Lords Sitting of 24 July 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a Income and Land Taxes; Stamp Duties; Racehorse Duty; Coastguard Service; Corrupt Practices Prevention; General Board of Health Continuance; Militia Pay; Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer; Lunatic Asylums Act Amendment; Deeds (Scotland); Judicial Procedure, &c. (Scotland); Criminal Justice; Poor Law Amendment (Scotland); Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland).

THE MUTINY AT NENAGH—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked the Secretary for War what course the Government intended to pursue for the purpose of bringing to justice the mutineers at Nenagh—whether they proposed to have them punished under the civil or military law? He would add, that he felt it his duty to bear testimony to the promptitude, energy, and decision which were shown by General Chatterton, the general commanding the district, in putting down the mutiny.
LORD PANMUREsaid, he would state at once that the mutiny at Nenagh would be dealt with by the Government with the utmost firmness. Their Lordships were aware that in the course of the mutiny various outrages were committed, including one case of murder, and three serious cases of assault. According to the regulations observed in the army, as well as in civil life, the accused parties in those cases would be delivered over to the civil tribunals, to be proceeded against by them. He was happy to state that he had received from the authorities in Ireland information which led him to believe that the ringleaders in the mutiny would be identified and speedily brought to justice. Those offenders who had been guilty of purely military offences would be dealt with by the military authorities. He thought it right to bear testimony to the admirable behaviour of the whole of the rest of the Irish militia, and he was assured by the Secretary for Ireland that such of the Irish militia as had returned home were perfectly contented with the terms on which they had been dismissed. He wished, also, to bear testimony to the energy and zeal of General Chatterton, in the discharge of the grave and responsible duties which were entrusted to him on the occasion of this unfortunate occurrence.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had that morning been examining some
1348
papers in reference to the militia, which enabled him to confirm the terms of praise in which the noble Lord the Secretary for War had spoken of the Irish militia. He found that, while the desertions, or, more properly speaking, the absences from muster had been 23½ per cent in the English militia and 20 per cent in the Scotch militia, they had been less than 5 per cent in the Irish militia. In the same manner, while the enlistments into the regular army were 7¼ per cent from the English militia and 14½ from the Scotch, they had been 21 per cent from the Irish militia. So that the Irish militia was incomparably the most valuable militia force of the three.

THE LEGION OF HONOUR—DISTRIBU TION TO THE ENGLISH ARMY— QUESTION.
LORD CALTHORPEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for War a question in reference to the recent distribution of the Legion of Honour among the officers of the English army. He had recently read a list of those officers, and he was surprised to find that not one of the aides-de-camp of the late Lord Raglan was included in it. After the battle of Inkerman, the Emperor of the French notified to Lord Raglan his wish to confer on him the highest rank of the Legion of Honour, and to bestow decorations on the officers of his staff. Lord Raglan, about the end of November or the beginning of December, wrote to the English Government to obtain their permission to accept these honours, but he obtained no answer until about five weeks before his death—an interval of six months. After the death of Lord Raglan, Marshal Pelissier intimated to the French Government that it would be paying a just and proper respect to the memory of the noble Lord if they were to bestow some decorations on his staff. This suggestion was approved by the Emperor, and it was communicated to the English Government, but nothing more had been heard of the matter, until the general distribution of the French honours took place, when it was thought that the claims of Lord Raglan's staff would not be overlooked. When it was considered that the French Government had intimated their wish that the decorations should be distributed as a mark of respect to the memory of Lord Raglan, he was justified in saying that the exclusion of these officers from the number of those who received the decorations appeared

1349
like a slur on Lord Raglan's memory. He therefore asked the noble Lord why the names of these officers were omitted from the list of those receiving the decorations, and whether the English Government had not received some communication from the French Government with respect to their wishes on the subject?
THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, it appeared to him very extraordinary that the staff of Lord Raglan had not received the decorations which were certainly intended for them, and he could not help thinking that there had been some mistake. One officer who was well known, and who had been with Lord Raglan at the Alma and Inkerman, and remained with him up to his death—he meant Colonel Somerset, one of his aides-de-camp—had told him (the Duke of Cleveland) that he had been in constant communication, on the part of Lord Raglan, with the three French commanders—St. Arnaud, Canrobert, and Pelissier—and that He had heard them distinctly say that it was the most anxious wish of the Emperor that all his staff should receive the decoration of the Legion of Honour; and, as the noble Lord had just stated, the Emperor himself, after the battle of Inkerman, sent an intimation to Lord Raglan that he would receive the highest decoration of the Legion of Honour, and that all his personal staff would also be decorated.
LORD COLCHESTERconsidered that these decorations had been given away in a rather incautious manner. A friend of his, commanding a line of battle ship, had received from his own Sovereign the Order of the Bath, but in the distribution of the French honours he was passed over, although it had been given to his first lieutenant, although that officer, however meritorious, had never seen any land service.
LORD PANMUREreminded the House that nothing gave so much dissatisfaction as the distribution of military honours. With regard to the general question as to the distribution of the Cross of the Legion of Honour given by the French Emperor to the army of the Queen, he would, in the first place, state that he was not responsible for the selection of the different officers. When the intentions of the Emperor were made known to the English Government through the Foreign Office, the Commander in Chief instructed the commanders of the army in the East, Generals Simpson and Codrington, to return a list of the names, and that list was afterwards sent to the French Government. Therefore, if any
1350
complaint were made as to the manner of the selection, the responsibility did not rest with the Government. But, at the same time, he was quite convinced that both General Simpson and General Codrington made the selection in accordance with the opinions they had formed of the services rendered by the different officers, and with a view to a fair distribution of the honours throughout the army; and he believed that they had acted in an impartial manner, and without favour or affection. In reference to the question of the noble Baron, he had to state that he had inquired at the Foreign Office whether there was any communication with regard to the distribution of the Order of the Legion of Honour to Lord Raglan or his staff; and the answer he had received was, that there was no trace in the office of any correspondence on the subject; nor could he trace any correspondence on the subject in his own department. But it was probable that the intimation of the French Emperor, as to his conferring these decorations, might be found in the private correspondence of Lord Raglan to his (Lord Panmure's) predecessor. It was wrong to suppose that there was any disposition to cast a slur upon the memory of Lord Raglan. There was not an officer on his staff who had not received one or two steps of promotion, or had not been decorated with the Companionship of the Bath from his own Sovereign. With regard to Colonel Somerset, that officer went out as lieutenant-colonel in Lord Raglan's staff. He had only just received his lieutenant-colonelcy, and was too young to be promoted over the heads of a vast number of lieutenant colonels who were senior to him. However, he had been made a C.B. It was impossible that the general commanding in chief or Her Majesty's Government could be accused of having shown any disposition to cast a slur on the memory of Lord Raglan.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he could not understand how any officer could desire to wear a decoration vicariously, not on account of his own merits, but on account of the merits of the General under whom he had served. Honours were valueless unless they were bestowed for the services of those who wore them. At the commencement of the last war he had ventured to suggest the principle—the only true and correct principle—that no man should receive a decoration except for service under fire. A decoration given for any other kind of service was a deception

1351
upon the public, and did no honour to the gentleman who received it. He knew several good officers who were entitled to decorations under general rules, but who had refused to wear them on the ground that they did not come within the principle he had stated. He had heard that all the officers and seamen employed in the Baltic fleet were to receive decorations. Why, hardly any of those men had the opportunity of being under fire; hardly 300 of them were ever within reach of shot! It was no fault of theirs, and they had rendered great services in another way—fighting was almost the least part of a sailor's duty—but they were not entitled to a medal. To give them a medal would be contrary to all the principles on which honorary distinctions were granted by nations for the purpose of encouraging military ambition. He had read the list of persons who were to receive honour from the French Government, and there seemed to him to be a profound misconception as to the relative value of the individuals on whom honours were to be bestowed. This was not the first instance, for at the close of the last war the same thing was done to a limited extent; but he hoped it would be the last instance of an interchange of honours between nations; officers should be made to know that they must look to their own Sovereign, and to their own Sovereign alone, for the honours they earned by their service in the field. That was the true principle, and any departure from it was likely to lead to mischievous results.
THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDremarked that the officers to whom he had alluded had been under fire.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHunderstood the noble Lord who had commenced the discussion to complain that a reflection had been cast upon Lord Raglan by no honours being granted to the gentlemen upon his staff. He inferred, therefore, that they claimed these honours in consideration of the services of Lord Raglan.
LORD CALTHORPEsaid, that the services of Lord Raglan's aides-de-camp had been seen and acknowledged by all the French commanders.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that aides-de-camp were not, generally speaking, ill-treated men. They usually received a larger sharp of promotions, and honours, and were subjected to less hardship than regimental officers.

MARRIAGE LAW (SCOTLAND) AMENDING BILL.
Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, that the said Amendments be agreed to.
LORD PORTMANbegged to remind their Lordships of a Standing Order passed in 1707, by which the Lord Chancellor was obliged to explain to the House any Amendments made by the Commons in Bills sent down by their Lordships, and was glad that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack generally observed that rule. It was, however, quite impossible that the Lord Chancellor could find time to discharge this necessary and important duty, and he would, therefore, suggest to the Government the propriety of transferring it to some one else. He would, therefore, give notice of his intention, next Session, to move that no Amendments should be proposed on the third reading of a public Bill, unless such Amendments had been printed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Lord seemed to be unaware that he had already announced, on the part of the Government, their intention to propose, in the next Session of Parliament, the appointment of an officer connected with both Houses of Parliament, whose duty it would be to supervise the legislation of public Bills, and who would therefore take cognisance of the Amendments made by either House on the Bills passed by the other.
Agreed to.

MERCANTILE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLORdeeply regretted that the House of Commons had thought fit to reject a clause in this Bill which had been strenuously opposed in this House, as their Lordships would remember, by Lord Overstone. He, however, moved that the Commons' Amendments to the Bill be agreed to.
Agreed to.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Commons' Amendments to One of the Lords' Amendments, and their Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords' Amendments, considered (according to Order).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was sorry to find that the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) intended to persist in

1353
the Amendments he had succeeded in introducing in this House, notwithstanding the disagreement of the House of Commons from those Amendments. Knowing, however, the authority which the noble Duke possessed with their Lordships, and that he commanded a majority of that House, he (the Duke of Argyll) should not think it worth while to trouble their Lordships with a division; but would simply say "Not content" to the Motion that this House do insist upon the Amendments made by them in this Bill. In his opinion, the principal fault in the present Bill was, that it gave to the heritors too much power in the choice of schoolmasters, and not power enough to the ratepayers. He must repeat his regret that this Bill, which was a compromise between the two parties in Scotland, was not agreed to by the noble Duke. He conceived that they must fall back in Scotland upon what was called the denominational system. In England there could be no doubt that that system, under the aids granted by the Committee of Privy Council, had, on the whole, operated in favour of the Established Church. In Scotland he did not believe that it would operate in the same manner. There was a feeling of jealousy and dislike on the part of the Free Church against the great landowners of Scotland, which was aroused in 1843, and which, he was sorry to say, had not yet diminished. They had in Scotland a great rival body conducting most successfully a system of education.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that he should insist upon the Amendments of their Lordships, with the exception of the first. The compromise of which his noble Friend spoke he regarded as nothing else than the yielding up of the great principle upon which the parochial schools of Scotland were founded. Something had been said in another place respecting the application of the "screw;" but he understood it had been held out that if this Bill did not pass, the schoolmasters would receive no salary, and be left to starve; if the term "screw" was applicable to anything at all, surely it might be to a threat like that. As to introducing the influence of the ratepayers—in many parishes of Scotland there were no ratepayers at all, and the heritors were the only persons to whom the schoolmasters could look for maintenance and support. So far as the Bill carried out the principle laid down in the preamble—"That it was expedient to
1354
make further provision for schoolmasters," there could be no objection to it; but he did object to the mode in which it proceeded to alter and regulate the system of schools. What was a good argument for dealing with the schools might hereafter be an equally good argument for the Church, and he looked upon the measure, in short, as but a first step towards a direct attack upon the Establishment. It was only in 1850 that his noble Friend delivered a speech in which he argued that the present system of education in Scotland was a national system; and certainly it was not more national then than it was at this moment. The education was not confined to one sect, for the children of parents of all denominations were freely admitted into the schools and received their instruction there; and the only objection which the noble Duke and some of his Friends could urge against it was, that they could not subscribe to the formula of the Church of Scotland. He (the Duke of Buccleuch) assured his noble Friend that he had no personal hostility whatever towards the Free Church. So far from that, a large number of persons for whom he entertained the highest respect, and also several of his own intimate friends, were members of that communion. If, therefore, there was any personal feeling mixed up in the matter it was on the part of others, not his. He should insist upon all their Lordships' Amendments with the exception of the first.
LORD PANMUREsaid, he was afraid that the opposition to this Bill rested on an unfounded opinion that it was chiefly advocated by the Free Church of Scotland; but, in truth, it mattered little to that Church, as a Church, whether the Bill passed or not. He should not abandon the hope that, at some future time, the parochial schools would be placed on a more reasonable footing than at present.
Then it was moved, not to insist on Clause A., added by the Lords to the Bill, to which the Commons disagree; agreed to: Then it was moved, to agree to the Amendment made by the Commons reinstating Clauses XII. and XIV.; on Question, Resolved in the Negative: Then it was moved, not to insist on the Omission of Clause XVIII., to which the Commons disagree; on Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Affirmative; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to One of the Commons Amendments

1355
to the Lords Amendments, and insisting on One of the Lords Amendments to which the Commons disagree: The Committee to meet immediately: The Committee reported Reasons prepared by them; the same were read, and agreed to; and a Message was Ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the Bill, with the Amendments and Reasons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.