. He proposed that the Committee should leave the matter open, and allow these compensations to be estimated separately, so that Parliament might not pledge itself to a highly dangerous principle. In dealing with the old Court of Admiralty the House had passed a clause leaving it to the Commissioners of the Treasury to award compensation.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought that the lecture delivered by the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) fell upon the Government and not upon the House. Having warned the Committee that they ought not to give any compensations the hon. Gentleman desired that the question of compensation should be left to him. The hon. Gentleman accepted the claim of the Commissioners. Why? Because they held office during good behaviour. These offices had been erected by Parliament into freehold offices; and a few days since everybody supposed the Government was going to compensate on the principles laid down. The hon. Gentleman recognized the Commissioners; upon what possible ground, then, could he fail to recognize those who held their positions by the same tenure? He hoped that the Government would have too much regard to their own honour and to their own sense of responsibility to be diverted from their course by a subordinate Member of the Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this case was undoubtedly one of some difficulty, but it was also of much importance, involving ge-

  319
  neral considerations of a very wide nature, and he therefore hoped the Committee would give him its attention for a few minutes. Everyone was anxious, of course, to do justice to those gentlemen who were to lose their offices, but justice must also be done to the pockets of the British tax-payers. Now, what was the real agreement between those gentlemen and the public? The position of the Commissioners was different from that of the registrars, inasmuch as the former held their offices during good behaviour, whilst the registrars could be dismissed for cause. These gentlemen were dismissible by the Lord Chancellor; but then came the legal superstition that the office so held was a freehold, and upon that superstition was based the monstrous conclusion that if the office was abolished the holder of it must continue for the rest of his life to receive his full salary. So that either the office must be perpetually maintained, though its use had passed away, or the person who held it was to become a public pensioner, discharging no duties, but drawing his full pay. But on what ground should such an inference be drawn? Was it a matter of law? The law afforded no countenance for any such notion. Was it justified on the ground of contract? The law of contract was altogether silent on the subject. In the case of land there was no question about the existence of the thing to be occupied, and the only question was who was to be the occupant of it; but an office might cease to exist. It really did not alter the nature of a thing whether you called it a freehold or anything else. No doubt these gentlemen had the right to be treated with the utmost fairness; the loss they sustained ought to be equitably estimated, and they should be paid accordingly; but beyond that they had no claim. There was no contract with them that the office should be kept up for their benefit after its use had passed away, or that if it were abolished, they should be maintained in the same, or rather in a better position. The compensation to which they were entitled would vary according to their age, and there was no fairer means of arriving at it than by referring all the claims to the consideration of an impartial tribunal. He thought it was high time that this general principle should be clearly established, how-
  320
  ever comparatively unimportant its application might be in the present case.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that it was difficult to understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant in arguing that they were relying on a technicality when an office held for life was said to be a freehold. In so calling it they were only using the term that had been applied to it for centuries. Now, what was the contract between those gentlemen and the public? It was defined in the words of the Act, which provided that they should hold their offices during good behaviour, and should only be removable for cause shown by a judicial officer acting judicially. If it now appeared that it was for the public advantage that their offices should be put an end to let it be done on the same terms as had always been observed in previous cases. When they took their offices they had the right to expect that they would be so treated. They had made a sacrifice of their professional incomes; it might as well be said that a late Cabinet Minister now in the enjoyment of a pension, could have returned to his profession as that some of these officers could do so. As a matter of law and justice, the Committee ought to adopt the clause in the form in which it was introduced.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing could be more absurd than that a person whose office was abolished should be entitled to receive his full salary. He might have been appointed only a few weeks, and yet he was to draw his whole remuneration to the end of his days. That was reducing the matter to an absurdity. But in this case he regretted that the Government had prevented the Committee from giving its adhesion to that principle, because their present proposal was to give full compensation to the richest officers, and only to reduce it in the case of the poorest. They also appeared most conveniently to forget that this was a Government Bill. It was unprecedented that in such a measure the Government, after introducing it, should propose in Committee to diminish the compensation. It was as if, when the Irish Church Bill was in Committee, they had come down with a suggestion that the vested interests — not of the Bishop, but of the curates— should be compensated on a

  321
  reduced scale. While, therefore, he objected altogether to the principle that in cases where offices were abolished their holders were entitled to full compensation, he was unable on this occasion to support that principle by his vote.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he would suggest that a fixed scale, applicable to all such cases, should be framed for future use, but it seemed to him that the House must now give the full salaries.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) spoke to them in the spirit of a line of Horace, not, however, satirically but practically, and that which was written as a sarcasm he converted into a recommendation—
  "Quidquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi."
  That was intended to ridicule the state of things in which the faults of rulers were visited on the people; but the hon. Member took the matter up at the other end, and said that because the reges in this case had committed a blunder, the Achivi must and ought to pay. He did not dispute the responsibility of the Government, but he thought that the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) had rather stretched the point. But whatever the immediate result of this discussion he for one rejoiced that that afternoon had witnessed the explosion of a great superstition. Law reforms had done much in other directions; but none of them—at least none of the legal profession—had come forward to demolish this superstition which the independence of the Judges—than which there could be no principle more important—had brought with it, and by which every officer, great or small, who only had the good fortune to tie himself to the tail of some Judge, great or small, had built up around him this sanctity of tenure, by which the public had been sconced generation after generation. He rejoiced to think that they had now at last nearly arrived at the end of the wearisome chapter under which he, as First Minister, and in other capacities, had so long groaned. For the future he hoped that while they gave reasonable and partial compensation—and partial compensation did not mean partial justice—to public officers whose offices were abolished, it would be understood universally that those officers were not entitled to anything more. The right hon.
  322
  Gentleman the Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney), speaking with the authority of an oracle of the law, had addressed the Committee on this subject in language which he (Mr. Gladstone) confessed edified him little more than a foreign tongue. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that it was a "well-known" doctrine that offices held upon good behaviour were freeholds. But that method of argument was over-riding rather than convincing him. On the face of it assuredly there was no inherent necessity that such offices should be freeholds—nothing that conveyed to an ignorant, extraneous person like himself, any conviction on the subject. A freehold, he considered, was that which was held free—free from conditions. He could understand, indeed, that benefices in the Church were freeholds, although connected with the performance of duties, because the profession was primary and the duty secondary, and the possessor if unable to perform the duty did not lose the freehold. In the case before them the man would lose his office if he became incompetent to perform the duties; and it consequently appeared that the duties were at least placed upon a parity with the receipts. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman said that that office, which was voidable in the case of the non-performance of the duties, was a simple freehold, and that that was a question which it was totally useless for laymen to discuss, he would again tell him that he over-rode him by authority, but he did not convince his reason. The right hon. Gentleman said again that the terms of the contract were stated in the Act of Parliament. He had read that Act, and he found in it nothing whatever about the continuance of the office. There was no abandonment in it by Parliament of its title to repeal the Act; therefore, to say that the contract was silent was really to say that there was no contract at all in that respect. It seemed to him, moreover, that the advocates of the high doctrine of freehold had not been consistent with themselves. He thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was one of the highest advocates of that doctrine, but yet he proposed to give other duties to the holders of those offices which were abolished. How was that consistent with the doctrine of freehold? Who was to be the judge whether those

  323
  duties were consistent with duties which the officials had before performed. And he would tell the House not to rely upon the discovery of other duties for these gentlemen. If they chose to place the whole judicial patronage in the hands of some one body that they could call to account from the Treasury Bench for its administration, and if they made that body responsible for the appointments to be made, they might, perhaps, have some chance of having those dismissed gentlemen appointed to other duties. But he wanted to know where were the men to be found in any profession, whether, as Lord Chatham had said, it be "the sanctity of the law or the purity of the ermine," with whom it was a first thought to overlook the redundant list and see if they could find somebody upon that list who was already drawing emoluments on whom they could impose the burden of a vacant office, and thus convert their fine opportunity of conferring a favour upon a deserving friend into an opportunity for requiring a man to make a public sacrifice? His hon. and learned Friends behind him knew human nature too well to expect it. If they were consistent, however, in their doctrine of freehold, they could not force those gentlemen to accept other duties. He must now say a word for his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton). His hon. Friend had fought a gallant battle for the Treasury, and it was his duty to do it. He must say for him what he (Mr. Ayrton) would not say for himself, and that was that, in the course of nine or ten years during which he (Mr. Gladstone) held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, when his hon. Friend was an independent Member below the Gangway, and at a time much more favourable for the purpose than the present, because it was a time when, not every, but almost every man in the House was pecking, more or less, at the public purse, his hon. Friend had never attempted so to invade the public revenues, and was always to be found in support of the Government in resisting those assaults. Therefore, if his hon. Friend was now keen in the same cause, he trusted that indulgence, and something more than indulgence, would be accorded to him for a fault which, if it were a fault, was not a very common one, and from which no great public mischief was likely to arise. The proposal which
  324
  was made to the House on the one side, as he understood it, was, that whenever a man had an office, whether as messenger or anything else, and whether he were able to perform the duties of that office or not, he should continue to receive his salary for the whole of his life, subject to the chance of work being found for him. He thought that was too extreme a measure. With regard to the Commissioners to whom allusion had been made, their case was quite different. They had been, more or less, all their lives in the service of the public, and re-employment in their case was out of the question. And wherever that condition could be shown with regard to any man, be he a registrar, a messenger, or what you like, if he had reached a point in his life at which practically his re-employment was out of the question, the Government would be quite ready to give way in such a case. He trusted that this assurance would be satisfactory to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. West); and he was ready, if the clause were postponed till Tuesday, to propose Amendments to the clause which they were about to consider, with that object. It was not correct to say that no objection was taken to the clause as it originally stood, for the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt) both took exception to the payment of full salaries. If there was any jealousy of the severity of the Treasury he would consent to make it essential that the Lord Chancellor should be a party to its decision.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the difficulty had been created by the conduct of the Government, who were not entitled at this stage to make the change proposed. The rule upon which the House had always acted in such cases was not without expediency. If Parliament dealt in a shabby manner with cases of this kind, they would find that such officers would exert their obstructive influences against reforms. Having offered liberal terms to these officials, and thus secured their support, the Government now turned round upon them and made proposals of an entirely different and very niggardly character.
  MR. WESTsaid, that if Her Majesty's Government were really prepared to postpone those clauses till Tuesday next, and deal with the question then, it would

  325
  be most unreasonable to press the matter now to a division.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was too hard upon the Government. What had happened was that those clauses had been framed without due consultation with the Treasury; and, when they had come to be considered by those whose duty it was to look after the public purse, it was found that they were such as the Treasury could not agree to. The same thing had happened with a Bill of a similar kind when he was Secretary to the Treasury; and it was then his duty to state to the House that, as Secretary to the Treasury, he would not be able to afford the terms of compensation which one of his Colleagues was proposing to give. He quite concurred with the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that a man should not be paid his full salary for doing nothing.
  MR. JESSELsaid, that nothing was so plain as that those offices were freehold offices, and that the word freehold applied to an office was no myth. Again, nothing was plainer to his mind than that all freehold offices originally had duties assigned to them, and the fact of the office being freehold did not entitle the holder to his salary. This right depended upon a contract. He came then to the Government proposition—If they broke a contract, what ought they to pay to those who suffered by the breach? Now, the contract in this case was express and clear, and it was a well-established principle that in such a case the compensation should be varied according to the amount of injury received, and that the damages ought to be assessed by a jury. Upon this principle the proposal now made by the Government appeared to him to be perfectly satisfactory, because it proposed that the compensation should be assessed by the Lord Chancellor, who was the highest authority known to the law, and he would have the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury associated with him as a sort of jury. The principle argued on the other side of the question by his right hon. and learned Friend. (Mr. Russell Gurney) was one not of principle, but of practice. He said that for centuries, whenever they abolished offices of this kind they gave to the holder an annuity equal to the
  326
  amount of the salary he received; and relying upon that practice, persons had been induced to accept offices in the hope that if they were abolished they would not suffer. He had heard no satisfactory answer to the appeal made to the Government, and grounded on this argument. If the Government thought the principle now acted on was wrong let them abolish it for the future; but let them act generously and liberally so far as the present and the past were concerned. He regretted that the appeal had not been met exactly in the spirit he hoped; but still he thought that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government substantial justice would be done. With regard to future appointments, he hoped that no expectation of life annuities would be held out.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he regretted to hear his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Jessel) express himself as willing to accept the proposition of the Government, which was a departure from the principle on which these questions had always hitherto been settled. It was a very hard thing to consign gentlemen who had considered themselves holders of freehold offices to the tender mercies of the Secretary to the Treasury. He thought a wider and more generous view had been taken by other Members, and especially by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), who had made a manly and able speech though he was no lawyer. He knew what would come of the arrangement proposed by the Government. Some gentlemen would be put to the expense of engaging counsel and paying heavy fees to argue their case to show that they were entitled to the full amount of their salary. He should regret if he had to go into the Lobby against the Government, but he could not assent to a breach of faith; but, if a division took place, he should vote against the proposal now made. If, however, no one thought it worth while to divide the House in favour of giving these officers a retiring pension equal to their full salaries, he would suggest that at all events a man who had held office for a certain length of time—say, fifteen years—should be entitled to his full salary. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General offered to introduce some provision of the kind, and with that pledge he must rest satisfied.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he hoped that some Members not lawyers would be found who would support the Government in their attempt to enforce some economy. There was too easy a disposition on the part of the House of Commons to grant compensations. He supposed if they were to take a sheet of paper as large as the floor of that House it would not suffice to write upon it the names of those lawyers who were superannuated, and the amount of the compensations they received for the abolition of offices. He should be glad to know why such extraordinary concern was shown for a profession so well able to take care of itself. He was old enough to remember the compensations of the officers of a private court. The Government proposed a reform in that court, and all officials who were afterwards appointed received their appointments with the intimation that there would be no compensation. But the reform was not carried out till ten years afterwards, and then they were compelled to compensate the very men who had been told they were to receive no compensation. "When the dockyards were lately reduced all the compensation the labourers who were not wanted received was a free passage to Canada. It was lately said by the Attorney General that there could be no real reform of the Bankruptcy Court unless there was a clean sweep out of all the officials. If that were so, he thought the Government ought to give them, too, a free passage to Canada.
  MR. WESTsaid, he thought that the clause should be postponed and brought up on Tuesday on the Report.
  MR. HIBBERTsuggested that full salary should be allowed to those who accepted other duties, and two-thirds only to those who would not.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to know what was the exact proposal of the Government on which they were to divide.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was proposed to give the Commissioners, their full salaries, as other employment could not be given to them; and that the registrars, messengers, and. assignees should certainly have two-thirds of their present salary, with the understanding that if the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury thought any of them entitled, on account
  328
  of their age and service, to their full salaries, they should have them.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had understood that the Government would frame a clause to place all the officials on the same footing, and that, whether they received their full salaries or only a portion of them, they were all to be dealt; with in the same way. He did not see why some of the Commissioners should not undertake other duties, for instance, County Court Judgeships.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that in omitting that consideration he was thinking of the London Commissioners; but, as regarded some of the younger country Commissioners, it would not be unfair to require that they should undertake such judicial duties as were offered to them; none that were unworthy would be offered them; and, of course, the Government would be bound to take care that they were not asked to accept an inferior salary.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he thought that after the explanation which had been given by the Government, it would be useless to go to a division.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it appeared to him that the proposal of the Government was calculated to do substantial justice to all parties, and that was the only thing he had contended for. Those who had served a certain time, and could not be expected to accept other duties, were to have their full salaries, unless the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury saw reason to the contrary.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and from other hon. Members, the simplest remedy would be to adopt the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, to leave out the clause.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he thought the wiser course would be to postpone the clause.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to point out that the Government were not prepared with an Amendment in relation to the future employment of the country Commissioners.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he hoped they would not go to a division on the point in question.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would remind the Committee that the question before them was the 130th clause. The

  329
  time had not arrived for an expression of opinion on the point referred to by the right hon. Member.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he doubted whether anything would be gained by going on till hon. Members could see the whole scheme of compensation in print.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must admit that the Government had no reason to complain of the spirit in which the discussion had been conducted, and as the general desire of the Committee seemed to be in favour of a postponement of the clause, he should not object to it.
  House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday, next, at Two of the clock.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE FRENCH TREATY.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the French Treaty, particularly as it affected the silk manufacture in this country. The silk manufacture was divided into two branches, one the manufacture of broad silks, which was carried on in Macclesfield, Spitalfields, and Manchester, and the ribbon trade in Coventry. It was introduced into that city towards the end of the 17th century, where it flourished up to 1860 — the period of the French Treaty. The trade had long prospered in this country under protective duties. In 1824, however, Mr. Huskisson altered the duties, imposing in lieu an ad valorem duty of something like 30 per cent; and this, in 1846, was reduced to about 15 per cent by Sir Robert Peel. The arguments on which these reductions were made proved to be sound, and the silk trade continued to flourish up to 1860. In 1829, the population of the city of Coventry was 16,000; in 1831, it had risen to 20,000; and in 1859, it amounted to about 41,000; but the silk district, of which Coventry was the centre, had a population of about 70,000. Nearly eighty firms were engaged in the manufacture of ribbons at this time, having
  330
  1,000 to 2,000 looms in factories, employing some 3,000 persons, who were paid from 5s. to 30 s. per week. Besides this—and it was a special feature of the city—there were from 2,000 to 3,000 looms, the property of the working weavers themselves, and worked in their own houses. These looms cost £40 each, representing a capital of £120,000; and he estimated the other necessary machinery—winding engines and filling wheels —owned by these workmen at £10,000. This was the state of things in Coventry when suddenly the French Treaty came upon them, and immediately the ribbon manufactories fell from eighty to twelve, theweeklywagesfrom£12,000to£3,000; the trade returns from £3,000,000 to £1,000,000 in the following year; and the manufacturers' stock, estimated the night before the Treaty at £800,000, fell 25 per cent; and, in the years that followed, wages decreased from 20 to 30 per cent, and this independent of those who were driven away from the city altogether. The dispensing of out-door relief increased alarmingly, for while £10,000 was the sum of the relief granted during the eight years ending with 1860, the sum dispensed in the eight succeeding years was £41,000, and this was supplemented by a national subscription of another £40,000. The effect of the Treaty upon Macclesfield had been to decrease the trade 25 per cent, and there were at present 1,500 empty houses in that town, and the population had decreased 7,000 out of 35,000. The French Treaty fell upon the prosperous silk trade without a note of warning; although, as we now know, it had been in negotiation during the whole autumn of 1858, but it had been kept completely secret. But in January, 1860, the Mayor of Coventry, having seen the Treaty announced in the Independence Beige, wrote to Mr. Ellice, the then Member for the city, and called his attention to the circumstance; but so secretly had it been negotiated, that he wrote back saying there was not the slightest reason to believe that any such Treaty was on the point of being contracted. Yet, three weeks afterwards—and it would have been earlier had not the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government been indisposed — it was announced to that House. Early in February, 1860, the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and announced

  331
  that which he said "would cause a thrill from one end of the country to the other," that the Government had ratified a commercial Treaty with France. By the first article the Emperor of the French engaged that the duties on the importation into France of—among other things — silk goods manufactured in England should not exceed 30 per cent, But how was it with regard to similar goods coming into England? Her Majesty engaged to recommend to Parliament to abolish altogether the duties on the importation of French silk goods into this country. Coventry was hardly treated in other respects, for the silk trade was specially exempted from the 14th Article, which gave, with regard to all other articles which came under the Treaty, an interval of two years, during which half-duties were to be levied. So the duties on silk goods coming into England from France were abolished in the March following. He would now ask the House to listen to the manner in which that Treaty was brought about. It had been described by M. Michael Chevalier, who, in a letter addressed to Mr. Bonamy Price, Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, said he had a conversation with Mr. Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 15th of October, 1859, and told him that, although he had no power to treat, certain circumstances induced him to think that the Emperor would receive with favour the proposal of a treaty, especially if it were to abolish the high duties that were levied on an important industry in France—that of silks. Mr. Gladstone answered that England would repeal the duties on all articles manufactured in Paris and Lyons, especially on silk, gloves, shoes, and the articles particularly described as "articles of Paris." "Everything was settled between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and me in three-quarters of an hour." M. Chevalier added that he next saw Mr. Cobden, and arranged to meet him in Paris, but to travel thither separately, in order not to attract the notice of the Prohibitionists. The silence recommended by the Emperor was well kept by all, the notes of M. Rouher being copied by Madame Rouher, while those of Mr. Cobden were written out fair by Madame Chevalier. M. Chevalier added that judging from some recent acts, the zeal of the Imperial Government in behalf of Free Trade seemed to have
  332
  considerably cooled, and he asked—"Is this a simple accident of politics or a relapse? Time will show." It was clear, from this letter, that the silk trade in England had been sacrificed in order to get the Emperor to agree to the Treaty. The whole negotiation seemed to have the character of a plot rather than an act of international legislation. He remembered a caricature which came out at that time, and which represented the silk trade as being thrown in as a sop to the Cerberus who was guarding the French Empire. He believed that if Mr. Cobden were living now he would be the first to agree to a Motion for the re-consideration of the subject, because he only accepted the French Treaty as a lesser evil, in order that it might lead to a greater good, which it had not done. The present Session was peculiarly appropriate for the re-consideration of the Treaty, because the Treaty came into force in February, 1860, and was to last until February, 1870, and after from year to year, unless notice be given of its revision. It might be said that there were other causes which had led to the depression of the trade — such as the changes of fashion, the increase in the price of the raw material, and the closing of the American ports, which had led to the flooding of the English market with French and Swiss goods. This was not so. So far from there having been any decrease in the manufacture and use of silk, there was a far greater quantity of manufactured silk and silk ribbons used in England now than there ever was before, only the figures had changed places. The quantity of silk imported into this country from abroad before the French Treaty was the quantity now manufactured here; while the quantity now imported was considerable greater than that manufactured here before the Treaty. He held in his hand statistics to show the effects of this Treaty on the silk trade. It appeared that in the eight years preceding the French Treaty, we imported of silk and satin ribbons from France, l,575,000lbs; and in the eight years succeeding that Treaty—namely, from 1861 to 1868, there were imported into this country from France, 5,618,852lbs; being an increase of 4,043,000lbs—that was an increase of 250 per cent. And, in respect to broad silk, such as that manufactured in Macclesfield and Spitalfields, the importations from France for

  333
  the eight years preceding the Treaty, amounted to l,925,0001bs; whereas, for the eight following years, the imports had reached 14,863,0001bs; being an increase of 13,000,000lbs, or upwards of 650 per cent. It was pretty clear then that there had been no decrease in the use of ribbons or silks, and there was, therefore, nothing in the argument that there had been a change of fashion, or that the American War or any other cause had led to a falling off. The figures have simply changed places, and the foreigner now manufactures and exports to England that which England formerly manufactured for herself. The evils of the present system would be apparent when they examined the details of the manner in which silk goods exported from this country into France were dealt with under the Treaty. Upon pure ribbons there was a specific duty amounting to 3¾ per cent, upon black ribbons, 7½ per cent, and upon elastic goods from 10 to 12½ per cent. But that hardly represented the effect which had been produced upon Coventry. Coventry had been especially hardly dealt with, for whereas all nett silk went duty free into France—these being articles in which, practically, we do not compete with her —ribbons, even of nett silk, were specially exempted, and were made liable to the duty, and there was a duty rising from 3¾ per cent to 10 or 12 per cent upon all ribbons imported into France; yet every one of these, under this Treaty, came into England duty free. Nor was this the worst part of the Treaty as it affected the silk trade. The principal part of the trade in which England was most capable of competing with France was in those goods in which there was a mixture of silk with cotton. While silk goods mixed with cotton came into England duty free, there was a duty of 10 per cent on articles exported from England in which the silk predominated over the cotton, and of 15 per cent upon those in which cotton predominated over the silk. This was found to be a duty which amounted, in point of fact, upon this great industry in England, almost to a prohibition. There was another matter with regard to the provisions of the French Treaty to which he would also draw the attention of the House — namely, the injustice of specific duties. The duties levied were specific duties, or duties on the goods per weight; and
  334
  this great inequality arose with regard to all specific duties. Suppose that goods weighing 10 kilogrammes pay 10 francs duty, and are worth 100 francs, this is equal to 10 per cent. But if the value of the goods rose to 150 francs, then the duty was about 6¾ per cent; while, if the value of the goods was depreciated from 100 francs to 50 francs, the duty became 20 per cent. Thus, whenever the trade was depressed, the duty increased, and fell when prices were high. The question then arose, whether, under all these circumstances of inequality and unfairness, it was worth while to have any treaty at all? Was any treaty worth preserving, by virtue of which, upon articles in which France could very well compete with us, they levied a duty on us, while we were prevented from levying a duty upon them? Let us follow up, as Mr. Cobden said, the work of Free Trade, but do not let it be all upon one side. He knew it had been said that with regard to the silk trade that the silk trade might have suffered, but that other trades had been benefited. But was it the fact that other trades were benefited to an extent that would compensate for this particular injustice? When the French Treaty passed, the cotton trade, the woollen trade, and the linen trade, in the absence of good textile machinery in France, increased their exports by 15 per cent, in spite of the duty on the importation of these articles into France; but now that France had got textile machinery of her own, the statistics would show how, under this Treaty, these trades could hold their own. In 1866 there were imported into France of cotton manufactures 56,343,372 yards; in 1867 that was reduced to 41,147,794 yards; and, in 1868, there was a further reduction to 38,593,729 yards; showing a decrease in the course of two years of 25 per cent. Of linen manufactures there were imported into France from England, in 1866, 5,637,477 yards; in 1867, 4,976,933 yards; and, in 1868, 3,752,756 yards, showing a decrease of 30 per cent. Of woollen manufactures there were imported into France, in 1866, 4,664,129 yards; in 1867, 7,560,016 yards; but, in 1868, the figures woefully changed, showing a depreciation last year over 1867 of no less than 75 per cent. He did not think, then, that it could be said, that these figures showed any ad-

  335
  vantage which other trades had derived from the operation of the French Treaty. The Board of Trade and Navigation Returns, and the whole balance of trade between England and France, gave similar results, the Returns for 1867 showing that the French imports into this country, after deducting the raw and part manufactured articles, were £30,000,000 against £13,500,000 of English exports into France. These facts, he contended, showed the necessity for some inquiry. It would be said that the result of agreeing to his Motion would be an expression of opinion in favour of returning to some system of protective duties, but it was not with that view he asked for a Committee of Inquiry. He thought no country could be great which did not import all raw material duty free. He would not mix up Protection with this subject, but he would say to France that if she would not admit our goods on fair and equal terms with her own, either the Treaty should be abolished, or £10,000,000 worth of our coal should not go to assist the manufactures of France, or an alteration should be made in the light dues. We had given away so much to France that we had made ourselves poor indeed; still he hoped we had something yet left to offer or withdraw in order to induce France to admit our goods on the same footing that we had admitted hers for the last ten years, especially as it would be found that these duties pressed in a vital way upon our commerce. The cry of the silk trade simply was—"Give us reciprocity." He entreated the House to grant the inquiry. If the working men employed in the silk trade were wrong in attributing their sufferings to the French Treaty, it was deeply important that their error should be corrected. Throughout the whole of their losses and miseries they had borne themselves as loyal subjects, and he hoped that if the Inquiry were granted they would yet see a more prosperous day.
  MR. EATON, in seconding the Motion, said, he had to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. It would not be necessary for him to enter at any length into the details of this subject, or to follow his hon. and learned Colleague through the various reasons which he had given for having brought this matter under the consideration of the House. It would be sufficient for
  336
  him, as a practical men, and as one who perhaps had as large an interest in the welfare of the silk trade of this country as anyone, to say that with those details and those reasons he entirely concurred. Upon one point he might, however, be allowed to say a few words. There could be no doubt that the inequality of duties as imposed by the French Commercial Treaty had worked most injuriously to their trade. He thought he could not better prove this fact than, with the permission of the House, by quoting a few figures which he had taken from a table that he himself published for many years, showing the imports, exports, and consumption of raw silks in this country. He would take, for example, the year 1859, the year preceding the French Treaty, and he found the consumption of raw silk in this country in that year was 7,376,240 lbs. against an export of 2,000,000 lbs. In the past year, 1868, these figures have been nearly reversed; for he found the consumption at home now only 2,134,204 lbs. against 4,050,000 lbs. sent out of this country. But unfortunately this is not all, for the working of this Treaty has enabled the foreigners to compete with us in every market in the world. In China and India they have been carrying on a very considerable business in silk, a direct trade nearly unknown to them before the operation of this Treaty. In Manchester, before the passing of the Treaty, there were between thirty and forty silk manufacturers employing a large amount of labour and. capital. They were now reduced to five or six, and those employing their workpeople only a part of their time. In Macclesfield a similar diminution in the consumption of silk has taken place; and in Coventry, the city which he had the honour of representing, the ribbon trade has equally suffered. But, further, he might add, what was perhaps more within his knowledge than it could be within that of his Colleague, he could assure the House that, as far as he had been able to ascertain, the trade was unanimous in asking for this inquiry. At a meeting held at his offices in the City, in the early part of this week, there were present most of the leading members of the silk trade in all its branches. They met for the purpose of pressing upon his Colleague and himself the increasing necessity for this inquiry. They were

  337
  men of different political feelings; but they were all united in urging, as he did now in seconding this Motion, the great necessity which exists for an inquiry, with a view to the revision of a Treaty which has worked so injuriously and so unjustly to the silk trade of this country.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of the Commercial Treaty with France, ratified the 13th day of January 1860, and particularly as it affects the silk Manufacture in this Country,"—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BROCKLEHURSTwished to say a few words, as he was engaged in the silk manufacture, and a large employer of labour. In 1824, when Mr. Huskisson initiated Free Trade, 300,000 persons derived employment from the manufacture of silk goods in this country, but since 1861 not half that number had been employed. He could not think Mr. Cobden contemplated such an event as the outbreak of the American War when he pressed for the French Treaty, or he would have foreseen the recent flooding of the market with French goods, which would otherwise have been absorbed by the United States. He urged the appointment of this Committee of Inquiry, not because he desired to return to a policy of Protection, but because he hoped some means would be discovered of remedying the evils which the present defective system of Free Trade produced. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, in which he proposed to give the working men a free breakfast table, had given great satisfaction; but the Free Trade tea and sugar would be of little use to the working man unless he had employment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the question was of great interest to a number of his constituents, because they had found that from the date of the French Treaty there had been a gradual but constant diminution in their trade. In fact, in Lancashire the silk trade was almost at a standstill. He had voted
  338
  for the French Treaty against the wishes of his political friends when he before had a seat in this House, and would not annul it without an effort to remedy its defects; but these defects were so glaring, and the distress in our silk manufacturing districts so painful, that an inquiry was absolutely necessary to see whether some means could not be suggested to put an end to the anomalies complained of. If nothing were done to secure this end, he would bring the whole matter before the House. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would object to an inquiry. The value of silk goods imported, in 1858, was £3,235,000, and that had increased to £10,214,000. On the other hand, the silk goods exported from this country had decreased in a still greater ratio.
  MR. CHADWICKsaid, that in supporting this Motion he had not deserted his Free Trade principles, nor did he ask the Government to give up these doctrines. He regretted that the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) had referred in an irritating manner to the history of the Treaty. He (Mr. Chadwick) only asked the House and the Government to agree to a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Treaty. The silk trade of Coventry, Manchester, and Macclesfield was in a state of the most serious depression at the present time, and he wished the facts to be laid before the country in order to see whether the French Treaty might not be modified so as to remove the present depression, and he believed that this might be done by a few simple modifications in the Treaty which would not injuriously affect any of the great interests concerned. The French admitted silk goods which were made of pure silk free of duty, but taxed those mixed with cotton. Now, the staple trade of Macclesfield was the manufacture of silk containing a portion of cotton, and if the French Government could be induced to admit the mixed silk on the same terms as the pure, the injurious character of the Treaty would be to a great extent removed.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he hoped the inquiry would be granted, and that it would embrace the manner in which not only the silk trade, but also the worsted and woollen trades were affected by the Treaty. Thorough out the ma-

  339
  nufacturing districts in the North of England there was a strong desire that something should be done to remedy that want of reciprocity which they all felt.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I shall not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) into the history of what he was pleased to call the plot by which the French Treaty was obtained. I think I know as much about the history of it as any Member of the House, and as I believe it was of the greatest benefit, so I believe that nothing was ever more honourable to all the parties concerned than the manner in which it was accomplished. The hon. and learned Member alluded to the suddenness with which the French Treaty came upon his constituents, and on this account considered them as harshly treated. But if there be one thing more acknowledged than another by all persons conversant with these affairs, it is this, that the kindest way of dealing with a trade in which a change of duties is contemplated is to make that change suddenly. If twelve months' notice had been given to the manufacturers of silk in this country that, at the expiration of that time, French silks would come in free of duty, there would have been a complete paralysis of the trade for twelve months. Nobody in England, speaking generally, would have bought English silk goods, because they believed French were much better and cheaper, and the stock would consequently lay on the manufacturers' hands. And, in the meantime, French manufacturers, expecting the opening of a new and great market, would have prepared large quantities of goods to throw into this market in a moment; and the two processes would have been followed by far more damaging consequences than those which resulted from a sudden transition. I will not dispute with the hon. and learned Member as to whether it would be better to have no Treaty at all than that we have, and will simply say he very badly represents those who sent him here if he supposes it would be better the present Treaty should be abolished. The hon. and learned Member had better rest content with the ills he has than fly to others which he seems to know not of. His speech was of a kind we heard frequently some ten to twenty years ago. It was a
  340
  speech of pure Protection, for he seemed to think there was no remedy for the evils he complained of but a return to the protective system. No doubt, the inquiry he asks for would produce some facts, certainly some arguments, which would be curious in their way; but no man in this country who knows anything of trade can doubt for a moment that the French Treaty has been of great advantage to this country. I will say, if you like, of not smaller advantage, perhaps of greater advantage, to France; that it has been one of the most beneficent measures the House of Commons has accepted for many years I am perfectly convinced, and that is the opinion of the majority of educated men in the country. Now, it may be stated, in the first place, that the trade between the United Kingdom and France has been more than doubled by the operation or since the passing of that Treaty. The annual imports into this country from France seven years before the Treaty were from £12,000,000 to £13,000,000 sterling; and for the seven years since, from 1861 to 1867, they were about £27,500,000. The exports show an increase from £10,000,000 to £23,000,000 —so that the increase is considerably more than double. The hon. and learned Member may say these exports do not represent manufactures only; and he would be quite right, because cotton, for instance, comes from the United States to Liverpool, and, being purchased by French spinners, is re-shipped to France. But the annual average for the seven years before the Treaty of actual English manufactures was about £5,000,000, and of the seven years since at least £10,000,000; therefore, whether we look at the whole of the exports and imports, or those purely the produce of the United Kingdom, we find a large and very satisfactory increase. And from the year 1854, when the first reduction took place, the exports have increased three-fold. In silks the goods which come here from France amounted to £4,500,000 per annum in the seven years before the Treaty, and in the seven years since to £7,750,000; showing a large increase, and fulfilling the expectations and desires of the people of England. If there had not been a large increase, the Treaty would be as waste paper, and we should have been disappointed. But let me show the House

  341
  something respecting a point the hon. and learned Member did not refer to, and that is, that although the French have sent here an increase of rather more than £3,000,000 per annum of silk manufactures since the establishment of the Treaty, during the same time they have exported to the United States nearly £3,000,000 less than they did before; that from 1854 to 1860, the seven years before the Treaty, the French exports to the States were £4,100,000, and that during the seven years since the annual exports to America were £1,400,000, showing an actual decrease of £2,700,000, which goes a long way to balance the extra trade they have done with us, amounting to £3,200,000. I think there has not been any increase at all of silk manufactures exported from Prance, for I find that from 1854 to 1860 the total exports from France were rather more than they were during the seven years since the Treaty—that is, they were £16,500,000 in the former seven years, and £15,968,000 in the latter, showing a decrease of more than £500,000. This proves that there has been no great increase in the silk trade in France; and we are led to the conclusion that there has been some great influence at work in France, as well as in England, to produce great disaster to the French trade as well as the English, and that both countries would have suffered from these influences if the French Treaty had never been imagined. The hon. and learned Member says—"Let us not have excuses that there is dearness of silk." The hon. and learned Member does not use much raw material in his profession, but if he was a manufacturer of cotton he would know that during the last eight years the diminished supply of cotton has brought ruin to the trade of Lancashire, and that hardly anything which has befallen the silk trade can be said to be as disheartening as what befell the cotton trade during those eight years as simply the result of the high price of raw material. The hon. and learned Member's Colleague (Mr. Eaton) knows perfectly well that, in 1867, the price of raw silk was just double what it was in 1855: and when an article of that costly nature, even at the cheapest, is doubled in price, only conceive the loss; why, there must be almost nothing left for wages and profit, and thus we can
  342
  readily see what a great effect the high price of the raw material has upon the trade. The hon. and learned Member says—"Do not tell us about the American market;" but the American market was a very great one for France; in 1856 the French export of silk manufactures to America were not less than £10,500,000; in 1863 they fell to less than £1,000,000; the annual totals run £10,000,000, £7,000,000, £5,000,000, £8,000,000, £6,000,000, £1,000,000, £1,000,000, £970,000, £1,000,000, £1,500,000, and £3,500,000. Thus the failure of the American market has had the greatest possible effect upon France; and it is not Coventry, Macclesfield, and Spitalfields alone that have been suffering, St. Etienne has suffered as much. The distress in Lyons for several years past has been somewhat painful. Nor has the American failure had no effect upon our silk trade. The goods the French were accustomed to send to America and had prepared for the purpose came here; no doubt the export to this country was increased by the abolition of the 10 per cent duty, but the main cause was the shutting of the American market, and the result has been the distress which I deplore as much as any man. It is a curious fact that, since 1860, the actual export of silk manufactures from England seems scarcely to have fallen at all, notwithstanding the greatly increased imports from France. During the seven years, before 1860, our exports were £1,500,000, and during the seven years since they were £1,327,000—a decrease of not more than £150,000. I am, therefore, brought irresistibly to the conclusion that dear silk and the American War, and after the American War a war against trade, scarcely less destructive, the war of the American tariff, all have been causes of this depression. In opposition to the hon. and learned Gentleman, too, I am informed that there has been a very great change of fashion, which has had something to do with the sufferings of his constituents. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman dates his knowledge of the Coventry district from the day of his election; but if he has gone back for a longer period he will know, as his Colleague does, that during the last fifty years there has been no trade which has been the subject of such fluctuations as the silk trade, and no other trade which

  343
  has so often come to this House, and sometimes to the Palace, to ask for relief. Frequent appeals have been made to the leaders of fashion to stimulate the trade. I am not here to deny the existence of sufferings in the silk trade. I have acquaintances and friends in Manchester and Coventry in that trade, nor do I deny that the French Treaty has added to those sufferings; but I say this combination of circumstances is sufficient to account for almost all we have seen, and when these circumstances disappear, in all probability we may find in all these centres of the silk trade some considerable and early revival. Perhaps the House is not aware that the silk trade was treated much more generously by the Treaty than any other trade; goods made of pure silk in which, no doubt, the French thought they could beat us, are admitted free, and it is only on the mixed goods a duty is imposed. And it may be new to some hon. Members that we get a large quantity of our ribbons from Switzerland free of duty, and the 3¾ per cent on foreign ribbons imposed by France is much more directed against Switzerland than us. To think the abolition of the 3¾ per cent of duty would make a difference is an idle dream, which no intelligent man should foster. But I believe these times of suffering are passing away already. I have had a letter from one of the most extensive and influential manufacturers in the neighbourhood of Manchester assuring me that he is satisfied with the prospect of things. He says—"The Treaty was a serious thing to us, because it came combined with other things for which none of us looked;" but he expresses a belief that the silk manufacture is likely to do much better now than it has done for many years past. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Brocklehurst, and Mr. Chadwick) might have told us that things were looking better. It is perfectly well known that there has been a revival of the Coventry ribbon trade; for the manufacturers there have discovered how to meet the competition of the Swiss by dyeing the goods in the cloth instead of dyeing them in the yarn as the Swiss do, and they have much improved the manufacture of what were called gray satins, in which the Swiss defied competition. The hon. and learned Gentleman certainly comes here with this
  344
  piteous complaint at a very inopportune time; we know that, at this moment, a hopeful feeling enlivens his constituancy, and I think the circumstances certainly should have prevented him making so dismal a story. Now, as to an inquiry. The Government can have no object in doing anything but the best for the trade of the country in its power; the facts are all known; the hon. Members for Macclesfield and Coventry are both largely concerned in the silk trade, and could tell us all we wish to know of the exports and imports that we may not be acquainted with already; if, however, there is anything they cannot tell us, I am sure I could find some one in the Board of Trade who would help us. If we had a Committee, we should find that there was a duty of about 4 per cent on pure silk goods, and that on silks mixed with cotton there are higher duties, which I much regret; it is not to be expected that the French Government are willing to undertake a general reduction of their tariff; and it is not to be expected that while the French charged a duty on woollens and cottons any result would be obtained by a Commission recommending the reduction of duties on silks mixed with cotton. I must express my deep regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made it a question of Protection. [Mr. STAVELEY HILL made a gesture of dissent.] Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of having a heavy weapon in his armour; at least I know he used two or three metaphors about this matter, pointing to the recommendation that if the French did not do what we wanted them to do, we were to do something which would be very impleasant to them; in fact, that we were to threaten to put on some heavy duties. But some of the hon. and learned Members' constituents have called upon me at the Board of Trade. I think the chairman of the Coventry Chamber of Commerce was among them, with other intelligent gentlemen, and though they were not all of this political party, there was not one of them for a moment dreaming of a return to protection for improving the trade of Coventry. All that they asked for was that the Government should endeavour to get the small duties, principally on ribbons, removed, and the duties on mixed goods reduced, by making repre-

  345
  sentations to the French Government. Now, that is exactly what the Government would try to do any day if it thought such a thing could possibly be done. The hon. and learned Member must remember that Protection in France is as strong now as it was here thirty years ago on those Benches where he sits, and it is not a case that can be met by such inquiry as he asks for. Although, at this period of the Session, it would not be desirable to have an inquiry at all, still, if any advantage were expected from it, I would recommend that it be not confined to the silk trade, but should be on some broader basis. I think, however, it would be better to postpone it until the beginning of next Session, when there would be time to consider the question properly as affecting the whole of the interests touched by the Treaty. I, therefore, ask the House not to consent to an inquiry now, and not to consent to an inquiry at all specially directed to the silk trade, because the effect of it would be most unfortunate even to all those connected with the trade. Should this inquiry be granted, we should have in all those centres where the silk trade is carried on, hopes stimulated which would never be realized. It may be presumptuous in me to complain of the conduct of the hon. and learned Member, but I cannot refrain from observing that it is the duty of Members of this House, who are chosen men, never to mislead the people, to whom we are accustomed to speak at our elections; but that we should, if possible, lead them on to the conception of and appreciation of sound principles; —[Opposition Cheers.]—I am glad to find a general assent to that proposition, but the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the speech which he made now nearly a year ago, made some observations which I think, if he will allow me to say so, would have been better omitted; and on the 4th of June in this year he said—
  "I shall bring the subject before the Government and the country, and see whether I can wring from those in power—for that is the only way in which it can be obtained—something which can lead to an alteration of things at the present time."
  Now, it was not fair to me to say that, nor fair to the Government. My right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown has done more than any man to
  346
  make taxation equal and give to all industries the freest course; and the hon. and learned Member has formed an unfair opinion of me if he thinks it is necessary to wring from me an act of justice to the working population. I trust the hon. and learned Member will explain to his constituency the whole case as it was admitted to me by the deputation which called on me; that he will disabuse the minds of his constituents of the false notions with which they are now filled; that he will tell them that, while they were doing all they could to revive their trade, the Government is anxiously watching for any opportunity which will give them the slightest chance of successfully urging the French Government to make a more satisfactory bargain with us. I have not exaggerated the case in the least. I sympathize with the condition of the silk weavers; and, if next year sufficient cause for inquiry shall be shown, the Government will readily grant it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he knew as much about Coventry as the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Board of Trade) did, and he admitted there was a partial revival of one small particular branch of the silk industry there. But there was a falling off in the trade of that district of one-third of what it was formerly. He bore testimony to the truth of the statements of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill) in respect to the rapidity with which Mr. Cobden negotiated the Treaty. Immediately after that Treaty came into operation he happened to be a member of the Committee for the relief of the distress that ensued. What was the state of that distress? They had 22,000 people of Coventry looking to the Committee for relief, who could not obtain assistance under the Poor Law. He thought the Members for Coventry would bear him out in this statement—that there was not one-sixth of the master manufacturers in Coventry solvent. In 1861, there were 1,600 houses there empty, 1,000 more for which no rent was paid, and 500 vacant in one district, which had occupants the previous year. He had communicated with Mr. Cobden at that time on the subject, and that Gentleman, admitting the great distress that existed, gave him a donation towards its relief. Knowing all these circumstances, he thought it

  347
  was not unreasonable for Ms hon. Friend to ask for an inquiry before this Treaty was renewed There was a remarkable want of diplomatic knowledge in the framing of this Treaty. He trusted that its terms would be more carefully considered before it was renewed. Protection had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. Now he (Mr. Newdegate) was talking Protection in that House for twenty years, but he did not recommend it now. Whenever anything was said on that side of the House upon such subjects as this the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends around him became alarmed, and charged them with a desire to renew the Protection duties. He (Mr. Newdegate) however, contended that this treaty was wholly inconsistent with the principles of Free Trade. There never was a greater violation of the doctrine of Free Trade passed into a law by a Government professing to be ardent Free Traders than the execution of the commercial Treaty between England and France. It was a one-sided bargain into which the Government would not allow the House to inquire. It was not impossible, however, that the French Government would pay some attention to the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. To show the silk trade of Coventry was not an exception to the silk trade throughout the kingdom, he might state that, according to the Board of Trade Returns, the value of the manufactured silk imported into this country, between 1859 and 1867, had exactly trebled in value, while the value of the exports had not increased at all. Exactly to the extent of the increase had been the displacement of English labour and English produce from the effect of the treaty with France. The right hon. Gentleman had advised them to wait till next year before instituting an inquiry. But probably next year they would find that the whole matter had been arranged and then they would be told, as they had formerly been told, that they could not disturb the terms of a treaty after it had been negotiated. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman whose name stood at the head of Free Traders should refuse an inquiry by a Committee on the question of the renewal of the French Treaty, when asked to do so, at the only time when such an inquiry could be attended with practical results, because in
  348
  all probability next year they would find that the Treaty had been concluded.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he did not deny that depression existed in the silk trade; but he was glad to say that his constituents were too enlightened to wish for the abrogation of the French Treaty with this country, as they were well aware of the benefits which had resulted from it. He admitted that there were in Paisley now only 2,000 weavers, where formerly there had been 8,000; but the majority had betaken themselves to other employments, and were in a better condition now than formerly. At the same time he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman granted a Committee of Inquiry into this matter. He had confidence in the right hon. Gentleman so far as to believe that he would grant the inquiry at the time which best suited the interests of the nation, and if he did so he hoped it would be extended to other places besides Coventry and Macclesfield.
  MR. BENTINCKpointed out that one of the results of the French Treaty had been to limit the export of first-class articles, because the French placed such high protective duties upon this description of goods that their entrance into France was virtually prohibited. He would illustrate his argument by a reference to the carpet trade. At the present moment there was a large export of carpets to France, but the goods were of the lowest priced and worst description, and made for the sole purpose of underselling the foreign producers. English manufacturers could not send their best carpets to France on account of the duties, while French manufacturers sent their best goods to England without restriction. An Axminster carpet, for instance, was subjected in France to an ad valorem duty from 15 to 25 per cent, while an Audubusson carpet could be sold in London at the same price as in Paris. Was this condition of things then satisfactory to the English trade? He (Mr. Bentinck) contended it was not, and that their demand for reciprocity was simple justice. The President of the Board of Trade had taunted his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) with having misled the working men of Coventry upon his own intentions, and upon the facts of this case, but he (Mr. Bentinck) charged the President of the Board of Trade with having misled the country

  349
  with regard to the action of the Conservative party when the French Treaty was under discussion in the House. The President of the Board of Trade when he starred in the provinces, and exhibited himself on platforms, was accustomed to say that the Conservatives had opposed the French Treaty, and had thus endeavoured to deprive the country of an immense benefit. He (Mr. Bentinck) desired to say, without reserve, that these statements were utterly without foundation. He and his political friends never opposed the Treaty, contrary, as it was, to the principles of Free Trade. As a treaty they had supported it, but they held that the bargain was one-sided, and that without fair reciprocity it was too much to the advantage of France. Had not events proved that this view was correct? That very debate was an admission of the case, for every Member on the Government side who had risen had cried "more reciprocity," and virtually assented to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend. He was glad to have had the opportunity of thus publicly correcting the misrepresentations of the occupants of the Treasury Bench and their friends so systematically made on the hustings and elsewhere, relative to the point to which he had adverted. He was also surprised the President of the Board of Trade should have endeavoured to throw ridicule upon his hon. and learned Friend by reading a letter. The argument he deduced was far fetched indeed; but he thought his hon. and learned Friend had a right to treat that letter after the same fashion that another letter with which the House was familiar, and which had been the subject of discussion last evening (Mr. Bright's letter to the Birmingham meeting), had been treated by the First Minister of the Crown, and therefore repudiate it altogether. The arrangement with France was no Treaty at all, but a mere capitulation and surrender for the benefit of Manchester; and as Manchester had now discovered that all was not gold that glittered, he trusted the House would agree to grant the Committee, whose labours could do no harm and. might effect great good to the suffering trade of the country.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that all trades were suffering—even those which had no French competition to complain of. The high rate of the United States tariff
  350
  was seriously injuring the trade of that country; the ship-building trade was, in consequence, going to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Having lived near Coventry all his life, he could state that before the Treaty the silk trade was always in a state of alternate distress and prosperity. Just before the Treaty there was a period of great distress arising out of a strike. There could be no doubt that the war in America and the change of fashion had been productive of the present distress. There was no necessity for this particular inquiry, but there was for general inquiry, because trade generally was bad. He never knew trade to be worse, and he regretted to say he saw no prospect of improvement. He attributed it to the frightful swindle of limited liability.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that one branch of the silk trade with which he was connected, although it had absolutely no competition, was nearly extinct owing to the change of fashion and the high price of the raw material. Fine cotton, fine wool, and mixed goods had taken the place of silk goods. The trade also suffered from the American tariff having been raised against us. Coventry had suffered from a variety of causes, from protected industry, from Free Trade, alteration of fashions, and other matters. And Nottingham had suffered in the same way with reference to silk lace. The hats with feathers of sea birds now worn by ladies displaced silk bonnets and silk ribbons. The duty on Coventry ribbons going to France was not more than 3 per cent. He could not see what the Committee could do for the silk trade which could not be better done by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. He believed that by adopting improvements of taste and manufacture, and keeping pace with other countries, the silk interests of Coventry, Manchester, and Macclesfield would regain their place in the industries of this country. So deficient was this country in scientific knowledge that English manufacturers sent silk in large quantities to France to be dyed. It was a great mistake to consider that every article imported displaced British manufactures in consumption, for since the duties had been taken off, foreign buyers came to England to purchase French and German goods.
  MR. PHILIPSsaid, he agreed with

  351
  the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in attributing the depression in the silk trade to a certain extent to the high price of the raw material.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 101: Majority 54.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he wished to call the attention of Mr. Attorney General to the following Acts —6th of Queen Anne, 1 Geo. I., stat. 2, cap. 56, and 26 Vic, cap. 26, sec. 11; and to ask, if, having due regard to these statutes, a recipient of a yearly allowance from the Treasury, in consequence of abolition of office, but under the age of sixty, and liable to serve again, is disqualified from sitting and voting as a Member of Parliament?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was clearly of opinion that he was not disqualified. If there were any disqualification, it would be removed by the Bill then in progress through Parliament.

IRELAND—MURDER OF MR. ANKETELL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. POLLAED-UEQUHAETsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the injustice inflicted on the ratepayers of the town of Mullingar by charging them with the expense of the extra Police Force stationed in that town, in consequence of the murder of Mr. Anketell.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that Mr. Anketell's murder having been, as was believed, the result of combination, an extra police force became necessary for the protection of the peaceable inhabitants, and the Government had only done its duty by exercising the powers entrusted to it in such cases by the Legislature. The inhabitants in such cases were liable for the expense, but of course no imputation was meant to be cast upon them. The magistrates of the district had unanimously recommended that an extra force should be sent down, and had since recommended its continuance. The whole expense for
  352
  the three months had been £115, or a rate of 4d. in the pound on a rental of £7,000.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  MILITIA PAY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to defray the Charge of the Pay, Clothing, and contingent and other Expenses of the Disembodied Militia in Great Britain and Ireland; to grant Allowances in certain cases to Subaltern Officers, Adjutants, Paymasters, Quartermasters, Surgeons, Assistant Surgeons, and Surgeons Mates of the Militia; and to authorize the employment of the Noncommissioned Officers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, and Captain VIVIAN.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.