Sitting of 4 May 1854

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Lichfield, v. Viscount Anson, now Earl of Lichfield.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Industrial and Provident Societies; Public Statues.
2° Exchequer Bills (£16,024,100); Militia.

CUBAN SLAVE TRADE—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he begged to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) if any information had been received that the Government of Spain had issued certain decrees relative to the abolition of the slave trade in the island of Cuba, and to its resolution to enforce the observation of the treaties with this country; and if so, whether the reduction of the number of the cruisers on the coast of Cuba, as appeared by a recent return from the Admiralty, had taken place with reference to those decrees.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was quite true that information had been received that the Government of Spain had passed certain decrees with a view to a strict observance of the treaties with this country in respect to the slave trade. Those decrees were of a very satisfactory nature, and Her Majesty's Government trusted that they would provide to a great extent for the suppression of the slave trade. He might mention one provision of the decrees, which, if duly carried into effect, would operate very much to produce that effect, and that was, a provision for the registration of the slaves now in Cuba. Thus, persons subsequently found in the condition of slavery, and not registered, would be taken to be free, and would be liberated. With respect to the reduction of the number of cruisers, that measure was determined on before the intelligence of the decrees was received in this country, and it was only as a temporary reduction.

TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM—QUESTION.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Under Secretary of State for the Home Department to the case of George Brown, at Bow Street
1224
Police Office, last Thursday. It appeared that that person had been convicted of felony three or four years ago, and sentenced to seven years' transportation. At the expiration of seventeen months' imprisonment at Dartmoor Prison he was liberated on licence and sent back to Edinburgh, and after three months he was convicted of another crime and brought up to Bow Street. In this case a point arose in reference to the conduct of the police towards convicts after their liberation. It was stated by the prisoner that the authorities of Dartmoor Prison sent him back upon licence to the scene of his former disgrace, where he failed to get employment, and that wherever he went he was a marked man, in consequence of the police informing those who employed him of his previous character. The result was, no confidence was placed in him. Since then two letters, one from the chaplain of the City Prison, and another from the chaplain of York Prison, had appeared in the Times, both stating that it was the practice of the police to give information to the employers of liberated convicts. He, therefore, wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department, if convicts liberated with licences under the Act 16 & 17 Vict. chap. 99, were usually ordered to be discharged in the place where they committed the crimes for which they were convicted; if he was aware that the police were in the habit of informing the employers of such liberated prisoners of their previous character; whether they have any authority for doing so; and if he would lay upon the table of the House copies of the instructions relating to the discharge of convicts with leave of licence, and the rules and regulations of the police force in regard to such prisoners, after their liberation?
MR. FITZROYsaid, in reply to the first question of the hon. Member, he had to state that the option was given to the person discharged under licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of last year, to name the place where he wished to go, and where, according to his statement, persons were able and willing to give him employment. Inquiries were then made on the spot as to the correctness of the statement, and, if it were found to be correct, he was permitted to go to the place so named. The circumstances under which the convict on licence went were these:—In the first place the expenses of

1225
his carriage were paid, provided that the place selected by him was not further from the prison than the place from which he had been committed; in the next place, some provision was made for his subsistence during the journey, and he was also entitled to the full amount of his earnings received during his time of servitude, for which a post-office order was given him. He likewise received a complete suit of clothes, suitable to the condition of life in which he was to be placed. In the case to which allusion had been made, Brown received for his earnings 5l 6s. 6d., and for his railway journey to Edinburgh, where he was conveyed at his own request, 2l. 3s., with a small sum besides to subsist on during his journey. So far from the statement being true, that he made repeated attempts to obtain employment, which had been frustrated by the police hunting him out and giving information to his employers, an account which he (Mr. Fitzroy) should read from the newspaper in which the charge originally appeared, would show the real state of the case. It was founded on further investigation upon the spot, and he could vouch for its truth, having received the substance of the statement from the sheriff, to whom it was furnished by the superintendent of police. After hearing it, the House would be, no doubt, of opinion that, instead of this liberated convict being deserving of sympathy, he had been guilty of a gross imposition—
"With reference to the paragraph in our supplement (quoted from the Times) regarding the case of the returned convict Brown, we have made some inquiry into the facts of the case. The usual practice of the police has always been to give full effect to the wishes and intentions of the authorities by jealously guarding against any interference in respect to parties liberated after imprisonment or under 'leave of licence,' which could prevent possibly their obtaining or continuing in honest employment. As regards the case of George Brown, we find that he was neither seen nor heard of by the police from the time that he was transported in 1850 till he was apprehended in Edinburgh on the 17th of March last, on the information of persons whose property had been stolen here. He was then identified by the criminal officers, and it was ascertained that he had been in Edinburgh about a month, and had committed several thefts within that period. His sister, a respectable woman, with whom he lived during those few weeks, and her neighbours, state, that when he came he had 4l. or 5l., received, as they understood, from the authorities, and that he neither sought for nor obtained employment, but was drunk almost every day."
He might add that this man pleaded "Guilty" to four offences, and his own
1226
statement to the superintendent of police was, that he never tried to obtain employment, but remained in drunkenness during the whole time after his liberation. With regard to the second question, instructions were issued to the police to regard these men in no other light than other convicts whose term of imprisonment had expired. They were not placed in a superior condition.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, this was not a question as to the character of Brown, but as to the principle on which the Home Office acted in this important matter. He therefore wished to know whether the Home Office, in carrying out this new system, gave any instructions that the men so discharged should be sent to the places where they had before lived, and whether the police were instructed to give information to any person disposed to employ them of their previous habits of life?
MR. FITZROYsaid, he regretted if he had not made himself intelligible to the House. There were no special instructions whatever given to the police in respect to their conduct towards these men liberated under licence. They were exactly in the same position as liberated convicts who had completed their term of confinement. No special instructions were given to the police with regard to them. On leaving prison they were asked where they wished to go, and the choice of the place depended on themselves. In the event of the place chosen not being further distant from the prison than the place of conviction, they were sent there, with their railway or other fare paid. They had the option of remaining where they pleased.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—
  THE CORRESPONDENTS OF THE PRESS—

    QUESTION.
    LORD LOVAINE,in rising to put the question which he had intended to have asked, had he caught the Speaker's eye when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War spoke on the same subject, said, it appeared to him rather extraordinary—[Cries of "Order!"] Well, without saying more, he would put this question,—whether the steamers taken up for the conveyance of Her Majesty's troops to the East were not engaged exclusively for the accommodation of those troops, thereby precluding any person from being put on board without the authority of the Government, or of some individual to whom the

    1227
    authority of the Government was delegated; and whether the circumstances were known to the Board of Admiralty under which the person who reported to the Times newspaper the condition of the troops landed at Gallipoli appeared to have obtained a passage on board such steamers from England to Malta, and from Malta to Gallipoli?
    MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Sir, in reply to the question of the noble Lord, I beg to inform him that the steamers taken up for the conveyance of Her Majesty's troops, having complied with the regulations for taking those troops, the Board of Admiralty do not feel themselves called on, as part of their duty, to inquire whether other persons have been taken. At the same time I beg, for the satisfaction of the noble Lord, to inform him that the Board of Admiralty have no official cognisance of the reporter of the Times or of any other newspaper being conveyed in these transports. But as the question is rather lengthy, I have, from a feeling of personal courtesy towards the noble Lord, made inquiries on the subject, and I find that the steamer from England to Malta did not convey this gentleman. Whether the steamer from Malta to Gallipoli did convey this gentleman—who, I am ready to admit from my knowledge, subsequent to the notice of question, would be from his position and education an excellent companion on board ship—I am not in a condition to state; but in consequence of his position, acquirements, and general knowledge, I have no doubt he did get a passage, but who gave it the Board of Admiralty is not aware.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—
  COALS FOR THE BLACK SEA FLEET—

    QUESTION.
    MR. EWARTsaid, he begged to inquire of the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any measures had been adopted for ascertaining that coal, for the purposes of the steam navy, could be procured at Ezakli, on the southern coast of the Euxine, between Constantinople and Trebizond.
    SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend that his early and constant and anxious attention had been directed to the subject of providing the necessary supply of coals for the fleet employed in the Black Sea; for, as the House was aware, for the purpose of conducting naval warfare, coals were hardly less es-
    1228
    sential than gunpowder; and the price of coal in the sea of Marmora was enormous. It appeared that at Ezakli, in the vicinity of the Black Sea—most fortunately for the supply of our fleets and for the cause of Turkish independence—valuable and excellent coal had been found to exist. Sir Edward Boxer had been sent to reside at Constantinople, and was performing the duties of port admiral, and had received instructions, in conjunction with the head of the Turkish Government and the Commissariat, to take the necessary steps for commencing the immediate working of the coal. The House might be assured that neither capital nor skill would be wanting in the prosecution of that work, and he had every reason to believe that for the purposes both of the English and French fleets, an ample supply of coal would be obtained.

TRANSPORT OF HORSES TO TURKEY—

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty for an explanation of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on a former evening in answer to a question put by him. The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, stated that 2,259 horses had been sent to Turkey. There had been some misapprehension as to the real import of the communication made by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion to the House. He now begged to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that 2,259 horses had arrived in Turkey, or whether they had only been embarked in sailing vessels to Turkey from different ports in this country? He also begged to ask, supposing the horses had not arrived in Turkey, whether the right hon. Gentleman could inform the House at what time it was likely they would arrive there?
  SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, I have only to say, in answer to the question put to me by the hon. Baronet, that my statement was, at the time I made it, that 2,259 horses had been embarked, and had been sent from this country on their way to Turkey at different periods of time. I have this day received a communication from Lord Raglan, dated Malta, stating that the first portion of the horse transports had arrived at Malta during the day on which he wrote his communication, and that the arrangements on board the transports had been such that, although the

  1229
  passage was long and the wind not favourable, yet not one single horse had been lost. The first division of transports, therefore, had arrived at Malta, and, at the suggestion of Lord Raglan, who was then at Malta, the wind having become favourable, they were immediately expedited to Turkey by steamers, which were there ready to take them in tow, and I hope that a large number are now on their way to Constantinople, and, I believe, with a fair prospect of their soon arriving there. As the House may feel some anxiety upon the subject, I think I may state that the large steamer, the Himalaya, has been taken up to-day for the conveyance of horses to Turkey, and that it has been determined to send, by way of experiment, 500 horses by that vessel. It had been apprehended that some inconvenience might have arisen in consequence of the lowness of the decks, some of them being only 7 feet 6 inches high, but, after consulting the most competent authorities, it was thought on the whole expedient to send the horses, and I hope and believe that they will be conveyed to their destination with a speed heretofore unexampled.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL.
  Order for Committee read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair:"—Debate arising; Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned:"—The House divided; Ayes 40, Noes 261; Majority 221.
  MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, that he should take that opportunity of bringing under the notice of the House and of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade one or two considerations which he thought of some importance. It was not his purpose to object to the principle of this Bill, but he wished to invite the attention of the Government to the state of railway legislation generally at the present moment, and to the position in which the Committees of that House would have to stand to the House itself. The House would remember that last year some Bills of unusual importance had been introduced, which contained proposals for the amalgamation of very large railway companies. The House, however, considered that question to be so important, that they decided that it was impossible to submit it to Committees on mere separate and individual groups
  1230
  of railways, whose decisions might be of a conflicting character, and that it was a point upon which the opinion of the House itself ought to be taken and given to the public. A Committee was therefore appointed for the purpose, and by them the question of railway amalgamation had been considered throughout the remainder of last Session. A great deal of evidence had been taken, and a Report had been made to the House by the President of the Board of Trade. In the first Bill which his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had introduced to the House, he had proposed to deal with that question of amalgamation. In the present Bill, however, all mention of amalgamation was withdrawn, so that, in the event a any two great companies proposing a measure of amalgamation in the next Session, the House would be in this very peculiar and anomalous position—that it had declared that such a question ought not to be decided by private and separate groups, while at the same time it had not undertaken to express any opinion upon it itself. That was, according to his view, one very important omission in the present Bill; but there were other great questions of principle to which a corresponding remark would apply—such, for example, as the question of running clauses, the width of gauge, and other matters—which ought to have been disposed of in some manner by that House. Almost all the railway companies had appeared before the Committee which had sat last Session, and he must say, in justice to those companies, that they had appeared before it in a spirit of great candour and fairness. In general terms the railway companies bad said, "The legislation of the House up to this time has been various, contradictory, and, in many respects, highly injurious to the railway interest. We are perfectly prepared to concede to the Government considerable powers of control, if, upon the other hand, the Government will grant to us some protection for our property already existing, and some guarantee for improved legislation for the future." This appeared to him to have been a reasonable request on the part of the railway companies; and he believed, if that opportunity had been taken to accede to their proposition, that no very great difficulty would have existed in making the necessary arrangements. Instead of that, however, the Government had taken a certain degree of control over the railways, but he could

  1231
  not say that they had given what had been asked in return—a fair share of improved legislation. The improved legislation proposed, consisted of the appointment of a Committee of forty members, the chairman of whom was always to be the Chairman of Ways and Means; and this was done, this extra amount of business was thrown upon the Chairman of Ways and Means, at the moment when an hon. Gentleman had just retired from that office on account of its too laborious nature. It had been found necessary to rescind the Standing Order upon the subject; and that very day it had been discovered that the number of forty was too small for the purpose of the Committee, and it was proposed that sixteen new Members should be added to it, having, of course, taken no part in the early discussions on the matter, and knowing nothing of the principles which had been laid down by the Committee in their previous sittings. And this was offered to the railway community as an improved system of legislation, which was to be some return to them for the restrictions which it was proposed to place upon them! The good management of railways, their fair and reasonable success, was a matter of interest to all parties—equally to those who travelled by railways as to those who had shares in them. He had a few shares in one railway, but he generally travelled by a line which competed with it, and he felt a greater interest in the railway to which he trusted his neck than in that to which he trusted his money. He would not now enter into the principle of the present Bill, which was indeed narrowed down to nothing, and from which several of the great points to which he had referred were excluded; but he would invite the President of the Board of Trade to state the course he proposed to pursue with regard to future railway legislation—a subject of extreme importance to the whole country. Matters had now reached such a shape that it was impossible not to see that the present Bill would satisfy neither the requirements of the railway companies nor of the public. He thought it right to make these observations before his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made his statement, and he would take the liberty of asking the noble Lord, the leader of the House, whether he did not think that railway legislation had become so involved and so difficult that it demanded the early attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. HUMEsaid, he was one of those
  1232
  who joined the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in stopping the proposal of amalgamation, and in appointing the Committee to frame one general law. His desire was not to interfere with private property, but to secure to the public, with regard to railways, that protection both to person and property to which they were justly entitled. When a railway company offered an obstruction to traffic, this Bill provided an appeal to a court of law. Why, they had that before. The public had for years been prevented from using the Dundee, Arbroath, and Montrose Railway as a direct route, and they were obliged, by a combination of the companies, to go twenty or thirty miles round, and they had no redress. He thought the control ought to be in the Board of Trade. This Bill consisted of five clauses. The first was an interpretation clause. The second said that facilities should be given by the different companies for the conveyance of passengers and goods from place to place. That was perfectly right; but then the third clause, which was to provide for carrying out the second, would be found ineffective, for it provided that they should go to the courts at Westminster; or if in Scotland, to the Court of Session; but what individual would enter on such a contest with a great railway company, say the Great Northern, or the London and North Western? The next clause was most objectionable. He was on the Committee that considered what regulations should be adopted with regard to railways, and they laid on the table of the House regulations which, if they had been carried out, would, he believed, have saved 200,000,000 l. of capital. A department of the Government was appointed—the railway department—which was continued for a certain time, and was then amalgamated with the Board of Trade. Well, now, instead of that body being appointed under this Bill, it having had experience for ten years, to frame the regulations, would the House believe that the clause provided that nine Judges should frame the regulations! What could these learned Judges be supposed to know of railway matters, and why were they not left to the staff attached to the Board of Trade, that had for so many years attended to them? On this ground he objected to the present Bill, and he desired that the former clauses which had been struck out of the Bill should be restored, and, without further legislation

  1233
  on this subject, he should feel satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, that he generally approved the provisions of the original Bill. The quarrels of the railway companies had been going on for some years, a great inconvenience had been suffered, and a large amount of money spent, and all at the public expense; and it was hoped that means would have been provided which would have prevented the recurrence of such a state of things, but he was afraid that all who had entertained such hopes would be disappointed by the present Bill. There were three great points in which this Bill differed from the original one—by the latter, power was given to the Board of Trade to act on the complaints of parties. [Mr. CARDWELL: "No, no!"] He understood that by the 8th clause of the original Bill such a power was intended to be given to the Board of Trade. The present Bill did not, like the former one, give the Board of Trade the power of altering or of making a discriminating rate of tolls; and thirdly, by the former Bill the Board of Trade could call upon the companies to make proper arrangements for the forwarding of persons and goods. This was a most material point; and there was no one who travelled but was aware of the inconvenience passengers were put to on arriving at a hostile railway terminus, by finding the train they should have proceeded by had started five minutes before their arrival. He had a practical illustration of it himself the other day, when he was obliged to post five or six miles from Stamford, in order to catch one of the Great Northern trains; and these things were of everyday occurrence. The companies said that Parliament was interfering with them, but what was the object of the companies? Did not each preamble of a Bill state that the railway was to be a great public advantage? Great allowances and advantages had been granted to the railway companies, and he thought the public were entitled to all due consideration at their hands. He trusted the statement of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would tend to obviate the difficulties to which he had alluded, otherwise he should venture in Committee to move Amendments to the Bill, with a view of remedying that of which he had complained.
  MR. MANGLESsaid, he wished before
  1234
  the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made his statement to the House to offer a few observations in reply to the remaks which had fallen from some of the previous speakers. An opinion prevailed, both in and out of that House, that great advantages had been given to the railway companies in which the public had not adequately participated. Now, the fact was, that the railway shareholders had themselves been the main sufferers, and that the public, on the other hand, had derived more benefits from the railway system than the people of any other country in the civilised world. The demand now made upon the Railway Companies, was not reasonable in the very nature of things. It would be recollected that, so long ago as 1845, those Gentlemen who in that House and in the country took an active interest in railway matters, declared their opinion that the principle of competition was not applicable to railways, and that, if it were acted upon, it would be ruinous to the parties engaged in those enterprises, while it would not eventually be so beneficial to the public as was supposed. It would also be recollected that Lord Dalhousie, who was then at the head of the Board of Trade, proposed a scheme by which the country was partitioned out among the great companies, and that the House, acting under the advice of the late Sir Robert Peel, deliberately rejected that plan, and resolved that the principle of competition should be adopted, and that the railways should be permitted, and even excited, to act upon that principle. The country, therefore, had all along enjoyed the advantages of competition in railways, and what he ventured to say was, that the public at all events had no reason to complain of the result. But a demand was now made to have the system of regulation and control superadded to that of competition. The former system had been in full operation in a neighbouring country for years, and what had been the consequence? While in France even the great arterial lines had not been formed—while a traveller could not go on a continuous railroad from Paris to Marseilles, or from Paris to Bordeaux—while there was not an unbroken line of communication between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean—in England, where the opposite system of competition had been acted upon, there was not a single town of any note in the kingdom which was not approachable by rail-

  1235
  way, while all the principal towns had two or three separate means of communication with the metropolis; and in every part of the country the great necessaries of life had been considerably reduced in price in consequence of the introduction of the railway system. The country having thus reaped the benefit of the principle of competition, it was not fair to come forward now and complain of the natural results of that principle, and to demand that the principle of regulation and control should be added to it. He admitted that railways should be regulated in a reasonable manner; but at the same time he thought there was something extremely unreasonable in the complaints which were now made. It was not possible in the nature of things that the railways of England, conducted on the principle of competition, could be managed in the same way as the railways in France, where large tracts of the country were allotted to different companies, and where the Government exercised a constant and vigilant supervision. If we decided that two lines should run from London to York, we could not expect the same results, in the way of regulation and control, as if there was only one railway. We could not, at one and the same time, have the full advantages of competition and the full advantages of regulation. But, as he had already stated, the public had no reason to complain of the principle of competition, from which they had derived great benefits. Here was an instance taken from the report of the general manager of the cattle traffic on the London and North-Western Railway for 1853—
  "This shows the result of the competition of the companies upon the business of the district, which may be thus summed up:—In 1849, for the conveyance of 140,000 animals, the company received 8,880 l. In l852, for 172,900 animals, only 6,670 l., showing an increase of 32,900 animals, and a decrease on the receipts of 2,200 l. In 1853, for the conveyance of 205,000 animals, the receipts amounted to 8,896 l., being an increase over the first-mentioned year of 74,000 animals, and only 13 l. in the receipts."
  This was a statement well worthy of the attention of the House. On the other hand, what advantages had the railway companies—those great offenders who were spoken of as if they were the enemies of the public—derived from the principle of competition? Why, with the exception of one or two companies, the average return derived from railway property was not, he believed, so much as 3½ per cent, and he believed that
  1236
  the Lancaster and Carlisle was almost the only railway company which at the present moment gave its shareholders more than 5 per cent. It might be said that the companies had no right to fight with each other, and to squander away their capital in lawsuits, and that they had themselves to blame for what had occurred. But what had that House done? It had laid down the principle that the companies should compete with each other, and then, when they had done so, at great cost to themselves, it turned round upon them and said that their losses were entirely their own fault, and that they ought not to have spent their money in the way they had done. As if that were not enough, it was now proposed to super add to competition the principle of regulation and control—a principle which might do very well in a country like France, where competition was almost unknown, but which could never succeed in England so long as the present system was allowed to continue. Put the railway companies in the position in which they stood in 1845—do away with the principle of competition—and then the House might regulate them as it pleased. Regulation and control would probably make the railways of England as valuable as those of France. In that country there was not a railway which did not at the present moment pay 10 per cent. A reference had been made to the low fares on the French lines, and to the advantages accruing to the public therefrom; but it seemed to be forgotten that the Government had paid large sums to the railway companies, which were taken from the public in the shape of taxes. He believed that no less a sum than between 4,000,000 l. and 5,000,000 l. had been advanced by the Government to the Paris and Strasburg Railway Company alone, and for that vast sum of money not one farthing of interest was received. He trusted the House would not countenance the proposal which had been made to hand over the railways to the tender mercies of the Board of Trade, no matter how excellent its staff of officers might be, but would listen to the fair and reasonable representations of the companies, who had a decided preference to have their property adjudicated upon by the Judges of the land, rather than by any Government department whatever. He believed that great misapprehension existed as to the relative position of the public and the railway companies. He thought it was beyond doubt that in no country in the

  1237
  world had the people derived such advantages from the railway system as they had done in England; and it was an indisputable fact that in no other country had the enormous capital laid out upon railway property yielded so small a return to its owners.
  MR. WILKINSONsaid, he thought that the reason why railway property had been so unprofitable was, not because the companies had been obliged to compete with each other, but because they had struggled to maintain a monopoly which the system of competition was intended to check. If they had not spent such vast sums of money in endeavouring to ward off the competition of rival lines, and in fighting against each other in Parliament, he believed they would have reaped those benefits which railways had produced in other countries. The last speaker had endeavoured to show that the country must be satisfied either with regulation and control or with competition. But regulation was not inconsistent with competition, and there was no good reason why the public should not have the benefit of both. He confessed, for his own part, that he would have been better satisfied with the former Bill; but at the same time, with the exception of the points which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison); he thought the clauses as they now stood remedied many of the grievances of which the public complained. He believed that they gave private individuals the power of applying to the Board of Trade; and although he had been requested by some of his constituents to oppose the Bill, he would give it his cordial support, convinced that it could not fail to promote the interests of the public as well as those of the railway companies themselves.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it appeared to him that the object of the Bill was to afford what the right hon. Gentleman termed "reasonable" facilities to the public to obtain a redress of railway grievances by appealing to a court of law. But when he came to consider its provisions, his firm belief was that the result of this measure would be that if any unfortunate man was weak enough to believe that this Act of Parliament had done something for him, and in consequence he would be induced to rush into a court of law against a great railway company, he would find himself, after a protracted struggle, in this position, that he had got nothing, and that he had
  1238
  to pay the costs of the suit. He believed that the subject was beset with great difficulties, and that it was impossible for legislation to do much. No doubt in gross cases, where the Lord Advocate in Scotland, or the Attorney General in England, was set in motion by the public, a conviction would ensue, but it was not clear to him that a conviction might not be obtained without the help of this Bill, because the court would be guided by the provisions of the original Acts of Parliament. Whether relief would be obtained by this measure was very problematical, but he had no doubt he could find many hon. Gentlemen in that House who would undertake to drive a coach and six through it. Then with regard to penalties, the wording of the Bill appeared very obscure to him. It appeared to him rather extraordinary that the Board of Trade was the party that was to be satisfied whether and to what extent an injunction or interdict had been obeyed by any company. This made it the duty of the Board of Trade to ascertain the amount of malfeasance committed, and he must say he thought the provision a somewhat extraordinary one. He willingly admitted that railways were one of the greatest blessings that had ever been conferred on the country, and so far front blaming Sir Robert Peel, he thought he deserved great credit for having stimulated and spurred them on. Now that the country was covered with a network of railways, it was lamentable that they did not get the amount of accommodation they required. He did not believe the public stood in a more or less advantageous position by the introduction of this measure, and he regretted to observe that some provisions were not made in the Bill for the settlement of disputes by arbitration.
  MR. V. SCULLYsaid, as one of the general public, he had heard no objection stated against this Bill further than it did not remedy every possible existing abuse or grievance. He had heard nothing to show that so far as it went it was not a boon and a benefit to the public. The principal object of the Bill was simply to facilitate arrangements of one company with another, and that circumstance appeared to him to dispose of a great deal of the criticism he had heard upon the pleasure that night. He considered that such a Bill was peculiarly needed in Ireland, where the companies seemed to do as much to inconvenience each other as they possibly could. The communication be-

  1239
  tween Dublin and London seemed to be getting worse every year. Now it took five hours to cross from Holyhead, whereas he had made the trip years ago in three and a half. Perhaps the Board of Trade would form a better tribunal than the Judges of the land, but upon the whole it was a good Bill. No doubt it might be susceptible of improvement, but to introduce any alterations, it would be necessary to go into Committee, and he should, therefore, vote for Mr. Speaker's leaving the Chair.
  MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson), when speaking on this question, although sensitively alive to the interest of the public, seemed entirely to forget the many and the great losses which railway proprietors had suffered, and the risks to which they were subject. The proprietors of railways had received less benefit than any other class by that enterprise which they had exhibited, and they might be deemed a most depressed interest. They had met with the most fearful losses, and many of them had been utterly ruined—a result which in a great degree was to be ascribed to the action of Parliament. In 1844, a Bill was passed, which enacted that when any railway company paid a dividend of more than ten per cent, the property of that company might be purchased by the Government, and taken from the proprietors. Such a measure tended to delude the public, for it gave them an impression that railway property was secure, and that good dividends were to be derived from it, and that persons might with safety invest in it. And then came the measure of Lord Dalhousie, based upon the principle of competition, which had thrown railway property into a state of depression which it was impossible to appreciate, except from personal experience. The losses which railway proprietors had sustained were immense and scarcely to be calculated. The estimates for the construction of railways were found often totally inadequate—1,500,000 l. voted, and 4,000,000 l. or 5,000,000 l. expended on a single line. An hon. Member had alluded to the great increase of railways, but he might also have alluded to the immense expenditure of capital which had gone on for the public advantage, with an entire uncertainty whether the proprietors of railways would derive any benefit from the outlay. The railway companies really might appear in formâ pauperis. They were a depressed
  1240
  and distressed interest; and it would be well for Parliament to beware lest by new legislation they made bad worse. Railway property was at present divided into a great multitude of interests; and in the midst of all this entanglement the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade proposed to legislate for it as if it were one continuous whole—one entire system. It would have been better to adopt means by which the difficulties of railway property might be removed, which could only be by the principle of amalgamation. It was fallacious to deal with railways as with one uniform interest, whereas it was the reverse. The right hon. Gentleman would take from the proprietors whatever advantage they might derive from the principle of competition, and secure them no equivalent in return. Justice to the 100,000 persons who had invested their property in railways would dictate a different course; and a capital of 300,000,000 l. invested in great undertakings, from which the public had derived the greatest advantage, ought not to be left in a state of uncertainty as to its privileges and its rights. Under the system of legislation pursued by that House, the value of this property must depend upon accident. If the system were to continue and if money were to fall, as it had before, to a low rate of interest—two or two and a-half per cent—for any long time, railways would be so multiplied that the present railway property would be destroyed. He considered that the result of the evidence adduced before the Committee of last year was different from that at which the Committee had arrived, and that amalgamation was recommended by the principal witnesses examined. Those persons who had most reason to be careful of the interest and acquainted with the operation of the railway system had strongly recommended the adoption of amalgamation wherever it could be judiciously effected; but, instead of attending to such recommendation from authorities so capable and experienced, the Committee turned a deaf ear to it; whereas, if they had only given it the attention and encouragement it deserved, the whole railway interest of England might now have been united, and then this Bill or a similar one might have been brought in, and might have effected some good. In all these matters the railway proprietors should be thought of as well as the public; and, although it might sound very well to talk of one continuous line

  1241
  being carried out, yet, even in the consideration of so great a boon as this was said to be, the interest of those who had expended so much of their capital, incurred such losses, and were subject to such risks, should not be hastily or intemperately disposed of. The powers of the present Bill were potent enough; as, for instance, the power of arbitratory arrangements between the companies, which would have been just if the companies had formed one system, instead of being split up into sections. As it was, the Bill would be of no benefit to the proprietors. Yet they had met the Government in the fairest spirit, and with the greatest desire to assist the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) in his railway legislation. He implored the House to consider of some measure by which the present conflicting state of things could be put an end to; that those who had capital embarked in railways might know how far it would be depreciated, and what dividends they might expect; instead of which, as matters now stood, he knew instances in which it was uncertain whether present dividends might not be diminished to the extent of one-half. When the question was dealt with in this spirit it would be dealt with fairly; but until it was so he should consider legislation such as was now proposed one-sided and unjust, entirely for the benefit of the public, and not at all for the shareholders in railway companies. He should approve generally of the Bill if it had introduced the principle of amalgamation, but as it had not done so, it would be no bar to a complete destruction of railway property, and the right hon. Gentleman in doing everything for the public would have done nothing for the companies.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he only desired to draw attention to one omission in the measure, the absence of the additional provisions for redress of injuries arising from railway accidents, to which he had called the attention of the Government in the early part of the session. The right hon. Gentleman had then promised that a measure for that object would be introduced.
  MR. CARDWELL: A separate measure is intended to be introduced.
  MR. BENTINCK: This session?
  MR. CARDWELL: Yes.
  MR. BENTINCKthen had nothing more to say at the present stage of the Bill.
  MR. ATHERTONsaid, it appeared to him that while no constitutional principle was violated by this Bill, no private rights
  1242
  invaded, and no injury was done to railway property, the public would be greatly benefited by it, whether as travellers or in sending goods. He thought justice had hardly been done to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell), in dwelling upon the assumed short-comings of his measure. To understand it aright, it was necessary to inquire what was the present state of the law with regard to these subjects. Nothing could be more unfair than the operation of the present laws with respect to railways and their government; and it was an admitted fact, that railway companies could, if they pleased, so conduct their business, and still be within the letter of their Act, that they could give to the public the very minimum of the advantages under their Act, and take to themselves the maximum of such advantages. Suppose an individual were to suffer the very common annoyance which the hon. Member for North Cheshire (Mr. T. Egerton) had described, he would have no remedy at all, not even the miserable one of an action for damages. But this Bill for the first time provided a remedy; for suppose an individual to be a company, he would be able to have a summary proceeding without action or pleading. Suppose he were not in London, he went be entitled to make affidavit, which would be laid before a judge at chambers, or in court, and if the facts were incontrovertible, as in most cases they were, the judge would have power, not only to award compensation for the injury sustained, but he would have the still more important power of making regulations and injunctions which would prevent such a case from again occurring, except under penalties which no one in his senses would incur. So with regard to an individual having received an injury, he would have the same cheap remedy, and the judge would have power to issue regulations to prevent such injuries in future. The Bill further gave power to the judges, if they thought fit, to take the advice and assistance of engineers, barristers, or such other persons as they might find necessary to assist them. He certainly had objections to the Bill as it originally stood, which entrusted these large powers to the Board of Trade; but those objections were obviated, when he found them entrusted to the judges of the land. He had said enough, he thought, to show that this Bill was a step in the right direction—that it would provide an easy, simple, and economical means of redress—and that it

  1243
  would be no bar to further legislation, if it should be deemed necessary; and as such he gave it his hearty support.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it was rather curious that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who so often advocated the principle that self-interest was the most certain and efficient mode of regulating human action, should imagine that railway companies would act systematically so much against their interests as to be continually neglecting the interest of the public. Assuming, however, that this was the case, surely the reasonable course to pursue would be to provide a remedy for them. The hon. and learned Member who had spoken last appeared quite enamoured of the Bill, which he said, would provide an easy, simple, and economical means of redress. Now, he (Mr. Whiteside) defied the Board of Trade to devise a system more favourable to litigation and the legal profession. Not only on the complaint of any party aggrieved, but on the certificate of the Board of Trade to the Attorney General, there might be an application to a single judge, who was to exercise the powers conferred by this measure, without provision for any appeal, and who might by injunction destroy the rights of railway companies, without any means of revising and reversing his decision. If the judge thought fit, and he would be sure to do so, he might depute it to some other persons, to save him the trouble of forming an opinion, and to arrive at a decision which he could not arrive at himself. The judge might refer it to engineers or lawyers to prosecute any inquiries he might think proper—it was a cheap, easy, simple, and speedy procedure. Then the judge might issue his injunction, or direct damages to be paid, either to the party complaining, which would be rational, or to the Crown, which would be irrational, and all this "without prejudice to any other proceeding in any court of law," a provision for which, he was certain, the lawyers would be grateful. The judges would doubtless also be grateful for the duty which was delegated to them of framing rules by which to work this novel and questionable measure. This was what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade called the least costly and most efficient mode of enforcing the provisions of the Bill that could be devised.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that, after what had fallen from various hon. Members in the course of the debate, and especially from the hon. and learned Gentle-
  1244
  man who had just sat down, the House must readily agree with him, that whoever undertook to try to settle the claims of the general public against the railway companies, with proper respect to the interest of a body of persons who had invested large capital in public works, in many cases without obtaining a very adequate return, and to do justice to all parties, amid the complicated and not very consistent legislation of the last twenty years, would find that he had undertaken a very difficult task. The question was, whether those who had undertaken the task had addressed themselves to it in a painstaking spirit, and with an anxious desire to unravel its difficulties and find a remedy for them. So far as the Committee of last year was concerned, he could appeal with confidence to the evidence taken before it, and the Report it had made, for an answer. Some surprise had been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mahon (Mr. Evelyn Denison) that several of the principal matters referred to that Committee had not been touched on by this Bill. His answer to this was, that this Bill professed to furnish a remedy for one part—and a great part—of those matters. Other parts had been dealt with already by Standing Orders, and by changes in the mode of procedure with regard to private Bills. His hon. Friend had also asked, why the question of amalgamation had not been dealt with? So far as this Bill was concerned, he (Mr. Cardwell) had been perfectly ready to deal with that subject, and, as the Bill was originally drawn, clauses had been inserted for the purpose of enabling the Board of Trade to deal from time to time with the questions of working arrangements as they should arise, and so to save companies the trouble and expense of continual applications for, and contests upon, private Bills. But the subject was one which could only be dealt with in that way, or by such applications continuing to be made. It could not be settled once for all in any public Act. Nothing could be accomplished with regard to it in that way, and, even if they were to pass a law on the subject, the first private Bill which was passed by a Committee dissenting from such an Act, would repeal it altogether. They had, however, dealt with it by Resolutions, which he thought was the most efficient mode. So, too, with regard to running powers. He did not propose to enact by this Bill that running powers were never to be granted, because the first

  1245
  Committee which passed a Bill with a clause in it giving running powers over any line would repeal such an enactment, and, therefore, it was thought better also to deal with that subject by Resolutions. Further than this they had no power or no claim to go. Then his hon. Friend said, you have provided no improved system of legislation for the future. Now, how was it possible, by Act of Parliament, to provide for the future legislation of that House upon private Bills? But they had laid down the principle on which Parliamentary legislation ought to proceed, and they had proposed certain alterations in the composition of committees, for the purpose of obtaining unity and regularity in their Reports. His hon. Friend was not so sanguine of the result as he was, but his (Mr. Cardwell's) belief was, that with the intercommunication that would go on among the Members of Railway Committees, particularly of Chairmen, there would be an important tendency to preserve unity and consistency of regulation which did not take place under the former system. He had no wish to claim for these Resolutions any particular amount of ingenuity or any other virtue; the Committee had dealt with the subjects referred to them to the best of their ability, and it seemed impossible to embody their recommendations in any other form. On the question of the principle of the Bill, he believed he now met with the same degree of encouragement which every one of his predecessors who had dealt with this subject had encountered—that was to say, the attacks upon it had come from all quarters of the heavens, and the most opposite views were taken of it. Some hon. Gentlemen looked on it as a Bill for the public, doing nothing for the railway companies; others, again, said it was all for the railway interest, and did nothing for the public. Perhaps the best way of answering all these various attacks would be simply to state what the Bill really was, as it stood at present. The first clause of the Bill, then, did two things,—first, it enacted, in language which he believed to be clear and legal, a definition of what were the duties which companies owed to the public in respect of the services to be rendered upon their own lines. With regard to this part of the clause, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had spoken of the use made in it of the word "reasonable," the value of which he
  1246
  appeared either to doubt or to misapply. Now, the object of this part of the Bill was to apply the old law of common carriers, as it used to be upon the old roads, to the altered state of things upon the railways of the country. That law imposed a peremptory obligation on the common carrier, and the word "reasonable" was the legal word always adopted to define the measure of obligation. The word, he believed, was to be found in the law books of the country from the earliest period of black letter. The second part of the clause was a statutory obligation upon the railway companies not merely to adjust their traffic with regard to the convenience of the public, but also—and this, it must be remarked, was an obligation entirely new, and now for the first time imposed—reciprocally and mutually to consult each other, in order that their arrangements should be so made that the public might have the benefit of one continuous and corresponding system of railways, and might pass from one line to another with as much case and convenience as along each separate railway. And here he must remark, that he was greatly surprised to hear any one, and especially one of the sagacity of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, express an opinion that a statutory enactment such as this was a matter of light importance in the railway legislation of this country. The next question was how these statutory enactments were to be enforced; and on this part of the subject two opinions had been stated. There were those of high authority who thought that there ought to be a responsible department of the Executive Government, somewhat in the form of a Board of Control, to regulate these matters on behalf of the public; others, again, thinking that public facilities of this kind would involve many conditions likely to affect the financial position and prospects of the railway companies, were of opinion that it would be unconstitutional to hand over questions involving such points to the arbitrary decision of a public department. This was a subject which deserved to be well weighed and considered, and accordingly it had been well weighed and considered by the Select Committee, and this was the opinion which they had given with respect to it. In their Report, they said—
  "Since, however, this control, when actually applied, must be arbitrary in its nature and free

  1247
  from all technical fetters, and since the exercise of it will always affect the pecuniary interest of the company against which it is directed, your Committee feel that the occasion on which it should be exerted must be carefully defined. The constitution of the Executive Government, affording no means of inquiry in presence of the board and the public, is unfavourable for the determination of such questions, and your Committee recommend that the fact of wrong having been done by the company should first be substantiated before a public tribunal, and the aid of the Executive Government be afforded to the tribunal in framing its decisions with a view to their practical effect. This course of proceeding will be the more convenient inasmuch as the process of the Court will in any case be requisite to enforce any decision at which a department of the Government might arrive."
  In the Bill, as at first drawn, and as it now stood, there was no attempt to run counter to this declaration; there was no proposal to place any company, against which no legal act of wrongdoing had been legally established, at the disposal of a department of the Executive Government. What was proposed was, that when it had been declared by statutory enactment that certain facilities should be afforded, and when it had been shown by full and legal investigation that a particular railway company had failed to supply those facilities, then the Executive Government should give its assistance to the appointed tribunal in remedying the mischief done. The companies considered the Bill as it stood with that proposition embodied in it, and in an interview which he had with the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Beckett Denison) and other gentlemen representing the great railway companies, they said:—"We are ready to concur with you in endeavouring to secure to the public all reasonable facilities, not only upon the separate lines, but all reasonable intercommunication between the whole system, so as to remove all obstructions, and to increase the public accommodation." But they added:—"We prefer that you should alter your machinery, that the application should be first to a court of law, and that the tribunal should have power to refer the matter to competent persons; and then, upon finding that the company has actually been doing wrong by the public, we will facilitate your obtaining salutary and stringent remedies to enforce the public rights." It appeared to him that he would have been acting most unreasonably if he had abstained from considering a proposal emanating from such a quarter. He had considered
  1248
  it, and he had felt that the public object which he had in view would be as effectually contained in the Bill, and as distinctly enacted in the mode in which the companies had expressed their willingness to receive it, as in any other form of language. The hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) said with regard to the remedy that it was one for which lawyers ought to be obliged to him. He held a different opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had asked him why he had not inserted something in the Bill with regard to amicable and voluntary arbitration. His answer to that was, that so far as voluntary arbitration was concerned no enactment was necessary. The Board of Trade was in the almost daily habit of forwarding to different railway companies complaints made with respect to their arrangements, accompanied by recommendations relating to them; but every one in that House, or at least every one who had been connected with the Government, must know from experience that these voluntary arbitrations were of no effect when people's pecuniary interests were at issue, and that some more stringent mode of proceeding, accompanied by compulsory power, was therefore required, and it was provided in the Bill. It was next asked by what proceeding it was proposed to carry out the objects of the Bill. This was provided by the third clause, which said that if any person was aggrieved, and if the Attorney General was instructed on the part of the Crown of any violation or contravention of the Act, he might apply, without great cost, for a remedy to the Superior Courts. There was no complicated form; a form the simplest and the most summary was provided. If the facts were not disputed, an immediate decision would be given; if the facts were disputed, a power was reserved of referring the matter to a barrister, or engineer, or some other competent person. At the same time, if more simple and effectual remedies could be suggested, he should be ready to consider them in Committee. These, then, were the main provisions of the Bill, namely—a statutory enactment that every company should afford to the public all reasonable facilities not only in regard to its own line, but also in regard to all those other lines with which it intercommunicated, in order to give to the public the full advantage of a continuous

  1249
  system of railway communication spreading its network from one end of the country to another; and, secondly, the establishment of a mode of enforcing this enactment the most expeditious and the least costly which had occurred to them. If the House went into Committee, he thought that those who had attacked the Bill, with a disposition to sneer at some of the difficulties with which it attempted to deal, would find that the case was not quite so easy to dispose of as they might fancy. It was one thing to find fault with the provisions of the measure, and a totally different thing to find a simpler and better mode of procedure. The House should remember the various steps which had already been taken with regard to this important subject. The first plan suggested limiting the dividend, that proved inoperative; then there was the scheme of Lord Dalhousie, which was unsuccessful in that House; and next came the plans of Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet, which also had no result. In 1846 the important step was taken of setting up a tribunal to which these matters were to be referred. That tribunal consisted of most able men. There was one ex-chief justice to give advice on legal points, and there was an engineer of the highest character to guide them in scientific matters. Parliament voted the money for it; and what happened? why their first act was to draw up a Bill asking Parliament to furnish them with the Powers necessary for the discharge of their duties. That Bill was never passed, and the consequence was that in 1847 the Commission was partially re-united to the Board of Trade, and in 1851 it ceased altogether to exist as a separate department. He thought this short summary would justify him in saying that they ought first to define the duties to be discharged before creating a new tribunal. The hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. James M'Gregor) thought the Bill should have contained some provision with respect to the question of amalgamation; but the conclusion of the Government was this, that it would be wise of Parliament first to secure some control over the railway companies before it attempted to deal with the question of amalgamation. If they gave the companies the power of amalgamation, it might be more difficult to obtain a control over them afterwards. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Beckett Denison), when questioned by the Committee on this point, answered—
  1250
  "If you allow a very large amalgamation to take place, I do not know what sort of political feeling might arise, which might be felt in the House of Commons. That is an argument against amalgamation."
  The House was now asked to lay down a statutory enactment, and to furnish a tribunal to enforce that enactment, and by so doing he believed that they would be establishing permanent peace between the travelling public on the one side and the railway proprietors and shareholders on the other, which could not fail to be of great benefit to both. He had not the least hesitation in saying that he had been met by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Chandos), and other hon. Members representing the railway interest, with the fairest declaration on their part, that they were desirous of seeing these obligations imposed by general statutory enactment upon the companies, and that they were willing to assist the Government in devising the most complete and efficient machinery for enforcing them by adequate penalties. He thought the House would feel that the operation of a harmonious arrangement between the public and the railway companies and between the railway companies themselves, so far from being an impeachment of the good sense and judicious nature of the measure, ought to be an additional argument to recommend it for adoption. It was his belief that the Bill would be quite as efficient in promoting what was sought for in behalf of the public as in its former shape; and he was sincere in his belief, also, that, if passed, it would confirm the value of railway property, and obtain more efficient means of affording reasonable accommodation to the public.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  The House went into Committee pro formâ.
  House resumed; Committee report progress to sit again to-morrow.

  THE MILITIA BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished for an explanation of an alteration made in the Bill from the previous terms of service.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, his noble Friend the Home Secretary had already explained the proposed change; but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was not in the House at the time the statement was made. His noble Friend stated that, in the present circumstances of the country, the fact had been brought

  1251
  to his notice that, under a strict interpretation of the old Militia Act, it would not be possible to embody the militia, even under considerable pressure, from the absence of the regular forces. No doubt, in case of invasion, the militia might, by stretching the meaning of the Act, be embodied without any such alteration as was now proposed; but it was not desirable that the law should remain in this condition. The circumstances of the country were now such as to render it important that the Government should have the power of embodying some portion of the militia. There was no danger of an invasion; but the absence of this danger did not diminish the public necessity for the change proposed. With regard to the militia regiments themselves, there was no objection whatever to the change. So far from it, he had just received several applications from regiments asking to be selected for embodiment; and one, belonging to a midland county, expressed their willingness to serve in any part of the country. An excellent spirit animated the whole force. All were desirous of serving their country. But the Government would take every measure in their power to select regiments for embodiment from parts where there was the least pressure for labour; and by not calling out any whole regiment, but only employing a portion of it, it would be in the power of the colonel to grant such leaves of absence to the men as would prevent any great inconvenience.
  MR. HUMEsaid, he had been unaware that the Bill would come on that night for a second reading, or he would have been prepared to state certain objections which he entertained upon the matter. He had before submitted to the House the propriety of having the whole military power of the country placed under one distinct authority; and he felt in this instance that great inconvenience and augmentation of the public expenditure would be the result of embodying a militia, the officers of which were appointed by an authority over which the Secretary at War had no control. He thought the time had arrived when the distinction between the militia and the regulars should cease. He was not at all unwilling to place at the disposal of Government a proper military force, but at the same time he thought such a force should be of the most efficient character. At present the militia entailed a great expense upon the country, and, instead of being, as it ought to be, under the control
  1252
  of the Secretary at War, it was under that of the lords lieutenant of counties. He could not understand why two kinds of military forces should be kept up instead of one uniform system. He would prefer the abolition of the militia altogether, and an augmentation to the regular forces, with the entire military power of the country under one management and control. An expenditure of several millions was now about to be entered into, and such arrangements ought to be carried out as would ensure the best appropriation of that money. He was not desirous of throwing any obstacle in the way of Government, but he believed the time was now come when the difficulties which were seen years ago by the majority of the Cabinet should be inquired into, and remedied. He certainly could not understand why, when reform was the order of the day, some attempt should not be made to render our Army as efficiently managed as that of any other country in the world.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for tomorrow.

  OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 6 (Constitution of the Hebdomadal Council).
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment, to insert at the end of the clause, with regard to the appointment of the seventh professor, the words, "which other professor shall be always chosen from among the professors of theology."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not assent to the proposition. He thought that when the election was to be made by a very considerable constituency, which constituency represented the whole moral and intellectual power of the resident University, and was to be intrusted with the choice of the whole of the Hebdomadal Council, that constituency could fairly enough choose a professor of theology, if it thought fit to give such a distinction to the faculty of theology. Now, however, the case was entirely different. The election of the heads and professors was no longer to take place by the suffrages of that constituency, but it was proposed that they should be elected by the body of professors. It was, therefore, necessary to inquire how far the body of professors formed a fitting constituency for the election of professors of theology. He

  1253
  could not see anything less likely to recommend the Bill as a whole by the consistency and propriety of its provisions than to intrust the professors as a whole with the election of a professor of theology. There were six professors of theology, a professor of moral philosophy—who might be considered a sort of amphibious animal, holding on to theology with one hand and secular knowledge with the other—and all the rest of the professors were persons without the slightest relation to the choice of professors of theology. The body of professors had much less to do with theology than the bulk of the University. If a professor of theology were wanted, let him be chosen by the bulk of the University; but to set a professor of anatomy or a professor of Sanscrit, a professor of chemistry, a professor of natural history, a reader in experimental philosophy, a Savilian professor of astronomy, or a professor of geometry to choose a professor of theology, appeared to him—he could almost say, a farce—but certainly something between that and a serious and sober action.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he now rose to move an Amendment, of which he had given notice at the close of the proceedings on Monday, to alter the last word of the clause. He proposed to substitute for the word "Congregation" the word "Convocation;" and it seemed to him no more than consistent, after the resolution come to on a former evening, that the House should arrive at that decision. If the Amendment were adopted, he had no doubt that, practically, the proposal of Government would be carried out in the great majority of cases. In nineteen cases out of twenty the six members of Convocation would be chosen by the resident members of Convocation, which would, in effect, come practically very near the intention of Government; but, in the twentieth case, it might be most desirable that no such limitation upon the constituency should exist. In such an exceptional case some question of great interest, and affecting the feelings or the interests of the University, might be at stake, and it might be most desirable that the whole constituency of the University should at least have the power of exercising their rights. He held that, in consistency with the whole elective principle of the country, Congregation ought not to be excluded from exercising that power. He did not deny that he viewed the new body called the Congregation with great
  1254
  jealousy and dislike, and he wished to see it got rid of from the Bill. He had stated on Monday evening at considerable length the objections which he entertained against that body. It was not simply a novelty, but the framers of the Bill professed that they were reviving an old power in the University. That was not, however, wholly correct in fact, for the Congregation with its former powers, and the Hebdomadal Council never co-existed, and by the creation of the new Congregation a third body would be created hitherto unknown in the constitution of the University of Oxford, and the working of which would, he firmly believed, be injurious and mischievous to the interests of the University. He was apprehensive that the practical working of the Congregation would be neither more nor less than to throw the power of the University mainly into the hands of the prevailing party, whatever it might be. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former evening said that he (Sir J. Pakington) had exaggerated the probable numbers of the new Congregation. He had estimated them at between 200 and 300, and his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) at about 156. The fact was, by the arrangement proposed in the Bill, Convocation would be practically set aside, and the independence of the University would be materially affected. And that conclusion was distinctly laid down in the evidence of Mr. Merritt, and was contained in the Report of the Commissioners. True, indeed, power might be exercised at one time by one party, sometimes by another. Still it would be a great evil to incur the risk of party feeling stepping in to influence the management of the University; and he believed that party feeling would be brought to bear on this body to a very dangerous extent, and that members of the University, whose time might be far better employed in other ways, would virtually become members of a mere debating society. Now, he was not disposed to see the affairs of the University exposed to such a risk, nor was he disposed to see Convocation thu practically set aside. He felt persuaded that the Congregation could not exercise its powers without possessing a degree of control over the administration and legislation of the University that was inconsistent with its independence, and inconsistent with the action of Convocation on the University at large, which was not limited within the walls of Oxford, but was spread over the whole country. Practically he was sure

  1255
  that, in the great majority of cases, the elections would be carried on by the resident masters of arts; but cases would occur in which the University at large might desire to exercise their franchise, and in that case, consistently with their own principles, he thought Convocation at large ought to have the power, if they desired to exercise it, of joining in the election of this one-third part of the Hebdomadal Council. For those reasons, then, he considered a change ought to be made in the Bill, and he would move that at the end of the 6th clause the word "Convocation" be substituted for "Congregation."
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to leave out the word "Congregation," in order to insert the word "Convocation," instead thereof.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the direct object of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was to exclude altogether from the Bill the body which the Government proposed to call the Congregation. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that Convocation should choose two members of Congregation, and omitting any discussion on the former part of the clause, the Amendment substantially was that no such body as the Government proposed should exist. He thought the real question in that respect was, whether it was desirable to have a body composed of all those who were residents in Oxford conversant with the business of teaching, whether they taught as professors, or whether they taught as tutors. That was a very important part of the Bill, and one which the Government were disposed to press upon the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Congregation would be liable to be carried away by party feeling of various kinds, more especially by party feeling on the subject of religion. He owned he heard with very considerable dismay a statement to the same effect, though in stronger terms, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on a former evening. It seemed to him, if there was any truth in that statement—he certainly could not pretend, from his own knowledge, to deny it—that the question was altogether hopeless, because, if the persons who were the principal persons—nearly the whole of the persons engaged in teaching in the University of Oxford—were persons so deeply imbued with party feeling, and with party feeling which might vary from day to day—for, according to the right hon. Gentleman,
  1256
  one time it might be Tractarian, another time it might be a rationalistic spirit—he owned, if he entirely believed that statement, he should look with apprehension to the future condition of the youth of this country. He should say if that were the case, the question would be whether they should either put this University under the management of another body altogether, or whether it would not be better still to abolish the University of Oxford altogether. As a body, the University of Oxford had hitherto maintained a spirit, though not a spirit which he very much admired, yet a consistent spirit in history. In the time of Lord Chatham it was said to be the spirit of Jacobitism, and in later times certainly a strong Conservative spirit. If that spirit was so totally variable and evanescent that it might change from day to day, and there was danger, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) supported that allegation, that a year or two hence all the youths of this country, its nobility, its gentry, and its clergy, would be educated in a rationalistic spirit, in the rationalistic doctrines of German professors, who could but feel despair with respect to such an institution? He did not believe it; he did not believe any such danger existed, or that the body of teachers at Oxford had been fairly described. The statement was not well founded, but if it rested on the best foundation, the most effective security with regard to teaching must be to have a body composed of all those who were concerned in teaching, with whom teaching was a business—who had studied it in all its aspects—who had before their eyes from day to day the practical effect of teaching, and to intrust those persons with the power of election to the Hebdomadal Council. He could well understand that if there were questions of parochial teaching, of teaching by the clergy from their pulpits, the clergy of the country should be brought together to give an opinion on such questions; but it seemed to him far from advantageous—it seemed to him most disadvantageous—when the question of improvement in education arose, that they should bring together, or be liable to bring together, a body of 3,000 persons, 2,800 of whom had not turned their minds to the subject of education, perhaps, for ten, twenty, or even thirty years. Men brought up at Oxford some thirty or forty years ago would have the opinions which they then imbibed at the University of Oxford.

  1257
  The whole 150 or 250 men residing at Oxford might come to the conclusion that a great improvement in teaching was to be made. The questions to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) alluded the other night—whether young men should be brought up to learn only classics and mathematics, or whether or not the physical sciences should be added to that education, and how much time should be given to each study—were most important questions, on which he should be very sorry to give an absolute opinion, but he did say it was evident to him that great improvement might be made in what had hitherto been the practice of the University of Oxford, and when those improvements were to be made, he should like a decision to be in some degree swayed by the opinion of those whose business was education, whose thoughts were upon education, and whose daily practice and daily experience turned upon education. To bring from Cornwall or Northumberland some 400 or 500 clergymen, who had not attended to the subject at all, who had imbibed some prejudice from circular letters, wherein they had been told there was a dreadful innovation about to be made, that something was going to be taught at Oxford which actually was not taught, for such would be the representations; and for those men, with their votes and numbers, to put a bar to such improvement, would be, he thought, a great misfortune. He hoped the Committee would assent to the proposed plan of having a Congregation, though it might be a serious matter of debate as to those of whom Congregation should consist. Let them admit everybody educated at Oxford who was competent to give an opinion on the daily business of Oxford; but let them not admit, except on rare occasions, those who were continually absent from Oxford. He did hope, also, that the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), of the dreadful state into which Oxford was fallen, that there was a great chance they might be carried away by some rationalistic doctrine, were not well founded.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the noble Lord had given a colour to what he had said different to what he had meant in the observations he had just made. He never said the University of Oxford was likely to be led away by rationalistic doctrines.
  1258
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), however, said he was afraid such a thing might happen; but what he (Mr. Henley) did say, and what he repeated was, that if they narrowed down to a small section, which might not he more than 100 persons, they might find 100 young men in Oxford, or in any other place, he did not care where, who might give an impetus to a particular set of principles. Particular views had weight with the residents at one time, and might have influence at another. There had been small sections floating in the University from time to time, composed of young men, who, with their ardent spirits, naturally entertained strong opinions. What check was there against the too great prevalence of those opinions but by bringing to bear the general opinion of the great body of the University? If the power was given to the professors, of whose trustworthiness in matters of theology the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given such a graphic description, the younger members of the Convocation would sweep everything before them. They would have some fifty or sixty, and, including professors, there might be ninety members of this new congregation, and he suspected all the rest would make up something like 150 or 160 more. His belief was, that Congregation would be composed of about 250 persons:—the heads of houses, about twenty-four; the canons of Christ Church and professors, about ninety; the tutors of colleges and halls and college officers, not less than seventy or eighty (of which a very considerable number were very young men); masters of private halls, and residents, who had filled any college office, and residents qualified under certificates of study, it was impossible to fix with certainty, but there would not be less than forty or fifty of that description. That would be the governing body, and he did not think it satisfactory. The Commissioners, to whom the Government ought to pay some respect, considered a body of something like 100 would fall, necessarily, into a mere debating society, and, therefore, anticipated objectionable difficulties on that ground. With a body of about 200 and upwards, all those evils would in a great degree be aggravated. They would necessarily fall into parties, and, as far as he could see, would not be likely to exercise any very sound judgment. The great majority of men who entered into the busi-

  1259
  ness of the University were between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-five. About thirty-five they generally moved out for livings or various other matters; perhaps some wanted to get married; but they would not find many residents after that age. He had yet to learn that a man who had had his judgment matured by eight or ten years' experience in the world was a worse judge than the man of twenty-five, who had just begun to teach, which was the case generally with the great body of residents. They were generally men of high attainments, who had distinguished themselves in the schools—they had begun to feel the powers they possessed, and, it may be, were not unjustly elated by their success; but he did not know that that was a matter altogether calculated to make them take an enlarged view of the subject of education. They were naturally chained down a great deal to particular views of the branch of education they were teaching, and were not able to take so large a view of the question as after having passed fourteen or fifteen years away from the University. He saw before him two Members of the Government, both highly distinguished for their University careers. Would any one believe that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), or the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), were not as competent now to form an opinion of the studies proposed for consideration as they were two or three years after they had taken honours? He should be very willing to rest the Amendment upon that ground. It was not a very easy matter to get the non-residents to come up. It must be a very strong inducement. Nineteen cases out of twenty were left to the decision of the resident body; but there might be, and there would be, cases in which it would be unwise and unsafe to leave it to that body; and he believed, also, that if they knew and felt that there was the power outside to keep them right and straight, they would never attempt to do, by means of a small majority, that which they knew would not be acceptable to the whole body of the University. Upon these grounds he thought the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) a sound one. He thought, as the clause stood, they would only be creating a narrow oligarchy, which would be a direct impediment to the free action of the University, instead of setting up, as was professed to be the object of the Bill, a
  1260
  proper representative system. He should, therefore, heartily support the Amendment.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he had been listening with very great attention to the observations proceeding from both sides of the House, but whether it was from a want of apprehension in himself, or from any improper suspicion of others, he was unable to determine, but he could not help feeling that the combatants upon both sides were fighting with gloves, and that there was something kept back on both sides, some question which he suspected it was desirable to avoid. Now, he did not know what, after all, there was to apprehend. He suspected that each one was endeavouring, through the Bill, and especially through that clause of it, to strike a blow at some particular party in the University, whom they would not name; for he conceived that the mere numbers constituting the board could not be of such vast importance as was imagined. He observed that one said, that if there was a great number, that the board would be divided into two factions. Why, was it not perfectly clear that, whether the body consisted of ten or of one hundred men, that there would be two factions, and that it would simply be a larger or a smaller debating society, and that the two opposing principles would be in continual collision; and what did it signify, as far as that went, whether the body was composed of the larger or lesser number. But then it was said, and it was a good argument, that the persons living solely in the Universities came to have contracted views, and that it would be infinitely better that their actions and judgments should be controlled by others who were not always so resident. There was, however, another point of far more importance than the mere teaching, whether it was by professors or otherwise, and that was the moral discipline of those who were sent to the Universities. Now, he was prepared to maintain, as an incontestible conclusion, that the board, as proposed by the Government, was far more likely properly to conduct that part of the business of education than if it were composed of strangers, who never resided within the University, or who had never devoted themselves to the consideration of such a subject.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for West Surrey had a little misunderstood the exact bearing of the question now before the Com-

  1261
  mittee relative to the alternative of intrusting these powers to Convocation, the present Legislative Assembly of the University, in preference to intrusting it to Congregation, the new body to be created by the Bill. All those who were masters of arts and have manifested their attachment to the University by retaining their names in the books, were members of Convocation, whether resident at Oxford or not; such of these only as were resident would be members of Congregation. The heads of houses, as the Hebdomadal Board, who are the best qualified to maintain discipline, were opposed to the constitution of the Congregation, but were in favour of being associated with a body of members of Convocation selected by the great body of Convocation. The members of Convocation were those who, in a great number of instances, have sons or relatives to be educated at Oxford, and, of course, could not be suspected of favouring lax discipline. The hon. Member did not seem to apprehend the objection of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington), namely, that time clause, as it stood, would for the first time give Congregation an absolute control over the University of Oxford, over Convocation itself, because this body, by the influence it would exercise over its nominees in the Hebdomadal Council according to the Bill, would control the subjects which were to come under the consideration of Convocation. There was, therefore, much more than a mere veto asked for this new body; for, if the original clause passed, on the one hand, this Hebdomadal Council would be a mere delegacy of Congregation; on the other hand, this Council would be able to debar Convocation from ever considering any subjects to which it objected. Now, that was a bar upon the action of Convocation which he did not think the previous history of the University would justify. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said, that if party feeling were to influence the discussions of the governing body, he questioned whether it would not be better to abolish the University altogether. The noble Lord, in arguing thus, was but saying, "If the University cannot be governed under our scheme, let it be abolished." He (Mr. Newdegate) would say, in reply, that the University had never yet been governed under the noble Lord's scheme, and he hoped that it never would be governed under such scheme. The history of the University conveys a serious warning that
  1262
  the residents, however well qualified by their position, and by being fully conversant with all the details of the University to discharge their important duties as teachers of youth, were, nevertheless, liable to great bias and sectarian feeling, and to run into extremes, in matters connected with religion especially, while the whole history of the University likewise proved, that the action of Convocation and the deliberate judgments it enunciated tended to correct this tendency to extreme doctrines whenever it was manifested. He need only refer to two instances set forth in the Report of the Commission. The one was that in which there was an apprehension that Dr. Hampden's opinions were too lax. Convocation met and objected to the laxity of these opinions. The second instance was that of Mr. Ward's Tract XC., which had obtained an unhappy notoriety, as the embodiment of the Romish schism then manifesting itself in the Church of England. The Convocation assembled, and indicated their condemnation of this tract. Those who knew Oxford best on his (Mr. Newdegate's) side of the House, therefore, believed that Convocation had done nothing to call for its supercession, which this Bill tended to effect.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he thought that, in addition to the à priori argument that the expense and waste of time would prevent that large body, of whom the noble Lord appeared to be so much afraid, consisting of the clergymen in Cornwall, Cumberland, and Chester, and other places, coming up to control the other bodies, he might appeal to experience to show that such would not be the case, for only two months ago, when the very important question was mooted at Oxford upon the project of the noble Lord for the reform, or, as some termed it, the destruction of the University, becoming known, only 400 members assembled. Hon. Members might say that was apathy, but that remark could not apply to the recent election for the University of Oxford, when every engine of party policy and tactics was employed to bring up as many members as possible, and yet upon that important occasion, out of a constituency of 3,400, no more than 2,000 could be got to come up. That was an extreme case, and one in which it was more likely they would come up than in another, because it involved a question of strong party interests, notwithstanding which that was the

  1263
  only result. It was not upon questions of detail, such as teaching, or discipline, or morality, that it was desirable Convocation should speak, but on those larger questions with which the University had to deal, and upon which its traditional influence and long standing in the country gave it an authority far beyond any mere formal authority it might possess. Upon such questions as the introduction of a totally new system of study, and upon the introduction of new branches of study, such as physical science, &c., even although to some extent they might be matters of detail, was it not fitting that those who took an interest in the University should speak? Were questions involving the teaching of a large portion of the classes from which the future rulers of the empire were to be taken unimportant questions? Were they not questions upon which bishops, and peers, and statesmen ought to speak, as well as tutors. It was not merely to condemn Dr. Hampden or Mr. Ward that Convocation was summoned; in 1834 the Hebdomadal Board proposed a measure of no mere local interest, namely, to do away with the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. Surely that was a question upon which other than mere residents were capable of judging. There were many other occasions upon which it was desirable that the University should express an opinion; the Jew Bill and the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill were of such a nature, and no one could doubt that upon such questions the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) himself, and many others, were more competent judges than tutors, many of whom might have just taken their degree, for it was a mistake to suppose that the tutors comprised the greatest talent in the University, though there were undoubtedly many brilliant examples of talent among them. On those grounds he should support the Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it appeared to him they were in danger of forgetting some circumstances necessary to the right apprehension of the present discussion. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) spoke of Congregation as if they were discussing the proposal for putting into its hands the full power projected and designed by the Bill. That was not the case. The principal part of the electoral power had, by a vote of the Committee, which he greatly regretted, been taken
  1264
  away from Congregation. The question now was, whether, with respect to a small portion of that electoral power, it should not be placed in the hands of the Congregation. The speech of the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) was calculated to produce another misapprehension. The whole tone and language of that speech would have conveyed to any one who was not acquainted with the exact bearings of the question, the impression that the proposal made by the Government would deprive Convocation of the powers it at present possessed. No such proposal had been made at all. Convocation was to be deprived of no power which it now possessed. It was said that Convocation was to be subject to the interposition of the Congregation—that the Congregation was to have the power to determine whether this or that particular question should come before Convocation or not. But was that a new proposal? Had there been no body which, up to this time, had exercised that power? Undoubtedly there had. The Hebdomadal Board had exercised precisely that very power. What, then, was the difference between the exercise of this power by the present Hebdomadal Board and the exercise of the same power by the Congregation? Why, the difference was this, that whereas the Hebdomadal Board consisted of the proctors and of twenty-four gentlemen who were heads of private societies, and were elected to manage the private concerns of their colleges, which college concerns were, in a great many instances, dissociated from education altogether, the proposition with respect to Congregation was to constitute a body which should comprise the whole working power connected with the University. He wished to know whether it was best to have this veto in the hands of gentlemen who were the private and irresponsible heads of private societies, and who did not carry on either the tuition or the discipline of the University, or to have it in the hands of a body in which every working man in the University would be included? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had objected to the animadversions which his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had made upon his speech. He thought that those animadversions were deserved. He must confess that he had never listened to so disparaging a representation as that which the right hon. Gentleman had made in reference to the University of which he was

  1265
  a member. He had heard, in the midst of political strife, and in the midst of religious animosity, he had heard observations made in reference to the University of Oxford which he had not been altogether surprised at, because he had felt that they were such as might arise naturally, under such circumstances, in the minds of men who felt sore at what they deemed an unjust exclusion. But he had never heard a speech so disparaging to the University, and that by one of her sons, as the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had made. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had not spoken of Convocation. It was true that he had not. The right hon. Gentleman might say that Convocation was, by law, the University. That was true also. It was "the Chancellor, master, and scholars," that constituted in law the corporation of the University. But the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the resident body; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) maintained that, for all practical purposes, the resident body was the University. He wanted to know who were to educate their children—who were to teach them, to exercise discipline over them, and to form their minds? Was it upon hon. or right hon. Members of that House—upon the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) or himself—upon the Bishops on the Bench, or upon Judges in their Courts, that they depended for the teaching of the University of Oxford? No; but they looked to the University itself, and to the resident body of the University—to those who were expressly and constantly engaged in carrying on the work of tuition. Now this was the body which the right hon. Gentleman had described; and how had he described it? Why, he had stated that among that body every question was carried amid religious heats and animosities, and that it was always in one dangerous extreme or the other. The right hon. Gentleman had thus spoken of that body. He now said that there were some young men among that body. No doubt of it. And if there were not some young men among them the University would be very inferior to what it was. But the right hon. Gentleman—speaking of the resident body of the University—had said that it was always in one extreme or in the other; that in the last fifteen years it had been in the Tractarian extreme, and that in the next fifteen years it was to be in rationalising extreme. That was the opinion of the
  1266
  right hon. Gentleman of the University of which he himself was a member.
  MR. HENLEY: I will not be misrepresented in that way. What I said was, that it had been Tractarian; and the right hon. Gentleman knows that better than I do; and that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had said that it was rationalised, but that I did not believe that it was so to the extent that had been suggested. That was what I said; and the right hon. Gentleman might misrepresent it as he pleased.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had no right to tell him in that House that he might misrepresent him as he pleased. If he chose, he should have a right to appeal to the Chairman for protection against the angry taunts of the right hon. Gentleman. It was the first time, in an experience in that House of twenty years, that he had ever heard a Gentleman—and especially a Gentleman of age and gravity—imputing to another that he had wilfully misrepresented him. This was what the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to do towards him; but he trusted he did not require to be defended against such an imputation. Reverting, however, to the subject of his observations, he maintained that he had neither misrepresented nor misapprehended the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that for fifteen years the University had been in one extreme—he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not care in which extreme—which had been past, or which was to be future; and he had gone on to express his opinion that if power were committed to the resident body of the University, it would always be in one or other of these dangerous extremes. Again, he said that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a speech most unjust towards the University, a speech proceeding from a Gentleman who, he would venture to say, after seven years of very intimate acquaintance with the resident members of the University, knew nothing of their character. If he had known it, he surely never would have made such a statement of them. The fact was, that the spirit of party, which unfortunately prevailed to so great an extent in the Church of England, did not at this moment exist within the University of Oxford with one-half the virulence with which it prevailed outside the University. He spoke in the presence

  1267
  of Gentlemen who knew that this was so; and the reason was not very difficult to be devised. These gentlemen at Oxford had something more to think about than mere party disputes; a more laborious and hard-working body would not be found in any part of the country; and surely something was also to be attributed to the humanising and elevating influence of the pursuits in which they were engaged. For these reasons he did not hesitate to say that the spirit of party, whether religious or political, was less strong within the University at this moment than without it, and that it had been so for the last seven years, during which time alone he professed to know anything about the matter. He said this without fear of contradiction by any one who knew the University; and he made the statement, not as matter of opinion, but as one which could be supported by facts. They had been told that the tutors were not a distinguished body at Oxford—that they did not represent, in point of attainment, the best members of the Convocation. Now, what he said was this, that the tutors, at the present moment, were not equal, as a body, to what they would be ten years hence, if Parliament should pass this Bill, because there were certain colleges in Oxford which were what were called close colleges, and which he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil), who had complained of the low state of attainments amongst the tutors, would assist them to open. The close colleges somewhat lowered the standard of attainment amongst the tutors connected with them. With respect to the open colleges, however, he maintained that the tutors, with respect to character, and with respect to attainments also, were the very flower of the men educated at the University. He was satisfied if the House would open the rest of the colleges, which the Government was going to call upon it to do, the same result would follow with respect to them, and the élite of the University would thus be represented by the tutors. The fellows in the open colleges were chosen by examination; and the Government desired to have a system by which, in every college, without any serious or considerable limitation, open election should be the rule throughout. Now, he wanted to know, looking, as they were bound to do, to a long course of years, what security they could have so complete
  1268
  against the long continuance of party colouring, be it of what character it might, as a system of open election? It was not pretended that the elections of fellows in the open colleges at Oxford were ever tinctured by religious or party feeling. There was no instance on record of any such feeling entering into the case of an open election. Was it for them to say of the resident body of the University that it was likely to be tinctured by religious party? He maintained that it was not, and that it was not at all warranted by the facts. But as the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) had spoken disparagingly of the tutors, he was bound to say that he had received a statement the other day, he did not know from whom, but it was given with much detail, and the results were certainly curious. Taking the three classes—heads of houses, professors, and tutors—it showed that of seventeen heads of houses who had been examined in the schools, six had taken first-class honours; that of sixteen professors who had been so examined, twelve had taken first-class honours; and that of twenty-one tutors who had been examined, the number who had taken first-class honours was fourteen. He thought that, under these circumstances, the noble Lord ought not to have made any observations disparaging to the class of whom they were now speaking. But the noble Lord had spoken of the decisions of Convocation being preferable to the decisions of the working resident body of the University. He said the working resident body, because the Congregation proposed by Government did not include two classes of residents with respect to whom it might be said that there could be no security against their being under party influence. These were the resident clergy of Oxford and the chaplains of the colleges, who, not being connected with the working of the University, although resident, were not included in the plan of a Congregation. He did not agree in the opinion that the decisions of Convocation were wiser or better than those of a body such as that which it was proposed to constitute by this Bill, because he knew full well that the reform movement in the University was owing almost entirely to the younger members of it. No man who knew Oxford would deny this. No doubt, among the older members of the University there were very able men, and very earnest reformers; but, speaking in the mass, he repeated that it

  1269
  was almost entirely to the younger members that the movement within the University in favour of reform and improvement was to be ascribed. It was not proposed by this Bill to deprive Convocation of its powers. If Convocation chose to petition against the admission of Jews into the Legislature, or in favour of this measure or that, it would still be at liberty to do so. If a wrong proposal were made, it would still have the power to reject it; and, if a right one, to accept it. But they had recently had examples of resident and non-resident voting. They had no need to go back to 1834. On two occasions this year petitions had been proposed for the acceptance of Convocation, upon which divisions had taken place. One was a petition to the Crown to allow certain constitutions, which no Gentleman had thought proper to propose in that House. What became of that proposal? No doubt, Convocation accepted the petition, and its acceptance might be thought by some a proof of its wisdom. He must be allowed, however, to entertain a different opinion. If the question had had to be decided by the working members of the University, the petition would have been rejected by two to one. The other petition was against this very Bill, and it was carried in Convocation by a majority of two out of 400—the resident and working members of the University voting by a large majority against it. It seemed to him that the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote)—that the University required the occasional visits of the non-residents to correct the errors of the residents—was founded in fallacy. The non-residents, most of them, lived at a great distance; they could only come up at considerable expense and trouble, and sacrifice of time; and when there was a strong feeling prevailing, and a state of excitement in the University, who among these would be most likely to come? What description of non-residents did they expect to get? Were they the most quiet, the most sober-minded, the most circumspect? Were such the men who were most likely to go up to mix in a fray? On the contrary, they would undoubtedly find, if they examined into the matter at all, that those who did go up were those who were most strongly influenced by political and party feeling. He was convinced that, if a register were obtained of the names of the non-residents who voted on the two occasions to which he had referred in the present year, it would be found that they were men
  1270
  who entertained very strong party and political opinions. He must say he considered that the charges which had been made by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and, in some degree, though in a very different manner, by other hon. Members, against the resident and working body of Oxford were most unjust. The Committee had determined to recognise classes; they had recognised the heads of houses and the professors, but neither the heads of houses nor the professors did the work at Oxford. The public tutors and the private tutors carried on the great bulk and burden of the work; and he thought it was fair to appeal to the Committee, when they had given electoral power to the heads of houses and to the professors, to give electoral power likewise to those who did the work of the University. The Committee had chosen to recognise classes, and he asked them, therefore, to recognise that class which, by reason of the work it accomplished and of its disposition to entertain intelligently every proposal of improvement, had, he thought, a strong claim upon their attention. He might further mention that he held in his hand a paper in favour of the Bill signed by forty-two of the resident members of Convocation, twenty-three of whom were actually engaged in the tutorial work of the University. Upon the publication of the proposal of the Government almost the whole of that junior body in the University, which had been so severely stigmatised as always running into extremes, joined bands in favour of the scheme. On these grounds, he hoped the Committee would refuse their assent to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Midhurst.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to say that nothing was further from his intention than to speak in disparaging terms of the tutors. What he had said was, that, considering the average talent of those members of the University of Oxford at the Bar, in the Church, or in other professions, who had left their names upon the books, the tutors were not men of the highest distinction. In proof of the accuracy of his statement, he might refer to the Judicial bench, the Episcopal bench, and the Treasury bench.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he regretted that what he had said the other night had been misunderstood. It seemed to be supposed that he had said that the University was assuming a rationalistic character, but he

  1271
  entertained no such opinion. He agreed with what had been stated by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil), that while every tribute of praise was due to the college tutors, still, as a body, they did not hold that high place or enjoy that amount of literary reputation which they might. He founded that opinion upon the fact, that up to the time of taking a degree the life of a student at the University was one of great labour and exertion, but that when the highest honours were obtained, and a fellowship as a necessary consequence followed, all motive for further exertion ceased. On that ground he had stated, that unless some incentive to exertion were devised, it could not be expected that the tutors would enjoy any considerable literary reputation. It appeared to him that, as far as he could collect the meaning of the clause, it was of no great consequence whether Congregation, deprived as it would be of electoral functions, continued to exist or came to an end.
  MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that it was extremely difficult, after the tone which the debate had taken, to know what Congregation really was. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken of it, and without any expression of dissent from the Treasury bench, as if it were of no importance whether it continued to exist or not.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he wished to say that he thought the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) was erroneous. He had not himself stated that the Government had any proposition to make on the subject different to that contained in the Bill; what he had stated was, that the matter was worthy of the utmost consideration when that part of the Bill came before the Committee.
  MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he was glad to hear that statement made by the noble Lord, but he should be glad to know what Congregation really would be. It appeared to him that the private tutors took too considerable a part in the business of the University to be excluded, and he could not imagine that any declaration of study could be enacted. He considered that the education received at the English Universities, whatever might be its defects, was happier in its results than education received anywhere else; and he must strongly deprecate the custom of regarding with jealousy the working of the Uni-
  1272
  versities themselves. He doubted if there would be no danger in making the heads of houses and professors elect the remaining members of Congregation. The consistent mode would be to let six members of the governing body be elected by the other resident members of Convocation.
  MR. HILDYARDsaid, if the electoral power was to be extended to all the residents, he should like to know what justification there was for making an exception that would exclude Masters of Arts who were non-resident. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord the Member for London must have felt some embarrassment to-night when arguing in favour of the oligarchy, and objecting to the 3,000 Masters of Arts of Oxford. That was not the tone in which the noble Lord usually advocated measures of reform. And he must say that he was rather surprised to find that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) could sit quite still as he listened to the noble Lord's argument in favour of the propriety of confining the right of voting to 150 or 200 out of 3,000 electors. Let the Committee remember that they were adopting a principle which affected, not only the University of Oxford, but perhaps the whole question of the representation to a certain extent. Were there no persons, non-residents, who were entitled to vote? Were these persons to be excluded when every resident was admitted to vote? The simplest mode of dealing with the question was to agree to the Amendment, and allow every member of Convocation to vote. He knew this would have small practical effect on questions; but he was sure if non-resident votes were admitted, that sometimes these votes would present themselves at the University, not to control, but to modify, the votes of the resident members. If the Bill, amended as it would be, were sent down, the body at Oxford, he felt confident, would show the same support to it as they did to the Bill as introduced under the right hon. Gentleman's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) influence.
  MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought the hon. Member who had just addressed the House must have forgotten the way in which he gave his vote on a previous occasion. Would not any one have believed that the hon. Gentleman had voted that the six heads of colleges and the six heads of professors were to be elected by the Convocation, whereas, as the Bill stood, they were to be chosen by

  1273
  a close body, although it was proposed that the six tutors should be chosen by Convocation. Why should that distinction exist? If it was fair that the third body should be chosen by Convocation, surely it was fair that the other two bodies should also be chosen by Convocation. He was anxious that the Committee should not divide under a mistake, which he was afraid they might have been led into by the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil), who appeared to apprehend that by this Bill the power of Convocation would be limited. It was no such thing. The Bill would, from the first, give the Convocation a power of acting in cases in which it had never before had any authority.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he wished to explain the grounds on which he was disposed to vote for the word "Congregation" rather than "Convocation." He had given notice of an Amendment in Clause 18, which constituted the Congregation, by which he should endeavour to enlarge the bounds of the Congregation, and it was with that view that he intended now to vote for the word Congregation.
  MR. MILESsaid, he would appeal to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) as to whether he could not prevent the necessity of a division on the present Amendment by assenting to the suggestion just made by his hon. Friend, namely, that of enlarging the boundaries of the Congregation?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that, with regard to the present question before the Committee, he should certainly divide upon it; but in respect to the proposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) he should like to see in what way the hon. Gentleman could devise a mode to effect the object he proposed.
  Question put, "That the word 'Congregation' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 176: Majority 16.
  THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was one person who seemed to have been rather forgotten with respect to the Hebdomadal Council and the Convocation, and that was the Chancellor, who, when in Oxford, was the head and president of everybody which acted for the University. He would therefore put upon the votes a notice of his intention to bring up a clause to this effect—
  "That, notwithstanding anything in the Act contained, the Chancellor of the University shall be a Member of the Hebdomadal Council and of
  1274
  the Congregation, and, when present in Oxford, shall have the right to preside therein, as well as in the Convocation."
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (The Vice Chancellor is to continue a Member after the expiration of his term of Office).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of this clause was to prevent inconvenience, it being most important that the Vice Chancellor should continue a member of the Hebdomadal Council, in order properly to carry on the business. It had been observed that, under the clause as it stood, the Vice Chancellor's office might cease immediately before the triennial election, and he proposed, therefore, at the end of the clause to insert the words "or for the space of one year, if such election should take place at an earlier period;" so that a year would be the minimum of time for which the outgoing Vice Chancellor would retain his seat in the Council.
  Amendment agreed to; Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Professors not ineligible).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply to a question of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), said that the object of this clause was to prevent the raising of a legal question, as to whether under certain of the Statutes which prohibited professors from holding any other offices, they might not be excluded from the Hebdomadal Council. He did not apprehend that this clause would qualify any person who was not fully qualified as a member of the University, nor did he believe that any one could be a professor who was not so.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Hebdomadal Council may appoint Committees).
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to propose the following proviso—
  "Provided always that nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to give any executive functions to the Hebdomadal Council or its Committees, except such as may be required to provide for the preparation and proposal of Statutes for Congregation."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there was no probability that any Board in Oxford would encroach on the duties of the executive. The functions of the Hebdomadal Board were transferred by the Bill to the Hebdomadal Coun-

  1275
  cil, and as the Board had never made any encroachment on the executive, there was no reason to think that the Council would do so.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to the clause, on the ground that it would permit the Council to devolve the performance of its duties upon persons who were not responsible, and would therefore recommend that it should be expunged.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would consent to the withdrawal of the clause.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 10.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to leave out certain words, and insert—
  "not reside for eighteen weeks during term time, or attend eighteen times at the meetings of the Hebdomadal Council in each."
  The object of the Amendment was, that distinguished persons who were not permanently resident might, with the facilities for travelling now existing, be able to be members of the Hebdomadal Council.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the term of twenty-four weeks had been inserted in the Bill, with the perfect knowledge that eighteen weeks was the term of academical residence. He thought it would have been well if Government had prolonged the term of residence. They thought it reasonable and desirable that the members of the Hebdomadal Council should be resident.
  MR. HENLEYwas sure the time stated in the Bill was not too long.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the clause should mention the person or persons who are to declare a vacancy at the Hebdomadal Board, when a seat became vacant by the absence of a member during the period specified for attendance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Vice Chancellor will declare it.
  MR. WALPOLEwished to know whether the vacancy, when declared, was immediately to be filled up, or whether they were to wait until the regular period for election should come round again?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERapprehended, that when a vacancy should be so declared, the case would come under the clause that refers to occasional elections.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed; Committee report progress.

  ROYAL MILITARY ASYLUM.
  MR. OLIVEIRA,in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, spoke as follows:—I have no doubt that a very general impression will prevail in this House that the Motion which stands in my name for this evening is one with which I have no very immediate concern. I am aware that there are in this House many distinguished individuals, members of the Army and Navy, who might do justice to this subject by their knowledge of fact and their lively sympathy. I therefore feel bound to offer to the House an apology for apparently touching upon a topic so alien to my ordinary pursuits and occupations. But whilst I admit that there are considerations of a military character connected with this subject, I am prepared to show that there are also points of a moral and social bearing, which may be as well stated by a civilian as by any other person, for surely the maintenance, education, and training of several thousands of Her Majesty's subjects, the children of her brave soldiers, cannot fail to enlist the sympathy, and command the support of the politician, the philanthropist, and the statesman. Hence, Sir, I venture to hope that the House will agree that it is a subject open to all, and may even be approached by so humble a Member as myself. I will endeavour to confine myself to facts and figures, and hope that other hon. Gentlemen may illustrate the subject by military references, and general data bearing upon it. A short time since I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War with reference to the capability of the asylum, and the various Royal Warrants affecting it, and I beg to express my thanks for the care which he took upon that occasion, as well as for the courtesy with which he has permitted me to bring this subject forward. I think he then said that the chief difficulty was one of expense. I propose presently to make a few remarks upon that part of the question; but I will at present briefly refer to the warrants under which this establishment has been formed, and the number of children which have at various times been within it. I will then show the grants that have been made during a series of years, their decrease during a long period of peace, and I hope to show good and substantial reasons for its being reinstated in its fullest efficiency and numbers; and it will indeed be a source of disappointment to me if

  1277
  the Government does not readily acquiesce in that very reasonable suggestion. The Royal Military Asylum was established at the beginning of the present century. I find in a Royal Warrant, bearing date the 26th of April, 1805 (after referring to a former warrant of 1801), the following words—
  "In the selection of children preference shall be given in general—first, to orphans; second, to those whose fathers have been killed, or have died on foreign service; third, to those who have lost their mothers, and whose fathers are absent on duty abroad; fourth, to those whose fathers are ordered on foreign service, or whose parents have other children."
  By this warrant the number of children is limited to 1,000. Another Royal Warrant, dated Feb. 24, 1809, has the following passage—
  "Whereas, from the extent of our Army, and the great proportion thereof usually employed on foreign service, it is become highly expedient to make a further provision for the maintenance and education of distressed children of non-commissioned officers and soldiers belonging to our regular forces; our will and pleasure is, that the number to be admitted into our said asylum shall be extended to 792 boys and 348 girls, making in the whole 1,140 children."
  In 1811 a Royal Warrant was issued (Oct. 10), in which I find the following passage—
  "By His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Our will and pleasure is in the name and on behalf of His Majesty, that the number to be admitted into the said asylum shall be extended to 800 boys and 400 girls, making in all 1,200 children, exclusive of the infant establishment in the Isle of Wight."
  Another warrant, dated 5th May, 1817, has the following passage—
  "Whereas we have thought proper to augment the establishment of our Royal Military Asylum, so as to provide for the maintenance and education of 400 additional boys, and to direct that a building suitable for their reception should be fitted up at Southampton: And whereas the Commissioners of our said asylum have submitted to us the annexed establishment of officers, non-commissioned officers, and servants, for conducting that branch of the asylum, which establishment we are pleased to approve of: Our will and pleasure, therefore, is, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty, that the same take effect from the 25th June, 1816, inclusive. It is our further pleasure that all the rules and instructions contained in His Majesty's warrant of 24th June, 1801, with regard to the establishment of our Royal Military Asylum, be observed in the management of the branch of that institution at Southampton, so far as the same may be applicable."
  So that at the period of this last warrant, during profound peace, there were no less
  1278
  than 1,750 children in the asylum and its branches at Southampton and the Isle of Wight. These numbers have gradually decreased, until at present there are but 350 children in the asylum. A large portion of the building is occupied by the normal schoolmasters; but there is ample space for an increase of the present numbers, and, if necessary, there is a considerable portion of land belonging to the institution which might be built upon. In order to show the estimation in which the children brought up in this institution are held by the Army, I will read to the House the following list, which I copied from the institution last Sunday—
  "Regiments requiring boys from the Royal Military Asylum, but which cannot be furnished:—

  1st Regt. of Foot

  56th Regt. of Foot

  2nd ditto

  60th ditto

  6th ditto

  66th ditto

  15th ditto

  68th ditto

  21st ditto

  69th ditto

  26th ditto

  74th ditto

  31st ditto

  77th ditto

  34th ditto

  79th ditto

  36th ditto

  80th ditto

  45th ditto

  82nd ditto

  49th ditto

  85th ditto

  53rd ditto

  92nd ditto

  12th Light Dragoons."

  In all twenty-five regiments. With reference to the financial part of the subject, I have shown how, in the time of profound peace, no less a sum than 28,000 l. has been voted for one year; that this establishment has ample space, with staff and all the requirements for an increased number; that there are, at present, 4,222 children eligible for this or some other form of support. That although the public have already contributed large funds, and the collections of the various congregations on the day of humiliation was very large, still these combined amounts would hardly meet the expenditure of a single year. I feel assured that there will be no party in this House opposed to a liberal grant for such a worthy purpose. We have abundant proof of the public feeling in its favour, and the Government have, during the present Session, been met with so much unanimity in all matters affecting revenue, that I am sure they may expect unanimous support to any proposal they may make. It will be remembered that all the military and naval estimates were passed almost without discussion—that increased sums were voted for armaments with equal readiness—that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-

  1279
  chequer came down with a proposal for an increase to the income tax, that was also passed at once. I may further instance the forbearance shown by all parties who usually besiege the Treasury for a reduction of duty. Amongst them I felt it my duty not to press for a reduction of the wine duty, though the period and circumstances appeared to justify an opposite course. And if it should be true that large funds actually exist applicable to this purpose, the whole financial difficulty vanishes, for I am informed that a considerable amount of unclaimed prize money is accumulated, and available for this and similar objects. In adopting the mode of bringing this question before the House by way of Address to Her Majesty, I have thought it most consistent, for I have observed, with no ordinary satisfaction, the great sympathy and feeling which have been manifested by our gracious Sovereign upon every occasion when regiments have been about to depart for the seat of war; and it will be difficult for those who witnessed the scene ever to forget the touching farewell departure of the stupendous fleet which but lately left our shores for the Baltic in the presence of Her Majesty. I think, also, that Her Majesty's Government will hardly oppose an Address having for its object the protection and education of the poor and helpless children of the British Army. From a return moved for by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Colonel Harcourt), I find the number of children of soldiers on foreign service is 4,222, of whom 3,475 belong to regiments ordered to the East. Sir, looking to the great and noble sacrifices that have been made by this country in the cause of philanthropy, and for the improvement of the human race, this is a case calling for peculiar support. A country that could vote 20,000,000 l. for the emancipation of the slave—a country that can maintain a squadron to suppress that detestable traffic at a cost of 500,000 l.—and other such efforts in the cause of humanity—will surely never let it be said, in after times, that in the year 1854 the children of its bravest soldiers, who were sent to fight for the glory and greatness of England, and for the maintenance of the liberties of Europe against despotism and tyranny, were left to the misery of the poor-house, or to be the casual recipients of eleemosynary aid.
  COLONEL DUNNEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  1280
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to grant an Inquiry into the capability of increasing the accommodation at the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea, for the reception of the children of Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers on Foreign service, as far as may be practicable, to the extent which that establishment afforded under various warrants of Her Majesty's Royal Predecessors."
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that there was no doubt that this institution had been, and was now, of great benefit to the Army. About 350 children were now received within the walls of the asylum; while at a former period, when there was also a similar establishment at Southampton, it had accommodated 1,222. It had, however, been found, both here and at Greenwich, that the experiment of educating a large number of girls together had proved a complete failure, so far as regarded their future course of life. The experiment had consequently been abandoned, and he should feel great hesitation in renewing it. With regard to boys, the case was different. In considering, however, what additional number of them could be provided for, it must be recollected that the building at Southampton had been applied to another purpose, and that one portion of the asylum at Chelsea was now devoted to the normal school for teachers for the Army. This was so valuable an institution that he could not think of removing it from Chelsea, because, besides the expense which its removal would entail, it was impossible to keep up an efficient normal school for teachers unless you had also in connection with it a large school in which the future masters could practise teaching. The question, therefore, was, what additional number of children could be educated at Chelsea, consistently with still keeping the normal school there? Now, it must be recollected that the same number of children as were formerly received could not now be accommodated, because they were better cared for now than they were some time ago. The mode of teaching was also then very indifferent, and the school was in a very unsatisfactory state. The new system, however, which was established in 1844, when he held the same office that he did now, had, he was happy to say, worked very well, and the condition of the school was much improved. Looking to all these circumstances, he thought that, without encroaching on the play-rooms, which would be very undesirable, accommodation could be afforded for

  1281
  about 120 children more than were at present in the asylum, and to that extent he was quite ready to make arrangements for receiving additional inmates. At present, children who were either orphans or whose fathers were on foreign service were admitted. The accommodation afforded by the institution was nearly adequate to the demand, the annual vacancies being about fifty, and the applications for admission about seventy. No doubt, however, the latter would increase as the war progressed. Some additional staff would no doubt be required in consequence of the addition to the number of pupils which he contemplated, but still he did not think the increased expense would be more than 3,000 l. the first year, and it would be somewhat less, probably, in future years. He had directed plans to be prepared for carrying out this object, and he hoped that, under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he begged to express his approbation, both of the Motion and of the manner in which the Government had responded to it.
  MR. OLIVEIRAsaid that, after the very satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert), he would not press his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Earl Brooke and Earl of Warwick, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act Further Amendment.
3a Ministers' Money (Ireland).

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions having been presented, from

1221
the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, and from the President and Society of Advocates in Aberdeen,
LORD BROUGHAMtook occasion to repeat that no misapprehension could be greater than to suppose that his Bill, which had been referred to the Select Committee, was intended to repeal or abolish the Scotch law of bankruptcy and insolvency, and to substitute the English bankruptcy and insolvency law in its place. Its real object was to give to the Scotch procedure in bankruptcy the benefit of the great improvements in the bankruptcy law which had been effected in this country.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he knew that his noble and learned Friend's Bill had caused great apprehension not only in Edinburgh, but all over Scotland, and it might calm that apprehension if his noble and learned Friend would state to their Lordships whether it was his intention to push his Bill forward during the present Session, or to allow it to stand over till the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the expediency of amalgamating the mercantile laws of the two countries, had made their Report.
LORD BROUGHAMcould only reiterate what he had stated when this question was last asked him, namely, that he had taken into his full and anxious deliberation the considerations to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, and that he hoped very early next week to be able to give a definitive answer to this question.
LORD ST. LEONARDSwas understood to urge, as a further ground for postponing the Bill, that a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the bankruptcy law of England.
LORD BROUGHAMdid not deny that the fact that parts of the bankruptcy law of this country were sub judice was an additional reason for not pressing forward this Bill at the present period, and possibly not during the present Session.

THE TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that since he called the attention of their Lordships to the case of the returned convict, Brown, a letter had been published in the Times newspaper, which, considering by whom it was signed, deserved, he thought, immediate attention. It was signed by the Rev. T. Sutton, for ten
1222
years chaplain of York Castle, who said—
"If any reliance can be placed upon the statements made to me at various times during my chaplaincy by prisoners, it is true that discharged prisoners are constantly watched by the police, and every impediment thrown in the way of their obtaining employment."
Next came an allegation to which he (Lord St. Leonards) wished to call the particular attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack. Mr. Sutton declared that—
"In some instances their companions in crime are bribed by the police to decoy them again into the commission of crime, in order that they (the police) may get a job to the York Assizes."
Now, he (Lord St. Leonards) did trust this was not the case; he could hardly believe that it was; but the statement was certainly one which, coming from such a source, deserved inquiry. With regard to what had been said by Brown, it did not appear that much reliance could be placed on his statement; but it was not a question of whether the man in the present instance had acted rightly or wrongly, but as to the system upon which tickets of leave were granted. It was impossible to deny that if a man went home to the scene of his former life upon receiving a ticket of leave, he would be at once known, and the difficulty would be to make people believe he had led an amended life and was effectually reformed, even though he might have behaved well during his imprisonment. The whole subject was as important a one as could well occupy the attention of Parliament; and, with respect to the statement made by Mr. Sutton, he hoped that would receive full investigation.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had spoken to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on this subject, and found that there would be no difficulty in producing these papers. The statement alleged to have been made by the chaplain of York Castle emanated from a reverend gentleman who must be presumed to have written of facts which had come within his own cognisance, and which were extremely to be deprecated; and proceeding as they did from such au authority, it would be incumbent on the Government to inquire into the truth of the statements. He concurred with the noble and learned Lord that an investigation must be made into the circumstances,

1223
and he should take care that an investigation should be instituted.
House adjourned to Thursday next.