Sitting of 5 July 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance; Lady Raglan and Lord Raglan's Annuities; Turnpike Trusts Arrangement.
2° Union of Contiguous Benefices; Gold Wedding Rings; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Militia Officers' Qualification.

NUISANCES REMOVAL BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8. (Description of Nuisances Abateable.)
MR. WINN KNIGHTsaid, he begged to move to include the following words—
"Any premises in such a filthy or unwholesome state as to be a nuisance to, or injurious to the health of, any person; any pool, ditch, gutter, watercourse, cesspool, and drains, or ash-pit so foul as to be a nuisance to, or injurious to the health of, any person; any animal, or any accumulation or deposit (within the limits of any town or street), so kept as to be a nuisance to or injurious to the health of any person.">
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he did not object, except to the words in parentheses.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it would be best to strike out of the clause the word "offensive," and confine it to such nuisances as were "injurious to health."
MR. WILKINSONsaid, that those latter words were by no means unsusceptible of doubt; for many people whose trades were dreadfully offensive, maintained that they were perfectly healthful.
Mr. HENLEYsaid, that, nevertheless, the issue of injuriousness to health was clear and intelligible.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that one medical man maintained that them was no such thing as a nuisance injurious to health.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he would cite a passage from the medical evidence to support the observation of the noble Lord. One medical man asserted that bone-boilers' yards or horse-knackers' yards were not prejudicial to health. He proposed to strike out the word "offensive," and retain the words "nuisance, or injurious to health."
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would suggest that the words "nuisance" and "injury," were absolutely synonymous; the one being Latin, the other a French, version of the word "hurt" or "harm." Moreover it was rather unskilful in a clause defining the word "nuisance," to have the very same word to explain it.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, either the word "offensive," or the word "nuisance," must be introduced.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the word "nuisance" was well enough if the Bill were to be confined to what concerned other people. It was true that where A complained of B for any "nuisance," the word "nuisance" had a legal meaning. But the Bill gave a power of inspection and prosecution on the ground that something was a supposed "nuisance," not to any one in particular, but to anybody; which might be to nobody at all. Take the case of thirty or forty great hogs; why, they would he charming to an agricultural eye or nose, associated with prospects of rich manure and visions of future corn. But an inspector of fastidious nostrils and high sanitary views might deem the pigs offensive, and insist upon their being summarily suppressed. Let the clause by all means be confined to what was injurious to health.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he doubted if the word "nuisance" would not be limited by the words "injurious to health." Surely anything injurious to health was now a nuisance; but a nuisance might be with out any injury to health.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, if the word "offensive" were left out, it would be necessary to bring medical evidence in every case to support a prosecution, in order to show that the nuisance was injurious to health.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought that there ought to be no prosecution without medical evidence.
MR. BARROWsaid, he quite agreed that in a Bill giving summary powers, there ought to be no power of prosecution without medical proof that there was injury to health.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, it was not so at common law.
MR. BARROWsaid, at common law a party had the benefit of trial by jury.
The word "offensive" was then struck out, and Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 9 to 14 inclusive.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

MILITARY ACADEMY AT WOOLWICH— QUESTION.
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, he begged to inquire of the hon. Gentleman the Clerk to the Ordnance whether, of the fifty-six gentlemen who it was said were to be commissioned in the scientific corps in the course of the month, it was intended to give precedence to the thirty admitted to the practical class in March last, without examination, over the remaining twenty-six, all of whom entered as cadets at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and many of them at the Ordnance School at Carshalton, and all of whom had passed through all the examinations of the theoretical course, which up to the present time was the absolutely necessary qualification by which commissions could be obtained at all, it being rumoured that one, if not more, of these thirty-six gentlemen had failed at the examination for admission to the academy, when others of the twenty-six cadets had succeeded; the reported sole reason for such precedence being, that the thirty gentlemen were between the ages of seventeen and nineteen, whereas the ages of the twenty-six cadets were something under seventeen years.
MR. MONSBLLsaid, that the practical class at Woolwich was composed of two divisions; that the civil cadets had now, in their regular turn, become the senior division to be commissioned; that, under ordinary circumstances, this senior division alone would be commissioned in August, but that, owing to the pressing exigencies of affairs, the junior division would be commissioned at the same time. It was thought, however, that it would be unjust to the senior division not to commission
452
that division the first. The matter was entirely under the control of the Lieutenant General of the Ordnance.

COAL AT HERACLIA—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to inquire of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether any further information could be laid before the House respecting the nature, supply, and cost of coal produced at Heraclia and other places on the south coast of the Black Sea?
MR. WILSONsaid, that, by paying the labourers regularly, a course which had not been adopted for some time past, the quantity of coal produced had been increased from 30,000 to 60,000 tons, and that the quantity supplied was amply sufficient for the entire consumption of the British and French navies. The royalty paid to the Turkish Government was at the rate of 10 s. per ton, and the cost of getting the coal and putting it on board was 15 s. per ton, making the prime cost of the coal on board 25 s. per ton. By an arrangement now making for laying down a tramway from the pit to the place of embarkation, it was expected that the cost of conveyance would be reduced by 5s. per ton, so that hereafter the cost would be reduced to 20 s. per ton. The quality of the coal was good and suitable for all the purposes of steam vessels.

ORDNANCE SCHOOL AT CARSHALTON— QUESTION.
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he begged to inquire whether the Ordnance school at Carshalton was to be maintained, and if so, whether more pupils were to be admitted, and whether the school was to be placed under the superintendence of the Horse Guards or the War Office; and, in the event of the school being discontinued, what course was to be taken with regard to the pupils now in the establishment?
MR. MONSELLreplied, that it was not intended to keep up the Ordnance school permanently, but it was intended to keep it up for time sufficient to enable the education of the boys now in the school to be completed.

DISTURBANCE IN HYDE PARK—CON- DUCT OF THE POLICE.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he wished to know whether it was intended by the Government to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the police in Hyde Park on Sunday last?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not aware that any special inquiry was called for into the conduct of the police. He had received several communications from gentlemen, from which it appeared that the conduct of the police was open to no great exception, and that they acted with forbearance and moderation. A specific complaint had appeared in a public paper, signed, very properly, by the person complaining, who gave his own address and the number and letter of the policeman. In that case, as in every other in which anything tangible and specific had been stated, an inquiry had been ordered, the result of which he had not ascertained. If that letter had been addressed to him in the first instance, a day or two would have been saved in the inquiry.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he would give the Government an opportunity of answering the question of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore), as he was about to present some petitions which prayed for immediate redress; and, by the rules of the House, petitions which required immediate redress were to be taken into consideration at the time. The first petition was from inhabitants of Mount Street and Park Street, Grosvenor Square, who expressed their horror and disgust at the brutal and violent conduct of the police in truncheoning the peaceably disposed persons who were attracted to Hyde Park on Sunday from motives of curiosity, or who assembled there to take their ordinary walk in the park. The petitioners prayed the House to grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police, and to protect the public against a repetition of such frightful violence. He had also to present a petition from Francis Henry Mare, of Southampton Street, Strand, who stated that, being in bad health and afflicted with paralysis, he was in the habit of walking in Hyde Park on; Sunday, and that, being there on Sunday last, and standing by the rails opposite to Albert Gate, he received several violent blows from the staves of the police. He never struck a single policeman, but only held up his stick to ward off their blows, He was nevertheless carried off to Vine Street station, where he was confined all night in a filthy and ill-ventilated hole. Two respectable householders offered to become bail for him on Sunday afternoon, but the police refused to accept bail. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that a searching investigation should be made into the
454
conduct of the police in Hyde Park on Sunday, and that the orders given by the Home Office to the police should be laid before the House. He had another petition to present from another respectable person, who stated that his head and face were most dreadfully cut and bruised by the police on Sunday. The petitioner stated that he went to Hyde Park on Sunday, that some of the crowd hallooed to persons in carriages, "Let your horses rest!" The petitioner, who took no part in these cries, was, with others, brutally driven back from the iron railings by the police, who, having cleared a space of 100 yards in length and ten yards from the railings, nevertheless continued to strike the petitioner and others with their truncheons, with the intention of driving the people still further back, where it was impossible for them to go by reason of the crowd behind them. In this way men, women, and children, were alike struck by the police, who also beat the petitioner in the most brutal and shameful manner. The petitioner also stated that he saw one woman upon the ground with four or five policemen around her, she having been struck down by their truncheons. The petitioner stated that he did not go to Hyde Park to create a disturbance, but that if such conduct were to be repeated, and if the people should go armed, the most dreadful loss of life would follow. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for inquiry.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he rose to order. He considered it very inconvenient to get into a discussion upon petitions of this nature just presented without notice to the House. The exception which was provided for by the rules of the House for discussing petitions referred to cases only of petitions which required immediate and urgent remedy; they were the only cases which, could be discussed on presentation. He really did not see how the matter of which the petitioners complained showed an urgent necessity for providing an immediate remedy. He thought it would be better to give notice, and bring the matter before the House to-morrow.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he did not believe it would be better to take the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman, or that there could be anything more requiring redress than the personal grievances of which these parties complained.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member

455
puts a very different interpretation upon the Standing Orders from that which I should put. I have no doubt that these persons complain of grievances, but the question is whether they are grievances of pressing necessity, demanding an urgent and immediate remedy. The courts of justice are open to these parties, and I think that these petitions do not come within the Standing Orders. I will also suggest that the hon. Member should give notice of his Motion.
MR. ROEBUCK: I beg to suggest to my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Duncombe) that to-morrow there is a Committee of Supply, and that it will be quite competent to him then to bring forward a Motion on the subject.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair says the courts of justice are open to these parties; but I say they are not open to them, and so they come here. [Cries of "Order!"] I am in order. I will take the sense of the House upon it; but there is no redress in courts of justice for these parties.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I understood that the statement of the hon. Gentleman appeared to show [Mr. T. DUNCOMBE: You have not heard my case yet] that which puts the petitions out of order, because, if I understand him, he proposes to refer the matter to a Select Committee of this House. But is that the immediate remedy which the hon. Member proposes to himself by the presentation of these petitions? Suppose a Committee appointed to-morrow, and suppose it reported this day week, that would not be an immediate remedy—
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: I rise to order. I have not yet moved for any Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not at liberty to make a statement upon presenting a petition, unless there is something in the petition to show there is an urgent need for some immediate remedy. There is nothing in the petition to show this, and the hon. Member is, therefore, debarred from speaking upon the petition.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: Then I had better move that the House do now adjourn; and I shall move it if the House will not hear me, for that will be a very good reason for adjourning. I did intend to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the illegal and ferocious conduct of the metropolitan police, and to report their opinion to the House. I am going to support these petitions satisfactorily by evidence, and I
456
am quite sure, if this House do not attend to these petitions, before many days are over they will regret the decision to which they come. A most respectable family, the head of that family, and all that belong to him, are prepared to come forward, and to state that at about eight o'clock on Sunday evening they saw about forty policemen march down Park Street, as far as Reeve's Mews, four or five abreast; they then halted for a moment with their right hands behind them, under their coat-skirt, and, at a given word of command, they withdrew their right hands, having therein their truncheons, and, without any provocation or cause, began be labouring all within their reach; the man got separated from his wife, and sought refuge at the Grosvenor Hotel, within a few doors of his own residence. The persons assembled were, from their appearance and conduct, evidently highly respectable.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise to order. I will put it to you, whether it is not in accordance with the rules of the House that, when a Member makes a Motion, he should speak to that Motion? The Motion made is, that the House do now adjourn, and the hon. Gentleman is arguing, not for the adjournment of the House, but for the appointment of a Committee, which would be impossible if the House were to adjourn.
MR. ROEBUCK: I rather think the noble Lord is mistaken. Anything may suggest the Motion that the House adjourn, and the hon. Member may therefore speak of anything which comes uppermost in his mind.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: I am not surprised at the course pursued by the Government. ["Order!"] I am speaking to the Motion. I say the noble Lord the Prime Minister is entirely out of order in his interruption of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Finsbury. I maintain, Sir, not in opposition to authority, that the grounds he has laid before the House perfectly justify the course which he is pursuing in calling immediate attention to this subject. I, too, have received numerous communications from persons who complain of the most atrocious conduct of the police.
MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is, that the House do now adjourn. If, when the rules of the House preclude an hon. Member from speaking on the presentation of a petition, he is to be allowed to move that the House adjourn

457
for the purpose of making a speech which the rules of the House prevent, it will he a question for hon. Members to consider how far they will thus break down all authority and cause the rules of the House to be disregarded.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: I will not for a moment, Sir, say a single word against your authority, entertaining as the House does, and deservedly so, the highest respect for your opinion; but I believe, only a few nights ago, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) brought a question before the House, and he was prevented addressing the House precisely in the same manner as the hon. Member for Finsbury. The noble Lord said he would move the adjournment of the House, and was allowed to proceed.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEagain rose, and was met with cries of "Spoke." I should have done before now—I should have finished this statement—if I had not been interrupted. I have only to say, I am here to discharge a public duty. As to breaking down the authorities of the House, I do not wish anything of the sort. I still believe I am within the rules of the House. I am requested, for the sake of my fellow-subjects, for the sake of property, and for the sake of the peace and tranquillity of this town on Sunday next, to make this statement to the House, and it will then be for the Home Office—which denies all these statements—which says that the police behaved most exemplarily, to see that security is given to the peaceful inhabitants of London. If the House is satisfied that all the statements in the petitions are true, I need not read evidence in corroboration of them, but, as they are doubted by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I must repeat that, should this Committee be appointed, I can bring evidence in support of all these allegations, not by a set of pickpockets, as they are represented, but by many peaceful subjects of Her Majesty, resident in the most respectable part of the west end of the town. There is another case, of a man standing talking to some neighbours, when without the slightest intimation from the police, he received a blow from the clinched fist of a policeman behind the ear, and on his turning round, another policeman gave him a similar blow on the other side, under the ear, and, on his retreating towards his home in Mount Street, he saw a policeman strike a person down with his truncheon, and, while the poor fellow was lying insensible
458
on the ground, another policeman who came up attempted to kick him on the head, but missed his mark, and only kicked off his hat. He heard the policeman say, with an ironical air, "Now go to the hospital and get your wounds dressed, and if you don't go directly I'll give you three times as much as you've already got." Many of the inhabitants of Mount Street saw a poor fellow, apparently very respectable, being carried to the station-house by the police, bleeding from what appeared to be a wound behind the ear, his wife following and crying, and on her making some observation to one of the policemen he gave her a dreadful blow on the breast, causing the poor woman to groan. Surely such proceeding as this is worthy the attention of the House and the Home Office, and I say the House shall not proceed to public business until it is considered. Another gentleman, resident in Mount Street, says he was in the centre of Hyde Park. He saw one poor fellow leaning against the iron hurdles, with his head cut open, and on turning to look at him he saw the police striking with their bludgeons all persons, whether in retreat or passing by. One person he observed, who wore a white hat, running away from the police, and the policeman in pursuit of him struck him across the ancle, with a view, he supposes, of felling him; one poor youth, without any provocation, was most brutally struck with great violence across the loins, and he observed that most of the blows were aimed at those parts of the body most likely to produce permanent injury. Here is the case of a poor man, a wounded soldier, who has just returned from the Crimea. I have his address, and he is ready to come forward. He was wounded in the Crimea, in the breast and leg, and he received very severe blows on Sunday last in Hyde Park, where he was present only as a spectator, which caused the leg wound to break open again, although he repeatedly called out that he was a cripple and could not get away in obedience to the orders of the police. I have another letter in confirmation of all this, which shows the necessity of coming to this House for redress, and calling on the authorities of the Home Office to do something to prevent the peace of this town from being further violated. This is from a gentleman whose veracity I suppose will be little doubted. It is signed by Henry Harcourt Aubrey, Colonel, late of the Royal Horse Guards Blue, dated from

459
76, Stanley Street, Eccleston Square, and addressed to a Committee of working men, who are trying to get up evidence against the police if they can—to punish them if they can—but there's the difficulty, and they cannot do it without investigating the whole matter. This gentleman volunteers his evidence, and he says—
"I beg to inform you that I was present both Sundays, and never in the whole course of my life witnessed greater brutality displayed by a body of ruffians and cowards than by the police in Hyde Park on Sunday, the 1st of July last, and I shall have great pleasure (if you will afford me the opportunity) to detail some of the scenes I witnessed; and still greater pleasure if, by such information, these savages (for I cannot call them men) may be brought to justice."
I am also in possession of information, which it is my duty to lay before this House, and before the head of the Home Office, that there is the greatest exasperation on the part of the working classes. The noble Lord's Bill is gone, but that, in my opinion, is insignificant, unless something is done to meet the case. I pledge my word to the House, I fully believe something must be done. If you grant this Committee—if you institute inquiry which shall really bring to punishment those parties who have thus offended, and treated peaceable inhabitants in the manner described—I shall be satisfied, and the people will be satisfied also. But they will not be satisfied to have it hushed up, and to be told that the Bill is withdrawn, and therefore they must go home. True it is that the Bill is withdrawn, but who is compromised by that? This House! ["Hear, hear!"] This House is compromised by the manner in which the Bill is withdrawn. They will say you have conceded to tumult that which you before refused. Yet that is insignificant compared to the manner in which the people have been treated. A former House of Commons did not refuse to entertain the question when there was a brutal massacre at Manchester, in 1819. True, no Committee was appointed. The Government was always too strong. The Government may be too strong for me on this occasion. The House may be too strong for me. The noble Lord at the head of the Government may argue that this is not the proper tribunal, but how are we to get at the truth? You must do something if you want to prevent mischief next Sunday. I am told that these parties are determined to go to Hyde Park on that day, and if they are molested they will go there armed, and if
460
they had been armed last Sunday, can any man say there would not have been great loss of life? What can you do? You must find some means of satisfying them, or else you must close the park. I think the best thing to do is to close the park on Sunday next. I have put this House in possession of the case. I have stated a few of the allegations which the petition contains. I am ready to prove those allegations by the evidence of most respectable persons of all ranks and of all parties. Some inquiry must be made, and the people will not be satisfied with a Government inquiry or by the Police Commissioners' own report. I should like to see the report of the Police Commissioners upon the first day's disturbance, which the right hon. Gentleman said he had received. I want to know what the Government are prepared to do? At all events, I have done my duty. The House is in possession of the case, and I believe—indeed, I am confident—I can bring evidence to substantiate everything which I have stated, and I would remind the House that the peace, the safety of life and property in this town depend much on the manner in which it receives these petitions. I shall move for a Committee of inquiry, hut the Motion I have to make is that the House do now adjourn.
The Motion for the adjournment of the House having been put,
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, as the adjournment of the House is the only question before us, I need not enter now into a discussion of the conduct of the police on Sunday last, nor upon the sweeping allegations made by the hon. Gentleman as to that conduct. I wish, however, to correct one misrepresentation which my hon. Friend made when he said I denied all those statements. I could not deny them, for the statements which he has now made I have heard for the first time. The hon. Gentleman said he thought it his duty to acquaint me with those statements, and I only wish he had laid those statements before me. I would then have instituted an inquiry, which at present, of course, I have not been able to do. The allegations which have been made are of a sweeping and general character. The House is aware that every policeman has the letter of his division embroidered on his dress, and has also a distinctive number by which he may be identified, the object of those marks being, in the event of misconduct on the part of any individual policeman, that he

461
may be easily recognised, and I think it impossible, if all these statements arc correct, and made by parties who were present, who apparently had ample means of observation, that they could not have identified some of the men to whom misconduct is imputed. I know many statements have been made; but I, on behalf of the police, protest against the sweeping and general charges made this evening without one tittle of evidence to support them. If the hon. Gentleman thinks it right to move for a Committee of inquiry I shall be willing to listen to the grounds upon which he asks for it, and I cannot now say what opinion I shall form, because I do not know the grounds upon which such a Motion can be supported. I will also say, with regard to the threat which the hon. Gentleman has held out, that the people will go armed into the park on Sunday next—I believe he does the greatest possible wrong to the character and temper of the great body of the inhabitants of this metropolis in believing they would act in such a manner as he assumes they will. It is the privilege of the inhabitants of London to visit the parks—the hon. Gentleman says it is their right—and no doubt it is their right, but qualified in this way—they have no right to go there to molest other people who have an equal right with themselves. If they do go with that intention it will be the duty of the Government, and of the police acting under their authority, to protect the peaceable and well-disposed from I any annoyance from those who may go with the intention of creating tumult, and to prevent such persons as I have just mentioned from molesting others in the quiet enjoyment of the parks, which it is the undoubted right and privilege of all to enjoy.
MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says he cannot inquire into vague charges. Now, the charge I brought forward was specific in time, name, place, and circumstance. I do not know what more he would have to form a specific charge. I charged an inspector, who has no number on his coat, and therefore does not come within the category described by the right hon. Gentleman. I described the disturbance, the place, the time—Monday last, the hour 10 o'clock, and the name of the man who was struck. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to give this poor man—poor not in pocket, but I call him so because he has been shamefully used—to give him assistance,
462
in order to bring under the hands of justice the man who, under the guise of authority, has done an unauthorised act. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give this man any assistance to find the inspector of police. I do not think that is a vague or sweeping charge against the police. I might bring accusations against right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords who bring Bills into this House which are only the offspring of their own bigotry, and will not in any way contribute to the good government of the country or the happiness of the people.
SIR GEORGE GREY: The observation I made use of had no reference to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, I admit, was specific enough, but to the statements of the hon. Member for Finsbury. [Mr. DUNCOMBE: I gave the names.] As to the petition presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he had sent me that statement the matter would by this time have been in course of inquiry. I am not now in possession of all the facts of that case. I heard the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman on presenting that petition, and I must request him to send me a statement in writing or a copy of the petition, otherwise it will be impossible for me to act.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: Sir, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) has alluded so pointedly to the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) and to myself, I beg to say it was not through bigotry that I supported the Bill in question. I beg to say I was one of, unhappily, a small minority who voted in favour of opening the British Museum and the National Gallery on Sundays to those who believed conscientiously they could go there. I voted for the Sunday Trading Bill, not through bigotry, but at the request of a great number of tradesmen in humble circumstances, in order to secure for as many persons as possible in the metropolis, without entailing undue inconvenience upon any one, the Sunday as a day of rest, to be kept holy by those who recognised that course as a duty—to be kept as a holiday and day of recreation by those who felt inclined to do so. I beg to say, further, that since the Bill has been, withdrawn I have received representations from working men and humble tradesmen thanking us for our endeavours, and complaining of the utter misrepresentations to which the measure has been exposed, and

463
earnestly hoping that some time or other they may be relieved from their present amount of slavery, which inflicts great hardship and suffering on them. I thought I had made it pretty clear in the early stages of the Bill upon what grounds I supported the measure. I said, I supported it on economical and sanitary grounds—on religious and irreligious grounds. I did not see why men should be compelled to give seven days' labour for six days' pay. I disclaimed being identified with that party who believe that men can be made either religious or sober by Act of Parliament. I hope in future that the hon. and learned Gentleman will address his remarks to those—I do not know whether he was one of them—who voted for keeping our national museums closed on Sundays, and not to me who voted for opening them.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) that, having presented a petition of gravity, why not move that it be printed? and he can then found upon it such Motion as he pleases.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: Sir, my answer is, this matter requires immediate inquiry, and I think, when the rule of the House was framed, an opening was left expressly for cases of this kind. I maintain our time has not been wasted by the observations I have made, or by the petitions I have presented. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State says my accusations are general and sweeping in their character. They are no more vague than the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). I have given you a petition with the names and addresses of persons residing in Mount Street and the neighbourhood of Grosvenor Square, and, if an opportunity is given, I have no doubt of, being able to prove the statements they have made.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would beg to remind the House that they had been engaged upon what might fairly be called an English "row." He did not say that they were not entitled to indulge in a "row," and it was not the character of his countrymen to wish to stop it, but he must call their attention to the fact that Englishmen were quite as ready to get up a "row" as his countrymen were. He would only add that he was in the park, and could give some evidence, but would abstain from doing so at present.
Motion negatived.

TENANTS' IMPROVEMENTS COMPEN- SATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Clause 11 postponed.
On the question that Clause 12 be also postponed,
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDcomplained that through the noise going on it was really quite impossible to say what was taking place.
MR. FITZROYstated that the question before the Committee was the postponement of Clause 12.
Clause postponed; as was also Clause 13.
Clause 14. (Tenants to be entitled to compensation for improvements made before the passing of this Act if evicted).
MR. HORSMANsaid, he would move that after "time" be inserted the words "within twenty years." The object of the Amendment was to limit the period during which a tenant could demand compensation.
MR. VINCENT SCULLY and Colonel GREVILLEopposed the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 4, after "time," to insert the words "within twenty years."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 37: Majority 104.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he must complain of the introduction of such a limitation as that which had been just carried upon a division. If a farmhouse happened to have been erected twenty-one years ago, and had been maintained in proper repair by the tenant at a yearly outlay, that man was now not to be allowed a shilling for his improvement, simply because he had had the misfortune to make it twelve months too soon. The real way to get at the compensation to which the tenant was entitled was, in his opinion, to look at the value of the holding at the time the tenant was dispossessed. He considered that the clause now before the Committee was the very essence of the Bill, and he would rather that the Bill should not pass than that the clause should be mutilated. He considered it was most desirable that, if possible, for the future all matters between tenants and landlords should be regulated by contracts; but, with respect to the past, it was a very different thing. The tenants had for a number of years been

465
accustomed to make their own improvements, and this was the ground on which they now sought to obtain compensation for them. With respect to this question, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had only proposed that which had been approved by Mr. Burke and by the Devon Commission; and any restriction as to time would prevent tenants from receiving the compensation justly due to them, and this Bill, instead of being a Tenants' Improvements Compensation Bill, would be a Tenants' Improvement Confiscation Bill. The alterations proposed by the Government would render the Bill worse than useless, and convert it into a shape that would give satisfaction to no party; and it was certainly to have been expected that they would assign their reasons for limiting that compensation to improving tenants, which preceding Administrations had not sought to restrict.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that the Government had been perfectly prepared to give explanations as to every Amendment they had to propose, but as the Committee had chosen to go to a division before they had had an opportunity of offering their explanations, the Government surely could not be held responsible on that account. He had been asked to assign his reasons for proposing to limit the claim to compensation. Now, it would be recollected that, on the second reading of the Bill, he distinctly stated the grounds and conditions upon which the Government would take up the measure; and that he then sketched to the House the Amendments which he proposed to insert. The only omission with which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee) could tax him was, with not having then stated the period of twenty years as the limit that he would propose. Now, although he certainly had not, on the second reading, defined this specific period, he, nevertheless, then explained generally that he considered there must be such a limit as to time, in regard to the improvements for which the tenant should be entitled to compensation, as would enable them to obtain clear and distinct evidence as to their nature and value. Now, it must fairly be confessed, that the precise limit of twenty years was necessarily in a great degree arbitrary, and that no reason could be given for fixing upon that period more than upon twenty-five or thirty years; but then, if twenty-five years had been chosen, it might as justly have been asked why
466
should no compensation he allowed for improvements made twenty-six years ago, as it was now asked why it should not be granted for those effected twenty-one years since? But, further, it was said, "Why should there be a limit placed at all?" Well, such a limitation, he maintained, was justifiable both upon principle and policy, because, without it, there would be no satisfactory means of judging between the past and present condition of the holding, so that uncertainty and, consequently, endless litigation would ensue as to the value of particular improvements. It would, therefore, be prudent to shut the door to disputes, by fixing a limit as to time, and, in the specific period which they had selected, the Government had been guided by what they considered would be fair and just both to the tenant and his landlord, and what they thought would rally round I them the greatest amount of public support, whether in that House or out of it. They had endeavoured to reconcile the conflicting views of those who opposed any limit to retrospective compensation, and those who were hostile to any such compensation whatever, and he hoped the Committee would adopt the proposition they had felt it their duty to make.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he thought that the Government had not dealt fairly with him in the course they had taken. He had introduced the Bill, which was the very identical measure (with the exception of a few words) that the late Government had passed through that House. Its principles received the assent of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), of the Solicitor General for England, and of the noble Lord the Prime Minister; and he (Mr. Serjeant Shee) was invited on the second reading to allow the Government to take charge of the measure. [Mr. HORSMAN was here understood to dissent.] He (Mr. Serjeant Shee) was only now speaking of what took place publicly in that House. To induce him to give up the Bill to the Government, the Secretary for Ireland sketched the Amendments which he deemed necessary, the most important one of which referred to retrospective compensation. It was absurd to think that he would have consented to allow the Government to take charge of the Bill if he had had the least idea that they intended thus to limit the compensation to houses built within the last twenty years; and he had great cause to complain of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the

467
right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, for not having told him openly at first what was the nature of their proposed Amendment. He thought the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had done more to obtain justice for the people of Ireland than any man who had preceded or followed him. He certainly did pity the Irish law officers for their share in the matter. Remembering all he had heard them say on this subject, and all he had known them to do, he deeply regretted, for the honour of the profession to which they belonged, that for the sake of place they should have been parties to mutilating the Bill in the manner it had been done. If ever the people of Ireland should raise a pillar on which to record the names of those by whom they had been betrayed, the names of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen would stand high on the list. Remembering how often they had pledged themselves to throw to the winds every prospect of place rather than not secure for the tenantry of Ireland that full measure of justice to which they were entitled, he could not but express his wonder and amazement that they should have consented to such a proposition as this. The least the Government could do now was to restore to him the Bill which, by a contrivance, they had induced him to give up to them. The alteration which they now proposed would completely destroy all the good which the Bill was originally calculated to work. Out of the number of holdings into which the land of Ireland was divided, those under fifty acres were 485,349, those under thirty acres were 432,778, and those under fifteen acres were 293,000. Those fifteen-acre holdings were almost all of them, of the vast majority of them, in the best circumstanced counties in Ireland, and the latter clauses of the Bill, unless they protected the tenants by suitable compensation clauses, would offer a direct encouragement to speculators in land to get rid of small tenants. He would call attention to the right mode of treating those tenants, and then the Committee would see how much it differed from the mode adopted in the Bill as it now stood. He held in his hand an address to the tenants of the Southborough estate from the Directors of the Presbyterian Widows' Fund, and it would be found that the directors were disposed to treat the tenants justly and fairly, thus showing their desire to adopt his recommendation,
468
and affording a strong argument to show that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would be doing an injustice by the Amendment he proposed. They stated in that address that farms could easily be pointed out for which a respectable occupying tenant would probably pay double or treble the rent rather than give them up, and they hoped the instances that had been given of respect for industry and good conduct would inspire confidence, stimulate exertion, and make every tenant feel that he was labouring for himself and his family. They also stated that the valuation of the land should be made upon the honourable principle of "live, and let live," and they actually declared that they would in no case raise the rent on account of the tenant's improvements. He had before him the cases of some twenty or thirty tenants on one estate in the north of Ireland, showing a state of things precisely the same as was stated by the directors of that property. That was the state of things existing in almost all the counties of Ulster, except Donegal, and they were putting it into the power of an embarrassed, vindictive, or foolish man, to get rid of his tenants, and throw his land into large farms. He had been most anxious that the Bill should pass, and he had not the least wish to raise obstructions in the way of the present Ministers, whom he desired to see remaining in office as long as the war lasted; but the noble Lord at the head of the Government would do infinitely better to abandon the Bill altogether than to pass it mutilated by these Amendments. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would restate the reasons which induced him in a former Session to object to any limitation of the retrospective clause rather than have a limitation which would give rise to all sorts of uncertainty, and much dissatisfaction.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he had not the slightest objection to comply with the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman. His reasons for the opinion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred were the same as those which influenced the Select Committee in recommending—and it would be found in the latter part of the Bill—that where compensation was made with regard to improvements on the soil, there should be no limitation of time. He thought before, and he still thought, that the two parts of the Bill should be

469
consistent in that respect. The clause applied only to improvements on the soil; and the principle was unquestionably a just one, that when a tenant was in possession of his farm, paying his rent, and performing all the conditions and covenants by which he was bound, if he were dispossessed by the mere power of the landlord, he was entitled to the value of any improvements he had made up to the time of his dispossession—not taking an arbitrary period of time as the standard of value, but the actual value at the time of dispossession, having regard to the period of possession, and other circumstances. That was the view by which he had been guided upon the question of compensation. The select Committee had come to the same conclusion, holding that the best period of fixing the value was at the time of dispossession, and he had never heard any satisfactory answer to the reasons which led them to come to that decision. He adhered still to the opinion that the value of the improvements made on the farm, as well as the actual value of the premises, which might be constructed—provided for in the 42nd Clause—things visible and tangible—ought to be fixed on that principle. His great object had always been to do what was just, and at the same time what was practicable on that matter. He had deferred very much to the views of others in endeavouring to arrive at a sound conclusion, but he would never, for the mere sake of popularity, give an opinion that he did not consider favourable to a right settlement of the question. He did not quarrel with the proposal of the Government, who had taken twenty years as the period of possession, but his opinion was in favour of the principle of actual value at the time of dispossession, as it was a consistent and intelligible one. He did not, however, think there was any great difference be-between them.
MR. T. KENNEDYsaid, the great difficulty in the clause was the endeavour to legislate upon the same system for the past as for the future. There had been very great improvements made by tenants under his own eyes, without any expenditure on the part of the landlords; but if the principle of the clause were to be applied to the past, it would do the greatest injustice to those who had made those improvements. No doubt, an honest landlord would give his tenants compensation for such improvements at present; but in a few years that desire would he forgotten,
470
and the number giving such compensation would be very small indeed. The mistake was, that there were not two distinct schedules in the Bill—one referring to the future, the other to the past. Legislation on the subject of improvements was inevitably retrospective. A large expenditure of labour, which was the capital of the tenant, had been given to those improvements—in some cases the acreage had been doubled by the labour of the tenant. The law, therefore, would be either retrospective justice, or retrospective robbery as regarded those persons. He, therefore, pressed upon the Committee the impropriety of dealing with the past upon the same principle as they proposed to deal with the future. If they adopted that principle they would inflict a lasting injustice upon the tenantry of Ireland.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he had listened with anxiety to what had fallen from the Secretary for Ireland, in order to ascertain his reason for insisting upon a limitation of twenty years; but the right hon. Gentleman had treated the question sometimes as one of principle, sometimes as one of policy, and he believed that the real ground of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct was official cowardice. The Government were at that moment endeavouring to please Irish Members upon both sides of the House, and the result was, that they were emasculating this measure to such an extent, that even the author of it was obliged to state that it would not satisfy the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he fixed the particular period of twenty years because he wanted evidence; but was it not easy to obtain evidence to prove who had erected the solid buildings which stood upon a farm? He would appeal to the two Irish law officers who had sat in solemn conclave at Dublin with other Irish Members to consider the question, rather than to the right hon. Gentleman, who knew nothing whatever of Ireland, and whose every step since he had taken office had been a blunder, from one absurdity to another. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland had solemnly declared that they would never take office until they were able to obtain a fair and ample measure for the settlement of the question, and he put it to them to say whether the Bill, after the alterations it had undergone, could be regarded as satisfactory? He was of opinion that it would excite an universal feeling of indignation

471
throughout Ireland, and the Government would again have to turn their attention to such matters as the suppression of monster meetings. Could it have been supposed that the most important Amendment in the Bill would have been proposed without a word of explanation, and that an attempt would have been made to smuggle it through the House? He denounced this mode of proceeding as most unfair to the House and the public. There was no distinction between the circumstances of the south or west of Ireland and those of the north. It was downright robbery and confiscation to say that tenants who had made improvements within a term beyond that fixed by the Bill, were to be deprived of all claim to compensation. A vast quantity of property was now passing from old to new landlords in Ireland, and the interest of the tenant ought to be regarded before that of the proprietor. The amount of money sent last year from the poor Irish exiles in America was 1,730,000 l., and not less than 150,000 persons left Ireland for the United States and other parts of the world. The Government, instead of going about the Continent to raise a Foreign Legion, would do well to rely more on the Irish people, and not drive them from their country and the ranks of their Queen. Their great object ought to be to induce the tenant to invest every available shilling, whether in the form of money or labour, in the soil; encouraging him to do so by just prospects of compensation. As it was, the only class which would profit by the Bill would be jobbing land agents and plundering attorneys. He charged the Government with having brought upon us a direful series of miseries and disasters by their in competency in administration, and especially by their misconduct of the war. The Government might say they could not hope to pass the Bill through the other House, but he believed the Bill as brought in by the hon. and learned Serjeant would insure the tranquillity and prosperity of Ireland, and that the Irish landlords themselves would, in a few years, be convinced that the hon. and learned Serjeant was the best friend they ever had.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he wished to recall the attention of the Committee to the real question before it. The words "twenty years" were adopted in the 14th Clause almost without discussion; and the real question before the Committee was to leave out the words "any of the classes," and
472
insert "within seven years before the passing of this Act shall have executed improvements," &c. He (Mr. Butt) could understand the adoption of the principle of twenty years, as it was one running through many Acts of Parliament and was adopted as the limits of evidence. But they had applied that principle in a wrong direction; for the tenant was more likely to lose evidence than the landlord, and the hardship would, therefore, be proportionably greater. The clause had nothing to do with compensating periods, and the only question raised was, what length of possession should destroy evidence. He admitted that twenty years was not an unfair term; but he thought the onus of proof should not be thrown upon the tenant.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, it was open to the Committee to decide how the principle of twenty years should be applied; whether to roads and fences, or whether to farm buildings? They had decided upon the term of twenty years, but not as to the class of improvements to which that term should apply. With respect to the retrospective principle, the onus of proof was to rest with the tenant; if he could bring no proof, of course he could make out no case of compensation. In the Bill, a large number of proofs were required to be made out, some of which were of an almost impossible character. He thought, if the retrospective principle was to be admitted at all, there should be no limits placed on it.
Amendment proposed, in line 12, after the word "otherwise," to insert the words
"except for non-payment of rent."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 49: Majority 87.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he wished to move the omission, after line 25, of certain words which provided that, in giving the tenant compensation for improvements, due regard should be had to the length of time during which he might have enjoyed such improvements.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he thought that it was immaterial to retain the words objected to, and he would therefore assent to the Amendment.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman, for he believed that it was very material, that the clause should remain as it stood at present.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he agreed with the

473
hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington that the question was one that ought not to be treated lightly. It was most important, in giving a tenant compensation for improvements made before the passing of the Bill that due regard should be had to the length of time during which such improvements had been enjoyed.
Question put "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 116; Majority 40.
On the announcement of the numbers,
MR. MALINSsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Chairman to the fact that three hon. Members who had voted in the majority were not in the House when the question was put. (Cries of "Name!") The right hon. Gentleman, the principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, was one of the Gentlemen in question.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hardly knew what was to be understood as being within the House. He was in the lobby immediately adjoining the House when the doors were opened, and if that was not within the House he was quite willing that his vote should be struck off.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the question was whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the question put?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had heard the Chairman putting the question, but, as he happened to be in conversation with the Solicitor General at the time, if he were called upon to state what the question was he could not say.
MR. MALINSsaid, he should move that the vote of the right hon. Gentleman be struck off.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if an hon. Member was within the House it should be assumed that he heard the question put, but if he was not within the House then he was not entitled to vote.
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that within the four walls of the House should be presumed to be "within the House," and not the lobbies.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask how it would be possible to make the objection if it were irregular to discuss the question after the division was over?
MR. GROGANsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) called attention to the fact before the Chairman announced the numbers.
MR. MALINSsaid, the fact was as his hon. Friend had stated.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was willing to admit he was not in the House, and that his vote should be struck off, but hoped it would be understood that in future no Member could vote unless he was actually in the House when the question was put.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that a vote could not be challenged after the doors were unlocked.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, there were means, of course, of ascertaining whether the doors were unlocked or not by examining witnesses at the bar. But one thing was certain, that the objection was taken, by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) before the doors could possibly be unlocked. The single vote was of no importance on the present occasion, but there were certain rules—the result of the experience of those who had preceded them in that House—to which they ought always to adhere. There might be occasions when a single vote might be of the utmost importance—the Act of Settlement, for instance, was carried only by a majority of one—and therefore it was desirable to adhere strictly to the rule.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the important points were—first, what were the rules of the House; and, next, had those rules been departed from? He thought it was unadvisable to carry to a conclusion the debate which had arisen, and would suggest that it would be better by common consent to refer the matter with reference to future proceedings to that high authority to whose decisions they were accustomed to yield.
MR. M'CANNsaid, that it had been decided last year that a Member behind the chair was actually in the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he apprehended there were two points—first, whether his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) was within the House when the question was put; and, next, whether a Member who was within the House when the question was put must necessarily have heard the question which was put?
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought the matter was become one of some gravity. They were now advanced into July, and every one desired that business should be conducted as rapidly as possible, but if the principle was to be laid down that no

475
one should vote unless he heard the question which was put, there would be little prospect of that speedy conclusion of the Session in which they had been indulging. He could not agree with the noble Lord that there were two points under discussion. There was only one question—Was the right hon. Member, whose vote was impugned, within the House or not when the question was put? It could not be allowed to become a matter of controversy whether every Member who voted heard the question put.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he accepted the solution of the right hon. Gentleman to the second question. The only question which remained was, whether the spot in which his right hon. Friend was when the question was put was within the House or not?
MR. MALINSsaid, he would refer to the process of "counting the House," in which the Speaker only noticed those Members who were within the doors of the House itself.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was willing to allow his vote to be struck off, if it could be done without deciding hastily upon the question which had been raised. He did not dispute that a Member in order to vote, must be within the folding doors of the House; but he thought, before laying down a general rule, it would be better to take Mr. Speaker's opinion. He (Sir G. Grey) had been of opinion that any Member who was within the precincts of the House was entitled to vote.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he also thought it would be best to take Mr. Speaker's opinion. He did not concur that Members who had been outside the door when the question was put were not entitled to vote. If the doors had been locked, any Member found in the gallery might be compelled to vote, of which he had known several instances.
MR. MALINSsaid, he would withdraw his former Motion, and move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again forthwith, in order that Mr. Speaker might take the Chair and explain the rule to the House.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the old rule was that nobody could vote who was not within the four walls. In the old House nobody could doubt what was meant by "the four walls," but the present difficulty arose from the double wall caused by the division lobbies. By the strict rule
476
nobody could vote who wan not within the four walls limiting the room in which they were.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought it probable that, if the hon. and learned Member would wait a little time, the question would be satisfactorily settled.
[The division bell was then rung, and the Chairman was about to put the question, when—]
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he understood the opinion of Mr. Speaker was that the Committee should proceed, and that when the Chairman left the Chair he should report the circumstance to him, and he would then state the rule.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could confirm the statement of the noble Lord. He had that moment left Mr. Speaker, who informed the Gentlemen who had waited upon him in consequence of the present discussion, that the vote, if an improper one, might be struck off even on the following day.
MR. MALINSsaid, that under those circumstances, he would not persist in his Motion.
MR. DISRAELI.We reserve to ourselves, however, the right to strike off the votes of any other hon. Members given under similar circumstances.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the Attorney General and Solicitor General were in the same predicament.
Amendment withdrawn.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he would now move an Amendment in line 29 limiting the amount of compensation to a sum not exceeding four years of the net rent paid by the tenant for his holding.
MR. DEASYsaid he should oppose the Amendment, and would suggest, as the term "rent" was a very uncertain one, that the words to be introduced, if any such were necessary, should be "four years' net value of the land," instead of "four years' net rent."
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he also opposed the Amendment, because, taking in connection with the alterations which had been already made in the Bill, its effect would be to deprive the tenants of all compensation whatever.
Question put "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 54; Majority 126.
On the Motion that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he should move its omission. In his opinion the clause was a wanton violation of principles which even the most despotic Governments held to be sacred; and although the present Bill was confined to Ireland, the principle involved in the present clause was well worthy of the attention of English Members. In opposing the clause he was actuated by the desire of preventing the addition to the Statute Book of an absurdity, resembling too many others by which it was disgraced. In his opinion, no law ought to interfere with private judgment, for if such a principle was once admitted, where would it stop? It might even extend to compelling Irish merchants to take the opinion of Parliament as to the employment of their capital. What could be a greater violation of the principles of justice than, after inviting persons to make a purchase, to come down upon them and compel them to pay an additional sum. The proposal was one which, after all, would be of no great advantage to the tenant, and that he would impress upon hon. Gentlemen for whose precarious support the Government had consented to adopt the present Bill. If a great principle must be violated, let it be done for a great object. (Laughter.) He repeated that opinion, for it was founded upon a maxim of Burke, that, if you murder, rob also; and, if a great principle of justice was to be violated, it should only be done for a great public object. All retrospective legislation, except in cases where persons had unwittingly incurred penalties, was, in his opinion, unjust; but if the present clause were agreed to, the tendency of it would be to prevent the wholesome system of voluntary agreement which was daily being brought more into operation between landlords and tenants in Ireland. It would instil the principle of not depending upon voluntary contract, but upon an Act of the Legislature. Whether he looked to the codes of other nations or to our own law, he could find no precedent for a provision so unjustifiable as that contained in the present clause—a provision which, under the name of law, violated all law; which, professing to be for the benefit of the tenant, would exeite dissension between him and his landlord; which professed to advance the cause of civilisation, but which destroyed the rights of property upon which civilisation itself depended for its advancement.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he felt he should not be doing justice to his constituents, who had sent him to that House to defend their property, if he did not support the clause. He believed that the Bill without the clause would be worse than useless. He thought that there were two points to be considered—first, whether it was just that the tenant should have the benefit of improvements made with his own capital, or by his own labour; and, secondly, if just that he should, ought he to be debarred from that benefit—and he used the word "debarred" advisedly—because he was a poor man? With regard to the first point there was no difference of opinion, nor could much exist with regard to the second. If a Bill were passed saying that for all improvements made after the year 1855 the tenant should be allowed compensation it would be equivalent to giving to landlords all improvements which had been made by tenants before that year, and would, in point of fact, be a mere act of confiscation. How could they expect the tenants of Ireland to he well affected towards the Government of this country if they did not fulfil one of the primary duties of a Government towards them? He hoped the Committee would decide in this case upon considerations of equity and justice, and that they would not be influenced by any rhetoric whatever to disregard the claim of the tenants to compensation for their own property.
MR. MALINSsaid, he still retained the opinion that the clause was opposed to all the rights of property, and was fraught with dangers of every kind. It was said that there was a distinction between the case of the landlords and tenants in Ireland, and the case of landlords and tenants in England; but he could understand no such distinction. The laws of the two countries were the same, and the two classes had in each case to appeal to the same tribunals. By the law, as it at present stood, the owners of property were only bound by certain written contracts, and on the faith of that law English capital to a large amount had recently been invested in the purchase of land in Ireland [Cries of "No, no!"] He believed that those gentlemen who cried "No, no!" must he very oblivious of what had of late years taken place in the Irish Encumbered Estates Court. But it made no difference in his argument whether the capital recently invested in the purchase of land in

479
Ireland was English or Irish. There could be no doubt that property to a vast amount had of late years changed hands in Ireland. It should be assumed that the purchasers of that property had examined the leases on which it was held, in order that they might ascertain on what terms they were to hold it; and if that Bill were passed, a new obligation would he introduced into every lease against the landlord, and without his consent. Such a principle would be fraught with danger to all property, for if it were adopted in Ireland, there could be no reason why it should not be extended to England. It was a sacred principle in the English as well as in all other laws that there must be two parties to a contract, and if you threw upon the landlord an obligation to make to the tenant a compensation which he had never engaged to take upon himself, you violated the rights of property. He should like to know from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether be was fully cognizant of and sanctioned such a principle as that there should be forced upon the landlord of England and Ireland—for he would not look upon this solely as an Irish question—an obligation into which he had never entered, and which, if he had thought it would be cast upon him, would have induced him never to grant the lease? If the principle were a good one, he did not object to their making this a prospective Bill, which would then be applicable, unless the parties by contract provided to the contrary; but he did object strongly to its retrospective action. He begged, in conclusion, to impress on the minds of English landlords that, if they were misled by the idea that this was merely a question of Irish legislation, and that one principle could be acted on with regard to Ireland and another with regard to England—if they were misled by this idea, they would only have themselves to blame, if, next year a Bill should be introduced, throwing upon them the same obligations which they now attempted to place upon the landlords of Ireland.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the present clause was similar to that which was contained in the Bill of 1853, with this difference, that the Amendments introduced by the Government in the present clause rendered it milder and more limited in its form. He was, under these circumstances, surprised to find that hon. Members who had voted in favour of the clause in the Bill of 1853 had changed
480
their opinions, and now opposed it. With respect to the retrospective operation of the clause, he felt convinced that, as a mere question of justice, more could be said in favour of its retrospective than of its prospective effects, and that it would only by law do that which was already done by every just landlord in Ireland.
MR. M'CANNsaid, the hon. Member had expressed his surprise that hon. Members who supported the clause in 1853 should oppose it now; he would, however, frankly state the reason—it was because in 1853 large meetings were held in Ireland with respect to this question, but that now there were none.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he thought that the question most to be considered with regard to a clause of this kind was, whether it would meet the cases of the bonâ fide tenant and of the fraudulent tenant? There was a part of the clause to which he had always been opposed, and that was the proviso at the end of it, requiring that every tenant who might by any possibility have a claim against his landlord should register his claim within twelve months after the passing of the Bill. The effect of that would be to make Ireland one scene of hostility and litigation. If they passed the clause, could they expect that it would be passed by the other House; especially as their Lordships had rejected it on a former occasion, and had last week passed the General Consolidation Bill, in which they had adopted the fixture clauses providing for all the cases of buildings within twenty-one years, which were included in the present clause?
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he was surprised to find the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, attempting by a sort of special pleading to wriggle out of the support of a clause which was much milder in its character than the corresponding provision of the measure which he had himself introduced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause was retrospective without limit as to time, whereas the present one contained such a limit, and, in addition, protected the landlord by requiring the tenant to give him notice, within, twelve months after the passing of the Bill, of his intention to claim compensation. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the insertion of that very necessary proviso the excuse for his now opposing the clause altogether. Now, no doubt, retrospective legislation was unsound in principle, but the exceptional

481
circumstances of Ireland, in one important part of which tenant-right prevailed, justified its adoption, on the present occasion, fenced as it was by such safeguards as would effectually prevent its working any injustice. Moreover, without this clause, the Bill would be valueless. He had been exposed to taunt and insult on account of his conduct in regard to this question. It was true that he had supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill in 1853, and he had never since altered any opinion that he then expressed. His votes on this subject, he admitted, might have been different, but he would tell the Committee why they were so. In 1853 they passed a Bill more liberal than the present one, but it was rejected by the other House; and therefore it was much better that they should content themselves with proposing a measure which, although somewhat limited in its benefits, was likely to become law, than to prolong a struggle in behalf of a more extensive Bill, which they could have no reasonable prospect of carrying for an indefinite period.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, it was his intention to support the clause, and he wished to state his reasons for doing so. The Committee should remember that that House passed a Bill in 1853, containing a wider clause than the one under discussion; and in the same year the other House, which was said to have a greater respect for the rights of property, carried a general Landlord and Tenant Bill, comprising a retrospective fixture clause, providing that any house built or other improvement made twenty-one years before the passing of the Bill might, at the expiration of the lease, be wholly removed by the tenant, unless the landlord paid him for it according to a valuation. Therefore, when the present clause was denounced as a violation of property and of the principles of justice, it should be borne in mind that the same character would equally attach to provisions which had already obtained the deliberate sanction of both branches of the Legislature. The argument of the injustice which the clause would do to purchasers of estates in the Encumbered Estates Court had weighed much with him; but, on mature consideration, he had come to the conclusion that it was not an argument which ought to prevail in opposition to the clause. The proviso was certainly objectionable, and he was of opinion that it ought to be amended as suggested by the hon. and learned Member
482
for Kilkenny (Mr. Sergeant Shee), so that the notice should not require to be delivered in within the twelve months, unless the landlord demanded it in writing.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, I he must deny that the present was a question which concerned land only. If that precedent were once made, every species of property, whether agricultural or commercial, would be affected by it. The principle on which the Bill was justified, if once admitted, must be extended to all kinds of property, and Parliament must interfere to remedy all grievances connected with property of every kind—such, for instance, as the exemption from poor rates possessed by funded property. The Solicitor-General for Ireland had attempted to induce the Committee to consent to the clause by arguing that the privilege given to the tenant was so fenced round, that it could not do any possible harm; but what was the meaning of that? Simply, that the largest sacrifice of principle was made, and the least possible good derived from it. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked, too, of the present measure being a settlement of the question; but it was his opinion, that he was very much mistaken if he thought so. Not a party in Ireland interested in the subject was satisfied with the Bill. From the north to the south, there was a universal cry of opposition to the Bill, which the hon. and learned Gentleman affected to call a settlement of the question. It would actually put the tenants in the north in a worse position than they were at present; for, in future, instead of enjoying the rights or privileges which custom now conferred on them, the landlords would insist on confining them to the strict letter of the Act of Parliament. So that the Bill, while in the south it took away the property of the landlord and gave it to the tenant, in the north it took away the property of the tenant and gave it to the landlord. The noble Lord at the head of the Government admitted, that this was exceptional legislation, arguing, however, that it was necessary. But why was it necessary? Because, all legislation for Ireland for many years past had been exceptional. The evil was that everything connected with Ireland was made exceptional, and therefore he urged the House to insist on the maintenance of those honest principles in accordance with which alone legislation could safely proceed.
Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 138: Majority 36.
On the Motion that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, it was his belief that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not surely go on with the Bill now. A farce was a very good thing now and then, but such an utter farce as proceeding with the Bill after the last division would ho discreditable to the Government of the noble Lord. He had considerable doubts whether the noble Lord ever meant to pass the Bill in any shape, because, remembering that the noble Lord, when Home Secretary, assented to a really good Bill, he could not understand how the noble Lord could be sincere then, and likewise sincere now. He therefore entreated the noble Lord not to pass the Bill in its present shape, after the very little good which the noble Lord was willing to leave in it had been taken out. It had been stated by the Solicitor General for Ireland that his motive for mutilating the Bill was, because it would have no chance of passing in another place without such mutilations. That was the hon. and learned Gentleman's reason for voting in direct opposition to the course he took last year. Now, he (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had no such distrust of the House of Lords. He had never known an instance of any reform, political, commercial, or financial, which the House of Lords had not been willing to entertain, and, finally, if it were a real improvement on the existing law, to adopt; and he had not the slightest doubt that, if the Bill had been properly submitted to the House of Lords by Lord Aberdeen's Government, it would have obtained a better position than it had obtained in the House of Commons during the present year. But he firmly believed that no honest attempt was made to pass it. He trusted the noble Lord would do the people of Ireland the justice not to mock them with a Bill which could be of no possible utility to anybody in that country.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I must say, Sir, the course pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman is somewhat extraordinary and eccentric. The hon. and learned Gentleman brings a Bill into this House. He then earnestly entreats me to take charge of his own offspring, promising every support to carry it through the House; and in every stage of the Bill, from that moment to this, the hon. and learned Gentleman has opposed everything
484
that we suggested with regard to it. All the obstacles that we have experienced in our endeavours to frame the Bill in such a manner as to make it likely that it would pass into a law have been brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that at the utmost length; and, when he says the Bill fails for want of explanation, I am sure that is a plea which cannot be applied to his suggestions, for they have not been negatived from any want of explanation on his part. This Bill has been discussed in all its parts, and if I am asked what the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes I am utterly at a loss to say. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish the question to be settled or does he not? Will he have the goodness to answer that question? Does he wish the Bill to be sent to the Upper House in a shape in which it is likely to pass into a law, with concessions on the part of those who hold extreme opinions whether for or against the measure, so that it may be made satisfactory to the majority of the people of Ireland? Or does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to retain a grievance which may be the subject of a hustings' speech? Does he wish to represent to the much-injured tenants of Ireland how we have prevented them obtaining any redress; and, while he has been the instrument of that wrong, that he may also have the merit of standing forth on the hustings as their champion? What we intend to do in the meantime with the Bill is to fix it for Thursday next, and then the House will be prepared to say what ought to be done regarding it.
MR. SERJEANT SHEE: The noble Lord, Sir, has put a question to me which I shall answer. The noble Lord wants to know whether I wish to keep this question unsettled, so that I may be enabled to stand on the hustings as the champion of the Irish tenantry. I am astonished that the noble Lord, considering his own conduct on this measure, should have the presumption to make a charge of that kind against me. I brought in a Bill last year, at the instigation of the majority of the representatives of Ireland, which was referred to a Select Committee, and considered by them with great care. They brought in a Report, and afterwards the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and a Member of the Government who acted under him, brought down a Bill to this House. The noble Lord, in his heart, disapproved the Bill. He did not go upon the hustings, for he kept his place, and

485
his office, and his salary. The noble Lord had declared distinctly in the Committee that he disapproved the Bill, and when the Committee went against him he left it, and never appeared again, leaving his subordinate (Sir John Young, the then Secretary for Ireland) to do what he would not do himself. Yet he kept his place, as, indeed, he has hardly been out of place for forty years. Indeed, there is hardly any humiliation of any kind that he has not subjected himself to in order to keep in place. And then, when an independent Member of this House adopts the very Bill which his Government approved, and introduced, and carried by large majorities, all the Members of the Cabinet voting for it except himself—he keeping his place, not with standing—he has now the presumption to stand up in his place and taunt the man who brought in the Bill, and who, by so doing, has lost nearly all his popularity in Ireland by what he has done; he has the presumption to attack that man for having an unworthy object in view upon the hustings. I feel perfectly safe with respect to the noble Lord, and I think he will be a little more careful before he attacks me again. The noble Lord lives in a glass house. He has found his way to a high place in this House and in the Government; but there are many men of his rank who would not arrive there by the same means. I am as free from imputation as the noble Lord can be, and I will only further remind him that he is among the last men in this House in a position to throw stones at others.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I shall be guilty of the presumption of attacking the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman whenever I think proper. There are few Members who are more open to change than the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown himself to be. As to the course which I took last year with respect to the Bill to which he alludes, it was perfectly plain and undisguised. I said in the Committee that I disapproved, on principle, the foundation on which the Bill rested. I repeated that statement in my place in this House, and observed that, disapproving in the abstract the principle on which a part of the Bill was founded. I nevertheless thought that, in the existing condition of Ireland, some concession of principle should be made—that there were circumstances connected with the tenantry of Ireland that rendered it necessary to make some sacrifice of abstract principle,
486
in order to remedy practical evils. I say again, Sir, that I cannot understand how any man who sincerely desires to have this question settled should insist on inserting in the Bill provisions that he must know would prevent it from passing in the House of Lords, and which have prevented part of it from receiving the sanction of this House.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Committee report progress.

VOTING ON DIVISIONS.
MR. FITZROYstated, that he was anxious to submit for the decision of the Speaker a question which had arisen upon the Proceedings in the Committee which had just reported.
When the numbers were announced at the Table by the Tellers, his attention was called by the learned Member for Wallingford to the fact that three Members, among whom was the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had voted in the majority, though not in the House when the Question was put; the right hon. Baronet stated that he was in the Lobby beyond the folding doors, at the back of the Chair; and the Question which he had to submit for the Speaker's decision was, whether a Member under such circumstances was entitled to have his vote recorded, or whether he is disqualified from voting, being considered not to be in the House.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER said That to entitle a Member to vote he must have been in the House and within the folding-doors, and must have heard the Question put.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should of course submit willingly to the right hon. Gentleman's decision, and his vote would not be allowed in the division, but he thought it was desirable to call the attention of the House to the consequences of that decision, so that the question might not be again raised when its settlement might have an effect upon an important division. The folding doors at the back of the Chair, and also at the front of the Chair, at the other end of the House, were always open. The question was always put immediately on the outer door being shut by the Serjeant-at-arms after the Members coming from the lobby had entered it, and the folding doors at the end of the House being kept open, it was almost impossible, when there was a full House, for Members who had just entered from the lobby to get beyond them. The consequence was, that

487
the space between the outer door and the folding doors was crowded when the question was put. This point having been raised, he would suggest that it might be desirable, in future, to have the folding doors at both ends of the House closed during divisions.
MR. SPEAKER: Strictly speaking, when the question is put, every Member ought to be in his place—no Member should be standing upon the floor. It is the duty of the Serjeant-at-arms to clear the lobby of Members, and those Members who do not wish to vote have the liberty of retiring to the room beyond the lobby. All Members who are in the lobby ought to come into the House and vote, but they ought not to be allowed to vote unless they are within the walls of the House—inside the folding doors.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was one of those whose votes had been challenged, and he acknowledged that, after the decision of Mr. Speaker, it must be struck out; but he would point out that there was not sufficient room in the House for all the Members. He congratulated his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) on the great grievance he had discovered. He (the Attorney General) was engaged with his hon. and learned Colleague the Solicitor General in arduous studies in the lobby before the division took place, and he was a little too late to get in before the question was put. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Member for Wallingford), with a vigilance which showed his extreme anxiety for the observance of the forms of the House, even in a case in which it could not be of the slightest importance, and actuated, no doubt, by a high sense of public duty, thought proper to interfere. He would therefore venture to suggest, in consequence of the decision which had been come to, that some steps ought to be taken for enlarging the boundaries of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that after strangers have been ordered to withdraw all the seats below the gallery are at the disposal of Members of Parliament. If the rule were observed, that no Member was to be allowed in the lobby after the glass was turned, no confusion would arise, because every Member would be in his place within the walls of the House when the question was put.
MR. FITZROYsaid, the decision which had been given by Mr. Speaker rendered
488
it unnecessary for him to put another question with reference to the presence of Members in the lobby during a division. The only other question, therefore, upon which he would ask for a decision for his guidance upon future occasions was, within what time after a division had taken place was it competent for a Member to challenge a vote?
MR. SPEAKER: If it has been discocovered that a Member was not present when the question was put, the vote of that Member may be challenged before the numbers are declared, or after the division is over.
MR. MALINSsaid, the course he had taken had at any rate had the effect of causing rules to be laid down for the guidance of the House in such distinct terms that it would be impossible for any Member, henceforth, to mistake them, and he was sure every hon. Member felt obliged to Mr. Speaker for the decisions he had given.
Subject dropped.
The House adjourned at Three. o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Stock in Trade; Copyhold, &c. Commission Continuance; Piers and Harbours (Scotland).
2a School Grants Security for Application; Burial-Grounds (Scotland); Dwellings for Labouring Classes; Indemnity.
3a Union Charges Act Continuance.

THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE—THE LATE LORD RAGLAN.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN reported to their Lordships that the Address which had been voted on Tuesday last, in answer to the Message from the Crown, on the occasion of the Death of Lord Raglan, had been most graciously received by Her Majesty.

THE MILITIA (SCOTLAND).
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Minister of War to the want of barracks for the militia in Scotland. He could trace many of the offences which were committed by the men to the peculiar position in which they were placed, and which rendered it impossible to enforce discipline among them. By the Scottish law, regiments were only to be quartered in certain ancient market towns and boroughs, where some of them had now remained for several months. He particularly observed that this inconvenience had been severely felt at Dalkeith. He had applied to have the regiment removed to barracks, and had suggested that some method of hutting them might be adopted, but nothing was done; and this system of billeting in private houses, and the crowding and indecency which it caused, were felt to be an intolerable grievance. He wished to know whether any better arrangements were about to be made for providing accommodation for the militia in Scotland?
LORD PANMUREsaid, he quite admitted the existence of the evil, but was afraid it could not so easily be remedied. The large numbers of militia who had been called into existence in Scotland were far beyond what the barracks in that country could provide accommodation for. He had endeavoured to supply the want as far as possible; but, with hutting works of a very extensive character going on in England and Ireland now, he had not been able to do so to the extent he wished. As fast as he could remedy the evil he would endeavour to do so; but it would be some time before it was possible to remove from billetings one-half of the regiments which were in that country; and it must be regarded as one of the hardships that were incidental to a state of war.

RECRUITING FOR THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I wish to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the War Department with reference to the plan which he announced to your Lordships on Thursday last for increasing the pay of the soldiers engaged in service in the field. I had the misfortune of not being present on that occasion; but the noble Lord is reported to have said that be proposed to add 1s. to the daily pay of every soldier employed in actual service against the enemy, and that this should have a retrospective effect and date from the time when the army landed in the Crimea. [Lord PANMURE: That is a mistake.] And a most important one, as it concerns nearly half a million of money. I suppose, however, that I am not incorrect in thinking that this additional pay will not at once be given to the men, but will be held back and invested in the savings bank. The noble Lord stated that this was a more economical arrangement than that of increasing the bounty, because that course led to desertion. Of course the noble Lord, from the returns showing the number of men enlisted and the cases of desertion, is enabled to form a correct judgment with reference to the effect of increasing the bounty; but with regard to the economy of his arrangement, in comparison with the expenditure by increasing the bounty, I must state that, if we were to add 14 l. to the bounty now given, and supposing 50,000 men were to be enlisted in the course of the year, still the plan proposed by the noble Lord would be more expensive than this enormous addition to the present bounty. Calculating that the number of men who will be entitled to this additional pay will not be less than 40,000, the expenditure in consequence of this new arrangement will amount to 730,000 l. a year. It is found by experience that there is always a considerable difference between the number who are actually ready for service in the field when their services are wanted, and the numbers who come forward to demand any reward that is offered for a particular campaign; and, therefore, although the noble Lord may not probably be able to produce 30,000 bayonets in the field, I apprehend that there will not be fewer than 40,000 applicants for the additional pay. I confess, my Lords, that I object on principle to the arrangement proposed. When I last alluded to the absolute necessity of our adopting immediate measures for strengthening

435
our military resources, I was anxious, if the noble Lord had not then been absent, to make a few observations on this particular subject. I should myself have recommended an increase in the pay of the army; but, undoubtedly, my suggestion would have gone to secure that the addition should be in reality paid into the soldiers' hands; for my firm belief is that, unless the money is so paid, it will not have the effect of inducing recruits to join the service. The object of your measure I take to be to increase the number of recruits; and therefore you should do nothing inconsistent with, or that goes beyond, that object. You do, however, act inconsistently with your object when you defer the payment of the additional remuneration, because we all know how comparatively little people care about any reward which is thus postponed, and which, on that account, does not operate as an active Stimulus. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord will be incurring an expenditure of 730,000 l. a year without any reasonable prospect of obtaining additional recruits. I hold it to be inexpedient to attempt to engraft a moral lesson upon the giving of smart-money to recruits. When you ask a man to enter the army, you do not ask him to do the most prudent thing in a worldly point of view. Poets and philosophers have often represented the various pursuits which offer themselves to man as appealing to different motives to induce him to enter them; and each has been depicted as endeavouring to win votaries by depreciating the charms of its rival. The noble Lord has—I cannot say improved upon the inventions of poets and philosophers, but—gone beyond it. By his measure he offers the soldier the threefold advantage of economy, self-denial, and enjoyment. He holds out to him at once all the attractions of saving money and all the pleasures of getting drunk. The expense of the noble Lord's scheme must, however, be very serious to the country, and therefore I wish to know whether it is his intention, while offering the prospect of largely increased pay to the recruit, at the same time to continue to him the high rate of bounty which has been given within the last few months? If he means to do so, he will be establishing two conflicting kinds of inducements. It is worth while considering this question of bounty. That which appears in the public accounts as "levy money" is composed of these three different items—first, the bounty actually
436
paid to the recruit for his own use and benefit; secondly, the money paid into his hands under the name of bounty, but which is afterwards taken from him for the purchase of necessaries; and thirdly the portion which entirely goes to defray the expenditure of the superintendence and the allowances to the recruiting officers. Now, I think it is desirable that in all future statements of the public accounts these distinct items should be separated; and that the amount which is paid as bounty to the soldier should be a net sum, clear of any deduction for the purchase of necessaries, the expense of which should be borne by the country. There are several other things besides additional pay which I think would largely increase the influx of recruits. I am told, for instance, that an over strictness is enforced in approving recruits, by which too much weight is given to trifling blemishes, such as a slight cast in the eye or a varicose vein in the hand, which are not defects interfering in any degree with their efficiency as soldiers. When you refused to receive a man unless he reached a certain standard, it might have been all very well to require that he should also be perfect in every respect; but, after you altered your system and consented to accept inferior men, you ought likewise to lower your standard of perfection as well as that of height. I am informed that the number of men rejected on frivolous grounds is very great; and, when these persons go back to their own districts and tell their tale, they dishearten others who would have been inclined to enlist, and thus your recruiting service materially suffers. Again, men are deterred from entering the army by the excessive rigidness with which the regulations for granting pensions are applied. I believe that some old soldiers who have served for years in India have been exposed to extreme hardships from this cause. Now, however necessary it may be for the protection of the public that regulations should be established, it is at the same time absolutely essential that the power of relaxing them, under particular circumstances, in favour of men who have done good service in the field, should be intrusted to some person or body of persons in authority. Another matter of great importance is, that it would be advisable for the purpose of acquiring a pension that a campaign should count for two years. This would be a rational as well as a liberal arrangement. Another

437
point deserving attention was this:—few things could be more gratifying to the army than an arrangement that could be made, by a modification of the poor law, to render an old pensioner no longer compellable, before receiving relief, to enter the workhouse as a test of his destitution, and to enable him to enjoy, in the shape of outdoor relief, a larger amount of comfort than is extended to persons who have never done service to the State. My Lords, I am an advocate of any measure that will render the militia complete and effective. I am satisfied that that force is a reserve on which we may always fall back; and I believe that a man who has previously served in a militia regiment which has been actually embodied will be invariably found more desirous of joining your army than one who has never seen any such service. But, in dealing with these militia-men, to induce them to volunteer for the regular army, it would be far better on all occasions as far as possible to employ the intervention of officers and gentlemen rather than that of the ordinary recruiting sergeant, and also to afford the largest choice in regard to the regiments to which the men might be desirous of attaching themselves. The particular question which I wish to put to the noble Lord is, whether it is the intention of the Government to leave the bounty at its present amount when the pay of the soldier in the field is doubled?
LORD PANMUREsaid, he was glad the noble Earl had put this question, for it would afford him an opportunity of stating more particularly the nature of that change of which he thought it right the other day to make an announcement. The object of it, no doubt, was to effect that which he was bound to say existed at present only partially, namely, the encouragement of the youth of this country to enter into the regular forces. But, at the same time, he (Lord Panmure) could not say that he had altogether left out of sight the intention of doing something to benefit and improve the condition of those gallant men who were bravely and nobly exposing, and too frequently sacrificing their lives for their country before the enemy in the Crimea. The expense which would be incurred by this change was an expense which he was afraid the country must make up its mind to endure if this war was to be prosecuted with the vigour which we all desired. And when he stated that it would be a measure of economy, he meant that it would be
438
far cheaper in the end, instead of being obliged to rise to the high bounties of the last war, to institute at once a system by which, without further raising the bounty, we might obtain for the army a sufficient number of recruits. But it was one of the great features of this plan that the promised addition to the soldier's pay was to be given only to those engaged in actual war, or to those at present serving in the Crimea, but that this extra shilling should not come into the hands of the soldier until the termination of the war, or until the period of his service had expired. Since he made that announcement he had been informed by a great many military officers, to whose opinions he felt bound to listen, that unless the soldier got the pay into his own hands, the plan would not be likely to succeed. In the face of these representations, he did not think it would be right or proper for him to ask the nation to risk entering upon so great an expenditure, for the purpose of trying a plan which he was told by experienced officers would perhaps fail to produce the result intended. But, on the other hand, putting at once into the soldier's hands an amount of pay increased to the extent which he had named, would, in his opinion, go far to affect the soldier's discipline: if he had too much money, he might find it pleasing, and perhaps convenient, to incur a breach of discipline. He (Lord Panmure) had therefore so far altered the scheme that, instead of investing a shilling a day for the soldier's benefit at a distant period, he now proposed immediately to put the additional sum of sixpence a day into the hands of the soldier as an extraordinary field allowance, precisely in the same way in which extraordinary field allowances were now paid to the officers. He proposed, instead of putting it into the savings bank, to give the soldier the benefit of an arrangement which existed in the navy, and which was voluntary on the part of the men themselves, but encouraged by their officers; and to enable the soldier to allot any part of that sixpence to his family, instead of receiving it himself. He proposed, also, that this sixpence, if not so allotted by the soldier, should, under certain circumstances of insubordination, be put in the power of the commanding officer to stop it from the hands of the soldier; but that whenever this sixpence a day was so stopped by the commanding officer, it should be invested for the soldier's benefit, and not forfeited

439
entirely. Of course, like all the rest of the soldier's pay, it might be forfeited under the sentence of a court martial. Such were the modifications he now proposed to make in the scheme he announced the other day. He must say he did not think that the noble Earl had shown that discretion which might be expected of him, in saying that the profession of a soldier was, perhaps, one of the most imprudent which a man could adopt. He (Lord Panmure) was not sure that, even in a worldly point of view, it was so. The profession of a soldier, he thought, taking all things into consideration, was as well paid as that of a labourer. In addition to this, the soldier, if enlisted at the age of eighteen, had the advantage of receiving as good an education as it was possible to give him, by which his mind was cultivated with various branches of literature, and he was qualified for an useful member of society. These advantages, it appeared to him, should be a great temptation to heads of families, to advise their children to embrace the military profession, though at present, in time of war, people might be unwilling to send their children into it. He maintained, without fear of contradiction, that the condition of a professional soldier was not, by any means, the worst a man could choose. Upon the other questions put by the noble Earl—namely, with respect to the distribution of bounty—he (Lord Panmure) very much agreed with him; and had long had it under consideration to propose, although there might be some difficulty in doing it, a separation between the bounty paid from that which was subtracted from that fund for the purchase of necessaries. Those who knew soldiers must be aware that when the bounty was fixed at a particular figure, they sometimes would understand as little about the taking off of a certain sum for the purchase of necessaries as they would understand, after joining the regiment, their not receiving that sum, because such, necessaries had been purchased out of it; and so any such arrangement would cut both ways. On the whole, he thought it would be best to be fair and honest and open with the soldier; that we should name as bounty that which was actually given to him, and that we should provide him with necessaries according to a certain list and a certain tariff, which he might always have in his possession. This could be done more easily and systematically now that the provision of all these things was under Government
440
control, and they could he furnished in the same manner and at the same price, so that the recruit might be enabled to understand it. With regard to the levy money, it was at present distinctly understood, and there was an estimate for so much on account of it every year, but the bounty consisted properly of that which was immediately paid to the recruits. The noble Earl had asked whether it was intended to reduce the bounty; in answer to which he (Lord Panmure) could only say, that he had no intention whatever of doing so—at least, until the conclusion of the war; the bounty had been only once increased since the war began, and if we had gone upon the old plan it would have been twice, or probably a third time, raised already. He did not intend to return to the lower rate of bounty, because, although this extraordinary allowance was to be given to the army in the field, it was still fair that some encouragement should be given to many of those who were enlisting, not for the Crimean service, but for the colonial, Indian, or any other service. The noble Earl said difficulties had been put in the way of recruiting, by various causes. He said, firstly, that there was too stringent an adherence to medical requirements, in passing the doctor's examination. It would be very difficult, and, indeed, very unwise, to relax them, as one of the cases mentioned by the noble Earl would show. If a man were accepted with a slight varicose vein, he might in a year or eighteen months be totally and entirely unfit for service, in consequence of any severe exertion aggravating such a defect. There were a great many other such defects, which, although at first they might appear to be very slight, would afterwards, if they were passed over, make a man quite unfit for duty. He could, assure the noble Earl that every relaxation of the rule in these cases that could with safety be made would be adopted, but there were many points in the medical examination which could not, and ought not, to be departed from. With regard to the interpretation of the pension warrant, he did not exactly understand to which warrant the noble Earl alluded, for there were several warrants under which the soldier received an allowance. He had assisted in drawing many; and they were all so drawn as to give the utmost latitude to the intention with which they were drawn. When, however, a warrant came to the War-office, they were obliged to adhere to it strictly, because, such was

441
the multitude of cases that came before them, that if an exception were made in one case exceptions would be asked for in a thousand other instances, and there would be no use in passing a pension warrant at all, because ultimately, under such circumstances, the whole pension system would resolve itself into a question of the discretion of the Secretary for War. There was, however, a power, when any exceptional cases occurred, which enabled the Secretary for War to refer these cases to the Treasury. With regard to the question of a campaign counting for so many years' service of the soldier, that was not a new principle in the British army, for in the case of Waterloo, a single battle, it counted to the soldiers engaged in it for two years' service towards a pension. He saw no reason, therefore, why, at the end of the war, there should not be a regulation made in the case of the Crimean campaign similar to that in the case of Waterloo. With regard to the last question of the noble Earl, that of out door relief, that was a subject which he hardly felt competent to deal with. All he could do was to take care, in administering military pensions, that no poor-law guardian should lay his hands on the pension of an old soldier. He did that while he was formerly Secretary at War, and he would do so now. He had it in his power as Secretary for War to pay the men their pensions daily or quarterly as he should think fit. If a man was improvident it was paid daily, but if he was provident it was paid quarterly; and if he had a family and was provident, there were even cases in which an advance of pension could be made; and therefore he could protect the soldier altogether against the poor-law guardian. But, as regarded out-door relief as an addition to the pension, that was rather a question for the Legislature to decide than the Secretary for War. When the pension warrant, which was issued when he (Lord Panmure) was Secretary at War, came into operation, he thought there would be no occasion for any pensioner to receive out-door relief; for any well-conducted soldier, after a service of twenty-one years, would retire at the age of thirty-nine with a pension of 1s. a day. That is, he was entitled for service to 8d. a day, and he could add 4d. a day to it by good conduct, any man who received four good conduct stripes receiving a 1d. a day for each stripe; and any man receiving 1s. a day ought to be above the necessity
442
of applying for poor-law relief. He had now answered the questions of the noble Earl, and he could only add that he hoped the alteration in the mode of giving the increased pay to the soldier in the field would be found satisfactory.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he was aware that even under the system which had hitherto prevailed, a man of long and good service might obtain a pension which would suffice for his comfortable maintenance. He happened to have himself in his service two old sergeants who were each in the receipt of a pension of 1s. l0 d. a day. But he apprehended that, as the law stood, a board of guardians in granting relief to an old pensioner would be compelled to take into consideration the amount of pension he received. There was one point which he wished to bring under the consideration of the noble Lord, although he was not anxious to elicit any statement of his opinion with respect to it at that moment. He had heard with great satisfaction the proposed modification of the plan which the noble Lord had originally announced; but he would throw it out for the consideration of the noble Lord whether the whole of that additional pay should be given to a soldier when he was in the hospital. Formerly a portion of the pay was kept back from a soldier in hospital, but at present it was all retained for his benefit, and given to him when he came out of the hospital. It appeared to him that it was a matter well deserving of serious consideration, whether at present, when the increase of pay was so large, the existing arrangement upon that subject should be allowed to continue in operation. He regretted that the noble Lord should have thought that he (the Earl of Ellen-borough) had been indiscreet in expressing his opinion that in a worldly point of view a man acted imprudently in becoming a soldier. He could only say that upon every occasion on which he had an opportunity of advising a man upon that subject, he had told him to discard worldly considerations, and to become a soldier, for he had always held that the first of all professions was that of a soldier, and the first of all rewards was military honour.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to ask whether there were any stoppages of pay while the men were in hospital in consequence of being wounded, and whether any difference was made in the case of men who were sick and those who were wounded? He thought that it was not

443
fair even when a soldier lost his health in such a campaign as this and was sent into hospital that there should he any stoppages of his pay, hut it would be a still greater hardship if he was compelled to be in hospital in consequence of wounds received in action. He should like to know if that was the case.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, in reference to the subject he wished to inquire of the noble Lord the Secretary for War whether it was meant that the non-commissioned officers, the sergeants and corporals, should also receive increased pay as well as the privates. He must take the opportunity of venturing to express his great satisfaction at the explanation given by the Minister for War. He highly approved of the additional pay which was intended to be given, and he was sure the army would hail it with the greatest satisfaction. He also thought that the modification of the plan which had been just stated would be of great advantage, as it did not merely hold out a reward to the soldier on his retiring from the profession, but would have the effect of giving him an additional amount of pay while he was actually in the service. He understood the noble Lord to say that facilities would be given to the soldier to remit money to his family. That was a most important part of the scheme, and it ought to be so arranged as to enable the soldier to do so without being embarrassed by unnecessary forms. He was also much gratified to hear that the increase of pay would not be accompanied by a diminution of the bounty on enlisting, because in that respect he thought it impossible to draw a distinction between the recruiting for the army in the Crimea, and the men on service in the Colonies and India, and he thought that the bounty ought not to be diminished. He was delighted to learn from the noble Lord the opinion he had expressed with regard to the manner of dealing with the bounty, a question which he had long thought was worthy of the consideration of the Minister for war. Many men enlisted with the idea that they were to receive the whole amount of the bounty; and he thought it was important, recruiting our army in the manner we did, that there should not be the least appearance of breaking faith with the soldier, and that we ought to give the men in money what was stated to be the bounty, and that their necessaries should he provided from a separate source. He begged to have an
444
answer to his question, whether the noncommissioned officers were to receive increased pay. If so, he could not but congratulate the noble Lord on his plan, and he believed it would have the effect of procuring a great many men for the army.
LORD PANMURE,in reply to the question put by the illustrious Duke, had to state that it was certainly his intention to give to non-commissioned officers, namely, sergeants and corporals, the same additional pay as the men. It would be a field allowance such as existed in the case of commissioned officers, beginning with 2s. for ensigns, and going up, through every grade of the army, till it reached 1l. for the General Commanding in Chief. With reference to the question about the remission of money home by the soldiers, he understood that in the Navy each seaman could allot a certain portion of his pay, to be issued to his friends in this country, without any transmission from abroad being necessary. On the same principle, if any soldier wished to allot the whole or part of his pay to his relatives in this country, it would be issued to them by the authorities here on their producing the proper documents to prove that they were the parties to whom it should be paid. He agreed with his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) that it was an extreme hardship to those who had been wounded in the service to have a stoppage made from their pay in hospital. Though the regulations required such stoppages to be made, they had been in the first instance reduced in the course of the present war, and were now entirely got rid of; and he might state, that it was not intended to reimpose those stoppages, which had been very considerable, without further consideration.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that the noble Lord the Secretary for War had stated that in the event of a soldier committing any offence which was to be dealt with by the infliction of secondary punishment, the additional pay would be stopped; but it would, nevertheless, be invested for him. The noble Lords opposite were better able to judge whether in secondary punishments pecuniary fines would be found effective, but he would suggest that if the money was invested for the man from whom it was stopped, he might borrow it if he wanted to have the money to spend.
LORD PANMUREsaid, if the money was invested in the savings-bank, it could not be drawn out without leave from the commanding officer.

THE MAINE LIQUOR LAW.
THE EARL OF HARRINGTONput the questions, of which he had given notice:— 1st. Whether the Maine Law has passed the Legislatures of Canada and New Brunswick? A somewhat similar prohibition of the sale of alcoholic spirits was advocated by the foremost statesmen of this House in 1743, led by the Earl of Chesterfield, who said, "Luxury, my Lords, is to be taxed, but vice prohibited, let the difficulty of the law be what it will. Would you put a tax on a breach of the Ten Commandments? Would not such a tax be wicked and scandalous?" 2nd. Whether the enforcement of the Maine Law in Canada and New Brunswick was approved or disapproved by the Government of the parent State? 3rd. Whether both those Acts had received Her Majesty's Sign Manual? 4th. Whether the Maine Law can be put in force in Canada and New Brunswick without The Queen's Sign Manual? The noble Earl said he wished to remind their Lordships that at least two-thirds of the crimes committed in this country were attributed to habits of intoxication, and the Judges of the land regarded such habits as the most fruitful source of crime. Indeed, one learned Judge, in charging a grand jury, said to them, "If it were not for these drinking propensities you and I would have nothing to do." His conviction was, that ultimately the feeling of the people of England would be favourable to such a law as had been passed in the State of Maine.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in reply to the question of the noble Earl, whether the Maine Liquor Law or any similar law had passed the Legislative Council of Canada, he begged to inform him that a Bill to that effect had been introduced into that assembly, but had been rejected on some technical ground. With regard to New Brunswick, he had to state, that a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors had been passed in that colony in the year 1852, and had received the assent of the Crown. In the year 1854 a law amending that previous Act, and prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors by night, had been adopted, and bad also received the Royal Assent. He understood, however, that a Bill in opposition to that latter law had been passed this Session, but it had not yet reached this country; and he could not give the noble Earl any information with respect to its provisions. In answer to the question of the noble Earl, whether such a
446
Bill would receive the Royal Assent, he had to state that that would depend on the fact whether or not a clause had been inserted in it reserving the action of the measure until it should have received the assent of the Crown.

EDUCATION OF CADETS.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE THE EARL OF HARDWICKE rose to call the attention of the House to the State of Education of Cadets in Her Majesty's Navy. Some time ago, he had obtained a return on the subject, which was well worthy the attention of the Government. It showed, that although provision was made on board ships of a certain rating for the education of cadets by providing schoolmasters who had taken respectable degrees at the Universities, yet there were now in the fleet twenty-five said to be un provided with schoolmasters. It was of the utmost importance at the present moment that the attention of the Government should be given to the education of our naval officers. At present a child of thirteen years of age, on entering the Navy, was required to pass an examination suitable to his age. He was then placed on board a ship, and delivered over to the schoolmaster, under whom he was supposed to gain a certain amount of education during the two years in which he had to remain in the position of a cadet. Supposing that education to be properly carried out, it was the most imperfect of all educations that could be given, for his attention was constantly distracted from it by being called upon to perform the duties of the ship, and by the variety of the scenes he witnessed, and the exciting nature of the services in which he was employed. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) considered that the system of education for naval cadets had completely broken down; yet these youths were called upon at stated periods to undergo most severe examinations, and unless they passed them satisfactorily they could not attain the position of midshipmen. Having served four years in that capacity, they had to undergo another serious examination before they were eligible for the rank of lieutenant. The only mode by which he got through these examinations was by a system of cramming, which was a most unsatisfactory course of proceeding. Fourteen or fifteen years ago the system was not even to be compared to that which was now given, and, in fact, the education given was no education at all. But there did exist an important and valuable seminary

447
at which certain portions of instruction were given. After the Reform Bill, certain feelings were so strongly impressed upon the House of Commons that they gradually got rid of the Naval College altogether, thus abolishing the only system of naval education that existed at all. Then they set up a new system, which was the introduction of schoolmasters of high character on board ships of war. During a time of peace, that system might, and did, answer to a very considerable extent; but now, in time of war, in consequence of the difficulty of getting men of sufficiently high character, capacity, rank, and education for masters, the system had completely broken down. In the Naval College a distinct plan was followed. It took three years to complete the system of instruction, which comprehended hydrostatics, gunnery, mathematics, and every branch of naval tactics, so that at fifteen or fifteen and a half years of age the boys turned out proved very valuable accessions to the ships-of-war. For the period he thus spent at the College, the youth reckoned two years' time in the service. If he completed the regular course of education in less than two years, he was still allowed the two years' time; but, if he was not found proficient at the end of three years, he was considered incapable, and did not enter the service at all. The education given at the College was not only theoretical, but eminently practical, the pupils being taught hydrostatics, fortification, all the practical operations connected with seamanship, the use of cannon, and many other necessary branches of a naval education. At present, however, there was really no naval education at all, for the system which had been established upon the abolition of the Naval College was an entire failure. A child required to be trained to the naval profession from his infancy in order to become an efficient seaman, and, as the present system had broken down, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government if it was their intention to re-establish a Naval College? If a college were established, at least 100 boys might be educated, thirty or forty cadetships might be given annually, and officers would be turned out accomplished and useful men. The education of a youth on board ship was, at the most, extremely imperfect. After all, it was nothing more than a professional education. No knowledge of languages or history was acquired, and no religious instruction was given; and, unless attention were paid to these important
448
branches of education, he held it to be almost impossible to make a child a valuable servant to the country. Having felt deeply interested in this question, he had ventured to bring it before their Lordships, in the hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty might be induced to look seriously into the question, in order that some remedy might be applied to the unsatisfactory state of things existing at the present moment.
LORD COLCHESTERagreed in the remarks which had fallen from his noble Friend in reference to the unsatisfactory state of the education of naval cadets. From returns which had recently been moved for by his noble Friend, it appeared that there were only 86 ships entitled to carry schoolmasters out of 300 at present in commission. Two-thirds of our ships were consequently altogether without schoolmasters; but even supposing there was a schoolmaster to every ship, how could it be expected that now, in time of war, the boys would be attending to studies when cannon were booming in their ears? As far as instruction was concerned, he thought a boy's time could be much more profitably spent in a Naval College than on board a ship. In the French navy every officer was required to go through a course of study in a naval school, and he thought that if a similar plan were adopted in this country the service would be greatly improved. He must say the subject well deserved the attention of the Government.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not profess the same intimate knowledge of a technical matter like that under discussion as the two noble Lords who had spoken, but certainly the information with which he had been supplied gave him a very different idea of the character of the education now received by young cadets on board Her Majesty's ships, from that just given by the noble Earl. The noble Earl had referred to the severe examinations required of boys before they became cadets and midshipmen; but he complained of the inadequate nature of the instruction given to a boy before he became a midshipman. Besides the naval instructors, the Government had put the boys under the eye of the captain, and whenever there was no naval instructor the master received a gratuity for giving the required instruction to those young men. With regard to the boys being crammed, that was, no doubt, a danger, but it was one which no efforts had ever succeeded in entirely preventing. In

449
a time of war like the present, neither the instructor, the captain, nor the boys were inclined to attend to instruction so much as in times of peace, but still he disagreed with the noble Earl in thinking that a child could not learn much that was useful in time of war, and much that would materially tend to form his character. The subject was, no doubt, of great importance, and he should make it his duty faithfully to report to the First Lord of the Admiralty what had passed in their Lordships' House, who would ascertain whether the representations of the noble Earl were strictly accurate; and he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend would attempt to improve the system, either by increasing the number of instructors or by establishing a Naval College.
House adjourned till To-morrow.