Sitting of 31 March 1851

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Enniskillen, v. the Hon. Henry Arthur Cole, Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Process and Practice (Ireland).
2° Marine Mutiny; Mutiny; Prisons (Scotland); Steam Navigation.
3a Apprentices and Servants.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. HUMEsaid, the House would re-callect that on Friday night, after voting 98,714 men, a proposition was made to vote 3,521,070 l. for the charge of the land forces. He was a Member of the Committee which had been sitting for three years upon the Army Estimates. In the Committee the most important questions would have to be considered with respect to the consolidating the department of the Ordnance, and the Sappers and Miners, with the Commander-in-Chief's office, and the doing away altogether with the establishment in Pall-mall. Questions likewise with respect to the Engineers, to the clothing, to the commissariat, and to agency, would have to be considered by this Committee; yet all these important subjects of investigation, of reform, and of economy, were involved in the vote of 3,521,070 l., which

793
the Secretary of War asked the House to vote in Committee at once. It would be impossible to effect any reduction if they were at once to vote the whole of the money. He had proposed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to take a Vote on account; but the noble Lord did not agree to that. He (Mr. Hume), therefore, now asked the House not to agree to this Estimate until the Committee had had the opportunity of coming to some conclusion on a subject so important. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had properly observed that in the evidence before the Committee they would find that almost every item had been fully discussed. That being the case, ought not the Committee to have an opportunity to decide upon that evidence? But there was another objection to this Vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward a Budget which had been pronounced by the whole country as altogether unsatisfactory, and the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn it for a time in order to reconsider it. Inconvenience always resulted from a change of taxation, and it was the business of Government to prevent that as much as possible. Now, what was the situation of the country? The timber trade, the coffee trade, and the seed trade, all of which were affected by the Budget, wove at a standstill. Seeing that, it was the duty of the House to demand the new Budget before the public money was voted. He had no objection that they should take a Vote on account if they would fix the day on which the Budget should be brought forward. He wanted to know whether it was proper that taxation should be kept up as it was when one great portion of the community, the agriculturists, were in distress? In 1836 the revenue amounted to only 46,000,000 l.; in 1842 it was 48,000,000 l., and now it was 54,000,000 l., and, if they added the expense of collection, very nearly 4,000,000 l., it was 57,000,000 l. It was on these grounds that he wished the Budget to be brought forward before they voted any money, in order that the House might have an opportunity of doing as they did three years ago—compel the Government to make a reduction. If they had permitted Government to have the supplies they then asked for, did they think there would have been a reduction in the Estimates of more than 3,000,000 l. since that time? No; not a farthing of it. He moved that no further
794
supplies be granted till the financial statement was made.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'no further supply be granted until the Financial Statement has been made,' instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. S. CRAWFORDseconded the Amendment.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, as far he could understand it, was to obtain a repetition of the pledge which his noble Friend had given on a former occasion that the financial statement should be made on Friday next. He could assure his hon. Friend that there was no man in that House so anxious that that statement should be made as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was, because he was anxious to say what he had to say in explanation and defence of the course he had adopted. Unless any unforeseen circumstances should arise which he suggested as a contingency, the Financial Statement would be made on Friday next. There had been no delay on his part. But his hon. Friend knew as well as he did that a considerable length of time had been occupied by the discussion of a measure in which an overwhelming majority in that House had by their votes shown they had great interest. His hon. Friend knew that the financial year closed that day, and from that day forward no money could be issued from the Exchequer for the payment of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, until it had been voted by the House, and therefore it was requisite that these Votes should be come to on that day. His hon. Friend must know that whether the statement was made on that day or on Friday, it was perfectly impossible that the points to which he had referred then could be decided. A considerable time must be occupied in the discussion of those various points, and it was impossible that either on Friday or on Monday those points could be settled. If, therefore, his hon. Friend was really anxious, as he believed him to be, to despatch public business, he would allow them to proceed with that which really was the business of the night.
MR. ELLICEsaid, as a Member of the Committee to which his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had referred, he

795
would entreat his hon. Friend not to proceed at present with the Motion which he had made. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the Committee would have wasted its time if certain improvements were not the consequence of the inquiry before the Committee, and that when the other Votes came under consideration it would be the duty of those who sat on that Committee to press on Her Majesty's Government the necessity of considering whether, by consolidating the establishments and other arrangements, considerable economy could not be effected both in this country and the colonies. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to tell them that Government had had these subjects under consideration; and as the particular Votes came before them he would state the opinion of the Government on the subject. He thought the Committee generally agreed that a consolidation of these offices might safely take place in the colonies, and it was of importance that they should have the opinion of the Government on the subject. But the Vote which the right hon. Secretary at War was about to bring before the House was one for the pay, clothing, agency, and foraging of the Army; and, do what the House might, money would have to be paid to maintain our troops. A division on this Vote would, therefore, only be a waste of the time of the House.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely mistaken his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. The complaint was, that the right hon. Gentleman had not made his statement before the Votes for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, were asked for. He was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman had not some compassion on those important trades—the Timber trade and the Coffee trade, which were now quite at a standstill. He had no hope whatever that any good would come of the recommendation of the Committee which had been sitting for three years. Whatever they recommended, he did not believe Government would pay any attention to. The present Government required 20,000 men more for our forces than any former Government had; and if the noble Lord could not carry on the Government as economically as other Ministers could, the House must insist upon his doing it.
MR. S. CRAWFORDcordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. He thought it was a principle that the House should insist upon, that the means of defraying expenditure should be stated to, and determined upon by, the House before they agreed to the expenditure. That was a principle they ought most particularly to insist upon under existing circumstances. The Budget which was brought in at the commencement of the Session was so objectionable that the people would not have it. They ought to know what the alterations were before they agreed to any Votes. He thought that there ought to be only a Vote on Account. There were other reasons. It was an established axiom of the constitution that the representatives of the people should have some satisfaction with regard to the redress of grievances before they voted any money. With regard to the question of reform, the noble Lord had made a kind of promise that that question should be considered in the next Session of Parliament; but they did not know whether the measure to be proposed would be of any value or not. The noble Lord had said, he was satisfied with the working of the Reform Bill, and that a franchise founded on numbers would be dangerous to the House of Peers. He wanted to know what kind of a measure the noble Lord, with these fears, would bring in. He also wanted to know what the noble Lord intended to do with the measure proposed by the hon. Member for East Surrey, and whether the noble Lord's measure would include the ballot or not. Then there was another important grievance connected with Ireland, the question of Landlord and Tenant. That question had been held in suspension by Government for years, and he wished to know whether they really intended to bring forward a Bill this Session or not. These were questions which be, as a representative of the people, was entitled to put, and if answers were not given, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would press his Motion.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he understood his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had already stated that, supposing the Government fixed a day definitively, he did not intend to press his Motion to a division; and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an assurance that he would make his statement on Friday next. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry and the right hon. Gentle-

797
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as a reason for proceeding with the Vote, that this was the last day on which money could issue from the Exchequer for the payment of the troops. He was surprised that any Member of the Government should bring forward such a reason as that. He denied that it was an argument, seeing It that the remedy was in their own hands. Why had they not gone into Supply two months ago? It was quite true there had been a Bill, which, as the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, an over-whelming majority of the House had taken great interest in, but it had not occupied the whole of the Session.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a distinct pledge that the financial statement should be made on Friday next. What the right hon. Gentleman said was, that if nothing unforeseen occurred, he would make it. He did not think the terms made use of by the right hon. Gentleman were sufficiently distinct. He wished to know whether it was really his intention to make the statement on Friday next? He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction on the subject, and he did not know why the statement had not been made before, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman was himself so anxious to make it. The right hon. Gentleman had made in that House a distinct proposal for the repeal of the window tax, and the public thought that that tax was virtually repealed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought he had been sufficiently explicit. His noble Friend had stated, that on Friday he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would make his financial statement. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had just stated again that he should do so; and he now stated, for the third time, that he should bring it on on Friday next.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
1. Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 3,521,070 l. be granted to Her Majesty, for defraying the Charge
798
of Her Majesty's Land Forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and on Foreign Stations (excepting India), which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April, 1851, to the 31st day of March, 1852, inclusive."
MR. HUMEsaid, the House would recollect that during the last two Sessions they had adopted the course of giving a Vote on account. If that course were taken now, there would be time to consider the recommendations of the Committee before the Session was closed. He should therefore move as an Amendment, that 2,000,000 be granted on account.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 2,000,000 l., on account, be granted to Her Majesty, for defraying the Charge of Her Majesty's Land Forces in the United Kindom of Great Britain and Ireland and on Foreign Stations (excepting India), which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April, 1851, to the 31st day of March, 1852, inclusive."
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, on former occasions he had not the least objection to taking a Vote on account; and on this occasion, if he saw any advantage to be gained by adopting the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he should not have the least objection to it; but he did not believe that any advantage would result from having again to go into Committee of Supply on this Vote. It was true the Committee upon Naval and Military Expenditure had yet to make their Report upon the various subjects on which they had been engaged taking evidence during last year; but he did not think that any recommendation of theirs could be carried into effect within the present financial year. The only thing he could promise would be that the Government would be prepared to adopt any recommendation of the Committee in the ensuing year. He, therefore, thought the House would save its time by at once agreeing to the Vote.
MR. MOWATTasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some explanation with reference to the troops for the colonies. The Committee was aware that within the last few days there had been published copies of the correspondence that had taken place with reference to withdrawing the troops from New South Wales. That correspondence had been going on for some years, and he believed commenced as far back as 1846. He wanted to know if the right hon. Gentleman would give some information on that subject; for if they were going to

799
withdraw the troops from the colonies, they might reduce the Army without impairing its efficiency. He had had no opportunity of drawing attention to this subject on Friday evening, because the Government had put down every Member who had attempted to say a word. The Government took advantage of the disposition of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House not to permit any discussion. It was only a little while ago that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made an appeal ad misericordiam to that large portion of the House who supported the same commercial policy as himself, to lay by all minor differences; and he was therefore surprised that the noble Lord should have treated liberal Members in the manner he did. It would have been better policy, even for his own sake, that he should have allowed a full discussion on such a subject, for it was one in which, he must admit, the county took a vital interest. One would have thought that he would have encouraged—nay, that he would have used his authority to have obtained—a fair hearing for all. The House would, no doubt, have given him everything he wanted, even if he had asked for twice as large a force; and therefore he (Mr. Mowatt) felt perfectly astonished that he should have sanctioned the treatment which his hon. Friends had received. He had no hesitation in saving that he felt himself personally aggrieved that the noble Lord should have had recourse to such arts to prevent any hon. Member from expressing his opinions on the subject. After such conduct, he cared not how soon the noble Lord might find himself again in the position in which he was a short time ago, and from which he had so lately emerged. He was in hopes the noble Lord had seen that the position in which he had lately found himself was owing to his neglect of those common courtesies which were due from a Minister of the Crown. To complain of Members walking out of the House! Why, he would walk out of the House with pleasure that night if he saw a question involving nothing more than that of the existence of the present Ministry. He wished to know when it was the intention of the Government to carry out their own proposition with reference to the withdrawal of troops from New South Wales and other colonies, only requiring them as police?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War had
800
gone at considerable length into various questions connected with the Army; and he had endeavoured to show what reductions he thought proper to make, as well as why it was thought necessary that so large a force should be retained. He (Lord J. Russell) really did not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by his charge against himself. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. MOWATTsaid, that a large portion of the hon. Gentlemen who cheered the noble Lord were not present on the occasion referred to, and therefore he could not bow to their decision on the point. The Committee would perhaps allow him to explain. The noble Lord would recollect that between twelve and one o'clock on Saturday morning, there having been only three Gentlemen who had made any observations upon the Estimates, it became very evident that the Committee—he would not pretend to investigate or analyse the cause—refused to hear any further observation or argument whatever upon the subject. Upon that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) said that in addition to the unusual course of granting after twelve o'clock so large a vote as 3,000,000, the Committee was wholly indisposed to allow any discussion to take place. Upon that the noble Lord rose and said that they (the Liberals) were very unreasonable. He (Mr. Mowatt), for one, had not opposed the first division—with reference to the number of men, feeling that the period was drawing so near when the Army could not be kept together any longer unless the money and the Mutiny Act were voted. He therefore felt more strongly the unfairness of preventing the further discussion of the subject. He did not mean to say the noble Lord had himself joined in the interruption—looking at the position he held, it could not be expected that he would—but the noble Lord appeared to receive the interruption with much pleasure. He therefore did think that he was not abusing language when he said the noble Lord availed himself of the obstruction to prevent their expressing their opinions.
SIR DE L. EVANSwished to ask a question with reference to the allowance to married soldiers. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he would reduce the number of men to whom such allowance was paid, and increase the sum to each; that then he would wait to see what would be the result upon the morality of the troops; and that he would after-

801
wards consider the expediency of extending the grant. He was anxious to know whether the grant would be made to the six married men in every regiment?
MR. FOX MAULEwas understood to reply, that it was intended to diminish, as far as possible, the objectionable practice of married men occupying the same room with unmarried. Now, if he recollected what he stated in evidence, it was this, namely, that he was aware the allowance was insufficient for the purpose of providing them separate accommodation. He proposed, therefore, to double the amount of the sum; and he intended to ask the Committee to double the grant for that purpose. At the same time, he thought that if, by increasing the allowance, three of the soldiers might be withdrawn from the room, accommodation might be found for the other three without making them the allowance.
MR. MOWATTwished to know how many regiments there were in the colonies, and when it was intended to reduce them?
MR. FOX MAULE,in reply to the question of the hon. Member, begged to state, that the force in New South Wales had been in course of reduction for several years; and that Earl Grey had intimated a desire, on the part of the Government, that it should in future be kept as low as the wants of the public service would admit.
MR. HUMEmust complain that opportunities for bringing on subjects were very rare. He had been trying for three years to bring on a single question, namely, the reduction of the number of admirals from 155 to 100, but without success. Their only chance was in going into Committee of Supply; and, therefore, he wanted hon. Members to interest themselves in these very expensive establishments. He wished to know whether the time had not come when they ought to consider how they could maintain these 98,040 men at the least possible cost, consistently with the efficiency of the force? Why should they, then, keep 351 Guards at home, with an allowance of 32 officers, when they had only 40 officers for 1,000 or 1,200 men engaged in active service abroad? The aristocratic influence, however, was so strong, and their interest in keeping up this useless expense was such, that Government never would alter the system unless the House took the matter into their own hands. He found, on looking at the estimates, the following analysis of our
802
troops: It appeared that we had 98,714 men, of whom 1,300 were Life Guards, 7,000 Cavalry of the Line, and 5,000 Foot Guards; and in these regiments there were double the number of officers in proportion that there were in the rest of the Army. The Household Troops were never called upon to engage in active service, except on some extraordinary occasion, like Waterloo, or in putting down some trifling disturbance, perhaps once in 10 or 12 years. And yet they had as many as 10 colonels for 300 men. He thought it was not right that any particular corps should be called Life Guards; but that every regiment should take its turn of duty at Court, and that all should be placed on exactly the same footing. Was it not very discouraging to the rest of the Army that these men, who did little or nothing besides displaying their uniform, should possess such superior advantages over men who had spent their lives in the service of their country? It had been said that "a soldier leads a merry life;" but he had seen quite enough of service to know that it was often very unsatisfactory and unpleasant, It was, therefore, a most injurious and unfair thing that the bulk of the troops should be treated in a different manner than the Guards. It had been said that the British Army was the finest in existence. He hoped it was so; and if it was, let them do justice to all parts of it. Let some regular system be adopted which would not confine all the benefits of the service to these 15,000 troops, but extend them equally to the whole 98,000. The fact was, however, that there were so many hon. Members connected with the Army, that they dared not go into the question. He presumed that they were afraid. He believed that such an equalisation as he had been speaking of would greatly contribute to the morale of the Force. The Guards were not expected to provide for themselves like other people; but a table was provided for them at St. James's, which cost 5,000 l. a year: and this and other privileges had made them look upon themselves as if they belonged to a superior order of beings. He felt himself bound to protest against the whole system. He would have no pet corps; but he recommended the Austrian plan to their consideration. It would not, perhaps, be judicious to talk too much about the Indian army; but he would venture to say, that there had never been a more useful force. In that too, there was no pet corps;

803
but every regiment, from No. 1 to No. 50, took its turn of service, underwent the same fatigues, and had the same chance of distinguishing itself. But the fact was, the aristocratic interests had entered too much into the question; and it was, therefore, high time that steps should be taken to effect a reform. The Guards were completely smothered with patronage. Being always at home, they could look after every thing that was to be given away; and so they were often preferred before men who were risking their health, and even their lives, abroad. He considered that the Army was treated ill, and that both the Government which permitted, and the House of Commons which acquiesced in such injustice, were equally to blame. He had taken a great deal of trouble to get the table provided for the Guards to which he had alluded a little changed; but it still stood in much need of alteration. Another subject to which he wished to refer, was the purchase of the forts from the Dutch on the Gold Coast. Those forts had cost 20,000 l.; and we paid 11,879 l. a year for the troops, in addition to which, artillery and stores had to be reckoned—making a total annual expense of 20,000 l. He wished to ask, whether Earl Grey had had any communication with the Governor of Canada, with the view of relieving us from the burden of troops in that part of our North American possessions. The exorbitant expenses of our colonial corps in Canada would appear from comparing the estimate for the Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment with that of the Royal Newfoundland Companies; the latter was only 9,203 l. 10 s. 2d., while the former amounted to 31,358 l. 7s. 1d. The expense of the Ceylon Rifles was 51,000 l.; and with out referring to the scenes which had taken place there, he submitted that a great saving might be effected in that island. Canada, he would submit, was a mixed population, but he would extend to it the system on which the Government had decided to act with respect to Australia, namely, to withdraw from it the whole of the troops. Canada was much better able to bear such a policy than Australia. The British Government had done much more for it. It had given it self-government, crown lands, and everything, and it was quite capable of maintaining its own Army. Nevertheless he found the expense of the military establishment in our North American colonies was no less than 800,000 l. a year. Gentlemen might talk as they pleased, but
804
it was impossible that the country could be relieved from taxation so long as they spent between four and five millions a year more upon our armaments than they formerly did.
MR. VERNON SMITHcomplained that the Debate was very irregular; and that the lion. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had been speaking neither to the original Motion nor to the Amendment. He, for one, must deprecate the practice of taking Votes on account. The result he bad always found to be, that when the first part of the sum was taken, the discussion was postponed; and of course when the other part was asked for, it was always too late to debate upon it. Thus there was no discussion either at one stage or the other. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of War quite chuckled at the idea, and certainly the notion of promoting discussion by taking a Vote on account was the strangest course he had ever heard of. He did not think that the Committee which had been referred to, supplied any reason for a Vote on account. He thought the Committee might be able to report this Session upon some matters, as to the question of the consolidation of offices, with regard to which their opinions might influence the decision of the House, and he therefore considered it advisable that such Votes should be for the present postponed.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, his intention was to proceed with the Army Estimates in the usual way, and to submit each Vote seriatim to the Committee, and he saw no reason why they should take the Vote now before the Committee except as a whole. He agreed that the system of taking Votes on account tended in general to stifle discussion; but the hon. Member for Montrose, although he proposed in this instance that a Vate on account only should be taken, had gone into the whole question. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's objection to the maintenance of the Guards, he entirely differed from him for various reasons. In the first instance, he looked upon the Guards as part of the state and royalty of the Monarch. In the next place, he looked upon them as the guard of this vast and wealthy metropolis; and with respect to the proposition of the hon. Member to make all the regiments do duty at Court in rotation, he believed that the proposition would meet with general opposition from the Army itself. The officers, though they had to live in London, had only a trifle.

805
higher rate of pay than officers of the line; and having no barracks, they had to find their own lodgings. Another point in favour of the Guards was, that, from their almost constant residence in London, they were completely acclimatised, while it would be found that whenever a regiment of the line was brought to London the number of deaths was far greater in proportion, owing probably to the change in the habits of life of the men, than the deaths among the Guards. He might also remind the Committee, that whenever it had been necessary to send troops abroad on an emergency—as in the case of the expedition to Portugal, and the reinforcements required for Canada at the time of the insurrection—the Guards had been assembled and sent off at a few hours' warning, and had discharged their duties in the most satisfactory manner. For these reasons he looked upon the Guards as a force which ought to be retained. With respect to the Gold Coasts, the fact was that half a West India regiment was stationed there, and another regiment had been sent to relieve them. The cost, instead of being 11,000 l., was only 6,000 l. As to Ceylon, he could not enter into that question fully without raising the whole discussion; but he would say that we got more from Ceylon than from any other of our colonies.
MR. HUMEsaid, he did not wish to cast any reflections on the Guards, he only meant to say that the other troops were as good. He had complained of the number of officers, and the consequent increased expense of the Guards; and to that the right hon. Gentleman made no allusion. The right hon. Gentleman had hinted that it would be very inconvenient for officers of the line to come to London to do Court duty. He should not wonder if it was under the present system by which the Guards were looked on as a superior race, and whose example the officers of the line might feel it necessary to emulate. But it would not be a very difficult matter if it was established as a regular routine of duty. He was ready to admit the great forbearance of the Guards in times of popular disturbance, but here again he denied; that they had behaved better than the other troops. The expense of British troops was nearly double that of the same number of troops belonging to any other country in the world. He could not see what objection there could be to taking a Vote on account, and leaving an opportunity for further discussion.
COLONEL REIDsaid, he must deny that there were more officers in the Life Guards than in the regiments of cavalry of the line. It was the rule that no small detachments of soldiers should do duty in the metropolis except under the command of a commissioned officer, and this rendered a great number of officers necessary. The officers of the Guards, he maintained, positively served the State gratuitously. They paid largely for their commissions; and after deducting the interest of the money, and taking into account the regimental charges, there was positively not a farthing of their pay at the disposal of the officers.
MR. MOWATThoped to have some further explanation, not only with reference to the troops in New South Wales, but also as to those in Canada. The reduction of these troops would be a legitimate means of reducing the number of the Army without impairing its efficiency; within the last two or three years two regiments had been withdrawn from New South Wales, which had virtually increased the numbers of the Army, just as though they had voted 2,000 additional men in the Estimates. From his acquaintance with New South Wales, he was convinced that the greatest boon and advantage they could render to that Colony was to take away every soldier. When that was done, the Home Government would be compelled to give the colonists what they had been so long promised—the management of their own affairs, and they would then flourish and progress in a ratio of which no idea could now be formed. The Colonies would then become what they were intended by nature to be—the real outlets for the productions of this country. He wished to know whether the remaining troops were to be removed from New South Wales; and if not, whether this country was to be relieved altogether from the cost of their maintenance? Earl Grey, in his despatches, pointed distinctly to the intention on the part of the Homo Government to throw the cost of the troops on the colonists themselves. He wished to know the number of troops left in New South Wales, when they were likely to be removed, and when the same system would be applied to Canada?
MR. FOX MAULEwas understood to say that the number of troops now in New South Wales had been reduced, as far as the Government deemed necessary. Earl Grey had been gradually reducing the

807
number; and it was at present as low as it had ever been. It was not intended entirely to withdraw the troops from New South Wales, and he doubted whether the feeling there was in favour of their removal. He had invariably found, whenever it was proposed to remove troops from any place, either at home or abroad, that the inhabitants complained of a vast source of profit being taken from them. It was not the intention of Government at present to remove those troops; but he trusted the time would come when it would be possible to do so. In Canada, they were not prepared at present to reduce the troops any further.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the large proportion of officers in the Guards was most unjust. The evidence taken before the Committee on the Estimates showed that, in the Guards, the proportion of superior officers to the men was 1 to 74; while in the cavalry it was 1 to 337; and in the regiments of the line 1 to 617. That was a most unjust disproportion; and the result was, that the higher ranks and rewards of the service were given chiefly to Guardsmen. The pay of a colonel of the Guards was 496 l.; allowances, 127 l.; making a total of 623 l.: whilst those two sums in the line only amounted to 331 l.. In the Guards majors of the highest class received 670 l., of the lowest 552 l. 16 s., besides allowances. The captains in the Guards, who were lieutenants-colonel, received in pay and allowances 434 l.; in the line it was 239 l. 10 s. 6d., and the former had also the advantage of the stock, purse, and other allowances. It was said the officers in the Guards paid more for their commission; but they got the advantage in rank and higher pay. Putting all these things together, it would be found that they were a very expensive corps. It was most unjust to the officers of the Army that there should be 68 colonels and lieutenant-colonels in the Guards; while in the whole Army the proportion was only 1 to 610. He did not complain of the rank in the Horse Guards, but only in the Foot Guards. Nor did he complain of the way in which the duty was done by those regiments in London; though there were some duties, such as attending the theatres, which might be dispensed with.
MR. MACGREGORwished to make some observations on this as a financial question. Considering that 3,000,000 l. of the taxes were involved in that Vote, he thought it would be trifling with the con-
808
stitution to pass it hastily. The statement of the right hon. Secretary at War was as satisfactory as any he had ever heard; still he thought it possible greatly to reduce the amount of the Vote by limiting military duty in this country and also in the colonies, especially in the North American colonies. No force which could be sent out to those colonies could make them continue their loyalty, unless they were determined to do so, which he believed was the case. In the Canadas alone there was a militia of 120,000,000 men, all as good shots as any in the British Army. In addition to these, a few companies of regular troops stationed at Montreal and other large towns would be amply sufficient. In New South Wales, 100 or 200 men would be quite sufficient. He did not believe that the inhabitants generally had any wish for the retention of the troops on account of the money they spent. In Ireland, exclusive of the regular troops, there was another army in the shape of the constabulary force. Why should Ireland have a greater number of troops, in proportion to its inhabitants, than Scotland? He was certain the number of troops in Ireland might be considerably reduced. He was glad the House had had an opportunity of discussing this Vote, instead of passing it in an intemperate manner at half-past one on Saturday morning. He saw no advantage in dividing on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, as it was sure to be negatived. He regretted to see that the disposition of the House was such, that if they did anything more rashly than another, it was voting away the public moneys He hoped the Government would apply themselves to economising the army expenditure; by so doing they might easily effect a saving of 25 per cent.
MR. HUMEsaid, it was his intention to divide the House on his proposition to vote 2,000,000 l. of this Vote on account, so that they might leave the rest of the amount to be discussed later in the Session, and after they had the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. They could have no reduction of taxation without first reducing the expenditure; and he had yet hopes of making, this Session, a large reduction in their extravagant military expenditure.
COLONEL LINDSAYcould not allow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) to pass without expressing his dissent from them. The hon. and gallant Member said there

809
was a difference between the emoluments of the officers of the Guards and the line, to the disparagement of the latter. Now, he did not mean to say there might not be a fraction or so of difference between the two, but it was so small that it could not be any grievance. The rank at present enjoyed by officers of the Guards had been given them at a time when there were only seventeen regiments in the Army, of which eleven were only raw levies, hastily raised by noblemen to resist the Duke of Monmouth. While the Guards had only one field officer commanding a battalion, in the line there were three, and instead of that making-one officer to 677 men, it really made it only one to 283. Allusion had been made to the allowances for hospitals; but the fact was, the officers of the Scotch Fusilier Guards had built their own hospital at a cost of 6,000 l.; and his own regiment was about to lay out 1,000 l. for a similar purpose, which would not cost the country sixpence. Deducting all the allowances and necessary expenses, the net pay which a lieutenant-colonel of the Guards received was 38 l. 3s. 9d.; in the line it was 83 l. 5s.: a captain in the Guards, 42 l. 17 s. 6d.; in the line, 121 l. 7s. 11 d.; a lieutenant in the Guards, 31 l. 6s. 8d.; in the line, 83 l. 12 s. 6d.; an ensign in the Guards, 40 l. 7s. 6d.; in the line, 73 l. 6s. 3d. The net pay, together with allowances for a commanding officer (the major), in the Guards, was 205 l. 11 s.; in the line, 209 l. 7s. The allowance for lodgings for officers of the Guards was only 12 s. a week, which in London would get them little better than a garret. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then referred to a return moved for by the hon. Member for Montrose, the purport of which we understood him to state to be that the cost to the public of each battalion of the Guards was 1d. less per man than the troops of the line; and he concluded by assuring the House that an examination of the official documents before them would fully show that the country had no cause of quarrel with the household troops on the score of their expense.
COLONEL ESTCOURTwished to draw the attention of the right hon. Secretary at War to the injustice of withholding good-conduct warrants from sergeants in the Army: 1d. a day extra was paid to the private who had obtained a warrant for five years' good conduct in the service, and at the end of ten years the extra good-conduct pay was increased another 1d. a day.
810
This was the case with the private soldier, and when the private was promoted to be a corporal, good-conduct pay was also allowed in addition. But when the corporal was raised to a sergeant, it was said it must be understood that he was a man of good conduct to be entitled to such a promotion, and from the moment he became a sergeant all extra pay for good conduct was taken from him. That, he thought, was an inequality which ought not to be permitted.
COLONEL DUNNEbegged to he allowed to explain. There were 68 lieutenant-colonels for the Guards, and only 158 for the whole of the line. That he had called a hardship to the line, and he would repeat it. But the hon. and gallant Member for Wigan (Colonel Lindsay) had considered the majors of the line as if they were lieutenant-colonels. Now, what he (Colonel Dunne) complained of was, that the captains of the line were not allowed to rank exactly like the captains of the Guards. With regard to the amount which the hon. and gallant Officer's regiment had to pay for its hospital, what he (Colonel Dunne) had to say was, that he thought the Government ought to provide these sums for building and repairing hospitals, and he thought Government ought also to provide the Guards with barracks, as they did for all other troops. He wished unfair advantages to be given to none. He did not object to the Guards receiving more pay, because their living in London was an excuse for it; but they ought not to have superior advantages to all other regiments serving in every part of the world.
MR. HENLEYwished to know whether the 94,961 l. which the right hon. Secretary at War mentioned on Friday night as the amount of deposits in the military savings hanks included the amount paid in to the benefit societies abolished by the Act which passed a year and a half ago; and whether there should not be some account of the disposal of that benefit society money?
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, that according to the return for the year 1850 the number of depositors in the savings banks had been 7,859, and the amount deposited had been 94,961 l.; but that return comprehended neither those interested in the benefit societies, nor the funds belonging to them. The money belonging to the benefit societies was lodged in the public funds, and was administered on the recommendation of the commanding officers, with the con-

811
sent of the Secretary at War. He could have no desire to conceal the manner in which the funds had been disposed of, and he should be quite ready to give an annual account of the way in which they had been expended. With regard to the remarks which had been made on the position of the Serjeants, he had to observe that that was a point of very considerable importance, for it was one which related to the interests of a most meritorious class in the British Army. Various complaints had been made of the treatment of the Serjeants, and some of those complaints he was disposed to think were well-founded, while others were not so well-founded in his opinion. It should be remembered that many of the Serjeants had been but a few years in the Army when they had been raised to that rank, and that, after having attained it, they might become serjeant-majors; and as serjeant-majors were every year being promoted to the rank of ensigns, the highest positions in the Army afterward became open to them. It had been alleged that the Serjeants were subject to a higher charge for messing, clothing, and other items of expenditure than the corporals and privates. But they enjoyed the benefit of a better style of messing, reading-rooms, and other comforts; and if they had not so large a residue of pay as they ought to have in comparison with the corporals and privates, those advantages counterbalanced the reduction. In his opinion, therefore, that complaint was not well-founded. But it was said that Serjeants not only did not get good-service money, but that, if for any reason they were reduced to the ranks, they were not entitled to the good-sevice allowance, while the same rule did not apply to corporals. In that respect he admitted that the Serjeants had some ground of complaint, and he proposed to make some improvement in the system. There was another point, also, on which he thought the Serjeants had a right to complain. A Serjeant could not retire on a pension as Serjeant unless he had for three years filled that rank. Now the number of Serjeants who had served for less than three years in that rank was very inconsiderable, and he was not disposed to deprive the few who might so retire of the right to the usual pension of their comrades.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he thought that officers of the line laboured under one manifest disadvantage as compared with officers of the Guards. It had
812
been repeatedly stated by the highest Authorities before Committees of that House, that the higher ranks in the Army were obtained in the Guards in about eight or ten years less time than in the line; so that on an average about twenty years' service on the banks of the Thames was equivalent to thirty years' service on the banks of the Sutlej or Kaffirland. In his opinion there was a real grievance in that case. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had complained that the British Army cost more in proportion to its numbers than any other army in the World. Now, there was no doubt but it was a costly Army; but it should be remembered that it was subject to many expenses which were unknown in the armies of other countries, and that no other army went through anything like the same amount of work. The practice of purchasing commissions was a heavy charge on the British officers. He could pledge himself to the House that the amount of money they had so paid was near 10,000,000 l. He had always opposed the system of purchasing commissions; but it should be acknowledged that it was an economical one for the country. Under that system officers sold their com-missions to other officers, and the public was by that means saved the charge of many a pension.
SIR H. VERNEYsaid, that officers of the Guards were not always men who led inactive lives. Colonel Mackinnon, who was at present entrusted with so important a command at Kaffraria, was one of those officers; and officers of the Guards did good service on the Sutlej. He did not deny that officers in the Guards obtained promotion more rapidly than officers in the line, but the latter officers did not complain of that. With regard to the expenses of the two kinds of service, he should observe that a return had been made out some years ago of the cost of maintaining 1,200 men in the line, and 1,200 men in the Guards; and he believed, that if that return were produced, it would be seen from it that there was but a very slight difference in the two charges.
MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYsaid, that as a former officer of the line, he could say that he believed there was not the slightest jealousy between the line and the Guards.
COLONEL CHATTERTONbegged to introduce again to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, the case of that most deserving body of men,

813
the sergeants in the Army. He thought they were hardly, if not unjustly, used, in not having their good-conduct pay continued when they gained their promotion, which they had so dearly earned. In fact, their situation when promoted was much worse than that in which they were placed when holding the rank of corporal, if with three or four badges. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of the spare money of the sergeants of the Army; but that was a fund which existed only in imagination, inasmuch as they were obliged, by the regulations of the service, to pay a soldier one-and-sixpence a week for horse-cleaning; they were compelled to join a mess; and the clothing they were obliged to procure was of a more expensive quality. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take their case into consideration, and, before the next Estimates were presented, would grant them the money taken away on promotion, and give them something more to hope for than a chance of the 2,000 l. voted for distinguished services, when there were 7,171 expectant sergeants, amongst whom it had to be distributed. He begged also to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the largo sum of tenpence stopped from soldiers when in hospital. On a soldier going out of the hospital he was rarely placed on full diet, but upon half a spoon diet, the former costing about 5d., and the latter 4d. How great an injustice to the soldier it was, that at the period when the cost of his maintenance was less, he should suffer such an enormous reduction from his pay! The public purse was certainly a gainer, but the poor soldier suffered much afterwards from his reduced funds, and was rendered unable to purchase any little extra comforts to aid his returning strength. He suggested that the stoppage ought not to be more than sixpence.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War would find, on further examination, that a sum of 9,600 l. was included in the sum of 94,961 l., which the right hon. Gentleman had stated as the amount in the military savings banks. It certainly appeared so in the return which had been signed by the right hon. Gentleman itself. He could not, however, tell how far that fact would affect the number of depositors; but the right hon. Gentleman would probably give them some information upon that point on Some future occasion.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the statements which had been made with respect to the position of the different corps, showed that the Government ought to take the matter into their hands with a view to place it on a more satisfactory footing. Another point to which he should direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, was the cost of the recruiting system, which at present amounted to more than 100,288 l. It had been proved before the Committee upstairs that that sum might be reduced by one-half if recruiting were left in the hands of the officers of the pensioner corps.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, that he had not yet made up his mind as to the policy of transferring the recruiting system to the pensioner corps. The matter was still under his consideration.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that it afforded him much gratification to find that there had of late years been a decided improvement in the sanitary condition of our troops, lie was afraid, however, that nothing had yet been done to render the condition of the barracks at Barbadoes less unhealthy than it had been. A dreadful mortality had taken place two years ago in Barbadoes, and that mortality was distinctly traceable to the barracks. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to rectify that evil.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 135: Majority 104.

List of the AYES.

Alcock, T.

O'Brien, J.

Bright, J.

O'Connell, J.

Clay, J.

O'Connor, F.

Crawford, W.

O'Flaherty, A.

Evans, Sir De L.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Fagan, W.

Power, Dr.

Fox, W. J.

Salwey, Col.

Frewen, C. H.

Smith, J. A.

Greene, J.

Sullivan, M.

Hall, Sir B.

Trelawny, J. S.

Heyworth, L.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Humphery, Ald.

Wawn, J. T.

Keating, R.

Williams, J.

Kershaw, J.

Williams, W.

M'Gregor, J.

TELLERS.

Meagher, T.

Hume, J.

Nugent, Sir P.

Mowatt, F.

List of the NOES.

Anson, hon. Col.

Berkeley, Adm.

Armstrong, R. B.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Bowles, Adm.

Barrow, W. H.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Bass, M. T.

Bramston, T. W.

Bellow, R. M.

Brockman, E. D.

Beresford, W.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

815

Brown, W.

Lewis, G. C.

Bunbury, E. H.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Burghley, Lord

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Busfield, W.

Lockhart, A. E.

Carew, W. H. P.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Carter, J. B.

Mackie, J.

Cavendish, W. G.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Chatterton, Col.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Melgund, Visct.

Child, S.

Meux, Sir H.

Christy, S.

Milner, W. M. E.

Cowan, C.

Moody, C. A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Morgan, O.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Morison, Sir W.

Crowder, R. B.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Cubitt, W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Davies, D. A. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Deedes, W.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Denison, J. E.

Paget, Lord C.

Dod, J. W.

Pakington, Sir J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Duke, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Duncan, G.

Pigott, F.

Duncuft, J.

Power, N.

Dundas, Adm.

Pugh, D.

Dundas, G.

Rawdon, Col.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Reid, Col.

Dunne, Col.

Rich, H.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Romilly, Col.

Foley, J. H. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Forbes, W.

Russell, F. C. H.

Fordyce, A. D.

Sandars, G.

Forster, M.

Seaham, Visct.

Frcestun, Col.

Seymour, Lord

French, F.

Shafto, R. D.

Gilpin, R. T.

Smythe, hon. G.

Gore, W. O.

Somers, J. P.

Grenfell, C. W.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Spooner, R.

Grey, R. W.

Stafford, A.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Stanford, J. F.

Harcourt, G. G.

Stanley, E.

Harris, R.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Hastie, A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Heathcoat, J.

Thompson, Col.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hotham, Lord

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Tyler, Sir G.

Howard, P. H.

Vane, Lord H.

Hutchins, E. J.

Verney, Sir H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Wilson, J.

Jones, Capt.

Wilson, M.

Knox, Col.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Knox, hon. W. S.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Langston, J. H.

Hill, Lord M.

Original Question again proposed.
MR. W.WILLIAMSsaid, that, even after the long discussion which had taken place, he was not satisfied on the subject of the advantages with reference to pay, &c., enjoyed by the Guards as compared with the regiments of the line. The existing distinction he thought detrimental to he public service. He found such items as "Compensation to Officers of the Royal
816
Horse Guards for reduction of pay of their present rank," 3,030 l.; and "Allowance to the three regiments of Household Cavalry, for paying the regiments, as borne on the establishment," 3,15 l.; making charges to the amount of 3,345 l. for the Horse Guards, which did not apply to regiments of the line. The "Table Allowance for Officers on guard at St. James's and at Dublin Castle" was 5,004 l. There were two breakfasts served, one at nine, and the other at eleven o'clock. Then there was dinner at seven o'clock, with port, claret, and sherry; and after the removal of the cloth as much claret as they liked to drink up to ten o'clock, after which none was allowed. The special allowance to the colonel of the Foot Guards was 1,083 l.; to the quarter-master of the Foot Guards 140 l. for making up the accounts. The field officers' compensation for loss of suttling house, which meant public-house, 312 l.; allowance to Foot Guard officers in lieu of stock purse, 9,257 l.; altogether the Foot Guard items amounted to 15,807 l. Much had been said with regard to the difference of pay of the Guards compared with that of the line. The Horse Guards numbered, officers and men, 1,308 men. The two regiments of the line most closely approaching the Horse Guards in point of number were the 1st Dragoon Guards and 9th Light Dragoons, numbering 1,302, or less than the Horse Guards by six. Now the number of officers in the Horse Guards was 96, whilst in the two latter regiments they were only 80—making a difference of sixteen officers. But in the item of non-commissioned officers the difference was still greater. In the Guards they numbered 159, whilst in the 1st Dragoons and 9th Light Dragoons they numbered only 110—making a difference of forty-nine. The allowance to field-officers, captains, riding-masters, and farriers in the Guards, amounted to 6,448 l., whilst in the other regiments referred to it was only 3,026 l. The clothing of the Guards costs 10,392 l., whilst the 1st Dragoon Guards and 9th Light Dragoons were clothed for 5,287 l. Thus the total cost of the Guards was 86,728 l., against a total of the two other cavalry regiments of 57,028 l., showing a difference of 29,700 l. excess in the item of the Guards. In the Foot Guards the difference was still more surprising. There were three regiments of Foot Guards, consisting of 5,260 officers and men, whose allowance amounted to 20,737 l., whilst the allowance for the two

817
battalions of the 1st regiment of the line, and of the 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 13th regiments, consisting of 5,378 men, or 118 more than the three regiments of Foot Guards, was only 1,990 l.; that was to say, the Foot Guards, with 118 fewer men, got ten times more than the six regiments of the line. The clothing allowance for the Guards was 20,025 l., for the six regiments of the line 14,273 l. The total cost of the Guards was 192,413 l., of the regiments of the line 160,113 l., mating a difference of 32,300 l. The number of Guards, horse and foot, amounted to 6,568 men, and they cost the country 81,152 l. more than an equal number of men in the line. What he proposed was to reduce the cost of the Guards to that of the regiments of the line, by doing which they could either add 2,800 men to the Army, or save the cost to the country. lie was aware that none but aristocrats of the first water, or their immediate connexions, had much chance of getting commissions in the regiments of Guards; but he did not see what right they had to greater privileges than the other portions of the Army. He thought the time was come when justice must be done to those gallant soldiers who had fought their country's battles abroad—who went through the Peninsular campaign, and bled at Waterloo. The country would no longer be content to see men who had been thirty and forty years in the service of their country unable to obtain that promotion which mere striplings obtained after eleven or twelve years' service in the Guards.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 3,439,918 l. be granted to Her Majesty, for defraying the Charge of Her Majesty's Land Forces in tin; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and on Foreign Stations (excepting India), which will come in coarse of payment from the 1st day of April, 1851, to the, 31st day of March, 1852,"inclusive."
MR. FOX MAULEregretted that, after the discussions which had taken place as to the relative merits of the Guards and regiments of the line, the hon. Gentleman had thought it right to renew the attack on the regiments of Guards. He hoped, however, the House, at all events, would not go into that vexed question. Both parties had pleaded their cause; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) put forward the case of the regiments of the line with great fairness and temper. He
818
(Mr. Fox Maule) did not pretend to say there was not inequality; but, as far as he was personally concerned, he had never heard, whilst he was serving in a regiment of the line, of those jealousies which were said to exist as to the privileges of the regiments of Guards. It should be recollected that those privileges existed for many years; and those who entered the service in the regiments of the line were aware of the existence of those privileges—so that they could not complain of any peculiar hardship. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the public table at St. James's Palace; hut that table was not for the Guards exclusively—it was for all troops on duty in London. This subject had been discussed by the Committee upstairs; but they did not think fit to recommend its discontinuance. A similar table existed for those who did garrison duty in Dublin; and it was his opinion that it should be maintained both at the Regal Court and at the Vice-Regal Court. If one went, both should go; but he recommended, in his evidence before the Committee, that both should be maintained, lie should oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentlemen.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he could not agree to sweep away a number of the items with which the hon. Member for Lambeth found fault. What he objected to with respect to the regiments of Guards was the rate of promotion, and not the pay which they received.
MR. HUMEsaid, that he never objected to the pay of either officers or men in the Army. He thought that the pay was not enough either in the Army or Navy. What he complained of was this, that a number of men more than was necessary for the service was maintained. He also objected to the inequality which existed between the regiments of Guards and the line. He considered it would be better to have one uniform system for all. It was in that view, and not as regarded particular items, that he should support the Amendment.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 84: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Bright, J.

O'Connor, F.

Dick, Q.

O'Flaherty, A.

Greene, J.

Smith, J. B.

Humphery, Ald.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Keating, R.

Wawn, J. T.

Kershaw, J.

Williams, J.

Meagher, T.

TELLERS.

Mowatt, F.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, J.

Williams, W.

Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2,) 159,932 l., Staff Officers (exclusive of India).
MR. HUMEcomplained that the general staff officers were kept up to an amount beyond what was necessary. He found that there were general staff officers where there were only a few hundred men.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, that reductions in the general staff had been effected in Canada, the Cape, Australia, the Leeward Islands, and St. Helena. It was necessary that there should be general officers even where the number of troops was small, to carry out the military law.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained, in reference to the pay of the Commander-in-chief, which was 6,016 l, that it was given in consequence of the rank and station which he held in the Army. He thought the Commander-in-chief should be paid a distinct salary for his services, without any regard to his rank or station in the Army. He did not make these observations in reference to the distinguished individual who now held the office of Commander-in-chief; but, whenever the office became vacant, he thought that a change should be made.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 92,747 l., Public Departments.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not see why the country should be burdened with the expense of a Deputy Judge Advocate General, when the duties were so light.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, that the duties were not so light as the Gentleman supposed, seeing that questions relating to Courts Martial came before the Judge Advocate General, and that he had to see that proper justice was done to those tried by those courts, it was therefore necessary that he should have an assistant.
MR. HUMEcomplained that the recommendations of the Committee, which sat some eight or nine years ago, in favour of the appointment of a Minister at War, were not carried out. These recommendations stood on the books, but that was all. He did not think there was any use in Committees sitting, if what they recommended was not attended to. He believed, if they had a Minister at War, that a great deal of the confusion in their military system would be got rid of.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) 16.901 l., Royal Military College.
COLONEL REIDthought that military men had great reason to complain of the regulation which had been recently introduced, rendering it necessary for them to
820
undergo an examination previously to promotion. The scheme was in itself objectionable, and the mode in which it was carried out rendered it in the last degree offensive and humiliating to officers. When it was taken into consideration that the position which military men held in this country was different from that which they enjoyed in all other lands—that they were subject to hardships, toils, and privations unknown to the military of other countries—that they had to serve in the most unhealthy climates—that they surrendered their personal liberty, and pledged themselves to a passive obedience—when all this was taken into consideration, it would surely be admitted that some respect should be paid to their sense of honour, and that their feelings ought not to be gratuitously wounded. He entirely denied the necessity of these examinations, and he thought that their introduction was a positive act of ill-faith to those who had entered the service without the least suspicion that their promotion would have to depend upon any such contingency. The officers of the line were fitly and properly educated for the efficient discharge of the duties which devolved upon them, and he entirely denied the practical utility of the abstract sciences in their case. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War to say whether, during his military experience in an infantry regiment, he had known an instance where algebra, Euclid, and logarithms were of practical utility to officers. He (Colonel Reid) had not met any such instances. These studies interfered with the acquirements really useful in the profession; and he might state that he knew officers who thoroughly studied their profession, but who had left the service in disgust because they found that, after all, they were in no better position than steeple chasers, or persons who passed their time in that way. He could wish to see some judicious means adopted to induce military men to study their professions; but this scheme of examinations he denounced as most preposterous. High-spirited and highbred officers would not endure a military pedagogue in their barracks and mess-rooms. They would justly regard such a person as a spy, who would watch their conduct invidiously, and report their proceedings at head-quarters. British officers would not brook such a system. They would not permit themselves to be treated like school-boys. The injustice to those who had entered the service without fore-

821
seeing, the introduction of such a system, was, he must repeat, most flagrant. If such an officer discharged his duty with zeal, efficiency, and regularity, he was entitled to promotion as a matter of right, even though he had an inadequate notion of algebra and Euclid. The mode in which the examinations—especially those for commissions—Was carried on, was exceedingly capricious and improper. The examiners frequently proposed the most absurd questions. As an illustration of this assertion, he would mention that the son of a friend of his, on his examination for his commission, was asked what was the difference between a monk and a friar? This was a matter of which the lad knew nothing, and indeed the loss he knew the better, but he nevertheless was not unprovided in his own mind with a reply, and had it not been that he feared being "plucked" for disrespect to the examiner, he would have answered that it was six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other. He knew another case where a young man was refused his commission because he had not answered an abstruse and irrelevant question in Grecian History, which he (Colonel Reid) should not have been ashamed to have failed in. The system was altogether an injudicious one. The questions and answers were laid down in certain books, and unless those books were purchased and the questions and answers committed to memory, the person under Examination was likely to be unsuccessful. One effect of the system had been to put officers to expense for private tutors to cram them for examination.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, he had heard many objections made to the new system of education in the Army, but the gallant Officer who had just sat down was certainly the first who had had the courage to defend the old state of ignorance among the officers of the Army. The fact was that now that they had begun to educate the private soldiers of the Army, it was quite requisite that the officers also should be more highly educated in proportion, or else the men would speedily be excelling those who commanded them in all the branches of information requisite for the profession; and if that ever happened, the next step would be that the men would begin to entertain a thorough contempt for the officers who were set over them. The Commander-in-Chief had, however, taken steps to avert such a state of things, by affording to officers every opportunity of acquiring in-
822
formation necessary to pass their examinations at different parts of their career. With regard to the preliminary examination of officers before receiving their commissions, he was sorry to hear that they had become such mere matters of form; but he would take care to inquire into it, and would see that none of these books of question and answer, to be learned by rote by officers about to undergo examination, should be of use, but for the future officers should he required to answer, at a moment's notice, any question which should emanate from the imagination of the examiner. The examination at the next step, when a cornet or ensign received his lieutenancy, was purely professional, and all that was required then was a knowledge of the general regulations of the Army, and a certain acquaintance with drill. The last examination which an officer had to undergo when he got his company, was, he admitted, of rather a serious character; but the complaint of the Army was not directed to the fact, that officers were subject to this examination, but that opportunities of acquiring the requisite information were not afforded to them. That they did not look down upon the information, was amply proved by the fact, that at Portsmouth, where there was a garrison master of high character and abilities to instruct the men, the officers themselves had solicited him to give them instruction in the various branches in which they were required to be examined. The time would soon come when he should have to come down to that House to ask for means to afford opportunities to officers to obtain those advantages for persons of their own rank and condition; and so far from such an officer being looked upon with suspicion by his fellow-officers, as had been insinuated, he was sure that his society would be courted more than that of any other officer in the regiment. With regard to the whole question, he hoped that the C mmander-in-Chief would not only not draw hack, but that he would continue to proceed with this system of education, by which officers would be made able to instruct their men, besides being instructed themselves in all the practical branches of their profession.
COLONEL REIDwished to explain that he had not intended, for an instant, to display the presumption of setting his own opinion against that of the greatest military authority of the age. But, in truth, he did not view the measure as emanating

823
from the Commander-in-Chief; he cast the whole responsibility of the measure on the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; because, if the Duke of Wellington had considered such steps necessary or advisable, would he not long ago have introduced them during the forty years of peace, in the greater part of which he had been at the head of military affairs? He was disposed, therefore, to consider it more in the light of a concession, on the part of that illustrious individual, to a Government with which he stood in rather a delicate position; and if he had been perfectly free, he (Colonel Reid) believed, would certainly have put his veto upon it altogether.
MR. HUMEsaid, if there was any one thing in the conduct of his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War which entitled him to the gratitude of the country, it was the arrangement he had introduced for the better education of the Army. To hear a gallant Officer complain of Government having adopted a course of instruction for the officer of the British service, was to him a matter of astonishment. Still more was he surprised to hear the gallant Officer say that because the Duke of Wellington had not during the forty years he had been at the head of the Army thought proper to introduce the system, therefore it was wrong for any one else to bring forward such a measure. It was to be regretted that the Duke of Wellington had not long since taken the course which had at length been adopted. The British Army was noted for its ignorance. ["Oh, oh!"] Its officers were, at any rate. ["No, no!"] He would say, "Yes." Take the officers of any battalion of the British service, and let them compete with the officers of a battalion of the French Army; and the former would have no chance whatever in regard to professional knowledge. The French officers went through a much more severe course of professional study than the British officers, and their education was of a higher quality. He did not blame the British officers for their inferiority to the French in these respects, for they had not the opportunity of acquiring the same degree of knowledge. When instruction was being given to the non-commissioned officers and privates of the British service, was it right that the officers should remain uninstructed? In the Royal Military College there were only 180 cadets, and he did not think it was necessary for that
824
small number to maintain a governor, at 1,000 l. per annum, a deputy governor, and a large staff of officers. The establishment was far too expensive. With respect to the mode of examination, he would prefer having a Committee constituted of an officer of engineers, an artillery officer, an infantry officer, and a professor, to examine the candidates, than the system that was in use at present, This was a blot which he was glad to find his right hon. Friend intended to correct. As far as regarded those officers who had been already ten or twelve years in the service, he was of opinion the proposed rules of examination ought not to be rigidly applied. It would be unjust to make the introduction of a system which would form a new era in the history of the British Army operate as a check to the promotion of men who had served their country for years under quite a different system—but as far as concerned new candidates for promotion, he would institute the strictest examination as to their qualifications.
SIR DE LACY EVANShad not had the opportunity of hearing the whole of the speech of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Reid), but he understood the gallant Colonel had endeavoured to cast odium on the right hon. Secretary at War for the introduction of a system which, if the right hon. Gentleman were responsible for it, would, in his (Sir De L. Evans's) opinion, greatly redound to his honour. It would, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had said, be a new era in the history of the British service. Hitherto money alone had been the means of promotion, but henceforth they might expect that efficiency and merit would be taken into consideration.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to express his great gratitude for this measure of education. With regard, however, to what had been said about the professors writing books and publishing them, he thought that such a course was absolutely necessary, because we really had no manuals on such subjects in this country, and officers were obliged to pick up their information from French and German works.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) 18,016 l. Royal Military Asylum and Hibernian Military School.
MR. HUMEwished to draw attention to the fact that it required 114 persons to take care of the 350 boys in the Royal Military Asylum, and 41 persons in the

825
Hibernian School to the care of precisely the same number. The building of the Royal Military Asylum was quite large enough to accommodate the whole body, and he did not see why the two institutions should not be joined in one.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, it must be borne in mind that this asylum was for the instruction of those children of soldiers who could have obtained instruction in no other mode, and that the education which they there received was such as would train them for becoming schoolmasters in their turn, which was the case in not a few instances. With respect to the Hibernian School it was peculiarly defensible, because from the number of Roman Catholic soldiers in the Army the number of orphans of that persuasion was very great, and in the Hibernian School they had an opportunity of receiving instruction in the tenets of their own religion without any interference from the authorities. He thought that this establishment stood on grounds different from Kilmainham Hospital, to which he had alluded on a former evening. He believed the school was a model institution, and that it was regarded with the deepest feelings of interest by all the public authorities of Ireland.
MR. HUMEstill thought that it was a misapplication of the public money, when for the same sum at least four times the number of children could have been maintained. He should be inclined to recommend the shutting up of the institution, and dispersing the children throughout their own countries.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) 65,000 l. Volunteer Corps.
MR. W. MILESexpressed himself much satisfied with the just tribute which his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War had paid to the services rendered by the yeomany of this country, and felt sure that his right hon. Friend would not do anything that would impair the efficiency of that body of men. Having himself (Mr. Miles) the honour of commanding a regiment of yeomanry, he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend to the short period which was allowed for them to exercise during this year, and also to the insufficiency of the pay. The period for which a regiment was called out was only five days for this year, and the pay for the man and his horse was only 5s. a day. Was this calculated to maintain either the number or the efficiency of the corps? He thought not; and his opinion was that
826
the allowance to each man ought not to be reduced from 7s. a day. Unless the regiments were placed upon that footing, he did not believe there were many colonels who would call their men out. The Government ought to have an efficient body of men, or none at all. Having stated thus much, he would proceed to make a few remarks upon a speech made last year to the House by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. F. H. Berkeley) relative to the yeomanry. Hon. Gentlemen would recollect that he had no notice that any such speech was about to be made, by which ridicule was thrown on a corps to which he had the honour to belong. Quoting from Hansard, he found the hon Member saying—
"He (Mr. Berkeley) would now show the Committee what the yeomanry were worth on an emergency. They all remembered the Bristol riots; and he thought hon. Gentlemen were not so ignorant of geography as not to he aware that Bristol was in two counties, Gloucestershire and Somersetshire, in both of which counties yeomanry abounded, arid very finely-dressed gentlemen they were. They wore a vast deal of hair on their faces, and they looked desperately fierce. But Bristol was on fire for three days, and was, during that time, completely at the command of lawless men, while the yeomanry were of no more use than a set of old applewomen. What aid did Bristol receive, in her three days of dolour and distress, from the voluntary heroes of Somersetshire? During that time about ten of the Somersetshire yeomanry marched into Bristol, and they were kindly locked up by the authorities to pre vent the mob from harming them."—[3 Hansard, cxiii. 374.]
In reply to that portion of the hon. Member's speech, he had to say that orders were issued by the magistrates of Bristol to Captain Shute to call out his troop. This was at ten o'clock, and at three o'clock the troop was mustered, but only seventeen men turned out. This was reported to the magistrates, whose orders were then asked for. It was at the same time stated to the magistrates that the stores were left at the Riding-house, which was the troop's quarters, where there was a considerable quantity of ammunition. The troop was ordered to march to the Riding-house, and wait there for further orders. Captain Shute obeyed that order, but no other order was sent to him. At the same time the regular military were ordered out of the city. This was on the Sunday, between nine and ten o'clock at night; and Captain Shute, having placed all the stores in safety, marched his troop to Brislington, being about a mile and a half from Bristol. The horses remained saddled all

827
night, and the men were ready to mount at a moment's notice. Early next morning Captain Musgrave marched into Bristol, and Captain Shute, without orders, joined the rear-guard and marched into Bristol with Captain Musgrave. This single troop of regulars and single troop of yeomanry assisted in clearing the streets: and an hon. Friend of his (now no more), the then Member for the western division of Somersetshire, being at Bristol, and acting as a county magistrate, assured him (Mr. Miles) that Captain Shute cleared a bridge, and made way for him to pass over in his carriage on two successive occasions during the disturbances. So much for that. He would now come to the regiment which he had the honour to command. Orders were issued for assembling the regiment on the Sunday morning. These were sent to Bath, being the head quarters; then sent round to the different men, many of whom had to march forty-six miles to join the regiment. Between four and five o'clock on the Monday evening the whole regiment, under the command of Colonel Horner marched into Bristol. All he could state was this, that at the expiration of the time their services were required in Bristol, not only were thanks issued to them by the magistrates, but they also received the thanks of the general in command, who particularly specified the service of Captain Shute's troop when acting with the regulars. He had thus made his statement as briefly as he could, but he trusted he had shown that Captain Shute's troop was not deficient in doing its duty. He ought to add, that the men of that troop who did not turn out on the Sunday were dismissed on the Monday morning. Such was his plain answer to the rather violent speech of the hon. Member for Bristol. ["No, no!—humorous."] Well, it might have been a humorous, but it was certainly a very sarcastic speech. Of course he should have felt it his duty, if he had been present last year, to have given the answer which he had now done. He hoped when the hon. Member again made an attack on the yeomanry, he would have the courtesy of making hon. Members who happened to belong to the corps acquainted with his intentions. Whenever he (Mr. Miles) had been out with the corps which he had the honour to command, to assist the civil force, he had always found them ready to a man to do their duty. He was happy to say that during that period they had never been called upon to act
828
against the people; but at the same time they had always shown a readiness to assist the civil power.
MR. F. H. BERKELEYsaid, it might be expected he should say something, but he would not occupy more than two minutes, in answer to the attack made upon him by the gallant General—he begged pardon, he did not exactly know the dignity of rank held by the hon. Member—[Mr. W. MILES: Colonel.] Well then, in answer to the attack of the gallant Colonel, he need occupy but little time. He hoped, however, that the gallant Somersetshire corps would not prove to be merely the vanguard of the enemy, to be followed up by the mournful and dangerous troop to which he had occasion to allude last year; because it would be a sad affair to have to encounter the whole band of yeomanry Gentlemen in that House. His ease reminded him of Hudibras, when he exclaimed—
"Oh! what dangers do environ
The man that meddles with cold iron!"
But to the speech of last year. What was the object of that speech? In the first place, he endeavoured to show to the House that the yeomanry, as military men, were perfect impostors; and, in the next place, he endeavoured to show that, as a constabulary force, they were not of the least use. That was the position he took up, and he did his best to maintain it. In doing so, he had occasion to refer to the Bristol riots; but he made no accusation or assertion as coming from himself, but quoted from the Bristol Gazette, an old established paper, which the hon. Gentleman must know had been published in Bristol many years. The editor was a most respectable individual, and a town councillor of the city of Bristol, a man without reproach. The paper had since descended to his son. From that paper he quoted a statement to this effect—that a body of men from the North Somersetshire Yeomanry had been called upon by the magistrates on Saturday—the three days riots being Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. [Mr. W. MILES: They were not called out till Sunday.] He would be able to show that they were called upon by the magistrates on the Saturday, but they never appeared until the Sunday. And when they appeared they showed in such small numbers—[Mr. W. MILES: It was only a troop.] He knew it was only a troop. It was the Bedminster troop. The Bedminster troop, being the nearest to

829
Bristol, to whom therefore should the magistrates apply but to them? They came up (as he had said), but in such small numbers, that they were locked up in the riding-house in Portmore-lane, by consent of Captain Shute, not S-h-double-o-t, but S-h-u-t-e. A letter appeared in the Bristol Gazette at the time, stating that Captain Shute concurred in opinion with the magistrates that his troop, having assembled in such small numbers, should be shut up. That was the statement of the editor of the Bristol Gazette, referring to his files of the year 1831. He held the statement in his hand, and any hon. Member who wished to read it was welcome to do so. He had the greatest respect for his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Miles), the gallant leader of gallant men; and be believed as to his gallant corps, that take them off their horses, and take them out of uniform—in which they looked like hogs in armour—put hem into smock frocks, and put a stick into their hands, and they would make excellent special constables. But, as a county constabulary—faugh!—they never did distinguish themselves, and never would. They would always be a most unfortunate defence against riots if they were called into action.
MR. W. MILESexplained. The yeomanary could not be called out without a magistrate's order, and it was by order of Alderman Daniels that they retired to the riding-house.
MR. HUMEhoped that the House, after the speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. F. II. Berkeley), would be prepared to dispense with the Vote altogether.
MR. FOX MAULEcould not agree with the hon. Member for Bristol in the aspersions which he had cast upon the yeomanry cavalry. He could not concur with him in thinking them "impostors" as soldiers, for the reports which he had seen from experienced officers of the Army warranted him in stating, that if well drilled and well disciplined, the yeomanry would perform any duty that any body of men could be called upon to perform. He regarded them as an admirable force.
COLONEL CHATTERTONsaid, that having had the honour of being frequently appointed inspecting officer of the yeomanry cavalry, and having performed that duty sixty-nine times, he was anxious to address a few words to the House on this subject. He could assure the House with honour, truth, and sincerity, that he had ever found the yeomanry a most zealous, active,
830
loyal, and efficient body; admirably drilled. considering the very short time allowed for training and exercise, and he was fully persuaded the tranquillity of England could not be preserved without the yeomanry cavalry.
MR. EDWARDS: It was not my intention to have offered a single remark upon this question; but finding, as I do, that the hon. Member for Bristol, notwithstanding the severe castigation j lie received last year from various Gentlemen in this House, has again reiterated the insults he then offered to every member of the Yeomanry Service here and elsewhere, I cannot remain silent; and I only regret that we have not a division, so that the country might judge of the support the hon. Member would receive at our hands. In referring to the services of this | arm of the service, I have only to quote the authority of the two Gentlemen who have I just sat down—the right hon. the Secretary at War, backed as he was by the hon. Member for Cork, who has himself been appointed no fewer than sixty-nine times Inspecting Officer of Yeomanry Cavalry, for: convincing proofs of its efficiency in times of general disturbance. Being myself connected with the Yeomanry, I hope and trust we may never have the hon. Member for Bristol amongst us. The hon. Member, in speaking of its officers and men, has thought fit to designate us as "impostors," "hogs in armour," &c., &c. Now, I ' wonder what he himself would look like, arrayed in any yeomanry uniform of the I country? Very unlike an officer and a soldier, I should imagine!
Vote agreed to.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, he did not propose that evening to bring forward any more of the Army Estimates, as it was now necessary to proceed with some of the Votes on the Ordnance Estimates.

SUPPLY—ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, that when the Ordnance Estimates were under the consideration of the House last year, he entered into some details, more than usually required, on account of the changes which had been made in them arising out of the recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Army and Navy Estimates. He would endeavour on this occasion to compress his remarks into as concise a form as possible consistent with the duty which devolved upon him. The amount demanded for the present year was

831
only a slight diminution upon that voted by Parliament in the last year. The reduction was 22,920 l. He trusted the House would not therefore imagine that every requisite attention had not been given to the consideration of all the items comprised in the Estimates. During the last three years a great reduction had been made in the Ordnance expenditure. Since 1849, the total saving had not been less than 580,646 l. The Government had been most anxious that this Estimate should be kept down to the lowest possible limit, and it had been the object of the department to second their views. But a vast extent of service was required from this department, and the expenses must be regulated by the requirements of the service, and by the amount necessary to maintain the Ordnance establishments in a state of vigour and efficiency. Hon. Members who would read the evidence taken upstairs, would see that none of the grave charges made against this department were substantiated. Valuable suggestions, no doubt, were made by the Committee, and their adoption had been followed by economical results. But economy was not always the consequence of reduction, and indiscriminate retrenchment led to increased expenditure. In no department were such results more likely to follow than in the Ordnance Department. He had great pleasure in bearing his testimony to the merits of the Artillery, Engineers, and Sappers and Miners. Every day justified him in the opinion of their worth, good conduct, and superior qualities. Now, the amount demanded on this vote was 712,755 l., being 173 l. less than was required last year. There was an increase on some of the items and a reduction on others. In the hospital expenses there was a diminution of 1,169 l. The medical department had been revised, and the whole of the charge on the hospitals now appeared in the estimates, with the pay of the soldiers in the hospitals deducted. It was gratifying to know that the Ordnance Department was not behindhand in its endeavours to educate its soldiers. The schools for the Artillery had been established many years, and they had been supported, up to 1840, by regimental subscription. The system pursued in the Artillery was to train non-commissioned officers at Woolwich; and the course of study embraced English grammar, algebra, practical geometry, astronomy, the use of the globes, measurement of heights and distances, and Scripture and English his-
832
tory. This was the initiatory course. Another class were instructed in mathematics, vulgar and decimal fractions, extraction of square and cube roots, and a theoretical knowledge of field and permanent fortification. The most satisfactory reports had been received of the progress they had made in their studies. At Woolwich there was a very inadequate supply of school accommodation; and this year there would be a vote to extend that accommodation, an extension which would be attended with the best advantages. The average daily attendance at these schools was as follows:—235 non-commissioned officers, 258 gunners, 116 drummers and trumpeters, and 233 boys. In libraries, also, this department must be considered as being in a satisfactory condition. In 1834, libraries were established for non-commissioned officers; in 1835 they were formed for gunners; and in 1849 the demand for the instruction which they were intended to supply had so greatly increased, that the libraries appropriated to the officers were given up to the non-commissioned officers and gunners, new libraries having then to be provided for the officers themselves. The next point to which he had to call attention was with regard to savings banks. He was happy to say, that since the establishment of these institutions in the Artillery, the number of depositors had largely increased. In 1845–6 the number of depositors was 383, and the amount deposited was 3,018 l. In 1849–50 the number of depositors was 1,109, and the amount deposited was 7,300 l. Other means had been taken for improving the condition of the department. Great benefits had resulted from the adoption of a suggestion made in that House, and urged in one of the military newspapers, in respect to the appointment of additional captains of artillery for the instruction of officers on joining their corps. He trusted that the House would appreciate the anxiety which, as he had shown, constantly actuated the superior authorities in this department, and that hon. Gentlemen would admit that every practicable improvement was being gradually adopted. Some changes had taken place in regard to the allowances to married soldiers. The allowance had been for a long time one penny per day, this being in conformity with a communication from the War Office; but recently an application had been made to the Treasury to sanction an alteration, and it was proposed that in future the allowance should be two-

833
pence per day to married non-commissioned officers living out of barracks. Considerable additions had been made to the buildings for married solders, giving accommodation for four non-commissioned officers and 100 men. There were now fifty-two cottages of that kind on Woolwich Common. These paid only a nominal rent, namely 7d. per week, which was the same allowance as last year in the Army, and this rent was applied to keep the houses in good repair. The question of punishments, to which he had now to allude, was one in which the House had always taken great interest. He thought it might be shown, in answer to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose, to the effect that the administration of the Ordnance should be transferred from the Master General to the Horse Guards, that the discipline of this corps was at present under most strict surveillance. With respect to corporal punishments, these, he was happy to say, were of very unfrequent occurrence in the Ordnance service. In 1846 and 1847, with an average corps of 7,000 men, the punishments were eight in the one year, and seven in the other; in 1848 and 1849, when the numbers of the force were increased, and to some extent by men who had under army reductions been dismissed as least deserving from the Army, the punishments were thirteen in the first year, and twenty-three in the second. In 1850, however, though the force numbered 10,000, so excellent was the discipline, that there were only six corporal punishments in the force; and he had no doubt that the diminution would go on. Under the head of recruiting, the House would perceive a considerable reduction. Recruiting was now carried on in the most economical manner; officers serving in different parts of the country doing the whole business, and doing it most satisfactorily. He had now entered into all the items connected with the general statement. To this first vote of 712,582 l. he particularly called the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, and he hoped that he (Mr. Hume) would separate this Vote from all the others, and that he would consider it upon its distinct grounds. The next Vote was for "268,257 l. for commissariat and barrack supplies for Her Majesty's forces, great coats for the Army, and clothing for colonial corps." This vote was less by 5,580 l. than the vote passed last year, and it arose as follows:—In the article of forage there was an increase of 10,700 l., in consequence of
834
the increased price of rations and forage. In the article of coals there was a diminution of 8,000 l. In the article of candles there was a diminution of 1,700 l.; and in the article of palliasses there was also a diminution. Altogether there was a diminution of 10,288 l., and an increase of 10,403 l., as compared with the Estimates of last year. The barrack supplies for last year amounted to 70,968 l.; this year they were only 66,000 l., being a diminution of 4,968 l. On this point a great deal of evidence was given in the Committee last year, and he was satisfied that this year's Estimate was unobjectionable. Considering that they had to provide barrack supply for 120,000 men, this Estimate only amounted to 10 s. per man. It should further be considered that there were 400 barracks of all sorts and sizes. In the article of great coats there was a diminution this year amounting to 3,000 l., the Estimate being 17,000 l. He could not promise that the Estimate would not be higher next year; for, just now, a new cloth was being provided of a rather expensive character, and it was considered desirable that the trial should be made. The third Vote was for 75,950 for the Ordnance Office. The alterations proposed by the Committee with regard to the amalgamation of certain offices had been carried out, and the result was that in the Vote for the present year there was a diminution, as compared with last year, of 11,000 l. He could not take credit for the whole of this diminution; because, as it would be noticed, the expenses of the storekeeper's department were not this year included in this vote, that department being transferred to the head "establishments." The actual diminution amounted to 3,684 l. He was satisfied that no department of the Government was harder worked than the Ordnance Office, and he was not less satisfied that that office was worked in the most economical manner. A comparison with the circumstances in 1835 and the circumstances in 1851–2 would sufficiently prove this. In 1835 there were 250 persons employed at an expense of 90,019 l. In 1851–2 there were 188 persons employed at an expense of 75,920 l. The next Vote was for Establishments in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies, 295,750 l. This was so voluminous a Vote that he would not occupy the attention of the Committee with its details; he would merely state that the total diminution upon this Vote was 8,076 l., which would have been 15,000 l. but that the storekeeper's depart-

835
ment, as he had before stated, had been transferred to it from the previous Vote. In the Ordnance establishments for the colonies there was a decrease of 5,200 l. In the barrack establishments at home there was a decrease of 4,000 l.In the barrack establishments abroad there was a decrease of 5,000 l.Great care was taken in obtaining the most accurate information as to the establishments abroad. In the first place all the reports were revised—first by the governor of the colony, and afterwards by the commander-in-chief; and the precautions adopted ensued the most excellent results, The next Vote was for the wages of artificers and labourers. In this Vote for this year there was a decrease on last year of 3,999 l. in the United Kingdom, and of 2,264 l. in the Colonies. The next Vote was for stores. This was the Vote which had always called forth the greatest amount of criticism from the advocates of economy. This year he submitted it to them with the most perfect assurance that the Committee would observe and admit the practical economy which had governed the department in this direction. In 1850–1 the sum of 211,631 l. was asked; in the present year he had to ask only 194,909 l., being a diminution of 16,722 l. The Estimate for small arms, included in this Vote, was 14,000 l.less this year than last year. It should be understood, however, that the supply demanded would not be considered as that by any means which it was advisable to maintain. There were at present peculiar reasons why the Vote should be limited in amount. It appeared that some interesting novelties in small arms were being tried on the Continent, and it was deemed desirable that the results of these experiments should be ascertained. So far as he could judge at present, the superiority of these inventions to our own manufacture, was extremely questionable. The next Vote was for "works, buildings, and repairs." The amount demanded this year was 470,347 l. The amount voted last year was 440,069 l. This increase was apparently large; but it would be found to be no increase at all when it was considered that in the Vote this year was included a sum of 64,000 l.required for entirely new buildings. In fact, there was a decrease in the Vote as compared with last year, of 12,000 l.The increase arose from the necessity for constructing a new wing to Wellington-barracks, for the reception of a battalion of Guards, the expendi-
836
ture upon which this year was estimated at 10,000 l.; for building an Ordnance institution at Woolwich, an object which he was sure the House would sanction, 5,350 l.; towards building a new fort at Gosport, 10,000 l.; towards a new Hospital in the Plymouth district, 10,000 l., &c. There was another item of 21,500 l.for the surrender of the lease of Carlisle Fort, Cork. He believed that in 1804 a lease had been taken of this fort at a rent of 1,000 l.a-year for ever, and there could be no doubt but that this surrender of the lease should have been effected long ago. The arrangement regarding the Carlisle fort was allowed to be an economical one. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) might object to the increase in the department of which he (Col. Anson) was speaking; but he could assure him that the increase was more than balanced by the reductions on other Votes. He (Col. Anson) came next to the Vote for the Scientific branch, which of course included the surveys of England, Scotland, and Ireland. He was perfectly well aware that hon. Gentlemen objected to the manner in which this amount had been distributed. It was not for him to enter at any great length into the matter. The amount which Parliament was so liberal as to vote was 65,000 l.per annum; but that sum went but a very small way in finishing the surveys of the three kingdoms. It would require a much larger amount; and if the Committee could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a larger sum, it would be of very great service. There was on the paper a notice for a Committee to inquire into the Scotch survey. If that Committee were granted, it would be the means of affording to the House all requisite information, and it might be that the House would then be of opinion that a larger sum of money should be expended. When the Exhibition was opened, hon. Gentlemen would have an opportunity of inspecting the map reduced from the large scale, which he (Col. Anson) thought would surpass anything of the kind in the world. The next Vote for the non-effective services was 173,248 l., which was a diminution of 4,288 l. from last year, and no alteration could be made on them. There was an increase in the civil superannuation list; but those persons who had been placed on it had been in the service from forty to fifty years, and were well entitled to the superannuation. He had, to save the time of the House, gone over these Votes as hastily as possible, and he

837
asked the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) to take these Votes separately, and say where he could prudently make any reduction. The hon. Member might say that they could reduce the Ordnance establishments in the Colonies; but as long as we maintained those Colonies they must keep up their Ordnance service. The hon. Member might take exception to the Stores; but he (Col. Anson) maintained he could not demand less with a due regard to the wants of the services. Every description of stores had been closely looked into. They had had reports from Canada, Gibraltar, Malta, and Hong Kong; and instead of these recommending a reduction of the annual supply, they generally asked for an increase. There were a great many items to which he bad not even referred, and for this he might perhaps be blamed by his hon. Friend. He was, however, unwilling to detain the Committee.
(7.) 14,573 men, Ordnance Military Corps.
MR. HUMEsaid, that upon looking over the whole of the Ordnance Estimates, he found that there was only a saving of 22,920 l.upon the whole amount of 2,411,497 l. He considered that the whole system should be changed. About 6,000,000 l.of stores had been from time to time accumulated, and at last they were good for nothing. They had laid in from time to time large amounts of stores, and kept them so long, that there were many thousand pieces of artillery perfectly useless, although they had been guarded with great care, and at an expense of three times their value. The Ordnance Estimates had greatly increased of late years. In fact, until within three or four years back, there never was an Ordnance Estimate exceeding a million and a half. In 1834, the amount of the Ordnance Estimate was 1,068,000 l.; 1835,1,110,000 l.; 1836, 1,400,000 l.; 1837, 1,300,000 l.; in 1846itwas 2,300,000 l.; 1847,2,900,000 l.; 1848, the year in which the whole department ran wild, 3,076,000 l.; 1849, a little economy being introduced, 2,300,000 l.; 1850, 2,434,000 l.; and upon that sum of last year there was in the present estimates only 22,920 l.of a saving. But it was still more extraordinary the way in which this expenditure had increased, if they looked back for a few more years. He was debarred from going back to 1792, but the Committees of that House had gone bark to that period, and it appeared that in 1792
838
the number of men in the Ordnance Department was 4,846, at an expense of 51,000 l.In 1822, after a long war, the number was only 7,614 men, and the expenditure 427,000 l., and now they were called upon to vote 14,573 men at an expense of 2,411,497 l. With respect to the Colonies, some system of consolidation ought to be adopted, by which a great saving might be effected. However, he believed that until the Artillery and Engineers were all put upon one safe footing, and put under the control of a Commander-in-chief, there was no chance of any considerable reduction being effected. He condemned the system of having so many colonels appointed and then shelved upon half-pay, which was one source of considerable expense. He would also act differently with respect to the stores; and, for one thing, he would at once remove the establishment in Pall-mall. He was sorry that a new building had been raised there at an expense of he did not know how many thousand pounds. It was impossible that that could he continued at such an enormous expense as 75,000 l.The addition to the barracks he thought was most important, and he also admitted the propriety of the expenditure upon the fortifications. He would not trouble the Committee to divide, but must protest against the enormity of the Vote, which could only be attributable to the extravagance of the day.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must complain of the number of men that were to be voted. Connected with the Artillery, was a pet corps—the Royal Horse Artillery—which was of no service whatever, but was a most costly affair. The 602 men in the Horse Artillery cost the country 8,000 l.a year more than 602 men in the Foot Artillery. The Estimates of the present Administration were more extravagant than those of any Government which had preceded it. Taking the period between 1829 and 1839 inclusive, during which the Administrations of the Duke of Wellington, Earl Grey, and Lord Melbourne governed the country, the average number of men voted annually for the Ordnance was 8,566, at an average cost of 1,546,000 l.This year the number of men proposed by the Government was 14,573, and the cost was 2,411,497 l. It should also be taken into consideration that the present Government had an additional force of between 15,000 and 16,000 men, com-

839
posed of battalions in the dockyards and coast-guard men, which former Government did not possess.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(8.) 712,582 l. Pay and Allowances Ordnance Military Corps.
(9.) 268,257 l. Commissariat.
(10.) 75,950 l. Ordnance Office.
(11.) 295,750 l. Establishments at Home and Abroad.
(12.) 122,800 l. Wages.
(13.) 194,909 l. Ordnance Stores.
(14.) 470,347 l. Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
(15.) 97,654 l. Scientific Branch.
(16.) 173,248 l. Non Effective Services.
On Vote (17.) 50,000 l. on account, Civil Contingencies,
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, there was no more gross waste of public money than under the head of "civil contingencies." A great deal of money would be expended upon what he had always regarded with great jealousy—that miserable Crystal Palace, that wretched place, where every species of fraud and immorality would be practised. It was an insult to the English nation. He objected to any Vote of public money on account; it was a very dangerous thing, for when the money went out they could not get it back again, and his maxim was, "Holdfast is a good dog."
MR. HUMEcould assure the hon. and gallant Member that not a farthing of the Vote proposed was for the Crystal Palace.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, if he was not supported in his opposition to the Vote by the hon. Member for Montrose and his friends, he would not be at their beck and call, and would not give the House the trouble of dividing.
Vote agreed to; House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

THE AGRICULTURAL INTEREST AND THE PROPERTY TAX.
MR. BOOKER MR. BOOKER moved for several returns of which he had given notice. He expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have granted these returns. He did not press for them from mere curiosity, nor even for any party purpose, but he considered they were absolutely necessary and essential for the satisfaction of the country and the future guidance of the Government, let it be composed of whomsoever it might. He
840
pressed for the returns, because he know and felt the circumstances in which his constituents were placed, and because they had a right to know in what proportion, fair or unfair, just or unjust, an impost which took 5,500,000 l. out of the pockets of the people, bore upon the owners and occupiers of land and those engaged in the manufactures and commerce and trade of the country. He pressed for the returns because he knew the ability of his constituents to meet their burdens were not gradually and slowly, but rapidly and surely, becoming extinguished. He wanted to know whether those great sources of national prosperity, as they were called, the trade and manufactures of the country, did not shirk some degree of that which fell on the land. He did not wish for anything inquisitorial; he believed he was not asking for any returns which would give rise to any personal disclosures of any kind. When the owners and occupiers of land in 1845 were marked out for attack, he found a return moved for by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), the success of whose annual attacks read them an excellent lesson to make annual attacks also—a return of the most inquisitoral character, giving most minute parochial details and items, and filling 375 pages of a blue book, was granted by the House. He wanted to know how the assessment of prpoerty and income bore on this great metropolis, on Manchester, Leeds, and other seats of our manufactures, and how it bore on the real property of the country; but he sought this information respecting whole districts and whole trades in as general a form as possible. He had been told that to some extent the information he sought had been given under Schedule B, which bore exclusively on the agricultural classes; but that it could not be given to a later date than 1848, as it was made up triennially. He found that it was only carried up to 1848, but he wanted particularly to know, and the country wanted to know, what the depression had been in that description of property since that period. His belief was that it was enormous, and that the Government did not wish the country to know how their policy was affecting so large a proportion of the community. If they did, he could not, for the life of him, understand how it was that returns in reference to Schedules C, D, and E could be carried down to 1850, and the other refused. The

841
assessment in Schedule D, which related to trades and professions, had increased since 1815 from 34,300,000 l.to 54,900,0002. in 1850, and of that 34,000,000 l.assessed in 1815, 16,000,000 l., or nearly one-half. was assessed in the city of London. He wished to ascertain with precision what was the actual amount of the decrease of property assessed in Schedule B during the years 1849 and 1850. he was inclined to believe that the result of an accurate investigation of the question would he to show that the real property of this country had paid, on account of this impost, upwards of half a million more than the rental. The returns for which he was moving could be comprised within the four corners of a sheet of paper; and as it was essential that they should be laid before the House in order to enable them to arrive at a sound conclusion on the subject of the income tax, he honed that the Government would not offer any objection to the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That there be laid before this House, 1. Return, in tabular form, of the amount of Income assessed to the Property and Income Tax under Schedule D. for the years 1815, 1843, 1846, and 1849 or 1850, distinguishing each separately, for the districts comprising the whole of the Metropolis, namely, the City of London, the Inns of Court, the Liberty of the Rolls, the whole of Westminster, also the Tower Hamlets Divison, the Edmonton Division, the Finshury Division or District, the Ilolborn Division or District, Blooms-bury, the Kensington Division or District, the Gore Divison or District, the Brentford Division, and the Spelthornc Division, all in the county of Middlesex: also, the Blackheath Hundred, East Brixton and West Brixton, East Brixton the third Division, the Borough of Southward, Camberwell, Peckham, St. Paul, Deptford, Streatham, New-ington, and Kingston Hundred, situate in the county of Surrey; also, Blackheath and Little and Lessuess District, in the county of Kent.
"Also, this Return in abstract, in tabular form, under one general head.
"2. A like Return to No. 1, for the districts comprising the whole of the towns of Manchester and Salford, Liverpool, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Hull. Huddersfield, Bradford, Wakefield, Macclesfield, Halifax, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Merthyr Tidfyl, and Swansea, separately, and for the like periods.
"3. Return, in tabular form, of the net Revenue received from the Property and Income Tax under Schedule A. in the years 1849 and 1850, distinguishing each year, and separately, each head of property from which the Revenue is obtained, and also distinguishing England and Wales from Scotland.
"4. A like Return of the net Revenue received under Schedule B. for the same period, and distinguishing England and Wales from Scotland.
"5. Return, in tabular form, of the amount of Real Property assessed to the Income and Property Tax under Schedule A. in the years 1815,
842
1843, 1846, and 1848, distinguishing each year, in the districts comprising the whole of the Metropolis in districts or divisions as in No. 1; distinguishing the description of property under each head on which the assessment is made.
"And, also this Return in abstract and tabular form under one general head."
COLONEL SIBTHORPseconded the Motion, and hoped that his hon. Friend would, under all circumstances, persevere in it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not mean to taunt the hon. Member with desiring to institute inquisitorial proceedings, but he very much feared that many of the returns for which he called would merely tend to gratify the idle curiosity of persons less inquisitorially inclined than the hon. Member. To some of the returns moved for, he would offer no opposition; but he must positively refuse to enter into minute explanations with respect to the returns under Schedule D. The gross accounts under that Schedule had already been presented, and were on the table, but he could not consent to the production of returns for districts and towns. Such a proceeding would be contrary to the uniform practice of that House, which, following the rule which it had always set down for itself, of discouraging disclosures respecting the incomes of individuals, had, in 1816, ordered the income tax papers to be burned. If these returns were granted, the disclosure of the incomes of private individuals would be the inevitable result, and against that the House had at all times set its face. With regard to Schedule B, it would be impossible to give the information which the hon. Gentleman required, because the returns were only made triennially; but if lie would kindly give his support to the renewal of the income tax, on precisely the same terms, he would be able to get the information from the new assessment which it would he necessary to make in the present year, lie would be compelled to resist the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, but he was quite willing to give him all the information he could, consistently with the principle upon which those returns were made.
MR. HENLEYhoped the hon. Gentleman, if he could not get all that he asked for, would forego having any at all, otherwise he would be placing before the country a state of facts leading to a false inference. The assessment under Schedule B continued the same for three years; and therefore any return for the last two years would

843
not show any depreciation whatever in the value of landed property, but would make it appear that it was realising a profit, when in fact it was making none. At the same time, he (Mr. Henley) was not anxious for any reassessment.
MR. SPOONERhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press for a return under Schedule B.
MR. BOOKERsaid, that Schedule B was what he particularly wanted in the returns. The income tax was so unjust an impost, and the assessment, it appeared, so little able to hear the light, that he must be excused from pledging himself to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to support him in its renewal. He would not now, however, press his Motion to a division, having already drawn the attention of the House to the anomalies of the tax.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Consolidated Fund.

CHANCERY REFORM.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, by the Votes of the House of Commons he perceived that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of regulating the mode of conducting the business of the Court of Chancery, and the duties and privileges of the noble and learned Lord at the head of that Court. Their Lordships knew from other sources that another Bill was to be introduced in this House with respect to the appellate jurisdiction possessed by their Lordships, and having reference to the duties of his noble and learned Friend who presided over their deliberations. Now, with all deference to noble Lords opposite, it did appear to him singular and unaccountable that these measures having reference to the Court of Chancery, to that Court over which his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack presided, with which the judicial establishment of this House was intimately connected, should have been introduced in the other House of Parliament, and it was also most strange that a subject which was really one should have been divided—that a question which ought to have been dealt with as a whole, should have been branched into two separate Bills. Now, the two Bills were so closely connected that it was impossible to dissever them, or to adopt the one without at the same time accepting the other. It was plain, therefore, that as one Bill had been introduced into the House of Commons, and as the other was about to be introduced in this House, that their Lordships, as well as the Members of the House of the House of Commons, would have to discuss this grave and important question with only one part of the measure before them. Now, he objected to this course. If his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack was to continue to be in substance, and not in mere form, a member of the Court of Chancery,' the extent of the duties he would be able to perform in that Court, must depend in some measure on the extent of his duties in this House. And, upon the other hand, the extent of his duties in their

771
Lordships' House would, in a certain degree, be connected with and dependent on the weight of his labours in the Court of Chancery. How, then, was it possible, fairly and properly to discuss the merits of a measure, one half of which was brought into the other House of Parliament, and one half in this? But there was another possible contingency to which he begged to draw the attention of their Lordships. Possible, did he say?—nay, in the present state of parties elsewhere, far from being an improbable case, namely, that one of these Bills might be lost and the other carried, the consequence of which would be that the whole judicature of the country would be involved in inextricable confusion. Now, what were the reasons that had been urged for the adoption of this singular course of procedure by the Government? He thought that the reasons for this extraordinary and very singular course of proceeding had not yet been stated by the proposers of the measures. It had been said, and said with great justice, that the Bill with reference to their Lordships' appellate jurisdiction could not originate in the House of Commons—that such a course would be inconsistent with the privileges of their Lordships. To this proposition he agreed; it was perfectly accurate and true; but, unless he was very much misinformed, there was in the Bill brought into the House of Commons a clause with respect to the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships, most distinctly trenching and infringing on their Lordships jurisdiction, curtailing it in a most important particular. He would, however, pass over this for the present; and he would again ask why it was that the whole measure had not been introduced in their Lordships' House? What was the object of this deviation from the usual course? What was the reason why this great and important question should be thus divided when such a division must be attended with the manifest inconvenience and hazard to which he had referred? Their Lordships, had it been introduced here, could have embraced and dealt with the whole subject; and, if permitted, he would make this further observation, that he did not believe there was a single instance with respect to Bills relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery which had not originated in their Lordships' House. When the question of appointing a Vice-Chancellor for the purpose of assisting the Lord Chancellor was raised, the Bill was first introduced in the House of Lords.
772
Subsequently, when it was considered necessary still further to augment the judicial force of the Court of Chancery, he (Lord Lyndhurst) introduced the Bill for that purpose here; at a later period, when it was desirable to make alterations in respect to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in matters of bankruptcy, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) brought that Bill into this House; and when it was proposed to extend the provisions of that measure to the different counties of this kingdom, he (Lord Lyndhurst) being in possession of the Great Seal, proposed that extension to their Lordships. What, then, was the reason why this principle was departed from in this particular instance? Was not their Lordships' House competent or qualified to discuss this question? There was not, perhaps, an assembly in the world so fit to discuss and perfect measures of this kind, as that which he had the honour of addressing. For of whom did that assembly consist? His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had great experience in law, and was now presiding over a Court of Equity. There were two other learned Friends of his in that House who had held the high office of Lord Chancellor—one of whom, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had from the moment of his retirement up to the present time, been most assiduous in his attendance at the hearing of the appeals to their Lordships' House—sometimes sitting with the Lord Chancellor, and not unfrequently sitting alone. There were, in addition, his noble and learned Friend, who had retired with great honour and reputation from presiding over the Rolls Court: an individual more perfectly, more closely conversant with the practice of the Court of Chancery, in all its details, and in applying them, could not be found, than the noble and learned Lord to whom he referred. There was, moreover, his noble and learned Friend who had recently become a Member of their Lordships' House (Lord Cranworth), who, with the exception of three or four years, in which he distinguished himself as a Common Law Judge, had spent his whole life in Courts of Equity. Another noble and learned Lord, who now filled the eminent office of Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, was for a few days, as a "postulant," in the Irish Court of Chancery, in which he spent his noviciate, and who had been since then, and up to the period of his last appointment, most diligent in his

773
attendance on the appeals to that House. All these noble and learned Lords were, it could not be denied, eminently qualified for the consideration of this question. They could also secure the co-operation of a noble and learned Friend of his, not now present, who had for years filled the office of a Master in Chancery, and after-wards sat at their Lordships' Table as Clerk-Assistant of the Parliaments, who was intimately conversant with the practices of the House, as well as with the whole question to which those Bills referred. Now, all those persons, besides many noble Lords whose judicial habits and custom of investigation fitted them for such discussion, that House supplied, including his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale,) who had an hereditary claim to legislate upon such a subject. But their Lordships possessed important supplemental powers of another description—he alluded to the power of appointing Committees to examine witnesses on oath—enabling them, therefore, to ascertain with the greatest precision and accuracy everything connected with the administration of justice in those Courts. Under these circumstances, he asked if, instead of taking the course which the Government had taken—instead of dividing the measure—introducing it piecemeal—first one branch of it in one House, and then another branch of it in another—it would not have been better to adopt that course which was consistent with precedent, and bring the whole question, in one Bill, under the notice of their Lordships in the first instance. But how had the Government acted upon this matter in other respects? This Bill was promised during the last Session of Parliament. The Government had the whole of the vacation to consider and mature it. It was promised again in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne. But upwards of two months had elapsed, and it was only just upon the eve of Easter that some intimation was given as to what was to be the nature of the Government scheme. From the course pursued, three months, at least, of the Session must pass away, before even one Bill could come from the House of Commons before their Lordships. Now, would not the preferable course have been, to bring the Bill into this House at the beginning of the Session, and to send it down well considered, digested, and matured, to the other House of Parliament, at the same period that one of the
774
Bills would then be brought here, and leaving abundance of time for its consideration and discussion by the House of Commons? He found, therefore, nothing to justify this course of proceeding, and was anxious to know why the Government had taken a line of conduct which, he repeated, was unprecedented and extraordinary. He had looked about for reasons, but confessed he could not find any that were at all satisfactory. One mode of accounting for it might be the natural repugnance of his noble Friend on the Woolsack to usher such a Bill into their Lordships' House. A parent looked with complacency even on its rickety offspring, and he supposed that was the reason why the noble Lord at the head of the Government had himself brought in this Bill. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was, probably, unwilling to take the conduct of a measure which he must have foreseen would be universally scouted by the whole profession of the law. The Bill professed to give additional judicial strength to the Court of Chancery, but would, in fact, embarrass and weaken the strength and power of that Court—one of its objects was to diminish the number of appeals to the Court of Chancery, but its effect would be to augment them. A gentleman of great respectability, he admitted, had recently been raised to the position of Master of the Rolls, and he was to act as appellate Judge with a Common Law Judge, which Common Law Judge might be totally unacquainted with the course of proceedings in the Court of Chancery, and yet this tribunal would have to decide these appeals. Appeals from whom? Why, from four men of the highest eminence, and of the greatest experience in the judicial proceedings of the Court of Chancery—men of undoubted ability and long standing, and ox great practical knowledge. What would be the consequence, supposing the decision of the court below to be reversed by this new tribunal? Did they suppose that the party against whom the decision was pronounced would acquiesce in it? No, he would immediately appeal from that decision to their Lordships' House; so that the upshot would be that this power of immediate appeal would be utterly useless. He had heard it stated, but it was impossible that it could be correct, that for the purpose of obviating this inconvenience—this great evil—there was to be a power vested in this intermediate appellate tribunal of

775
curtailing the right of appeal to their Lordships' House; to infringe, in fact, upon the high and admitted privilege of their Lordships' House; and he was told that one of the reasons for bringing in the second Bill was, because the House of Commons would not deal with the privilege of their Lordships. But such was the strange anomaly in the present proposition, that by the Bill which had been already introduced by the Government in the House of Commons, provision by a clause was made that the power of appeal to their Lordships' House should be restricted. Thus, while the Government professed to respect the privileges of their Lordships, they specifically introduced a clause by which the right of appeal to their Lordships was restricted. He hoped to hear some explanation on the subject, and that he had been misinformed. As matters at present stood, and as he understood the nature of the measure, the unsuccessful party could appeal to one or other of the tribunals. But, after all, he could not guess at any adequate reason why this Bill had been introduced, in the first instance, in the House of Commons; why it should not be allowed to originate with their Lordships. He had to call the attention of their Lordships to another—a new, a strange, a singular provision in this Bill, which had been brought into the House of Commons in preference. One of its enactments was to transfer, by a kind of sleight-of-hand movement, all the patronage of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, into the lap of the First Lord of the Treasury, already sufficiently laden with patronage of this description. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had of late been worsted in contests with his foes, and he now trenched upon his friends, and sought to signalise his doings by the plunder of his colleague.
"So much, 'tis safer through the camp to go,
And rob a subject than despoil a foe."
But perhaps this provision with regard to the patronage was in itself a kind of answer to the question, why the Bill had not been introduced into that House. The noble Lord had taken it under his own protection, because he could not call upon the Lord Chancellor to commit so suicidal an act. Of one thing, he (Lord Lyndhurst) felt sure, that had it contained such a provision, it would never have received their Lordships' approbation. And surely, in all the experience of any public man in that House, a more flimsy reason for mak-
776
ing so great a change had never been presented to the public. The first great charge preferred by the noble Lord against those who had held the high office of Lord Chancellor, and had the distribution of this patronage, as a reason for transferring this patronage to the Treasury, was, that such patronage had been distributed for party purposes. He (Lord Lyndhurst) emphatically denied the truth of that imputation. Nothing could be more sacred than the trust reposed in the Lord Chancellor with respect to the distribution of ecclesiastical patronage; and this he could not help saying, that he believed the men who had held the office of Lord Chancellor, had dispensed their ecclesiastical patronage without reference to party purposes. It had been felt as a trust of a most sacred nature, and the principle on which he and his predecessors had acted was detur digniori. Nothing could be more unpleasant to him than to speak of himself, but he could conscientiously say that, in the distribution of the patronage attached to the office which he had filled, he had not been influenced by any such ideas. After he was entrusted with the custody of the Great Seal, so it happened that the first important piece of preferment which he had to dispose of was a prebendal stall at Bristol. Did he give that vacancy to one of his own party? So far from it, he had conferred it upon a gentleman who, from his earliest years, had been active in the support of the Whig cause; but he knew him to be a man of great learning—he knew that he was beloved by his parishioners—he knew him to be an excellent parish incumbent; the gentleman to whom he alluded was the Rev. Sydney Smith; but he had always been an active Whig partisan, and therefore could not have received patronage from him on any other ground than his real merits. But let him ask their Lordships one question. The present objection to the ecclesiastical patronage being vested in the Chancellor was, that it was conferred from party motives. Now, granting that even there was such a suspicion, did their Lordships believe that such a motive would be less likely to influence the First Lord of the Treasury than the Keeper of the Great Seal? Why, it was obvious that all this patronage would go into the Treasury vortex; the Secretary of the Treasury would be the man, he it was who would then distribute it, probably for party purposes of the most objectionable character, with a view to the favour of certain constituencies—with a view to

777
the carrying of certain elections—in short, for party purposes more objectionable than any other whatever. But there was another reason assigned. It was gravely urged as a reason for taking away this patronage from the Great Seal, that the Lord Chancellor was oppressed with the weight of his judicial business, and that it was necessary to relieve him from a portion of his burden, by transferring it to the First Lord of the Treasury. Now, as a relief, it would only be a relief in the sense that it was the last feather which broke the back of the camel; for ecclesiastical patronage was certainly only a feather in the scale of the burdens of the Lord Chancellor. The whole of the correspondence was conducted by the Secretary of Presentations, and when a vacancy occurred the Lord Chancellor had nothing to do but to decide upon the claims of the respective applicants. That occupied him but a very short time. If, therefore it was necessary to relieve the Lord Chancellor from any burdens of office, this certainly was the very slightest. But the House would give him leave to observe, from his observation and experience, that as far as mental work and anxiety were concerned, the First Lord of the Treasury was, or ought to be, as much burdened as the Lord Chancellor. Another reason assigned for this extraordinary measure—but the veil was so flimsy that it was easily seen through—was that, after all, it was not the office in which the livings ought to be vested—that it was not right to confer them upon the nomination of the Lord Chancellor, who might not be conversant with the routine of office, and that the Sovereign was the fitting source from which such gifts should spring. Why, such a reason would not impose upon the humblest understanding of the humblest public clerk in the lowest public office in the country. Everybody knew well enough how those transactions were conducted, and how the first Lord of the Treasury would act. When a living was vacant, the First Lord of the Treasury would write a short letter stating the fact, and the name of the individual recommended. That letter was sent to Her Majesty who, as a matter of course, returned it with the words added—"Approved, Victoria Regina." In point of fact, these livings would be as much in the gift of the First Lord of the Treasury as any other patronage which he possessed. But it was said that this change had been recommended by a Committee of the House of Commons. That was to say, a Com-
778
mittee, many of whom were appointed by the First Lord of the Treasury, or were his partisans, had investigated the matter in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, or of any one to represent him, and then came to the conclusion that it was desirable the patronage should be transferred from the First Lord of the Treasury. What was the injustice of this patronage? Their Lordships all knew that the Lord Chancellor was originally an ecclesiastic, and that this patronage had been conferred upon him as one of the rewards of his office. No ecclesiastic had held the Great Seal for a period of more than 200 years, but during the whole of that time the patronage still remained with the Great Seal. It was therefore aright prescriptive in the office. Usage and prescription sanctioned it; and if after a period of 200 years this right was given up, he would like to know what office, or patronage, or gift, or title, would be secure if so dangerous a precedent were established. At all events, he felt sure that their Lordships would not sanction such a proposal. Did their Lordships suppose that when the Great Seal was held by Lord Hardwicke, by Lord Thurlow, by Lord Eldon, that any attempt of this kind would have been made, or that his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Brougham) would have stood still like a caged bird while such an invasion wag made on the privileges of his office? But he (Lord Lyndhurst) entertained so high an opinion of the spirit and independence of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that he felt sure he would not submit to such a degradation. He knew no person more unselfish than his noble and learned Friend, no one more indifferent to personal interests; but let his noble and learned Friend recollect that he ought not to consider himself only, but that he ought to regard the question in the light that he was merely a trustee for his successors—that as he had received from the gracious bounty of his Sovereign this high office, with all its dignities, patronage, and emoluments, he ought to transmit it unimpaired to those who were to follow him. He had felt it to be his duty to state these views to the House; and the questions he would now put were, why the usual practice had been departed from in the mode of introducing this Bill?—why the measure had been divided into two parts?—why it had originated in the other House of Parliament?—how the provision stood that the right of appeal to their Lordships' House

779
was to be curtailed, and whether the Judidicial Committee was to be absorbed in the newly-constituted tribunal?—and, finally, why the measure had not been introduced sooner than the very eve of the Easter holidays?
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had not had the honour of being long enough a Member of their Lordships House to render him perfectly familiar with all the rules which governed their discussions; but from what he had learnt of them, and from all he had heard of them, he could not help thinking that his noble and learned Friend must have entirely forgotten them all when he permitted himself to take the course he had just adopted—when, under the form of asking a question, he considered it was competent for him to discuss two things called Bills, neither of which he believed was at that moment in any way legitimately before the House. The Bill to which the noble and learned Lord had first referred, had not even been introduced into the House of Commons yet; and with regard to the other measure, there had not been a suggestion with respect to its introduction into either House; nevertheless his noble and learned Friend was not only disposed to question the propriety and almost the right of a Member of the House of Commons, the head of Her Majesty's Government, to bring in a Bill in that House, in place of allowing it to be brought into their Lordships' House, but had actually gone through the supposed clauses of the Bill in question, and attempted to invite a discussion into the merits of each of them. What could be more inconvenient than such a course? This was a very striking instance; because he could tell his noble and learned Friend that some of the clauses he had been discussing were not in the Bill, and were not intended to be in the Bill at all; but various Bills—or rather, he should say, various draughts of a Bill—had been prepared, and he supposed his noble and learned Friend had, somehow or other, got possession of one of those draughts, and had therefore been discussing, not the clauses which had actually been adopted, hut those which had merely been proposed for consideration, but which were never likely to find their way to either House of Parliament. He could assure his noble and learned Friend that it had never been intended, by any Bill to be brought into the House of Commons, to interfere with the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships'
780
House. Soon after he had the honour of communicating with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the subject of the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House came under his consideration, when it was arranged that he should take the earliest opportunity of moving for a Committee of their Lordships' House for the purpose of taking into consideration how far the administration of justice in their appellate jurisdiction could be improved. Since that communication his mind had been engaged on the subject. One point requiring consideration was the great expense of appeals in that House. He had collected all the bills of costs in a number of cases, for the purpose of seeing what could be submitted to a Committee of their Lordships' House upon the subject of reducing the expense. Another important branch was the constitution of that tribunal when sitting and exercising appellate jurisdiction. It remained with him, and with him only, to move their Lordships to appoint a Committee to take these important matters into consideration; but, he repeated, it never was the intention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to interfere with the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House. Should he the (Lord Chancellor) act consistently with their Lordships' rules if he were uselessly to occupy their time by going into a discussion of the several clauses of the Bill his noble Friend had obtained leave to bring into the House of Commons? The subject of the Court of Chancery had occupied a large portion of the attention of their Lordships' House, as well as of the other House of Parliament. Several Bills, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, had been brought before their Lordships, but had never found their way to the House of Commons. Was it, therefore, surprising that the opinions of the Commons of England should be taken upon a subject which their Lordships' House had repeatedly discussed, and upon which the House of Commons, he presumed, had as good authority to exercise its judgment and discretion? He owned it appeared to him extraordinary to hear discussed whether or not it was right and proper to bring in a Bill into the House of Commons upon a subject which their Lordships had already expressed their opinion upon. He thought it would be a most dangerous course if each House was to discuss the propriety of Bills being brought into the other, and if, even before a Bill was brought in, the individual

781
clauses of that Bill, as conjectured, were to become the subject of discussion. What course could be more convenient than to introduce a Bill with a suitable statement of the principle upon which it was founded, and the evils which it proposed to cure, and of how far the remedy proposed was applicable by way of cure? But what could be more inconvenient than for the opponents of a measure to begin by imagining the clause of a Bill, and decrying them by anticipation? He confessed this seemed to him to be a most inconvenient course. He was most anxious at all times to give his noble and learned Friend the fullest information he could desire upon all subjects upon which he could afford him information; but he should be more anxious, in conformity with the rules of their Lordships' House, not to allow himself to be misled, even by the very high and esteemed authority of his noble and learned Friend into the monstrous irregularity of discussing the merits of a Bill which had not even yet been introduced into the House of Commons, and of going through it clause by clause. An amendment of the administration of justice in Chancery had long been much desired. His noble and learned Friend had remarked upon the delay which had occurred in this attempt to improve it. Had his noble and learned Friend never been engaged in the task himself? He (the Lord Chancellor) was sure he had. Had he been able to produce a measure which he or any other person could recommend to their Lordships? No; he believed his noble and; learned Friend had not succeeded; although he, like various other persons less gifted than himself, had doubtless been extremely desirous to do so. Still he (the Lord Chancellor) denied that time had been lost or misspent, for it was, as their Lordships must be aware, a subject of extreme difficulty. It had been desired to remove the Lord Chancellor from the Court of Chancery; but when the question came to be deliberated upon, when they considered how it would operate upon the appellate I jurisdiction of their Lordships' House, that was to say, how far the Lord Chancellor, in presiding only in the appellate department of that House, would have his judicial authority diminished, and thereby diminish their Lordships' authority and the high esteem and respect in which the judgments of that House were always held, and which, he ventured to say, it was of the deepest interest to the country they should always
782
be held—for he maintained that of all the things most to be guarded against was that of doing anything to diminish the judicial authority of their Lordships' House—but when, as he had said, the question of removing the Lord Chancellor from the Court of Chancery came to be considered, it was felt that although it was desirable to obtain the undivided services of the Lord Chancellor in the other departments which had hitherto rested upon him, it would be impossible to carry the plan into effect. It was felt that it was of the greatest importance that the Lord Chancellor should remain in the Court of Chancery, for, if he were not there, how would: he be able to advise the Crown as to the appointment of the Judges and the various judicial officers? Where could he become acquainted with the state of the profession, and with the character and competency of those whom it was proposed to elevate to the bench? If he presided only in their Lordships House, his acquaintance with the bar would necessarily be limited; he would have little opportunity of becoming acquainted with the profession, and he would be unable to give the Crown the advice, or to sustain the responsibility of that advice, which the best interests of the country required. It was, therefore, found necessary to retain the Lord Chancellor in the Court of Chancery. But there was another evil. How were they to expedite the appellate business of the Court of Chancery? This was also attended with great difficulty. When the noble and learned Lord alluded to what passed in the other House of Parliament, perhaps he was not aware of the extreme jealousy with which that House looked upon any increase of the expense of the judicial departments of the State. There lay the evil. The temper of the present time was not disposed to make the necessary sacrifice for the expense of the administration of justice. The business of the Court of Chancery had greatly increased. It was, in fact, extremely heavy. There was not sufficient judicial power there, and it was very doubtful whether the House of Commons would add to that judicial power. It being then desirable as far as possible to retain the Lord Chancellor in the Court of Chancery, and at the same time to allow the appeal business of the Court of Chancery to go on while the Lord Chancellor was sitting in their Lordships' House or in the Judicial Committee, it was thought to be the least inconvenient course—he would

783
not use a stronger expression—to get the Master of the Rolls and a Common-Law Judge (if an arrangement could he made to that effect), to preside in the Court of Chancery. His noble and learned Friend said that a Common-Law lawyer was unused to Chancery business. Where, he would ask, had his noble and learned Friend attained his own high character and eminence? Did the Court of Chancery suffer from the Common-Law lawyer, Sir J. Copley, presiding in the Court of Chancery? The Common-Law lawyer was found fully competent to possess himself of all the knowledge that was necessary for that situation, and efficiently, honourably, and most advantageously to discharge the duties of it; and, much as he admired his noble and learned Friend, that there were yet Judges on the Common-Law bench who were equally competent to administer justice in equity, he would answer without the slightest hesitation. He would say, that not only would these Judges in a very short time become acquainted even with the rules of practice to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded, but that they were already familiar with all the great principles of equity, which were frequently under discussion in the Common-Law courts. He (the Lord Chancellor) was ready to maintain at the proper time and opportunity that the Common-Law Judges would afford most useful assistance in aid of the Master of the Rolls or the Lord Chancellor. He could not conceive any objection arising on that score. It was quite true, as his noble and learned Friend had surmised, that the new tribunal would not give that facility which was desired to advance and expedite the business of the Court of Chancellor unless they added to the number of the Judges. If the House of Commons, however, would not do that, the next best thing, perhaps, was to enable the Court of Chancery to go on while the Lord Chancellor was engaged elsewhere. He (the Lord Chancellor) was not precisely himself of opinion that experience had dictated the necessity of the proposed arrangement. He did not see the advantage of the Court of Chancery having two or three Judges instead of one. Whoever looked and saw how the administration of justice inequity had proceeded, would not have reason to find that it suffered at all from the Appeal Judge sitting alone. But he knew that his noble Friend at the head of the Government had not been influenced in mak-
784
ing a different proposal by any fancy of his own, but by suggestions from some of the most learned and able men at the bar, who thought that some such plan was desirable. His noble Friend yielded to those suggestions. In so doing expedition would probably be checked, because, when the Master of the Rolls was withdrawn from his own court, and sitting in the Court of Chancery, his own court would be closed. But surely this subject would be more fitly discussed when the Bill was before their Lordships. Would it not tend to destroy the confidence of the public in their judicial impartiality and the calmness of their judgment, when they saw their Lordships so eager that they would not wait till a Bill came regularly before them, hut would begin impugning the propriety of the Bill being introduced there at all, and furnishing the House of Commons with their judgment by anticipation upon each clause? He felt sure that such a course would not add to the respect which the House of Commons was disposed to feel towards their Lordships' judgment at all times. His noble and learned Friend had asked why the Bill had been brought into the House of Commons instead of the House of Lords? His answer was this: He apprehended that—more particularly when the subject had been repeatedly discussed in their Lordships' House, but their Lordships had sent no Bill to the House of Commons on the subject—his noble Friend at the head of the Government had thought it expedient to ascertain the feeling of the House of Commons on a subject which had not hitherto been before them. Without knowing the particular reason which actuated his noble Friend, and answering upon his own notion merely, he apprehended that such was the reason why his noble Friend had asked leave to introduce the Bill into the other House; and he apprehended further, that this was a perfectly legitimate course for him to take. He, therefore, could not conceive but that his noble and learned Friend's extraordinary question had been asked merely for the purpose of hanging a speech upon it against the Bill by anticipation. He hardly thought that this was a fair and generous course to take; he was sure it was not one which would add to the honour and dignity of that House, or insure respect for their future debates; and certainly, from what he knew of their Lordships' rules, he thought his noble and learned Friend was greatly indebted to

785
their forbearance for having been allowed at such length to indulge in irregular discussion.
LORD BROUGHAMwas unwilling, after the lecture which had been administered to his noble and learned Friend near him, by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, on the irregularity of their proceedings, to persist in what seemed to him an irregular course. But he thought that when his noble and learned Friend had been for some time longer a Member of their Lordships' House, he would find by and by that regularity did not so much prevail in that House as—he was going to say—elsewhere; and he could not say it was as it ought to be both here and there. His noble Friend on the woolsack had designated the question of his noble and learned Friend as "extraordinary;" but if that question was extraordinary, his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had certainly given what he must permit him to call an extraordinary answer. His noble and learned Friend had asked why this Bill had been brought forward in the House of Commons, instead of being more conveniently introduced into the House of Lords? The answer of his noble and learned Friend was this—"It is so; but I do not know why"—and his noble and learned Friend went on to say—"But I have no manner of doubt that we shall have the reason assigned when that Bill is brought into this House." He did not wish to enter into discussion upon the Bill, for it was a Bill which did not seem to have any existence at all; and as it had not been brought in, it could not be said to be embodied in the form of a Bill at all, and he should be unwilling to discuss an unembodied form—not a substance but a shadow. But whatever it was, its advocate, his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack said it was no Bill of his at all—that he had no responsibility for it, no concern in it, but that it was a Bill introduced by his noble Friend at the head of the Government in the other House of Parliament, for which reason it would be premature to enter upon any discussion of the question in their Lordships' House, and it would be more convenient to reserve all debate until the measure had existence, which it now had not, for it was in a crude and formless state. He (Lord Brougham) had no opinion whatever to offer now on the subject; though if he had any intention of stating an opinion it would be almost impossible to find words to express the contempt which a measure so abortive
786
deserved. But he would say a word or two upon one point which his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had avoided with the greatest care, and in which he felt sure his noble and learned Friend had borne no share whatever. He alluded to the proposition said to be contained in the Bill to strip the Lord Chancellor of his Church patronage, and transfer it into the hands of the First Lord of the Treasury. To such a design he would at least say that he should give his most positive and determined opposition. And he would say, too, that no Lord Chancellor—at least that he had known—had ever suffered his exercise of that patronage to be perverted to party or personal purposes. Their Lordships would permit him to add an allusion to his own case, when he had the honour of holding that high office, in regard to presentations of preferment to the church. But first he would remind their Lordships, as an instance of the dispensation of this patronage by Lord Chancellors, that the first living or stall—for it happened to be a stall—that was given by his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Lyndhurst) on his accession to the woolsack, was presented to his reverend and much-loved friend Sidney Smith, who did not belong to his noble and learned Friend's political adherents, and therefore the circumstance was worthy to be remembered as an example of the impartial administration of this patronage by his noble and learned Friend. The first stall which he (Lord Brougham) had given away, and the first preferment he had given away upon his accession to office, was to one who was now a right rev. Prelate, but was not now present in his place in that House. He alluded to the Right Rev. the Bishop of Exeter. The next presentation he made was to the relative of a friend—not a political, but a professional friend—and now the Lord Chief Baron, but then the Conservative Member for Huntingdon. The third appointment was to one who might by accident have been a friend, a gentleman whose name was Coleridge, but who he believed was honestly and consistently opposed to him in political opinion. He would also say that he had made a wholesale sacrifice of his patronage, for he handed over to the Prelates all the livings held under the Great Seal, all the livings under 200 l. a year to the Prelates—a proceeding which had been very much disapproved of by his political friends. He had been, perhaps, wrong, but he had done no harm to the Church.

787
This he knew, that this objection of his noble and learned Friend was very likely to be well founded, but it rather tended to show that the Church patronage of the Great Seal was far more likely to be perverted to party and political purposes when vested in First Lords of the Treasury than when dispensed by Lord Chancellors.
EARL GREYsaid, nothing could be more incorrect than to say that his noble and learned Friend had not answered the question. He had given a very good reason why the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, rather than with their Lordships' House in the first instance; and that reason was, because attempts had been made to legislate on this subject, by various Governments, by Bills commencing in this House, and none of those Bills had gone down to the other House. That was a reason why the present Bill should begin in that House of Parliament; and the more he saw of the proceedings here, the more confirmed he was in the opinion, that the prospect of successful legislation, in a vast majority of cases, was greater, in regard to Bills introduced in the other House, in the first instance, than in this House. He believed, from the constitution of this House—and he had heard the same observation made by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Brougham)—it was essentially far more a House for the revision, than for the initiation of, legislation. He could hardly name a measure of any importance, passed of late years, which had not been begun in the other House; and there were many obvious reasons why that should be the case. The noble and learned Lord told his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that, if he had been a little longer in the House, he would have known that their Lordships were not very regular in their proceedings. Undoubtedly that was too true; and he believed the noble and learned Lord might take credit to himself, almost exclusively, for having introduced that practice; because a disregard of the regulations of the House, which required that they should debate no question that was not immediately before them, dated from the period when the House received the advantage of the noble and learned Lord's presence. He had frequently attended the proceedings of the House, standing on the steps of the throne, in earlier days, and he had frequently witnessed that irregularities in their Lordships' proceedings were stopped with the almost universal assent of the Members,
788
which now-a-days were matters of ordinary occurrence. He could, if it were necessary, mention many instances of this. But he thought, irregular as they were, it was a very great inconvenience to discuss a measure which was not before them to the extent they had done to-night, and especially when it had been thrown out, in the course of that discussion, that the Bill which was to come before the other House had been disclaimed by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, as if he were no party to it. He appealed to their Lordships if his noble and learned Friend had said anything of the kind. Indeed, his noble and learned Friend could not have said so; because he believed he was telling no secrets when he said that the Bill bore as much of the impression of his noble and learned Friend's mind as that of any other Member of the Cabinet. In short, he believed that his noble and learned Friend had the principal share in framing it. But the noble and learned Lord opposite seemed to think that the Bill was not in existence, because it had not yet been delivered in a printed form to the Members of the other House. It was only a few days since leave was given to bring in the Bill; and it was matter of everyday occurrence, that, after leave was given to introduce a measure, some interval elapsed before the printed Bill was delivered. In a very short space of time the Bill would be in the hands of Members of the other House, and in due time before this House. There was only one word more he would say on what he thought a most important part of the measure—that with reference to the Church preferment. On that point, when the noble and learned Lord looked back to the transactions to which he had referred, he would find he had made a little mistake—a very natural mistake at this distance of time—as to the transactions which occurred immediately after the time when he received the Great Seal, as to the disposal of an important piece of ecclesiastical preferment. But, with regard to ecclesiastical patronage generally, he must own he was surprised to hear from the noble and learned Lord that that subject occupied so small a portion of the time of the Lord Chancellor. He told them that all the Chancellor had to do was, to decide between the claims of individuals—that it was done in a moment—that it occupied no part of his time. He (Earl Grey) was sorry to hear it. He was sorry to learn from the noble and learned

789
Lord that that was the way in which he discharged this important and responsible duty. His opinion, on the contrary, was, that an individual holding that high office, when a living in his disposal became vacant, was bound to weigh the claims of the different candidates, and not to content himself with merely looking at the official letters, and then handing them over to his Secretary, deciding the claim with a scratch of his pen; no, he was bound to read the letters which he knew the Lord Chancellor received, stating the qualifications of the candidate, his past conduct, and the manner in which he had discharged his duty in other livings. If this were properly done, it ought to occupy a large portion of the Lord Chancellor's time. Besides, there was an obvious and clear advantage in uniting all the ecclesiastical patronage in the hands of one individual; and, as the Prime Minister was the individual called upon to advise the Crown with regard to the elevation of clergymen to the Episcopal Bench, he was bound to make himself acquainted with the character, the piety, and the other qualifications of the rising clergy; and as this was his duty at all events, the disposal of this patronage might, and would be, a very small demand upon his time. There would he, therefore, a clear economy of time in putting the whole patronage of the Crown into one hand; and he must say, further, that, on constitutional grounds, lie thought such an arrangement was highly desirable. They had not, to be sure, seen such things of late days; but, if they looked hack to no very distant period, they would find that there had been Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors who wore seeking to strengthen their political influence against each other, and in that struggle ecclesiastical patronage was freely used. It appeared to him, therefore, to be extremely inconvenient that the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown should be divided in the way it had been. But he had been led further on this point than he had intended. He meant, as far as possible, to adhere to the rule, which he thought was a wise one, that their Lordships should not discuss a Bill which was not before them; and, though he felt he had barely touched upon a point which could not have justice rendered to it, unless it was argued at much greater length, he thought it right, after what had fallen from noble and learned Lords, to guard himself to the extent to which he had done.
LORD BROUGHAMexplained, and quoted the dates when he conferred the ecclesiastical patronage he had formerly referred to.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that he had never presented to a preferment without considering the letter of the applicant, and using every effort to make himself familiar with his case. But there was a great deal of formal correspondence; and that correspondence would take up a considerable portion of the Lord Chancellor's time if he conducted it himself: he threw it, therefore, as a matter of course, upon his Secretary; and if, after examining the claims of the different parties, he entertained a doubt upon the subject, he immediately addressed a letter to the bishop of the diocese, or applied to the College, for the purpose of obtaining information with regard to the claims of the party to the vacant preferment. So far as the Lord Chancellor was concerned, then, this occupied, comparatively speaking, but a small portion of his time. He now wished to know if there was a clause in the Bill of the Government to the effect that it should be in the discretion of the Master of the Rolls and the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, whether appeals should be from them to this House, or not?
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was at one time under consideration whether or not appeals in matters of practice should be restrained. They never thought of going beyond that. But when he (the Lord Chancellor) came to inquire how many appeals on points of practice had occurred, he found they were so few that they were not worth legislation, consequently no such clause would be inserted in the Bill.
LORD REDESDALEwould remind their Lordships that the reform of the Court of Chancery had formed part of the Queen's Speech, and yet two months had elapsed, while the Bill was not yet introduced into either House of Parliament. To comment upon such a circumstance in this House was perfectly regular, though to remark upon a Bill that was now before the other House of Parliament might not be strictly regular. But he rose to say that he thought the important point for consideration was the appellate jurisdiction of the House, and that, until that question was settled, for be presumed it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to settle it, it would be useless to discuss what might be proposed in the Court of Chan-

791
cery. If they would make that House what it ought to be, an efficient appellate jurisdiction, they would materially alter the position of the noble Lord who presided in it. What he would suggest would be to make this House, not as a House, for that would be impossible, but as an appellate tribunal, sit to hear appeals all through the year; and he thought this might be done without any violation of constitutional principles. Their Lordships were aware that questions affecting the right of individuals to sit in this House were determined, not in the House, but were referred to a Committee of Privileges, which reported its decision to the House, and the House confirmed that decision. Now, what he would propose was, to bring the appeals before an Appellate Committee of the same character as the Committee of Privileges, and he did not see that there could be any constitutional objection to allow that Committee to sit after the prorogation of Parliament. If that were once established they might then transfer to it the jurisdiction of the Committee of Privy Council and other courts of appeal, and make this House one great court of appeal, thus effecting a great saving in expense both to the suitors and the public. It was very plain that such an extension of their Lordships' appellate jurisdiction must of necessity affect the Court of Chancery, and therefore he trusted that the subject would be brought before them in sufficient time for the consideration, not only of this House, but of the other House of Parliament. But the measure which the Government had intimated their intention to bring forward, was not yet before the House of Commons. What chance had it of coming before their Lordships before the month of July or August? and he would ask their Lordships if it was fitting that they should be called on to consider a measure of so much importance at that time? He, therefore, thought that the discussion to-night was not out of place: he did not think it was at all disorderly; and he had only to say further that he trusted the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack would bring forward the question of the appellate jurisdiction of the House at an early period, and that he would not only move for a Committee to consider the subject, but that he would he prepared with a measure to submit to the Committee, so that they might proceed with all expedition.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that though
792
his noble Friend was quite right in thinking that there was great convenience in broaching subjects which were not before them, because when a measure was brought formally before them it might then be too late for discussion, still he hoped it would not be supposed, because there was no argument in his noble Friend's plan for absorbing all other courts of appeal—even the Committee of Privy Council—and making this House the sole court of appeal; he hoped, he said, that because he (Lord Brougham) did not then state his fundamental objections to the whole plan, it would not be considered that he gave his assent to it in the slightest degree. An attempt of the same kind was made some years ago by his noble Friend the present Lord Chief Justice; but it was dissipated by the strong, powerful, and unanswerable arguments of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), and there never had been an attempt to renew it since.
House adjourned till To-morrow.