Sitting of 25 May 1849

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Ashley, from Wigtown, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill; and
976
from St. Cuthbert Stella, County of Durham, against the Sunday Travelling on Railways Bill By Colonel Tynte, from Bridgwater, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from the County of Devon, for Agricultural Relief.—By Mr. Reynolds, from Dublin, against a certain proposed Amendment of the Attachments, Courts of Record (Ireland), Bill; and from Ardce, for an Alteration of the Law respecting Spirits (Ireland).—By Mr. W. Lockhart, from Glasgow, against the Lunatics (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Ogle, from the Hexham Union, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.—By Sir R. Bulkeley, from the Guardians of the Anglesey Union, for an Alteration of the Poor Law Union Charges Act; and from Llangeinwen, County of Anglesey, for the formation of Treaties by which International Disputes may be referred to the Decision of Arbitrators.—By Mr. Pearson, from a Meeting held at the Literary and Scientific Institution of London, suggesting an improved System of Prison Discipline.—By Mr. O. Morgan, from Bassalleg, Monmouthshire, for the Punishment of the Promoters of Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Mr. Alexander Hastie, from Ministers of the United Presbyterian Church, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Pinney, from Weston-super-Mare, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Lord John Chichester, from the Donegal Square Wesleyan Church Congregation, for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.—By Captain Pechell, from Brighton, for an Alteration of the Small Debts Act.

ARMY CLOTHING.
MR. LUSHINGTONwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War whether he had any objection to express an opinion with regard to a petition presented to the House by a tradesman named Dowie, complaining that an unfavourable and erroneous construction had been placed by the Adjutant General on a report from the Clothing Board relative to the patent boot proposed by the petitioner for adoption in the Army? The petition had been referred to the Committee on the Army Estimates, but that Committee had discontinued its sittings during the present Session.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, his authority was confined to the financial branch of the Army—that he had nothing whatever to do with the clothing, discipline, or command of the Army. The person alluded to had, it appeared, taken out a patent for a certain description of boot, which had been tried and approved of by some commanding officers and men. He then applied to have it made a "sealed pattern;" but the board of general officers refused to adopt it as the sealed pattern for the Army, though they stated that they saw no reason why soldiers should not be allowed to purchase these boots at their own private expense. That permission, he did not know why, had not been carried into effect, and he believed that it was of that which the petitioner complained.
Subject at an end.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
LORD J. RUSSELLmoved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Thursday next.
MR. HERRIEShoped that the Government would give some explanation as to the course which they intended to pursue after the adjournment with regard to the miscellaneous estimates.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the miscellaneous estimates would be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. He had expected that they would have been delivered that day, but he was disappointed.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that as the estimates were not in the hands of Members before the adjournment, it was not proper or reasonable that they should be pressed forward on the first day that the House again met.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he had hoped that the miscellaneous estimates would have been in the hands of Members that day, and the Government had made their arrangements accordingly. It was well known that many of the miscellaneous estimates were the same from year to year, and where new votes were proposed, he would have no objection to allow them to stand over.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that the civil contingencies had been printed that morning, and there could be no objection to going on with them on Thursday.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he had proposed taking the civil contingencies on Friday.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the noble Lord made the budget contingent on the miscellaneous estimates, and as there was to be a delay in the latter, there would, he supposed, be a farther delay in the financial statement. He would be glad if the noble Lord could assure the House that the financial statement was not contingent on the miscellaneous estimates.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he could not give such an assurance, because the budget would depend a good deal on the miscellaneous estimates. He thought it was more important that public Bills should be proceeded with in the early part of the Session, than the budget, because it was not desirable that the House of Lords should complain, as they had just reason of doing last year, of important Bills being sent up to them near the close of the Session.
MR. DISRAELIreminded the noble Lord that he had himself expressed an opinion last year that the financial statement ought not to be put off to a late period of the Session.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he understood that the arrangement they were now about making was this, that they were not to have the budget until some time later than the middle of June, unless they made progress with the miscellaneous estimates immediately after the recess. Now, he understood the reason of that delay to be this, that until the Government knew what progress the House would make in the miscellaneous estimates, they would not feel themselves in a condition to make their financial statement. That implied a doubt as to the votes the House would agree to; and surely if there were ground for such doubts, it was right that the House should know what these estimates were to be before they were called upon to vote them. They had not, however, up to this moment, got the miscellaneous estimates, or even the usual abstract of them; and he hoped, therefore, that it would not be hereafter alleged that the House had imposed any delay in refusing to go into the miscellaneous estimates on first day after the recess.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be satisfactory if the House could know what was the connexion between the miscellaneous estimates and the budget. He thought there had been no year in which the budget had not been brought forward before any considerable progress had been made in the miscellaneous estimates.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he always understood that there should be considerable progress made in the votes of supply before the financial statement of the year was made—that is, always supposing that there was no extraordinary circumstances which obliged the Government to bring forward the financial statement in the early part of the year. This year the miscellaneous estimates unfortunately formed a large item in the expenditure for the year.
Subject dropped.

FAMINE IN IRELAND.
MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, that he wished to ask a question of the noble Lord at the head of the Government with regard to a horrible occurrence that was reported to have taken place in the western part of Ireland. It was stated that a corpse

979
having been washed on shore by the waves, a portion of it had been actually' carried away and eaten by some of the starving people who lived on the coast of the bay. He wished to know if the Government had received any authentic information with regard to this frightful transaction?
MR. POULETT SCROPEsaid, that before the noble Lord answered the question, he could not refrain from saying one word expressive of the strong conviction which pressed upon his mind with regard to the enormous responsibility which lay with that House, the Legislature, and, above all, with the Government, to prevent, as far as possible, the frightful destruction and waste of human life now going on in Ireland. The poor-law had been passed with the view of preventing such loss of life from taking place; but as at present administered it failed to do so. It was notorious to the world that at this moment hundreds were dying, and thousands were in daily expectation of death, in Ireland. The papers were filled with reports such as that to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kerry alluded. In one place twenty persons were found dead; in another, Westport, twenty-eight died in one week alone by famine. Mr. Ward, of Ballinrobe, stated that more than 700 families were wandering about the neighbourhood without a house to cover them, seeking shelter in the ditches at night, and dying there, and then buried without coffins, after being perhaps disfigured by rats and dogs. He would not harrow the House by going through the list of similar cases which he held in his hand; but he would ask, who was responsible for this frightful destruction of life, such as no country in the world professing to be civilised ever before exhibited, much less a country possessing the vast capital and wealth of this empire? Here people were enjoying themselves in luxury and plenty, spending night and day in amusement and recreation, while their fellow-subjects were thus perishing by wholesale of famine. But were not the people of England able and willing to provide at least the relief which the commissioners stated to be sufficient to maintain life in those wretched people—namely, three farthings a day per bead, until next harvest? He believed that the Government would experience no want of sympathy in this country, and no want of willingness on the part of that House, to pass any measures that they
980
might consider necessary. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether, seeing that the commissioners had in vain endeavoured to procure aid, and that the boards of guardians had no funds or means of procuring them, he did not think the responsibility attached to the Government to bring forward such measures as may be necessary to meet the existing destitution?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for the county of Kerry, that he had not received any official statement with regard to the horrible occurrence which that hon. Member had mentioned; nor had he any reason to know that the fact had actually taken place. He should, however, feel it his duty to make immediate inquiry into the matter. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Stroud, as to the degree of responsibility that attached to the Government for the melancholy events that were occurring in Ireland, he could only say, that the hon. Gentleman must be aware of what had passed in the House at the beginning of the Session, when the Government asked for 50,000 l. for the relief of those who would otherwise have perished from destitution. The hon. Gentleman must likewise be aware of what had taken place with respect to the rate in aid. The sums which had been issued by the Government in anticipation of those rates was 30,000 l. He (Lord J. Russell), therefore, thought Her Majesty's Government had done all that it was in their power to do. He did not think that any efforts that House could make, would, in the present unfortunate state of Ireland, be capable of preventing the dreadful scenes of suffering and of death that were now occurring in Ireland. He distinctly repeated that he did not believe it was in the power of that House to do so. Certainly, with the very strong objections that had been made even to those limited measures which the Government had proposed, he did not feel that he was justified in asking the House for an additional advance of 100,000 l., which at least would be necessary if the House should say that there should be no possible case of starvation in Ireland.
MR. J. O'CONNELLwas happy to hear from the noble Lord that inquiries were to be made to ascertain the truth or exaggeration of the statement in the papers as to what had occurred in the neighbourhood of Ballinrobe. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) confessed he was particularly anxious on the subject, because on a recent occasion, when

981
he had made a statement to the House, he had been accused of misrepresentation. What he stated was that 860 deaths had occurred in Ballinasloe, whereas he should have stated that 860 human beings were suffering under fever and cholera. But he implored the House not to suppose that the cholera was a mere ordinary visitation. It was introduced, aggravated, and extended by famine. He had received statements from the west of Ireland, representing that all the accounts hitherto known had fallen short of the reality, and that the scenes of misery and destitution were utterly inconceivable. The Poor Law Committee was at the present moment sitting, and he thought the attention of that Committee might be very properly directed, during the recess, should it then sit, to ascertain the facts. He would warn the Government against deluding themselves by the belief that everything had been done which the Government could do to prevent the loss of human life in Ireland. The truth was that the scale of relief was much too low—it did not save life; it merely prolonged the agony of the dying; it prolonged life in death. The scale of expenditure for the relief of the poor in the three kingdoms established the truth of this proposition. The rate per head for the support of a pauper in England (for a certain period) was 3l. 5s. 10 d., in Scotland for the same period it was 2l. 7s. 9½d., and in Ireland for the same period it was only 16 s. 8½d.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that the Poor Law Committee had that day been engaged in the examination of a witness from West-port, and certainly a more dreadful account was never given of human suffering in any civilised portion of the globe. He agreed with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that it was utterly impossible, by any human means, to stay the march of destitution in Ireland. He was quite sure that whatever was done must be comparatively trifling; but still more might have been accomplished. From the returns it appeared that in the week ending the 28th of April, 1849, there were in the several workhouses of Connaught and Munster no less than 122,369 inmates, and that the deaths in the course of one week were not less than 1,703, giving nearly an average of fourteen in every 1,000; whereas in this great metropolis, where there was a population approaching to two millions and a half of souls, according to the statement made by the Poor Law Commissioners, in the very worst week of the
982
year, that which ended on the 29th of January, 1849, the proportion of deaths was only five in a thousand. That and similar facts must show that death was proceeding in a more rapid ratio in Ireland than it had ever yet done, and that it was the bounden duty of the Government to prevent the dreadful loss of life which was taking place in that country by some greater efforts than had hitherto been attempted.
MR. HORSMANcould not help adverting to what he considered to be a misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown as to the disposition of the House on the subject of Irish distress. The noble Lord appeared to think that there would be an unwillingness on the part of the House to make any further advances for the relief of that distress; but he (Mr. Horsman) considered this to be a subject concerning which, for the sake of their own character, they ought at once to be clearly understood. When Government asked for the 50,000 l. grant, it was evident that it was only the commencement of a series of similar demands. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon on that occasion agreed to the advance of the 50,000 l., but stated that he would not agree to any further advances—not because he objected to the advances themselves for the saving of life in Ireland, but because they stood in the way of other measures of a more comprehensive and permanent character. Well, the 50,000 l. was voted, the House always saying that the first duty of the Government was to save life. Then came the Motion for the advance of 100,000 l, on the security of the rate in aid. Many objected to that loan—he (Mr. Horsman) did among the number. He objected to the money being advanced by way of loan on a security which was not good, though he agreed that the Government ought to make a grant to Ireland for the preservation of life. It was notorious that there were thousands perishing in Ireland for the want of a few thousands of pounds, which the House ought to grant. Without wishing to create pain or excite irritation in any quarter, he must declare that, in his opinion, no such spectacle had ever been witnessed before in any portion of the civilised world as that which now existed in Ireland, where thousands upon thousands were being permitted to perish from sheer starvation for want of a very small additional advance beyond that which had already been given. The Poor Law Commissioners had said that the

983
whole responsibility was east upon the Government. In nineteen of the distressed unions there was 160,000 l. owing to the contractors for the supply of food; and, although money had been recently sent out by the Government, it was notorious that it was not sufficient. The three worst months of the year were yet to come. The money in the hands of the commissioners would not suffice; and he was sure that if the Government would appeal to Parliament the House would respond to that appeal by making a further grant, recognising, as it ever had done, the principle that the first duty of Government was the preservation of life, and, above all, that the horrible spectacle of thousands dying daily of sheer destitution ought not to be allowed.
COLONEL SIBTHORPdid not wish to interrupt this discussion with respect to the lamentable question of Irish distress; but he should like to ask hon. Members who were conversant with the stale of Ireland, how far they thought free-trade measures had been the cause of distress in that country? He could feel for Ireland, but he could also feel for England; and he had every reason to apprehend, if they proceeded as they had hitherto done with the free-trade policy, that England would by and by suffer as much as Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR OF the EXCHEQUERdid not think it expedient, on the present question, to enter upon a discussion on free trade. But he must say, that so far as Ireland was concerned, he was convinced that the free-trade principle had contributed very largely to the preservation of life in that country by cheapening the food which was imported. It had been said, that three halfpence or a penny a day would sustain life in that country. Let it be remembered that it was by the importation of Indian corn—the introduction of which was the result of free-trade measures—that life could be thus preserved in Ireland, and which could not otherwise have been done except at a very large additional expense. He wished, while bearing in mind what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, to warn the House against being led into error by receiving as true the full extent of the statements that were sometimes made respecting the misery and destitution prevailing in Ireland. If he wanted an example to justify such a warning, he thought the statement made the other evening by the hon. Member for Limerick, would be a sufficient justification. A few
984
nights ago that hon. Gentleman stated that no less than 860 deaths had taken place in the Ballinasloe union; but the hon. Gentleman had now corrected himself, and stated to-night, instead of 860 people having died in Ballinasloe union, there were 860 laid up with fever and cholera: that was to say, 860 people were sick, instead of 860 being dead, [Sir J. YOUNG: They were receiving relief.] The difference was very material, and he took the opportunity of warning Gentlemen not to believe all the statements that were made of the distress and misery in Ireland to their full extent. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had not fairly represented what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripen on the occasion of the grant of 50,000 l. for the relief of destitution in Ireland. What the right hon. Gentleman said was, that he would vote for that sum as the last of a series of grants, in the hope that some other measures might be devised for the purpose of making the property of Ireland contribute its proper share towards the relief of the poverty of Ireland. It was an opinion which had been expressed by several Irish Members, that the property of Ireland should support the poverty of Ireland; and he believed it was the universal opinion of the House that it was unreasonable to expect any further grants should be made from the Treasury for the purposes of relief. Advances might indeed be made, but it was indispensable that they should look to Ireland for the repayment of them. A measure for that purpose was brought forward, and so far from any charge being made against him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) of hardheartedness and cruelty, he was accused of making sentimental speeches and impassioned appeals to the sympathies of the House to induce them to relieve the distresses of Ireland. The opposition to granting relief came not from him, but from many of the Irish Members. Why, the hon. Member for Limerick himself voted against the imposition of the income tax and the rate in aid—both of which measures were intended to relieve the distress of the people in Ireland—and now he turned round and complained of the Government and of their hardhearted conduct towards that country. But a change had taken place in the opinions of men in respect to these measures since those debates. It had been said in that House, that it would be bettor to let the Irish people perish, than to dole out to them such insufficient relief as was then

985
proposed. [Mr. J. O'CONNELL denied having made any such observation.] He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not say that the hon. Member had made any such remark; but it certainly was made by an hon. Member, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) commented upon the expression at the time. If hon. Members from Ireland had during the discussion of the Rate in Aid Bill felt as they now professed to feel, the progress of that measure might have been much accelerated. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had said, that some further advances of a few thousand pounds might be made by the Government. Surely he must know that the Government were making those advances. But when his noble Friend at the head of the Government proposed some little time since to make occasional weekly advances, the House limited him down to a very small sum. And what was the fact? His noble friend departed from that limited amount, and declared that he would go beyond the 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. which had been prescribed to him as the sum to he advanced. The Government had, in fact, made advances week by week, till no less a sum than 30,000 l. had already been advanced before the Rate in Aid Bill received the Royal assent. He thought that, under these circumstances, it was not true, either that Parliament had withheld the means of relief, or that Government had not used those means; and, therefore, he was of opinion that it was not necessary at prevent, to make any further appeal to Parliament for the purpose of mitigating the distress which he was sorry to admit did prevail in the west of Ireland. It was true that the worst period for the people of Ireland was approaching; but the time was also coming when the Poor Law Commissioners would feel it their duty to enforce the payment of the rates due from the several unions. Government had already given directions that this should be done; and at the same time the House might depend upon it that Her Majesty's Ministers would not shrink from asking for power to make further advances on the credit of the rate in aid, when the necessity should arise for adopting that course.
MR. E. B. ROCHEsaid, it was of great importance there should be no mistake as to the real facts respecting the Ballinasloe workhouse case. His hon. Friend the Member for Limerick had inadvertently said that 860 had died in that workhouse in one week. That was certainly wrong; but what was
986
the fact? 490 had died in one week, and it was stated upon authority, that the cholera and fever arose solely from utter destitution and starvation. Whatever had been done up to the present moment towards relieving distress in Ireland, had been an entire failure. His hon. Friend might make mistakes—Her Majesty's Ministers might take advantage of those mistakes, and the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Cavan (the chairman of the Poor Law Committee), might try to represent the extent of the distress existing in Ireland to be much less than it really was; but the facts were too palpable to be gainsaid. It could not be denied that the Government had not done its duty. The opportunity was now open to the noble Lord to bring forward some of those comprehensive measures which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth.
SIR J. YOUNGdenied having attempted to diminish the amount of evil that existed in Ireland, or to represent the distress prevailing in that country to be less than it really was. With respect to the Ballinasloe union, the fact was, that great distress existed there, and in order to meet that distress, fourteen or fifteen additional houses were taken to receive the paupers. The cholera and dysentery occurred in the union, and some of those auxiliary houses were converted into hospitals, where the people afflicted with cholera were taken, and in a few days after died—not for want of sufficient relief, but from the disease with which they were afflicted before they entered the workhouse. The hon. Member for Limerick, however, and others, were certainly guilty of exaggeration, and he believed that, in the cases mentioned, the mortality had chiefly arisen from cholera, and that no efforts on the part of the Government could have arrested it.
MR. E. B. ROCHEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He did not mean to imply anything against his conduct as chairman of the Poor Law Committee, for in fact he knew nothing about it. What he alluded to was, a remark which the hon. Gentleman had made, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking, to the effect, that 860 persons, instead of being dead, were receiving relief in the Ballinasloe workhouse.
MR. E. DENISONsaid, it was very easy to say that a few thousand pounds would relieve the distress in Ireland; it was easy to say that the responsibility of every death rested upon the shoulders of the Government;

987
but those were very unfair and unjust statements to make in that House. He believed the noble Lord at the head of the Government had undertaken what no individual or Government could execute—viz., to maintain the lives of all the distressed people in Ireland. It was utterly impossible that a whole people could be fed, except from the ground which they themselves occupied; it was hopeless to expect that the great mass of any population could be fed by extraneous assistance, and by food brought from a distance. He had long been anxious that an effort should be made to induce the ablebodied poor to cultivate the ground, so that food might be raised for them upon the spot where they lived; but he thought it was quite unjust to say that Government had been behind Parliament, or the people of this country, in the measures which they had taken with regard to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth had pointed to an individual Member of that House—a right hon. Gentleman opposite—as one great cause of the opposition to further grants in that House. He (Mr. Denison) believed that the House and the country, seeing what had been the effect of the enormous advances that had been made, seeing the comparatively small benefit which they had produced, were unwilling that any further grants should be given for the same purpose.
MR. REYNOLDSdid not blame the Government, but it could not be denied that thousands were dying daily, and that within twelve hours' journey of the metropolis of the British empire—a metropolis famed for its great wealth. He was bound to say that it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman the chairman of the Poor Law Committee to enter into any defence of himself, for he (Mr. Reynolds) had never found any man display more humanity than the hon. Gentleman in conducting an inquiry into such a painful subject. He (Mr. Reynolds) would wish to know if any instructions had been given to put an end to the frightful state of things at present existing. The total number of deaths in the Ballinasloe union had been 1,150. It appeared that the population of the town, which was a small one, was 4,000; and that 4,700 of the population of the union were in the workhouse. Since a statement he had made on a former night had been denied, he must be permitted to say that the guardians, whom he charged with the grossest inhumanity, passed a resolution
988
by which they concentrated the whole of the diseased and famished poor within the walls of the workhouse. They said, in effect, to a destitute person, twenty miles from the house, "Now, you are afflicted with typhus, you shall obtain no relief except you go into the house at a distance of twenty miles," for the union contained an area of 250 square miles. He asked the representatives of the British people whether they were prepared to sit quietly on the benches of the House of Commons while these awful slaughters of the people of Ireland were taking place. If one life in England was lost in a similar manner, the whole press teemed with it, while in Ireland thousands were dying every week without any notice being taken of it. What had the Rev. Mr. Anderson, the minister of Ballinarobe, stated to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in a letter he had written to him? He had stated that no language he could use could describe the misery that was existing in that union. He had heard a good deal in that House of comprehensive measures for Ireland—comprehensive measures for what, he would ask? Why, for skeletons who could not walk. It had been said, what had Ireland done for herself? He would answer that question by stating that she had paid two millions and a half in eighteen months for the relief of her destitute poor. In his opinion the first duty of the Government was to save the lives of the people, and he trusted that they would not allow the people of Ireland to say this, which in fact they were saying, that if you cannot govern Ireland, let Ireland govern herself.
SIR G. GREYwished to correct an error into which several hon. Members appeared to have fallen, with reference to the statement which he had made, upon the authority of the Earl of Clancarty, with respect to the mortality in the Ballinasloe workhouse. The noble Lord had not informed him that the mortality in that workhouse had, in the week succeeding that during which it amounted to 490, fallen to an average of six per day. What he said was, that the highest degree of mortality was attained during the period at which the cholera was raging; that it then amounted to 490 a week; but so far from having increased from that amount to 860, it had very materially diminished. He (Sir G. Grey) had only further to add, that when a disposition was shown to reproach the people of this country with being unwilling

989
to continue the system of grants from the public purse for the relief of Irish distress, it must be recollected how severe was the pressure of local taxation, occasioned by the relief afforded from the poor-rates to Irish paupers. He was in the daily receipt of communications from all parts of the country, complaining of the heavy burdens thrown upon unions, by the number of Irish who were receiving relief as casual paupers. To the sum, then, of 86,000 l, advanced since the 31st of January by the Imperial Treasury, must be added the great amount contributed for the relief of Irish necessities from the poor-rates, paid by the people of this country.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHwished to know the ultimatum of Her Majesty's Government upon this point—whether they were determined that no further amount of money was to be granted—under any circumstances which might occur—from the imperial treasury for the relief of Irish distress? The people of Ireland had a right to have a definite answer to this question, in order that they might know exactly on what tenure the union between the two countries was to rest.
LORD J. RUSSELL: The noble Lord has heard other hon. Members ask whether I was prepared to say that no further grants would be asked for, for the relief of Irish distress. The hon. Gentleman who put that question to me did it with the view of protecting the public purse from any such grants; but on all the occasions on which I have been thus interrogated, I have uniformly refused to give any pledge whatever as to our intentions on the subject. Her Majesty's Government must act upon their own views of the circumstances occurring in Ireland.
COLONEL DUNNEexplained: He had opposed the rate in aid because it would aggravate Irish distress.
MR. J. O'CONNELLagain rose, and was met by loud cries of "Order!" and "Spoke!" He presumed that he would be perfectly in order if he moved the adjournment of the House.
MR. SPEAKERtrusted that the hon. Gentleman would confine himself to the question of adjournment.
MR. J. O'CONNELLthen proceeded to state that it was quite clear that there was no disposition on the part of the House to consider the question of Irish distress.
MR. SPOONERwished to know whether the hon. Member for Limerick had
990
moved the adjournment of the House, with a view to the speedy discussion of Irish distress?
MR. J. O'CONNELLcontinued: The scale of relief administered in Ireland was too low—lower in fact than it was either in England or Scotland. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to charge the Government with a design of starving out the Irish people—a charge which he had already made, but which had never been answered.
MR. SPEAKERinquired who seconded the Motion of the hon. Gentleman? No one replied, and the subject and the Motion dropped together.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
The report of Committee of Supply (Navy Estimates) having been brought up and received, and the vote of 138,214 l. for the Admiralty Office being proposed.
COLONEL SIBTHORPbegged to call the attention of the House to the Motion of which he had given notice, for the reduction of salaries in the Admiralty Office. He proposed to try the free-trade system a little in the Government offices. There were no fewer than six Lords of the Admiralty, though there was but one Commander-in-Chief; and, though he felt the highest respect for those gallant officers, he thought there was truth in the saying, "too many cooks spoil the broth." He hoped, therefore, that without impairing the efficiency of the service, the number might be reduced by two. The First Lord of the Admiralty had 4,500 l. a year; and he proposed at first to take off 500 l. only, which, he thought, was very moderate and very handsome on his part. Then there were two Lords, one at 1,200 l., and the other at 1,000 l. a year, whom he proposed to knock off altogether. There were also a secretary, a surveyor, an accountant general, a storekeeper, a comptroller, and a director general, at 1,000 l. each; from all of whom he would take off 10 per cent, that would be 100 l. each. There was also that most expensive of persons, a solicitor, who had 1,600 l. a year, and to him he proposed to apply the same principle of reduction, and take off 150 l. He would not interfere at all with the clerks, who were the working men, and generally very ill paid. He had promised his constituents to enforce economy, and he would redeem his pledge. He felt the greatest admiration of our naval service, and in the Motion which he now made his only object

991
was to save the pockets of the people. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving that, instead of the sum of 138,214 l. for the expenses of the Admiralty, the vote should be for 132,753 l.
CAPTAIN PECHELLconcluded that the hon. and gallant Member was not serious in pressing such a Motion. He would, however, take advantage of it to make a few observations on a totally different subject, admitting, in the first place, that no department of the Government was so hardly worked and badly paid as the Admiralty. What he wished to call the attention of the Board and the House to, was the petition which had been presented by 331 of the 428 masters in the service, with respect to their rating and retirement—a most excellent body of men were placed in a most anomalous position. Nominally, the masters ranked with the lieutenants, but in reality they took rank after the junior lieutenants, and before the midshipmen. He really thought the Board should take some steps to place them in a better position, and to carry out the prayer of their petition. But he begged to call the attention of the Board to the regulations with respect to the retirement of lieutenants and commanders. A petition had been presented to the House by the former, stating that many had been removed from the list without receiving additional pay, and that the rest of the list was filled up by those who were called "commanders." It might be asked, from what fund adequate retirement for many of these excellent officers could be provided? He thought he could point out a source whence a large revenue was derivable. Their present system of freights was one which called loudly for change. Mexico complained that our ships were employed in smuggling specie, and had taken steps to prevent it, while the bondholders and others had undoubtedly been defrauded of their dividends in many instances. But what he complained of was, the sums paid as freightage to the admirals of the station and the captains of the ships. No less than 27,000 l. had been paid in this way in two years, and in ten years he found it amounted to 1,344,705 l. Here then was a fund which might at once be applied to the retirement of officers and the relief of their widows. He hoped the Board would direct their attention to making some changes in the regulations with respect to the pensions of officers' widows who married a second time.
MR. B. COCHRANEsaid, he was desirous
992
of asking the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty, whether, in the face of events passing abroad, it was the intention of the Government to continue these reductions in the Navy? It was not his own opinion alone, but the opinion of the entire public press, and of all those who had turned their attention to forign affairs, that even if a general war were not inevitable, it was likely that the whole of the Continent would soon be involved in hostilities. He asked the Government whether they deemed this to be the proper moment for carrying out reductions, which he admitted at another time might be reasonable and just? In 1792, Mr. Pitt had built upon a fifteen years' peace, but it had been terminated in six months. Looking at the recent declaration of the Emperor of Russia, and the events which were passing around us, he asked the Government whether they did not think it was unwise and injudicious to continue a course of reductions which, should danger come upon us, would have to be made good at a double cost to the country?
ADMIRAL DUNDASsaid, that with respect to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton on the relative ranks of lieutenants and masters, and as to the regulations respecting them, he could only reply, that it would be perfectly impossible to comply with the request which had been preferred. Lieutenants served five or six years before they got their promotion; masters, on the other hand, might be taken into the service almost immediately. It was perfectly useless to give masters the same rating as lieutenants. At the same time he must say, there was no more worthy or deserving class of officers in the service than the masters. Several of them had been appointed captains for distinguishing services, and he hoped would be so appointed in future. Captain Hall, for instance, had risen to the rank of post-captain entirely through his own merits. But no Board of Admiralty could place masters on a footing with lieutenants.
SIR F. T. BARINGobserved it was rather an invidious task to have to defend one's salary; but he had better explain to the House how the salaries of the Board of Admiralty had been fixed, and hoped he should satisfy them there was nothing peculiar in their case which entitled the hon. and gallant officer the Member for Lincoln to call for a reduction in

993
that department? In 1831, when there was great anxiety for economy, a Committee was appointed to revise all the salaries of the high officers of Government. On that occasion they went through all the salaries, and fixed the proper sum that each officer should receive. They cut off 500 l. per annum from the First Lord of the Admiralty, and reduced his salary to 4,500 l. The salaries of the four junior Lords were fixed at 1,000 l. a year each, and after considerable inquiry it was further resolved that they should be allowed to receive half-pay in addition. The Secretary was not reduced, and the Under Secretary's income was fixed at its present amount. Last year, also, there was a Committee appointed to revise all the Admiralty Estimates; and though he would not say they had looked particularly into the question of salaries, there certainly did not appear to he an impression, on the part of any one, that those salaries were too high. If the House wished him to enter into the general question, he would do so. ["No, no!"] As to individual cases, he hoped they would relieve him from further discussion, and be satisfied with his showing that the sums had been amply inquired into. The officers of accounts, to whom the hon. and gallant Officer referred, were officials of the highest importance; they more than saved the salaries they received to the public by the check they were on waste and expenditure. By the abolition of the Controller-ship of the Navy, and the board attached to the office, a very large sum had been gained to the public. There only remained for him to notice the observations made by the hon. Member for Bridport with respect to the amount of reduction in the Navy. He could assure the hon. Member there was an impression abroad that the reduction was much more considerable than it really was. If he would consider the vote for 40,000 men this year, and advert to the amount of men voted in former years, he would find the present vote by no means inconsiderable. He thought the apprehensions of war alluded to by the hon. Member would turn out to be ill-founded. If, however, we should unfortunately be called upon for active exertion, he trusted the Navy would not be found less efficient than before, and he was sure there would be no shrinking on the part of Government to come down and ask for more money if they should think it necessary. The question of freights would not be lost
994
sight of; but he thought it was one which would be better discussed on some future occasion.
MR. SPOONERsaid, though it had been just asserted there was no case for reduction, he thought it would not be very difficult to make out a case. His hon. and gallant Friend's course of proceeding had been objected to as too individual in character; but he really did not see how the salaries of the great officers could be attacked unless they were taken one by one. He believed the salaries were fixed on an understanding that they should be all proportionately reduced if reduction was decided upon. As the free-trade principle appeared to he now applied to every thing, he thought its application ought to be extended to the salaries of the officers in public departments. He was quite aware that no amount of reduction which could be made consistently with the efficiency of the service, would afford any great relief to the country—so he would not hold out any hope that advantage could be derived from such a source; but he would put the question in this form—what would be the moral effect on the country? Now, the people were being told that, owing to the changes of policy and circumstances, every one must look to lose a portion of his income; every income must come down, and every one must submit to reductions. When the trader was told that his profits and property were reduced by the effects of foreign competition, he naturally inquired why the fixed salaries of Government officers were not also to be reduced in proportion. Let them reflect what would be the effect on the people's mind if it became known that Government were allowed to inflict sacrifices on all classes, and yet that they refused to take any share in those sacrifices, or to consent to reduction. [Sir J. GRAHAM: Put their salaries on the corn-rent principle.] That was not a bad plan. If we were determined to go back to old times and old prices, we ought to reduce everything in the same proportion. He was for all practical reduction, and should therefore give his vote for making the reductions proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend.
CAPTAIN BERKELEYdeclared he would be quite happy to take the hon. Member for Warwickshire at his word with respect to the salaries of the Board. It so happened that while the salaries of every other department had been increased, those of that board were the same now as in 1770.
CAPTAIN BOLDEROwould certainly except the Under Secretary from any decrease of salary. His duty was more severe than that of any other officer of Government, with the exception of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary for the Home Department. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Mine are rather heavy.] Then perhaps he ought to add the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had intimated to the First Lord of the Admiralty that it was his intention when the report was brought up to bring under the notice of the House the system of promotions. But, considering the short period during which the First Lord of the Admiralty had held that office, he should postpone his remarks on that subject; but he should avail himself of the opportunity to call attention to the position of the marines. The right hon. Gentleman had had ocular demonstration of the efficiency of that branch of the service, was prepared to do justice to it, and would be aware that whenever military operations had become necessary since the Peace, the marines had invariably been selected as part of the force. Such was the case when Sir C. Napier was sent to Syria; and the forces sent to Spain some years ago would have been defeated had it not been for the marines. The points to which he would direct attention were the age of the officers, the seniors having seen fifty-four years' service; the small share of honorary distinctions which fell to that branch of the service, there being no marines of the rank of K.C.B. or G.C.B., and while 100 naval officers held the rank of C.B., only six officers of marines had received that distinction; their exclusion from the benefits of military and naval asylums, no marine officer, he ventured to say, having been admitted either to Greenwich or Chelsea Hospital, or the perquisites of the Military Knights of Windsor. He left the matter in the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty, confident that the right hon. Gentleman would not be indisposed to give a favourable consideration to the claims of a brave, honourable, and gallant corps.
COLONEL SIBTHORPthought it somewhat singular that when there were so many Gentlemen on the other side who were all for economy and retrenchment, not one of them was to he found in his place. He hoped the Motion would be a lesson to public officers in high stations, who ought to volunteer what he proposed. He would trust to their generosity; but,
996
having done his duty by showing them up, he should not trouble the House by taking a division.
Motion withdrawn.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYhad intended to call attention to the vote for naval stores; but what he wished at present to know was whether any portion of the amount of 484,788 l. from the sale of stores, carried to revenue in the accounts for the year ending March 31, 1849, arose from the sale of naval stores, and whether a detailed account of the items included under the head in question could be made out, so that some means might be taken to prevent the purchase of such a mass of stores merely for the purpose of selling them again?
SIR F. T. BARINGwas afraid the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the statement in the accounts. The item to which he referred included what had been received from the sale of stores of all kinds. There could be no objection to furnishing the details.
Second, third, fourth, and fifth Resolutions agreed to. Sixth Resolution postponed. Subsequent Resolutions agreed to. Postponed Resolution to be taken into further consideration upon Thursday next.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
The House then went into Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
The first vote proposed was, a sum not exceeding 1,855,588 l., for defraying the charge of Her Majesty's Land Forces in the United Kingdom and in Stations abroad, being part of a sum of 3,655,588 l., of which 1,800,000 l. had already been granted on account.
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, it was not very encouraging, in so thin a House, for any hon. Member to enter into the discussion of questions affecting the expenditure of the country, because it appeared that, whenever that which, more than anything else fell within the peculiar business and province of the House, had to come on for consideration, hon. Gentlemen, and even the financial reformers themselves, deserted their posts, and left but a beggarly account of empty benches for any diligent advocate of economy and retrenchment to address his remarks to. The financial reformers of that House seemed to have sunk down to the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, and the hon. Member for Warwickshire. He therefore did not propose at present to go into any lengthened details;

997
but he must say he felt convinced, from the condition in which the Army was kept, and the enormous establishments chiefly connected with the civil department, that great reductions could easily be effected, and the Army maintained in increased efficiency, by being managed with greater simplicity. The British Army was classed under three different heads. First, there was the infantry and cavalry under the Horse Guards; then the ordnance corps, under a separate board; and, lastly, the commissariat, which was a separate branch, under the management of the Treasury. Now, he maintained that in no other country in the world was there such an arrangement of the three different branches of the Army under three separate heads. The management of the Horse Guards cost 94,199 l.; that of the Ordnance, 91,136 l; and that of the Commissariat, which was said to be the cheapest managed of all, being under the Treasury, 316,009 l. Now, if they were all placed under a Minister of War, having a seat in Parliament, as was the case in other countries, instead of being managed in the present cumbrous and costly manner, the country would gain considerably in point of economy and simplicity. This was not a new idea of his. In the year 1837, a Commission was appointed, of which Lord Howick (now Earl Grey), Lord J. Russell, Lord Palmerston, and Sir J. C. Hobhouse, were Members, which recommended that certain powers, now divided among several functionaries, should be vested in the Secretary at War, as Minister of War, and a Member of the Cabinet; that he should be the Minister by whom all matters relating to the military establishments should be laid before the King; and that the Ordnance department should be consolidated with the Horse Guards. However, from that day to this, and although they had a Committee sitting upstairs, no stops had yet been taken to carry out the report of the Commissioners. It was plain a very considerable saving in this manner might be made. Why not abolish the office of Master General of the Ordnance, by which they might save 9,000 l. a year? The same might be said of the Secretary at War's office, upon which they might save 5,000 l.; and by abolishing the office of Judge Advocate—whoso excellent deputy, Mr. Rogers, did all the work, and had a salary of 800 l.—2,500 l. more might be saved. Then 36,836 l. was the charge in this country for agency, although there was no agency required fur the Indian
998
army, and he could not therefore understand why it should be necessary for the troops at home. Altogether, he was persuaded about 56,000 l. a year might be saved in these departments. He must also call attention to the great disproportion of generals to the number of men in our Army as compared with the armies of other countries. In 1783, about the time of the American war, we had 824 general and field officers; in 1799, about the time of the French war, the number was 1,863; and in the year 1848, at a time of peace, they were increased to 2,106. We had a staff and a number of officers greater than was required for the whole French army of 400,000, and which also supplied the national guard. We had 9 field-marshals, 58 generals, 67 lieutenant-generals, 174 major-generals; and yet the whole strength of our Army was only 138,000 men. Eight or ten thousand a year, too, might be saved by doing away with brevets. Were the House not so empty, he might pursue the question further; but he was sure he would be able to show a Committee that a material saving might be effected as regarded the staff of officers, and that a much better arrangement might be made with respect to the retired and half-pay list. Then, as regarded the clothing of the regiments, there could not be a worse system than leaving it in the hands of the colonels. He believed that if the Government took the clothing into its own hands, and adequately remunerated the colonels, as they did in the case of the artillery, giving them sufficient pay, instead of leaving them to eke it out by a profit on the clothing of their men, the men would be better clothed, greater satisfaction would be given, and a saving would be effected to the country of about 14,000 l. a year. He found that, in the year 1847, the clothing of the French army, including the expense of tents and encampments in Algiers, was only about 464,000 l. for 370,125 men; or an average of 11. 13 s. 2d. per head. Then again in Prussia, the average cost of clothing in the Prussian army was only 1l. 15 s. 10 d. per head; but in England, in the year 1847, the cost of clothing an Army of 132,199 men was 402,142 l., or more than 3l. per man. How it was that the French and the Prussians clothed their soldiers better and cheaper than we, who were considered to be the best manufacturers in the world, could do, he would leave it for the Manchester manufacturers themselves to say; but he hoped the noble Lord at the

999
head of the Government would use his influence with the Horse Guards to alter the whole system of clothing, which, besides its other evils, exposed the colonels to invidious remarks, which, as a class of men, he was sure they did not deserve. Instead of receiving their present allowance upon the clothing of their regiments, to make up their insufficient pay, why not give them a salary of 1,000 l. a year, and save 35,000 l. to the country? Then the proportion of officers to the number of men was excessive. There was one officer to every nineteen men in the Army. In the Horse Guards, there was one officer to eleven men, and one non-commissioned officer to every six of the men. The proportion of officers to men was much greater than in the armies of Franco or Prussia; and under this head of the subject a great reduction might be made in the Army by cutting off the second majors in the infantry—a class of officers that enjoyed as complete sinecures as that of the Judge Advocate himself in that House. He would reduce them all, and thereby save the country about 45,000 l. a year. The cavalry force, exclusive of household cavalry, equalled twenty-two regiments. Five of them were under the East India Company; but the remaining seventeen ought to he condensed into twelve regiments, which would reduce the staff, and lead to economy. A saving could also be effected by filling up the places of assistants in the various offices of the different departments of the Army from the retired or half-pay list. A clerk in the Commander in Chief's office retired, after forty years' service, I upon 700 l. a year; whereas the retiring pay of a general was only 400 l. a year. In these various methods, they might go on reducing item after item, until they effected an aggregate saving, he would venture to say, little short of half a million a year. Our whole colonial system must also be remodelled; and in this way alone could they reduce their estimates, that were so excessive.
MR. FOX MAULE, having so fully entered into the whole subject of these estimates on a former occasion, did not consider it necessary to trouble the Committee with any further observations at present. He would, however, just say a few words in answer to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend who had last spoken. He (Mr. Fox Maule) could not agree with all that had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend; but the whole subject was still under
1000
the consideration of the Committee upstairs, where he had no doubt every practicable and consistent measure of economy would meet with unanimous support. With regard to the question of agency in the Army, referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend, he (Mr. Fox Maule) was convinced that the Committee, when it came to consider that subject, would be unanimously agreed that nothing could be so economical to the country, or convenient to the men in the Army, as the system of agency which had just been attacked. As regarded the present system of clothing, he had no feeling to express further than what he had derived from the investigations of former Committees. The Committee of 1833, on this subject, after hearing the amplest evidence, came to the unanimous decision that in point of economy or of efficiency they were satisfied that a better system of clothing the Army than the system already existing, could not be adopted. But still he was perfectly sure that the Committee upstairs would give every attention to this question when it came again before them, and if it could be proved to them that a better and more economical system under the Government, the same as the clothing of the Ordnance, could be substituted, he was satisfied the Committee would be quite ready to adopt it. Instead of following his hon. and gallant Friend through all his details, he thought it better to wait till they were brought before the Committee, where, he had no doubt, the whole would be fully sifted. But his hon. and gallant Friend had suggested the employment of the half-pay officers as clerks in the civil and military departments. Now, it was quite possible that such a course might he advantageously pursued in certain cases; but it should be remembered that the clerks in question had to he trained from boyhood for these situations, and if they were to he filled up from the half-pay list of the Army, he was sure the public service would suffer materially in point of efficiency.
MR. COBDENsaid, that the House having voted the number of men before Easter, it would not be either consistent or logical to refuse the money necessary to clothe and pay them. He rose merely for the purpose of making a few observations on the manner in which the reduction of 10,000 men had been made. He found a reduction to that amount in the number of men; but, on turning to the number of officers, he found no corresponding reduction.

1001
Last year there were 4,862 officers; this year there were 4,759, being a reduction of 103 officers to 10,000 men; or, in other words, 10 per cent of the men were reduced, and not more than 2 per cent of the officers. He did not think this a very economical mode of making retrenchment. Instead of having 10,000 men drafted out of the regiments and paid off, he should like to see 10 or 12 regiments reduced. That was the proper mode of reduction, if they really meant to make a bonâ fide and permanent one. But if this reduction was only a temporary concession to what some regarded as but a temporary clamour in the public mind for a reduction of the public expenditure, which, as soon as it ceased, was to be raised to its old standard, then they were quite right in retaining the skeletons of regiments. But, if they meant to make a permanent reduction of 10,000 men, he saw no reason why they should not reduce 10 or 12 regiments, and reduce the officers in proportion to the number of men. He did not consider cither the officers or the men in the Army and Navy too well paid: they received much less than those engaged in the American service, and he would like to see them paid as well. His real complaint was, that more persons were employed in both services than were wanted, and he wished to see the number reduced. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, that in order to reduce the Army a total change must be made in the colonial system, under which, in its present state, the duties of the Army were almost as arduous as in time of war. There were in Now Zealand about 2,000 soldiers, although the white population did not exceed 20,000. It surely was not necessary for the interests of the colonics that a soldier should be maintained for two families. Soldiers who wished to settle in New Zealand might be disbanded for that purpose. That was the course which had been pursued by the Americans with respect to soldiers in their army who desired to settle in Mexico. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated the other evening a fact which made a deep impression on his (Mr. Cobden's) mind, in connexion with the recent outrages in Canada. The loyalist party, as they were called in that colony, had burnt their own Parliament House, because a majority of the House of Representatives had given a vote of which they did not approve; and he could not miss that opportunity of stating
1002
I his belief that the incendiary body who had committed that act would find no sympathy either in this country or in the United States. But what did the noble Lord say with regard to that subject? Why, he declared that there were only two constables in Montreal. Why was this? It was because the English Government had hitherto treated the colonists as children, finding soldiers to take care of them, instead of leaving them to their own resources. As regarded the Committee, of which he was a member, he must observe that the Ordnance estimates would form work enough for its members during the present Session, and the Army Department would not he finished probably before the end of the next; but the House ought not, on any such ground, to abstain from making at once any practicable reductions.
MR. B. OSBORNEwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of War, with respect to the shell jacket now worn by some of the officers of Her Majesty's forces. Probably the right hon. Gentleman had not seen the unfortunate objects who were them, and who, in fact, were in the position of scarecrows. If he only saw some of the old officers who were put into this shell jacket, and saw the ridiculous objects it made of them, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree in opinion with him on the subject. He conceived that the whole Army should be clothed alike, and that the same principle should be applied in London to the household brigade and to the regiments of the line. Why should the officers of the household brigade be allowed to go about in handsome blue frocks, while the officers of the line were clothed in an ugly red jacket? And he was not even allowed to wear it in the only place where it could effect a saving for him—at mess; while the officers of dragoons, generally belonging to a richer class, were allowed to mess in their stable jackets. He also wished to make an observation with respect to the bearskin caps, worn by the household troops. Having taken those caps from the Fusilier regiments, why keep them in the household brigade? If they wanted to make their Army frightful to their enemies, why not apply the same rule to the household brigade as to other regiments? Why not compel the hon. and gallant Member for 3Wigan to go about the metropolis in a shell jacket, as well as the officers in the country? When they took away this

1003
bearskin cap from the Fusiliers, they should not retain it in the Guards.
MR. FOX MAULEbelieved the question with regard to the shell jackets had made more noise in the House than in the Army. He had heard no complaints that it had been adopted in the Army. It was adopted simply for this reason, because it was thought necessary that the officers, when employed in line, should be clothed in the same dress as the men.
COLONEL LINDSAYunderstood that the reason they did away with their bearskin cap was, that the price of bears had risen.
Vote agreed to.
A sum of 87,376 l., being part of a sum of 173,376 l., of which 86,000 l. had been granted on account, to defray the charge of General Staff officers, and officers of the hospitals, serving with Her Majesty's forces at home and abroad, and of Her Majesty's garrison of the Tower of London, from 1st April, 1849, to 31st March, 1850, was next proposed to be voted.
MR. W. LOCKHARTobjected to the sum proposed to be voted for the expenses of the staff at Malta. He regretted to say there was not a single military man in the kingdom who would defend the propriety of having a civil governor in Malta. No man could say that a military post should be governed by a civil officer, or that the division which had taken place of the offices of the governor and commander of the forces should have been made. He wished to test the opinions of hon. Gentlemen, for the purpose of ascertaining who would favour a job, and who would not favour a job; and he would, therefore, move that the staff allowance of the lieutenant-general should be stopped after the 1st of September.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to state some sum.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, the sum he proposed to take off was the staff pay of the lieutenant-general for six months, 779 l.
MR. HAWESthought that the hon. Gentleman, without understanding much of the subject on which he had spoken, had characterised the transaction in a manner that was utterly unjust and unjustifiable, if he meant to call the arrangement that had been made for the government of Malta a job. He did not know anything which the people of Malta had longer called for than the appointment of a civil
1004
governor of that island, and he did not know an appointment ever made more successful or more conducive to the welfare of that island. When his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary felt called upon to appoint a civil governor of that island, he took into account that there would be an increase of expense, and he had reduced the salary of the governor by deducting 500 l. a year from it to meet that expense. From the island there had been no complaint—no remonstrance. [Mr. OSBORNE: They do not pay the expense.] From the island no complaint was heard; on the contrary, that appointment had called forth the strongest expressions of approbation and satisfaction. They could not appoint a civil governor of Malta without increasing the expense. The former governor (Sir Patrick Stuart) was a military officer, and united in himself the offices of the governor and commander of the troops, and therefore when they separated the offices the expense was increased. What had been done by Mr. More O'Ferrall since his appointment? He (Mr. Hawes) did not wish to speak disparagingly of the preceding administration of the island. Sir Patrick Stuart was a gentleman of ability, and administered the government to the satisfaction at least of previous Secretaries of State; but when Mr. More O'Ferrall went to the island, there was great popular discontent and dissatisfaction. That feeling was allayed by the satisfaction which Mr. More O'Ferrall had given, and the reforms introduced by him were far greater than the total expenditure incurred. It was quite true that the additional expenditure falls upon the Imperial Government; but were they not to regard the interests of the people of Malta when they called for a civil government? Complaints previously were made, and petitions were sent from Malta. Since Mr. More O'Ferrall was appointed, no complaint had been made, and trade had increased. He had inquired into and reformed the various institutions of the island; and he (Mr. Hawes) did not know an instance in the whole range of colonial government to which he could refer in terms of stronger justification than to the appointment of a civil governor in Malta.
MR. B. OSBORNE: As the trade of the population of Malta has increased under Mr. More O'Ferrall's management, I don't see why they should not pay for the civil governor themselves.
MR. W. LOCKHARTbegged to say

1005
that he did not mean to cast any reflection on Mr. More O'Ferrall, but he was determined to press his Amendment to a division.
Motion made and question put, that the sum of 86,597 l. be granted.
The Committee divided;—Ayes 17; Noes 50: Majority 33.

List of the AYES.

Christy, S.

Pilkington, J.

Cobden, R.

Pryse, P.

Colvile, C. R.

Sibthorp, Col.

Dick, O,.

Smith, J. B.

Fergus, J.

Tenison, E. K.

Fox, W. J.

Thompson, G.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Wawn, J. T.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

TELLERS.

Muntz, G. F.

Lockhart, W.

Osborne, R.

Spooner, R.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Magan, W. H.

Anson, hon. Col.

Maitland, T.

Baines, M. T.

Matheson, A.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Matheson, Col.

Bellew, R. M.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Paget, Lord C.

Brockman, E. D.

Parker, J.

Brotherton, J.

Perfect, R.

Busfeild, W.

Power, Dr.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Power, N.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Pusey, P.

Craig, W. G.

Raphael, A.

Dundas, Adm.

Reynolds, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Rich, H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Romilly, Sir J.

French, F.

Slaney, R. A.

Harris, R.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Hastie, A.

Thompson, Col.

Hawes, B.

Vane, Lord H.

Hay, Lord J.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Willyams, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Williamson, Sir H.

Howard, Lord E.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Keppell, hon. G. T.

Ker, R.

TELLERS.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Tufnell, H.

Lewis, G. C.

Hill, Lord M.

Vote agreed to.
COLONEL SIBTHORPcomplained that the estimates were generally brought on in the Epsom week—on the night of a ball or a rout, or whenever some other flummery was going on. He did not see any of the First Ministers in their places, but he supposed they were busy elsewhere making up their books.
MR. W. MILEScould not allow the vote respecting the volunteer corps or yeomanry to pass without observing that a new regulation had recently been adopted, which was likely to reduce the efficiency of the corps. To keep up proper discipline it was absolutely necessary that the yeomanry of the country should be called out
1006
annually to do regimental duty, and be inspected by a military officer; but under the existing regulation the colonel had the option of either assembling the whole of his corps, as a regiment, or in detachments on the voluntary system.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, the regulation was only to apply to the present year. Last year, all the yeomanry regiments were inspected by military officers, and the result proved highly creditable to the men and officers; so creditable, indeed, that it was thought, for the convenience of some of the regiments, that the inspection might be dispensed with this year. Such a course, it was found, would save the country 15,000 l.; and for these two reasons the permanent duty had been dispensed with for this year.
The following votes were agreed to without discussion: 47,199 l. Public Military Departments. 9,408 l. Royal Military College. 10,298 l. Royal Military Asylum, 33,286 l. Volunteer Corps. 8,120 l. Rewards for Distinguished Services. 39,908 l., Pay of General Officers. 28,000 l. Full Pay for Reduced and Retired Officers. 200,000 l. Half Pay and Military Allowances. 22,156 l. Foreign Half Pay. 64,778 l. Widows' Pensions. 47,500 l. Compassionate List.
On the vote for 18,541 l., being part of 35,441 l. of which 17,000 l. had already been granted to defray the charge of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, having been proposed,
MR. B. OSBORNEremarked that some time ago it was recommended that the Civil Board of Chelsea Hospital should be abolished, and its duties transferred to the Horse Guards, but nevertheless he found it was still charged for in this estimate. Colonel Alderson, who held an office under the Railway Commission, and retained his pay as a lieutenant-colonel of engineers, appeared to be in the receipt of 700 l. as secretary to this board. He wished to have this explained, and to know how it was that Mr. Neave, the former secretary, was allowed to retain possession of his house, putting the public to the expense of furnishing another house for the present secretary?
MR. FOX MAULEreplied, that as the office of assistant secretary had been abolished, it was necessary to continue the secretaryship so long as the board remained in existence. With regard to the second question, Mr. Neave had previously held the office of secretary for many,

1007
many years; he was failing in life, and it was thought somewhat hard to remove him from the dwelling he had occupied so long.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote for 624,053 l, being part of 1,224,853 l., of which part had already been granted for defraying the charge of the Outpensioners of Chelsea Hospital; of pensions granted to discharged Negro soldiers; of pensioners from Hanoverian Corps which served with the British Army in 1793, 1794, and 1795; and of the military organisation of Outpensioners in the united kingdom, having been proposed.
MR. HENLEYthought this was the proper time to ask a question relative to an item of 60,000 l. which had hitherto been paid by the East India Company, on account of the non-effective service of the Army. The question he wished to ask was, whether Government had taken at all into their consideration the increasing proportion of the Army which now served in India. This sum of 60,000 l. seemed to him to be very disproportionate, considering the number of effective officers constantly serving in India.
MR. FOX MAULEwas not quite sure that it was not an inadequate sum; but certainly when the arrangement was made between the East India Company and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was considered quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the receipts of the East India Company, and the circumstances under which the sum was paid, he was by no means inclined to think that it was disproportionate to the non-effective branch of our military force that had been employed in India.
MR. G. THOMPSONprotested against any additional burdens being thrown upon the impoverished people of India.
Vote agreed to; as was the following vote for 19,000 l., being part of 38,000 l., of which 19,000 l. had already been paid for defraying the charge of allowances, compensations, and emoluments in the nature of Superannuation, or Retired Allowances, to persons formerly belonging to several public departments.
The Resolutions to be reported on Thursday next.
Committee to sit again on Thursday next.
The House adjourned at half-after Nice o'clock till Thursday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Landlord and Tenant; Grand Jury Cess (Ireland).
2a Protection of Women.
3a Sewers Acts Amendment.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Derby, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By Earls Nelson, St. Germans, Carlisle, Cawdor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of Lichfield, Salisbury, Norwich, and Oxford, from Monmouthshire, Leicestershire, and several other Counties, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—By the Earl of Carlisle, from

969
the City of York, in favour of the Freemen's Lands Bill.—From Cantley and Sedbergh, against the Granting of any New Licenses to Beer Shops.—From Dublin and Westmeath, for the Adoption of Measures for the Protection and Relief of Clergymen seceding from the Established Church.—From Liverpool and Balcombe, for the Adoption of Measures for preventing the Sale of Tithes.—From Menai Bridge, for Extending the Jurisdiction of County Courts.—By Lord Redesdale, from Bromford and Abingdon, that Boards of Guardians may be Empowered to grant Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers.—By Lord Monteagle, from the Society of Friends in Ireland, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death By the Earl of Eglinton, from Ayr, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.

M. MANZONI—EXCURSION TO PARIS.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to call the attention of their Lordships to a matter of privilege which he could not entirely pass over, although it was of but little importance. There had appeared in a very respectable paper of that morning an invitation to fight a duel: it was of the most ridiculous description, but as it referred to himself and to other noble Lords, "his companions," and to what had boon said in that House, wherein they were all Noblemen and Gentlemen, it was clearly a breach of privilege. The letter was signed "Giacomo Manzoni." Now, of that letter M. Manzoni had no knowledge whatever, and was astonished to see such a fabrication in a public print with his name attached to it; and he had immediately written to him (Lord Brougham) to express his astonishment and sorrow at the fraud. It was imprudent in any journal to publish such a letter; and he had no doubt that it was owing to some inadvertence that it appeared in the respectable journal in which it was published. It was clearly a breach of privilege; for it contained a challenge to fight a duel for words spoken by himself in that assembly. He did not imagine that it was published from any ill design or from any disrespect towards himself, or towards the House. He thought it only fair to the House and to M. Manzoni that he should make this statement. M. Manzoni had only seen it at 10 o'clock that morning, and had immediately, upon seeing it, called at his (Lord Brougham's) house, and sent him a written communication that the letter was a forgery. As he was then upon his legs, he would also allude to the second expedition of our countrymen who were going upon a visit to Paris. Those expeditions or visits were now becoming a serious nuisance. It was much to be lamented that 200 or 300 Englishmen were going to enter Paris during a period in which that metropolis would be
970
in a state of the greatest excitement; for very great indeed would be the excitement at Paris on Monday next, the day fixed for the installation of the new Legislative Assembly of France. He admitted that he had no right to object to the presence of numbers of our countrymen in that great capital; for, if they conducted themselves peaceably and quietly, nothing could be more desirable; but what he had a right to expect was this—that there should be no impression given in any quarter that they were anything but private travellers, and that they were going to Paris in any other capacity. As it had been put forth that that magnificent building the Hotel de Ville, which had been opened to our countrymen on their last visit by the kindness and courtesy of the magistrate who presided over the prefecture of the Seine, would again be opened to them, he trusted that there would be no disappointment if it were not. Furthermore, he hoped and trusted that, for the sake of peace between the two countries, all intercourse by public bodies between them would in future cease, and that the only communication between them would be carried on by the two Governments. It would follow there from that no further countenance whatever from any quarter connected with the English Government should be given to these visitors of France from England.
Some petitions unconnected with this subject having been presented.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEentered his protest against the notion that the noble and learned Lord had expressed the sentiments of their Lordships on this interchange of visits between the two countries. Our countrymen had a right to go in any numbers they pleased to visit the' French metropolis, and nobody had a right to interfere with them, whether they went singly or in bodies, provided they conducted themselves in an orderly and peaceable manner, as they had done upon their late visit. Such an interference as the noble and learned Lord appeared to con-template was contrary to the laws and constitution of these realms. As to the way in which the French Government might receive them on their arrival at Paris, that was a matter with which we had nothing to do.
LORD BROUGHAMhad heard a great deal lately respecting the bad construction of the House for hearing; but when he found that Her Majesty's Lord Chamberlain, who stood within the House, was so

971
ignorant of what was passing within it, he could not wonder that other persons, who were further off and not within it, should be equally ignorant of it. He appealed to every one of their Lordships present, except the Lord Chamberlain, whether he had said a single syllable which could be construed into a declaration that he objected in any one way to Her Majesty's subjects going upon a visit to France, in case they conducted themselves peaceably and decorously. On the contrary, he had stated expressly that they had a right to go over, and he had never called upon the French Government not to show them courtesy and haspitality, if it so thought fit. If the French Treasury were so flush of money, as it appeared to be from the recent measures of the National Assembly in repealing taxes to the amount of 100,000,000 francs, and if the French Government were disposed again to give our countrymen dinners, fetes, fireworks, and dances in the Jardin d'Hiver, he should only be the better pleased. Indeed, be should be more pleased the more our countrymen were feted and hospitably treated on the other side of the Channel. He concluded by denying every word which had been imputed to him by the Lord Chamberlain, in consequence of the inconvenient structure of the House for hearing.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEwas extremely glad to hear the explanation of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD BROUGHAM: Explanation! I positively and peremptorily deny that I used any words requiring explanation.
LORD REDESDALBobserved, that as this subject had been renewed after it was thought to be dropped, he must say that in his opinion these visits ought to be discouraged. There was a great difference between the two deputations which had mutually visited France and England. The deputation of the National Guard of Paris had come over in uniform, and as soldiers—for soldiers they really were. There were times when the appearance of French soldiers in uniform in the streets of London might be attended with great inconvenience. For instance, if that deputation which came over in full uniform to London in the course of last summer had come over in the March preceding it, they might have been the occasion of disturbance, and that disturbance might have produced disastrous effects. He was convinced that danger must ensue from these
972
visits, if they were continued to the same extent with that in which they were commenced.

PROTECTION OF WOMEN BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, that, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, he trusted that he need not enter at any length into the details of the painful subject which rendered the measure necessary. He was prepared, if need should be, with a detailed statement to make out this case—that there was a great practical evil in existence, which required to be remedied by the Legislature. If he might assume that point for granted, there was no necessity for his entering into details. Such details, in his opinion, had better be avoided in discussions; but if the attainment of the object which he had in view could only be secured by entering into details, then no false delicacy should prevent him from entering into them If, however, the great necessity were admitted, he would not pain the ears of their Lordships by the details of eases which would indisputably establish such a conclusion; unless, therefore, he was compelled to use them in reply, he should abstain from alluding to them in any respect. He had received that day, from his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, a letter, in which his Lordship had authorised him to state that he did not intend to oppose this Bill. That was a peculiar satisfaction to him; for last year his noble and learned Friend had conceived it to be his duty to oppose the Bill which he had then had the honour of introducing. His noble and learned Friend, however, had mentioned one alteration, which was the only alteration which he thought desirable in the Bill; he, therefore, understood that his noble and learned Friend would not oppose it if that alteration were made. That alteration, then, he was ready to introduce by inserting in the first clause the provision contained in the second. He did not anticipate that after that alteration any objection would be made to his Bill. The Bill now brought forward proposed to deal with a class of cases which it was difficult to bring within the scope of legislation, and which the common law of England appeared to be unable to reach. Even in the grossest cases, where innocence and youth had been abused by direct fraud, the present law

973
was insufficient for the purpose of reaching the offence. Such a state of things rendered some extension of the law necessary to meet the worst cases. Some faint objections might remain to any legislation upon this subject; but he hoped that their Lordships would pay no attention to such murmurs. They must recollect that it was impossible to frame any legal enactment to which objection could not be taken by acute and subtle men. But if the only objection made to this measure was the suggestion of some hypothetical inconvenience, all legislation must come to a close if such an objection were to be held valid against the removal of great abuses. Without entering into further observations on the subject, he would now move the second reading of the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMwas understood to concur in the suggestion made by the Lord Chief Justice, but doubted whether the Bill would produce any great practical effect in preventing the evils against which it which it was directed; but said he would not offer any opposition to it.
Lord CAMPBELLexpressed his approval of the objects of the Bill, but said that the right rev. Mover had not done sufficient justice to the common law of England upon the subject. This was not a case in which the common law was incapable of reaching the offender. Attempts to amend this part of the law had been repeatedly made since the days of the Long Parliament. It had been proposed that the first offence of this description should be treated as a misdemeanour, the second as a felony, and the third as a capital offence, without benefit of clergy. But the severity of such a law on such a subject had defeated itself. Another attempt was now made, and this was, in his opinion, more objectionable than any of its predecessors. Instead of promoting the object of the Bill, the Bill was even calculated to render that innocuous which was now an offence under the common law. Besides, all cases in which illicit intercourse took place, and in which no false contrivance was used, were freed from punishment by this Bill. The Bill likewise enacted that no penalty should be inflicted on third parties except where their improper conduct arose from lucre of gain. There might be many of these abominable conspiracies without money passing. He (Lord Campbell) felt so strongly the evil sought to be prevented, that he would hope against all experience that something might be
974
done to remove it, and would say with the Lord Chief Justice that he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he could not allow it to pass that stage without stating that he thought the existing law had better be relied on.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELwas understood to maintain that this Bill did not go far enough, and would be inadequate to meet the existing evil; and after it should pass, he and others who thought that evil ought to be repressed by law, must persevere in applying to the Legislature for an effective Act. The inadequacy of the existing law was frequently acknowledged by Judges upon the bench; he could mention cases where relatives of noble Lords had been sacrificed, and the highest families in the land were not safe. The Legislature ought to enact such laws as would afford to all Her Majesty's subjects that degree of protection to which they were entitled. The noble Earl concluded by reading a clause, which he had prepared, as more likely to answer the object in view, but which he did not at present intend to propose.
The BISHOP of OXFORDfeared that the introduction of any such clause would be fatal to the Bill. With regard to the only objection made by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell), he (the Bishop of Oxford) had already stated that he would propose so to alter the Bill in Committee as to obviate that difficulty, and leave the common law as at present, by omitting the second clause, which provided that no person should be punished for the offences mentioned in the first, "unless the same shall have been committed for the lucre of gain;" instead of that, he would introduce the words "for the lucre of gain" into the description of the offences in the first clause to be punishable with imprisonment under this Bill. With regard to conspiracy, to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, the difficulty was to prove it; and the object of this Bill was to deal with the case where a conspiracy could not be proved. The attempt to legislate upon this subject had not failed in other countries; but it really was a reproach upon us, that in France, to which we were not used to go for the pattern of moral exactness, offences of this class were punished, which an English magistrate could not touch. However, this Bill dealt with the one specific crime committed where persons for gain lent themselves to the betrayal of women. At present such offences had to

975
be dealt with under the 9th of George IV., chap. 31; and that Act was held to apply, first, where, in consequence of fraud or falsehood, the girl, however young, went willingly from her parents' house, however ignorantly, and though she might suppose she was going in order to be hired into service; nor, secondly, where she was above sixteen; nor, thirdly, where her parent or lawful guardian consented to her going for any purpose, though lawful; nor, lastly, where the child was without parent, guardian, or lawful protector. It was but natural, perhaps, that one in the position of the noble and learned Lord should look with jealousy upon the attempt of a lay Lord to amend the law—it might seem to go against the craft; but here was really a crying evil to be repressed.
LORD CAMPBELLprotested that he was as sincerely and earnestly desirous to meet the evil as the right rev. Prelate; the question was, how it was to be reached, and care must be taken not to aggravate it. The proposed alteration might remove his (Lord Campbell's) technical objection, but would not touch the principle upon which his opposition rested, namely, that if the parties between whom the illicit intercourse took place were to be considered, that case could not safely be met by legislation; and that if you included a third party employed to enable the sensual person to gratify his illicit propensities, the common law would already meet that case. It was not necessary in a charge of conspiracy to prove that the parties met in conclave and came to a formal agreement to solicit the chastity of a woman; the conspiracy was inferred from acts done, and if it were proved that a person at the desire of another undertook such an abominable task, an indictment for conspiracy would lie.
The BISHOP of OXFORDapprehended that there would be very great difficulty in sustaining the charge of conspiracy under the existing law, where a person making a livelihood by these practices, lent himself or herself with no particular engagement to one particular crime of this sort.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned to Monday the 4th of June next.