Sitting of 16 June 1856

MINUTES,
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°County Courts Acts Amendment; Mercantile Law Amendment; Mercantile Law (Scotland) Amendment; Hay and Straw Trade.
2°Stock-in-Trade Exemption; Drainage (Ireland); Survey of Great Britain, &c.
3°Annuities Redemption; Transfer of Work (Ireland).

MEDICAL OFFICERS FOR THE POOR— QUESTION.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board whether he was prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Committee of 1854 upon medical relief to the poor, namely:—1. That medical appointments should be permanent. 2. That the remuneration should be revived and increased. That the districts should be examined?
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the recommendations of the Committee were threefold. The first was that the Poor Law
1494
Board should direct their attention to the extent of the medical districts which were in some cases inconveniently large. That, however, was a recommendation which could only be carried out from time to time. The Board would, whenever occasion offered, direct their attention to the reduction of the area of the districts. The second recommendation had reference to the permanency of the appointments of those medical officers, and that had been in a great measure complied with. The third was with reference to the inadequacy of the salaries of the medical officers. Half of those salaries were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The first year that that arrangement was entered into the total amount expended for those salaries was £155,700, and for the year ending March 31st, 1855, the sum had increased to £172,200, which showed that something had been done to increase those salaries where they were inadequate; but it was impossible to do so in any case without the consent of the Boards of Guardians.

THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITIES— QUESTION.
MR. THOMPSONsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate whether he was prepared to bring in a Bill for the union of the Aberdeen Universities?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was anxious to aid in the union of these two Universities. It appeared that the time had come when that union might be effected by a legislative measure, and he had a Bill in preparation. If the business of the Session permitted, he should be glad to lay the Bill on the table, and to carry it if possible.

DIPLOMATIC ESTABLISHMENT AT HANOVER—QUESTION.
MR. AYSHFORD WISEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was the intention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on Mr. Bligh's intended retirement from the mission at Hanover, to act in conformity with the Resolution passed by the House of Commons in 1855, and to adopt the recommendation made in 1850 by the Select Committee on official salaries, with reference to the diplomatic establishment at Hanover?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred was that there should

1495
be only one representative of this country stationed at Frankfort, and that our representatives should be withdrawn from Hanover, Stuttgardt, Munich, and Dresden. It was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt that recommendation. He thought that they were entitled to expect that confidence should be placed in them to this extent—that they who carried on the diplomatic communications of the country must be deemed to be better judges as to what was useful to the public interests than those who had no knowledge whatever of them. With all deference, therefore, to the opinions of the Select Committee, he had to State that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that it would not be conducive to the public interest to withdraw our diplomatic representatives from the places referred to.

INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND)—QUESTION.
COLONEL HIGGINSsaid, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, in the case of "Errington v. Rorke," in which it was held that a purchaser under the Incumbered Estates Court was bound by a previous lease not mentioned in the conveyance to him from the Commissioners; and whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any measure to set at rest the doubts created by that decision as to the indefeasibility of the title conferred by the Commissioners?
MR. HORSMANsaid, the attention of the Government had been drawn to the recent decision in the case referred to, which they deemed one of great importance. Hitherto it had been supposed that an estate purchased in the Incumbered Estates Court brought with it a title good and valid against the world. It certainly was the intention of the Legislature and the understanding of the public that such should be the case; and on the faith of that understanding large purchases were made in that Court. The decision referred to was, however, at variance with that intention, and was calculated to create apprehension and alarm amongst those purchasers. The Government had had their attention called to the subject with a view of taking such course, as would obviate the alarm consequent upon that decision.

COMMON LAW COURTS (IRELAND)— QUESTION.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill, or to insert clauses in any Bill now before the House, to make the offices of town registrars (to the Chief Justices and Chief Baron) or clerks of Nisi Prius in the three superior Courts of Common Law in Ireland permanent, and to authorise the appointment of a clerk by each of said officers, in analogy to the provisions of the Act, 15th & 16th Vict. c. 73.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the same question had been put a few days ago by the hon. Member for Louth to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. His right hon. and learned Friend then stated that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill, or to insert clauses in any Bill before the House, to that effect.

THE AUSTRALIAN MAILS— QUESTION.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury what would be the latest period at which the Government would consent to receive tenders for the conveyance of the Australian mails?
MR. WILSONsaid, that the latest period originally intended for the reception of tenders was last Thursday. In consequence, however, of the noble Lord's suggestion for the postponement of that day he (Mr. Wilson) said the Government would have no objection to do so until Wednesday next, upon an application being made to that effect. No application had, however, as yet been made for any postponement of the time. However, as parties who wished to tender might imagine that the contract was still open, in consequence of that postponement, he had given orders that no tender should be opened until the latest period fixed, because it might be said that the time had already expired. He wished then that all those tenders should remain un-opened until Wednesday next, and if no further tenders were presented, they would take it for granted that all who wished to tender had done so.

KARS AND ISMAEL—QUESTION.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to ask the First Minister of the Crown

1497
whether he had heard a rumour that the fortification of Kars were to be blown up by the Russians?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, no authentic information has been received by Her Majesty's Government, but a report has reached us, through the usual channels of information, that a part of the fortifications of Kars is to be blown up, and that some parts of the fortifications of Ismael will also be destroyed.

SARDINIAN LOAN.
Order for Committee on Queen's Message [12th June], read.
House in Committee. Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
Queen's Message read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. FitzRoy, it will doubtless be in the memory of the Committee, that in making the financial statement of the year, a short time since, I announced, on the part of the Government, that they intended to propose a loan of an additional £1,000,000 to the Sardinian Government, in fulfilment of the spirit, although not of the letter, of the Convention of last year. That Convention was entered into in December, 1855, it was signed at Turin, and the ratifications were sent over to this country. By some accident a short delay took place at Paris in the transmission of those ratifications, and the consequence was, that the Bill founded on the Convention was not introduced into Parliament quite as early as may have appeared consistent with the date of the signature of the treaty. It was not supposed at the time that that accident would be attended with any material consequences. No blame, however, attaches on account of it to the Sardinian Government; if there is any responsibility in the matter Her Majesty's Government are responsible. However, the Convention having been signed at Turin in January, 1855, the Bill founded upon it was introduced, I think, at the end of March or the beginning of April, and received the Royal Assent on the 26th of April. The stipulations of that Convention were, that £1,000,000 should be advanced as a loan to the Sardinian Government within a year after the payment of the first instalment, and that, if the war should not be brought to a conclusion within a year after the payment of the first instalment, then a second £1,000,000 should be advanced under the like terms and conditions
1498
as the first. I will now, Sir, beg to call the attention of the Committee to the precise dates of these transactions. The Act of Parliament giving effect to the Convention received the Royal Assent on the 26th of April 1855, and the ratifications of the treaty of peace were exchanged on the 27th of April, 1856—that is to say, one year and one day after the day on which the Act received the Royal Assent. The application on the part of the Sardinian Government for the first payment was, I believe, received on the day, or even before the day, on which the Royal Assent was given to the Bill, but the actual payment of the first instalment from which, according to the stipulations of the Convention, the year was to be reckoned, was made on the 3rd of May, six days subsequently; therefore, according to the strict interpretation of the treaty, the second sum of £1,000,000 did not become payable; whereas if the payment of the first instalment had been made one day before, instead of six days after—the 27th of April—the faith of this country would have been engaged to advance the second £1,000,000. I have now stated the facts with regard to the literal obligations of this country. With regard to the spirit of the treaty, it is to be observed that it was made for the purpose of enabling the Government of Sadinia to carry on the war in which she and her Allies were engaged. The Government of Sardinia sent over troops which were engaged in the last campaign; they also made preparations for a second campaign, in the event of peace not being concluded at Paris; and, although the actual terms of the treaty do not bind Her Majesty's Government to issue a second sum of £1,000,000, unquestionably the contingency contemplated by the treaty has arisen—that is to say, preparations for a second year of hostilities have been made by the Sardinian Government. I may also state that it appears from an authentic document, communicated by Count Cavour to Lord Clarendon, at Paris, and laid before the Sardinian Parliament, that the expenses of the expedition, not later than the close of last year, had amounted to no less than 75,000,000 francs, a sum which considerably exceeds the £2,000,000 proposed to be lent to the Sardinian Government in the shape of a loan. I trust, after this explanation, the Committee will see that, consistently with good faith and the spirit of our engagements with the Sar-

1499
dinian Government, Her Majesty's Government cannot do otherwise than propose this additional advance. Considering, too, the friendship which the Sardinian people entertain towards this country, as manifested by the gallanty and fidelity of their army, and by the uninterrupted amity and good faith with which their Government has acted towards the Government of Her Majesty, I hope the Committee will not hesitate to set their seal on this contract, and, without any difference of opinion, to assent to the Resolution I have placed in the hands of the Chairman.
Resolved—"That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to issue, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the sum of One Million Pounds sterling, during the present year, by way of Loan, to the Sardinian Government, in accordance with the terms of a Treaty concluded between Her Majesty and the King of Sardinia."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
House resumed.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply,
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: It appears to me, Sir, that the House of Commons ought not to go into Committee upon the last remaining military estimates of the year without asking the Government for some explanation as to the position in which we at present stand with regard to the Government of the United States of America. If there were negotiations going on at the present time the Government would rightly say—and, according to all former practice, the House would listen to them—that, during the continuance of those negotiations, it would be inconvenient to the public service to raise anything resembling a discussion on the subject. But the question now is, whether there are to be any negotiations with the United States Government or not? The state of facts, I conceive, to be this:—Despatches have been received by Her Majesty's Government, declaring, according to the explanations given in both Houses of Parliament, upon the authority of our Minister (Mr. Crampton), that with respect to the question of recruitment the Government of the United States are satisfied with the explanations of Her Majesty's Government, to the effect that they had no intention whatever of violating the
1500
laws of the United States, and that they had heard with great regret that anything which could be construed into a violation of those laws could be alleged against them. The question, therefore, with respect to the recruitment appears to me to be at an end. But the Government of the United States, not giving the same credit to Mr. Crampton which they have given to Her Majesty's Government, state that his conduct has been such that they cannot usefully, in regard to the maintenance of amicable relations between the two countries, recognise him any longer as our Minister, and they have accordingly declared that they can no longer transact the business of the nation with him. They have accompanied this communication with various declarations, and very positive declarations, of their wish to continue on terms of amity with this country. The United States Government have, with regard to a second question, which has for a long time been the subject of negotiation between them, this country, and various States of Central America, professed their willingness to enter into direct communication with Her Majesty's Government upon any points of difference which now exist; and, having gone through those points in great detail, they have declared their opinion that, with respect to some of them, an arbitration might be resorted to with a view to the attainment of an amicable result. Now, Sir, I do not ask for any explanation with regard to one or other of those questions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie) has given notice of his intention to bring the recruitment question before the House, on Thursday next. If the hon. Member should think proper to bring that question forward, and if the House should entertain it, then any Member of this House, and I among the rest, may declare our opinions on that question. With respect to the second question—that relating to Central America—the real point is, whether negotiation is to be entered into or continued on that subject. If such negotiations be broken off, then, no doubt, it would he necessary to bring that question before the House, and I should expect some Member to do so; but, if negotiation is now to take place, I think, then, upon that question, and I should also say on the other, that it would be most desirable that no further discussion should take place until Her Majesty's Government could inform us of the result of

1501
that negotiation. But, Sir, there are two other very important points, independent of any detail of the merits of the two great questions I have just alluded to, on which I think the House of Commons ought to receive information. The first is whether, as the American Government have desired Mr. Crampton to cease his relations with the United States, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, after the mature deliberations they have now been able to give to the subject, to desire that Mr. Dallas should likewise withdraw, and thus put an end for a time to any diplomatic communications between the two countries. The second point is, whether that course is pursued or not, pending the negotiation respecting Central America, and until the negotiation should be Drought to a close, what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to any force that either now may be stationed or may be sent to the coast of Nicaragua and Costa Rica? Sir, to these two questions I shall shortly apply myself. With respect to the first point, it appears to me that Her Majesty's Government may have means of judging which neither I nor any Member of this House may be in possession of; that, besides the ostensible despatches, there may be ground, on which their judgment has been formed, on which they can give intelligence to the House, but which we are not at present possessed of. It certainly appears to me that their Resolution should be formed in this respect, that if they have reason to believe that the removal of Mr. Crampton is a wanton and determined insult on the part of the Government of the United States, Her Majesty's Government can adopt no other course than to resent that insult by breaking off all communications with the Minister of the United States in this country. If, however, there are no circumstances which lead them to that conclusion, then I should say that not only former examples, but the present peculiar circumstances of this case, make it most desirable that they should accede to the invitation of the Government of the United States, and enter into negotiations upon any points of difference which, though not serious at the present time, may lead to most serious results. With respect to former examples there are many, I think, on this subject. There are cases in which both France and Great Britain have found that the Ministers they have appointed were not acceptable to the Government of
1502
the United States. There is the well-known case in 1793 of M. Genet, the Minister sent by the Republican Government of France, who not only fitted out privateers, and had the prizes brought to New York, and thus violated the neutrality of the United States, but likewise in a most offensive and improper manner endeavoured to raise seditious attempts against General Washington's Government. General Washington, who was then President of the United States, acting with that wisdom for which he was remarkable, and joining to it calmness and firmness, which likewise formed part of his character, in declaring to the French Republic that the conduct of M. Genet was intolerable, and that he could not any longer be permitted to continue as Minister from the French Republic to the United States, did not break off diplomatic relations with France. General Washington, through his Secretary of State, set forth the details of M. Genet's conduct, and stated that he was not acceptable to the American Government. Upon this the French Government disapproved the conduct of M. Genet and recalled him, appointing another Minister who might be acceptable to the Government of the United States. Thus the diplomatic relations between the two countries were not interrupted. Again, in 1809, Mr. Jackson, the Minister for Great Britain at Washington, made himself personally unacceptable to the President of the United States, and he was informed that no further communication could be held with him. Mr. William Pinckney was then the American Minister in London, and he continued at his post, so that there was no interruption of the diplomatic intercourse between the two countries; Mr. Maddison at that time being President. Then, so lately as 1850, M. Poussin, the French Minister at Washington, having used language in one or more diplomatic notes which was considered disrespectful to the Secretary of State, had his passport sent to him, but there was no interruption of amicable relations between the two countries. Mr. Rush, the American Minister at Paris, was at the time en route to the United States, but his successor, Mr. Rives, was received without obstacle, and a new French Minister was sent to the United States, General Zachary Taylor being at that time President. These examples show that the dismissal of Mr. Dallas need not, according to usage and international practice, immediately

1503
follow the course pursued by the American Government in respect to Mr. Crampton. I now come, Sir, to the question, in which negotiation is practicable. That question is one of very considerable difficulty, being involved with ancient obligations on the part of this country, and ancient and what we consider honourable relations between us and certain tribes of Indians on the coast of Central America, and being involved likewise by various interpretations in respect to a recent treaty, and by matters relating to Nicaragua and other States. I may mention likewise that an Act of 1851, carried into effect by the Government in 1852, is likewise matter upon which a difference of opinion has arisen. In regard of these matters, involving, as they do, most important consequences, it appears to me, from the hasty perusal I have been able to give it in the newspapers of this day, that Mr. Marcy has written a very dispassionate despatch, maintaining, as he was sure to do in opening a negotiation of that kind, all the positions which the American Government have hitherto maintained. Yet he seems to admit that each of them might be discussed, and to assent that these points, on which arbitration would be useful, should be referred to arbitration. Now, Sir, it has been suggested that, though Mr. Dallas were to receive his passports, and all diplomatic communication were to be suspended, yet that negotiation on all these various points might be carried on in some other place and by some other means. Sir, I cannot think that such a course would be either befitting the dignity of this country, or that it would tend to conduce to any satisfactory results. I cannot think it would be befitting the dignity of this country, because, if we are to negotiate with the United States, I hardly think it would be right to commence an indirect negotiation, or that it would conduce to any good end. If the negotiation is to be carried on, I cannot conceive that it could be better carried on than by Mr. Dallas, a gentleman universally respected, and who, during the short time he has been here, has received the good will of all classes, and by the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department, who is acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, and whose talents would in such a negotiation be of the highest service. I hope, indeed, that he, who has recently signed the treaty of Paris, will be the person to bring to a termination these disputes with
1504
the United States. With respect to the second point to which I alluded, the present state of affairs in Central America, it is but too obvious that an accident might occur, a collision might happen on some unforeseen question, or in some unexpected case, which would seriously compromise the amicable relations of the two countries. We have hitherto had a question which has rolled on for a long time, and for a great part of this century has been, as it were, in abeyance, without any active participation of our arms or of those of the United States in the dispute. The States of South America, so far from realising the anticipations of Mr. Canning, that he had created a new world to restore the balance of the old, have hardly been able to maintain order within their own limits. Still less have they been able to attempt any great conquests; nor has the stronger among them been able so completely to vanquish the weaker as to form any great and powerful State in Central America. The State of Nicaragua, great as her pretensions were to the dominion of the Mosquito coast, and little as she regarded the obligations with us which had descended to her in consequence of our former treaties with Spain, has not been able either to fix herself upon the Mosquito coast or to overcome that colony of various Europeans—Englishmen and others—and citizens of the United States, which has been established at Greytown. We see now, however, that an enterprising military chief of considerable energy, who is likely to attract many followers to his standard, by taking the part of one faction against another, has obtained very considerable power in the State of Nicaragua, and it is very possible that President Rivas, having his assistance, may make an incursion on the Mosquito coast, and may attack the inhabitants of Greytown. The question, therefore, is, what will be the course of Her Majesty's Government in such a contingency? I have no doubt, Sir, that they would think it their duty to protect the persons and property of British residents in such a case; and I cannot wonder, therefore, that they should wish to have a sufficient force in the neighbourhood of Greytown for that purpose. Whether they would think fit to interfere with respect to Nicaragua and Greytown, I know not, but I think that it is a question upon which we ought to have some information. I say this the more because the reports on

1505
this subject are very conflicting. I saw in a newspaper to-day that the ships of the United States were allowed to carry men and even military stores, who, no doubt, were going to swell the forces in Nicaragua. It seems to me that such a course would not be consistent with the respect which is due to the flag of the United States. I have also seen what was stated to be a telegraphic despatch, to the effect that Her Majesty's ship-of-war Eurydice was in the habit of interfering with the ships making for the port of Greytown, and of overhauling them before allowing them to enter. Some explanation, I have no doubt, can be given on that subject, but I think it is right that the anxiety which exists with, regard to it should be as far as possible removed. These are the two questions, then, upon which I should wish to have some explanation from my noble Friend at the head of the Government—first, whether it is the intention of the Government, after the course which has been taken with respect to Mr. Crampton, to pursue a similar course in regard to Mr. Dallas, and to break off all diplomatic intercourse with the Government of the United States; and next, whether, supposing that should not be the case, measures have been taken, after due deliberation, by the Government, in order to prevent, as far as possible, any collision between the ships and forces of Her Majesty's Government and the ships and forces of the Government of the United States. For my own part, I should hope that the commanders of the ships-of-war of this country and of the United States will receive such orders that they will act completely in concert; and that they will not allow the miserable States in Central America, with their rivalries and their squabbles, to commit these two great nations to hostilities with each other. Sir, I need not dwell upon the misfortunes which would flow from a war between the two countries. They are obvious, and must be felt by everybody. If these dissensions should lead to any serious quarrel, or, still more, to active hostilities between this country and the United States, the miseries which would arise to both nations are incalculable; they are of such a nature as no man in this country, and I should hope no man in the United States, could contemplate without the utmost fear and repugnance. The power of the two countries would, no doubt, be very signally
1506
displayed if a war were unhappily to arise, but it is obvious that the cause of humanity, the cause of peaceful commerce, and the cause of civilisation would greatly suffer from such a course. It is equally clear that throughout all the continent of Europe every man who has a feeling for liberty, every man who desires to see the cause of freedom flourish, would deplore such a contest between the two great free States of the world; and it is equally clear, I think, that all those who wish oppression to continue in those countries of Europe which are oppressed, would rejoice at the breaking out of a war between England and the United States. Such being the feeling which I know must animate every one, and having heard from my noble Friend at the head of the Government similar sentiments at an earlier period of the Session—sentiments which did him the highest honour—I cannot doubt that everything which can be done consistently with the position of this country, with its honour, and with its engagements to other nations, will be done to preserve peace between the two countries. Let me only add, Sir, that if the Government are about to enter into these negotiations, I do hope that from the moment that declaration is made, this House, imitating the example which it set itself (and it can imitate none better) during the last war, of forbearance with regard to negotiations, will abstain from any party discussions, from any rival imputations, and from doing anything which can induce any party in the United States to think that, if at last we should fight, and if negotiations, instead of leading us to an amicable settlement, should only lead us further from peace, this country would not be united in resisting pretensions which might be deemed inconsistent with our national honour. I believe such must be the universal opinion. We are, however, Sir, in such a position that some explanation is needed from the Government, and I wait anxiously to hear what my noble Friend has to say. There is imposed upon him a great responsibility, but I trust that the issue of this will be conducive not only to the interests of this country, but also to the maintenance, for a long period to come, of the relations of amity between us and the United States. I have seen that after former negotiations new questions have arisen between the two countries. I have been very much grieved to see that, although the question

1507
of the north-western boundary line and the question of the Caroline were amicably and skilfully settled by diplomacy, others speedily arose, from which it was sought to create dissensions and bad blood between the two countries. I am convinced that there are no two countries whose interest and duty it is more to cultivate friendly relations with each other. There is room for us both on the globe. We have a great empire to rule and great duties to fulfil; the United States are no doubt destined to great empire and to great duties, and let us both use the power which God has given us for the benefit of the human race.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is perfectly natural, Sir, that in the present state of affairs between this country and the United States, this House should expect from Her Majesty's Government at the earliest possible moment, an explanation of the condition in which our mutual relations stand. I cannot, therefore, feel any surprise that my noble Friend the Member for the City of London, whose position in this House so well entitles him to be its organ on such an occasion, should avail himself of the present opportunity to require from Her Majesty's Government an explanation in regard to our present position with the United States. Indeed, Sir, if no hon. Member had expressed a wish to hear such an explanation from the Government, I think it would still have been our duty not to allow a day to pass without putting the House in possession of our intentions on the subject to which my noble Friend's questions relate. Sir, it is unnecessary for me to enter into any explanation whatever of those communications which my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office received a few days ago from the American Minister at this Court. These communications having been presented to Congress, and having already been published in the newspapers, every hon. Member is as fully in possession of them as is the Government of Her Majesty. To lay them upon the table of this House officially, it would be necessary that we should be able to accompany them with such answers as—upon full consideration—and upon due deliberation, such as the importance of the subject-matter requires—we should have thought it fitting to return to them. Sir, we have not yet been able to frame those answers, and therefore we are not in a position to lay these papers officially before Parliament. But, Sir, I
1508
am ready to answer the question of my noble Friend as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the diplomatic arrangements between this country and the United States. Now, it is to be observed, Sir, in the first place, that, although the United States Government have thought fit to intimate to Mr. Crampton that they cannot continue their relations with him, in consequence of which he has left Washington, that intimation did not go to the extent of suspending diplomatic relations. On the contrary, it was accompanied, in another despatch, by the expression of a desire to continue, through the American Minister at this Court, diplomatic intercourse upon another matter. Now, Sir, Her Majesty's Government, duly considering all the various bearings of the matter, and attending to those considerations upon which my noble Friend has dwelt, have not deemed it their duty to advise Her Majesty to suspend diplomatic intercourse with the American Minister at this Court. We are, therefore, prepared again to enter into communications with him upon any matters which concern the interests of these two great countries. Sir, I think the House will feel that I am best performing my duty by abstaining on the present occasion from entering into any discussion beyond this answer to the question. My noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) has, however, expressed a hope that the instructions which Her Majesty's Government have given to the naval force which was recently despatched from this country to the coast of America, are not such as are likely to bring about any unnecessary collision between the American and British squadrons. Sir, I can assure my noble Friend, and I can assure the House, that it is the most anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to avoid anything which might bring about such a collision; that the instructions which have been given to the commander of that force relate to the protection of British interests, of British subjects, and of British property; and that there is nothing in those instructions which would tend to a collision between the British and American forces. We certainly have thought it right, considering the uncertain—uncertain as it then undoubtedly was—position of our relations with that great naval Power, that our force in those seas should be placed in such a condition that it might not be liable to any accidental disaster. We thought it right to be

1509
strong; but, being Strong, we shall not abuse our strength, we shall not be the aggressors. Upon that subject also—the question about Central America—I am sure the House will not at present wish me to go into any details. I concur with my noble Friend in the opinions which he has so well expressed, to which I also gave expression on a former occasion, that it would be lamentable in the extreme, if two countries which have so many interests in common should, through the perverseness of any man, be brought into a state of hostility with each other. With regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, I think I may be permitted to say that, as on the one hand this country was never in a better position to carry on war, so, if war were forced upon us, that very strength and that very preparation of which we may boast is also a reason why we may, without derogation from our dignity, act with calmness, with moderation, and with due deliberation upon a matter of such great importance as one which bears upon the relations between this empire and any foreign country whatever, more especially one between which and ourselves there are so many causes of union and so many mutual interests as between Great Britain and the United States of America.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, questions of this kind, bearing upon a subject so important as a misunderstanding in our relations with the United States, must impress upon the mind of every Member the expediency of treating them with the utmost moderation, and in a spirit of forbearance. Sir, the noble Lord who has just addressed the House has touched very lightly indeed upon the immediate cause of the retirement of Her Majesty's Minister from Washington; but I was glad to hear from the noble Lord that, so far as the Government of the United States was concerned, this could not be looked upon as a complete rupture of diplomatic relations. I could not help feeling, however, that, although the Government of the United States has drawn a distinction between the conduct of Mr. Crampton and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, I trust the House of Commons will not follow in that respect the example of the States. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord himself does not by his authority sanction this distinction. I am, perfectly willing to accept as expressed the statement of Mr. Marcy that, so far as Her
1510
Majesty's Government is concerned, the Government of the United States is completely satisfied with the explanation respecting the assumed conduct of Mr. Crampton, and that of Her Majesty's consuls, with regard to the recruiting in the States; but I am quite sure that the House will not for a moment adopt the distinction which the United States Government has made upon that subject. I trust, Sir, that the House of Commons will hold Her Majesty's Government responsible, if responsibility has been incurred, and that it will not in a moment of extreme difficulty, if not of peril, announce to this country, to Europe, and to America, that the House of Commons is prepared to affix to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington—an individual who, at all events, attempted to do his duty to his Sovereign and to his country, and who has apparently acted upon the instructions of his superiors—a responsibility which should attach to the Government whose agent he was. I trust, Sir, that the House of Commons will not, on such an occasion, declare that Her Majesty's Minister to America is to be accepted as the scape-goat of ministerial sins. I have expressed myself ill if, in what I have said, I have seemed to offer any opinion upon the conduct of the Government. This is not the occasion on which I would express such an opinion; but I wish to guard myself against being supposed to accept without demur the distinction which the United States Government has made between the conduct of Mr. Crampton and that of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. Sir, I must distinguish between the two questions with the United States which have so much interested this country. Following the example of the noble Viscount, I am not about to enter into a discussion upon either of these subjects; but I must, to prevent being misunderstood, be allowed to make one or two observations. Whatever may be its ultimate decision upon these questions, I wish the House of Commons would take an opportunity of inquiring calmly what is the cause of these painful and frequently recurring misunderstandings between this country and the United States; because, Sir, I fully agree with both noble Lords who have addressed us, that between that country and ourselves there ought to be constant sympathy and cordial alliance. Sir, it is impossible to suppose that the actual recruiting, or the mode in which it was conducted—especially after

1511
the apologies which have been offered by our Government—can really be the cause of the misunderstanding of which it is said to have been the occasion. I want to know why the United States Government, even admitting their case to be a good one, is so prompt, if not eager, to insist upon immediate reparation? It will be well if we take this opportunity—I do not mean this evening, but before these great questions are settled—of arriving at some definite result upon this point. I think, Sir, it would be wise, if England would at last recognise that the United States, like all the great countries of Europe, have a policy, and that they have a right to have a policy. I observe in the papers which have been laid upon the table of the House, that the American Minister who was here, commenced his communications with Her Majesty's Government by saying, that he thought it right to announce that the President had adopted the Monroe doctrine as the foundation of his system of government. Now, Sir, the Monroe doctrine is one which, with great respect to the Government of the United States, is not, in my opinion, suited to the age in which we live. The increase in the means of communication between Europe and America have made one great family of the countries of the world; and that system of government which, instead of enlarging would restrict the relations between those two quarters of the globe, is a system which is not adapted to this age. In making that observation, however, I would say that it would be wise in England not to regard with the extreme jealousy with which she has hitherto looked upon it any extension of the territory of the United States beyond the bounds which were originally fixed. I hold that that is not a sound policy which is founded on the idea that we should regard with extreme jealousy the so-called "aggressive spirit" of the United States. I am of opinion that the treaty concluded by Lord Ashburton was one of the wisest diplomatic acts that has been accomplished in modern times, at least in this country; that it was the indication of a sound and liberal policy, and that those who opposed it are the supporters of a policy which is regarded by the Government of the United States as one hostile to the legitimate development of their power. Moreover, I am persuaded that it is the belief on the part of the United States that the British Government is animated by such senti-
1512
ments in their regard which has excited the feeling that has seized upon the enlistment question as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction and distrust. It is through no desire to introduce controversial questions on the present occasion that I venture to offer these remarks, but simply because I wish to impress upon the House my conviction, at least, that such is the feeling which prevails in America; and that, if it is always to be impressed upon England that she is to regard every expansion of the United States as an act detrimental to her interests and hostile to her power, we shall be pursuing a course which, while it will not prevent that expansion on the part of the States, will involve this country in struggles that may prove of a disastrous character. I remember what extreme jealousy existed a few years ago in this House, in consequence of the conquest of California by the United States. I remember that that was an event which was looked forward to with the gravest alarm, and one from which the most calamitous results were anticipated. Have any of those gloomy forebodings been realised? I would ask the House whether the balance of power has been injured by the conquest of California by the United States, and whether there is any event since the discovery of America which has contributed more to the wealth, and through the wealth, to the power of this country, than the development of the rich resources of California by means of the United States? These things are worthy of consideration; for, believe me, sooner or later we shall have to adopt clear and definite opinions on this subject; and, indeed, I cannot hesitate to express my belief that if sounder views with respect to it had prevailed in this country, Her Majesty's Government might not have felt themselves obliged to take a course with regard to the enlistment question which, whatever may be its immediate consequences, certainly has not terminated in a manner flattering to the honour of this nation, or grateful to the feelings of any class of Her Majesty's subjects. These are the two points to which the noble Lord to whom we are indebted for this discussion has particularly referred. For my own part, I look on all that has happened with regard to the enlistment question as indicative of a feeling of distrust in the United States, and which has its origin in the conviction that the policy of this country is hostile to the

1513
legitimate development of their power. Sir, it is my opinion that all that the United States have fairly a right to expect they may obtain, without injury either to Europe in general or to England in particular, and that it is the business of a statesman to recognize the necessity of an increase in their power, and at the same time to make them understand that they will most surely accomplish all the objects they propose to herself by recognizing those principles of international law which in civilised communities have always been upheld, and to impress upon them that, instead of vaunting that they will build their greatness on the Monroe doctrine, which is the doctrine of isolation, they should seek to attain it by deferring to the public law of Europe, and by allowing their destiny to be regulated by the same high principles of policy which all the European communities that have a political system have invariably recognised.

COMMISSIONS OF DECEASED OFFICERS.
MR. GROGANsaid, he would now beg to propose the Motion of which he had given notice—
"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct alterations to be made in the rules of the Military Service, and in the Warrant of March, 1856, to the effect that the regulation value of the Commissions of Officers in the Army, who shall have died of cholera or fever, in active service during the late War, may be paid to their representatives, and deemed part of their personal estate, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same."
He would not go over the grounds of justice and of right which, he maintained, the widows and families of officers who had fallen in the service of their country during the late war had upon the generous consideration and liberality of that House; but he held that the warrant issued from the War Office in March last operated most grievously and unjustly against them, and contrary to the desires of the House, as indicated when the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam) brought forward his Motion on the subject. On that occasion the noble Lord at the head of the Government promised that steps should be taken for enabling officers to make such a disposition during their lifetime, that their families might either receive the amount of the value of their commissions in actual money, or by way of pension or gratuity. But the
1514
warrant of March confined the beneficial intentions of Her Majesty to two classes of officers only—namely, those who had fallen in the field of battle, and those who had died of wounds received in battle; and altogether excluded a third class, whose claims were certainly not less deserving the attention of the House—he meant those who bad fallen victims to disease or pestilence, fever or cholera, contracted in the service of the country, and who might have left their wives and families in the same position as officers who had fallen at the head of their regiments on the field of battle. Upon what grounds of justice such a distinction as this was made he was utterly at a loss to imagine. He held in his hand a copy of the Gazette which contained the despatch of the late Lord Raglan, giving an account of the battle of the Alma. In that despatch the noble Lord described the gallant behaviour of Colonel Tylden and Major Wellesley on the occasion, and added the expression of his deep regret that both officers had subsequently fallen victims to cholera. Now, under the terms of the warrant of March last, the families of those two brave men were precluded from claiming that remuneration for the large sums of money they had invested in the purchase of their commissions, which if it had been the will of Providence that they should have been struck down on the field of the Alma, they would have been entitled to receive. But these he could inform hon. Members were not the only cases of the sort. Quite the contrary. He (Mr. Grogan) had himself had the honour of knowing a gallant officer, now no more, who also distinguished himself at the battle of the Alma. He had the fortune to escape the bullet and the bayonet on that occasion; but it was, nevertheless, his lot to fall a victim to cholera afterwards—he alluded to Lieutenant Colonel Hoey, of the 30th Regiment. That gallant officer was only thirty-nine years of age at the time of his death. He joined his regiment in time to march with it to Varna. He had purchased all his commissions with the exception of his lieutenancy; consequently, according to the regulation price of the army, he had invested at least £4,000 in commissions. He went to Varna in full possession of his health and vigour; but there be became sick with fever; still, with the spirit of a true soldier, he refused the advice of his medical attendant to seek the ease and comfort which the then state of his health

1515
would have warranted him in seeking; and, when the order came for the army to move, he passed over with his gallant corps to the Crimea. Again, on the landing of the troops at Eupatoria, he refused to delegate the command of his regiment to another, and was present at the battle of the Alma, where, as Major-General Pennefather stated in a letter which he had written to him (Mr. Grogan), Colonel Hoey led on his corps against the Russians, and organised his line under fire after passing the river in the most gallant manner. That brave officer served in the division of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir D. L. Evans), who, he doubted not, would also bear testimony to his exemplary conduct. Well, he survived that conflict, only to fall a victim to the cholera, brought on by exposure to the weather, and the severity of that dreadful flank march on Balaklava, nine days after. Yet his family, too, were excluded from the operation of the warrant of March; and he (Mr. Grogan) again asked, upon what grounds of justice or honour a distinction could be drawn between the cases of officers who had gallantly sacrificed their lives in the field of Alma or Inkerman, and those who, like Colonel Hoey, had behaved with equal gallantry at both, but subsequently fell victims to a disease against which it was impossible to guard. For his part, he saw no difference whatever between them. The officers he had mentioned had all of them spent considerable sums in the purchase of commissions, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) had, in a former discussion, admitted that the Government derived a benefit from the sale of commissions, and he had also stated that the Government had taken advantage of the vacancies thus occasioned to confer commissions, without purchase, on such persons as non-commisioned officers, sons of distinguished officers, and young men who had passed creditable examinations at the military colleges. Now, all that was very good in itself; but it ought not to be done at the expense of the families of individual officers. He complained, moreover, that the warrant of March 1856 had not fulfilled either the terms of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam), or the promise which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had given in accordance with the obvious wish of the House on that occasion. The debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne
1516
was a very interesting one; and after that hon. Gentleman had consented to leave the question in the hands of the Government, the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown rose and, explaining some observations he had made previously, said that what he meant to have said was, that he thought it would be right for a regulation to be made by which, as was correctly stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, it should be optional with the officer to determine in his lifetime whether, in the event of his falling in action, the family should receive the allowance or pension now given by the regulation, or in lieu of that receive the value of his commission. A more distinct promise than that they could not have, and he now would beg to ask the hon. the Under Secretary for War if any warrant had been issued to that effect, and if so, when? Would the hon. Gentleman say that the warrant of March fulfilled that engagement? If he did, he (Mr. Grogan) begged to differ from him, and to tell him that so far from that, he considered that it had completely evaded and frustrated the expectations not only of that House but likewise those of the army. He observed with some surprise that the words "distressed circumstances" were used in the warrant; and that, he felt assured, was as contrary to the wishes of the House as it was to the engagement which the noble Lord had expressly entered into. An officer falling in battle left, say two, three, or four sisters, who applied to the authorities for repayment of the purchase money which their brother had invested in his commission; but in order to obtain that they must state that they were mainly dependent upon their brother for subsistence. Suppose the officer to be an ensign in the army. His pay was 5s, 3d. a day, and if those ladies applied for the repayment of the £450 he had paid for the purchase, they were required to state that they had been mainly dependent upon him for maintenance and support. Now hon. Gentlemen must be well aware that it was perfectly notorious that the pay of an ensign was not even enough to enable him to keep up his position in the army, much less afford assistance to the members of his family. Why, such a requirement as that was nothing short of an absolute denial of justice. But the noble Lord declared that an officer should have power to direct in his lifetime whether, in the event of his falling in action, his family

1517
should receive the allowance or pension now given by regulation, or, in lieu of it, receive the value of his commission; but by the warrant of March the wishes of the House and the country, and the expectations of the army, as he had already observed, were completely frustrated, whilst the cases in which the purchase-money was to be returned were only those in which the widows and families of officers dying on the field of battle were in distressed circumstances. It should also be borne in mind that the hon. Under Secretary for War himself, when speaking on this subject on a former occasion, stated that the large sums which officers were compelled to pay for their commissions were, as it were, a sort of "caution money." Caution for what? For the faithful, honourable, and gallant discharge of the duty which their Sovereign and their country had imposed upon them. Now surely when they had performed their share of the engagement by laying down their lives, it was only right that the country should return the "caution money" to their families, and that even upon the interpretation of the hon. Gentleman himself. He did not like to use the word "misconduct" in connection with officers of the British army; still it was well known that there had been cases in which, from some circumstances or other, it was considered desirable to dismiss officers from the service; but even in those cases the parties had been allowed to sell out, and receive the regulation value, if not a great deal more, of the commissions they had previously purchased with their own money. The officers in behalf of whose relatives he (Mr. Grogan) now raised his voice, however, had not committed acts which warranted their dismissal from the army; on the contrary, to the last hour of their existence they had discharged their duty to their Queen and country to the best of their ability; yet they were denied the right which was conceded to those who were considered no longer worthy to continue in the service. The injustice had not escaped the notice of the late Duke of Wellington, who, writing to the late Lord Hill, said, in substance, that it was idle for officers in the British army to expect promotion without money, and the interest of money so invested was infinitely less than any annuity office would give them. He (Mr. Grogan) complained of the warrant also, because it was not interpreted retrospectively. It was true that officers
1518
already dead could not elect between the increased allowances and the return of the value of the commissions; but their widows and families were able, and ought to be permitted, to make that choice. Now, how had the restriction imposed by the warrant of March operated? Let him refer once more to the case of the late Colonel Hoey. There the widow, for the benefit of her children, proposed to forego the increased pension offered to her for her husband's gallant conduct, on condition of receiving the purchase-money paid for his commissions, and was refused. That was the way the warrant was carried out in that instance. He (Mr. Grogan) believed that the number of officers killed in the service of their country in the last war was 179, with about 100 additional officers who lost their lives in the service of their country. Out of that number, however, the cases of only sixteen were deemed worthy of receiving the bounty of Her Majesty under the provisions of the warrant in question; while of the Guards, whose gallantry all persons knew, there was only one officer included in the warrant in the whole brigade, the late Lieutenant-Colonel Brooke, although twenty-six lost their lives during the contest. The object of the Motion was, on the principle of justice, to extend the principle of the warrant to the cases of all officers who lost their lives in the service of their country. It should be borne in mind that numbers of officers who had distinguished themselves in the late campaigns, were at the present time suffering under latent disease contracted in consequence of the cantonments selected for the army. No just ground could be shown why the widows and orphans of officers who had perished from fever or from cholera should be exempted from the operation of the warrant; and he therefore hoped to hear from the Government that the narrow interpretation which had been put on it would be extended to such cases.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Motion of the hon. Member was informal, and could not be put in the shape in which it stood.
MR. GROGANsaid, under those circumstances, he must withdraw his Motion, but in doing so he must express a hope that his object would not be lost through a mere technical irregularity.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he entirely concurred in the views of the hon. Gentleman on the whole question which had been brought forward by him, and would even be in favour of extending the

1519
consideration of Government much wider than the hon. Gentleman had proposed. He could not understand why the State should not refund the money expended by officers on entering the service merely because they had not died in action. That was one of the anomalies of the system of purchase, and nothing but long usage could have induced the Government, while continuing such a practice, to deprive the relatives of gallant officers, at the time they were deprived of those they depended on, of the money they had embarked in the service. The warrant of March last had created great disappointment in the army; and, indeed, it had been surrounded by so many restrictions and exceptions as to have scarcely operated at all in favour of the army, except in a very few cases. He therefore trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would see that this was a question of feeling and of equity, and that he would return an answer on the present occasion which would be satisfactory both to the House and the army. Those persons who died of disease died in the camp, and were just as well entitled to the consideration of Government as those who had died on the field. The whole case was one that deserved the attention of the Government, and not merely of the War Department, and the more especially at present as the system of purchase was in a state of semi-condemnation.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he, like many other Members of the House, had been spoken to by the relatives of several of the officers who had fallen by disease, and who had been reduced to great distress by their death. It was highly necessary, therefore, to see whether anything could be done to relieve the sufferings of these individuals by the addition of some words which would clear up a warrant that had received a very different interpretation in the army from that put upon it by the Government. He thought that between the cases of those who had fallen in front of the enemy, and of those who had fallen by fatigue or disease, almost in the field, and often in the very camp itself, there was but little difference, and the smallness of the distinction might well excite a doubt of its propriety. There was another subject he was desirous of mentioning to the House in connection with the army, and that referred to the pensions which were granted for distinguished services. These were not conferred for life, it would seem,
1520
but if the officer who had got such a pension afterwards realised his commission, the pension was immediately withdrawn. As an instance he would mention the case of Colonel Simmons, of the Ceylon Rifles, who had distinguished himself so much that he got a pension of this description; but as that officer sold out and retired, the pension, to his great annoyance, was withdrawn from him at the same time. He thought that a very hard thing, that an officer could not retire from the service but he must be deprived of the reward of his own previous distinguished services.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to bring under the consideration of the House the injustice inflicted upon old and distinguished officers by the retrospective action and practical working of the army warrant of the 6th of October, 1854, laying down the rules regulating the future promotion of the army. He thought the case of officers' families alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member who had preceded him was one of very great hardship, especially their having to sign the certificate necessary for obtaining the advantages of the warrant of last March. In the case he would suppose of a sister of a subaltern officer applying, before she could derive any advantage from the application she would be obliged to swear, in the terms of the certificate, that she was unmarried, in distressed circumstances, and mainly dependent upon her deceased brother for support. Now how any Government could call upon a lady to swear that she was mainly dependent for support upon a brother whose pay amounted only to 5s. 3d. a day was inconceivable. It was, moreover, a positive insult to the lady to ask her to do so. The same was the case in respect to other relationships, and, therefore, he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would act upon the promise he had made in the matter. With regard to the warrant of the 6th of October, 1854, previous to the issuing of that warrant, officers who had attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the army could not be passed over except by an officer who had been aide-de-camp to the Queen. The number of general officers, moreover, was unlimited. By the warrant in question, however, they were limited to 234, and its working was such that the number of general officers at present exceeded that number by about fifty-four, and no general officers could be appointed until three of the senior officers of this number had died.

1521
It was no doubt intended that the higher commands in the army should be held by younger men—a view in which he fully concurred; but in carrying that object into execution, every possible care should be taken that the interests of those who had a right to promotion should not suffer. In the present instance, however, many distinguished officers had been passed over by men who had entered the army long after they had attained some military rank; because, to be a full colonel, the warrant made it imperative that an officer should have served in command of a regiment for three years, or, rather more strictly speaking, for two years and nine months; a month in each year being allowed for leave of absence. But the consequence of that regulation had been, that those who had obtained the rank of lieutenant-colonel previous to the 20th of June, 1854, had been passed over by a great number of officers who were juniors to them in the service and in promotion. For instance, Colonel Dargan, who held a majority in 1846, in the war of the Punjaub, and for distinguished services, was afterwards promoted to be lieutenant-colonel, had been passed over by his juniors in the rank of colonel. Again, Colonel Smith had had fifty-four officers passed over his head, although he had been ten years a field officer, a major of brigade in Affghanistan, and been promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in 1842, fighting afterwards at Mooltan and Guzerat. Colonel Inglis had also distinguished himself in the Punjab, at Mooltan, and at Guzerat, and had been promoted to be lieutenant-colonel in 1845. Among others were Colonel Lord West—one of the most rising officers of his time; and Colonel Hay, who had thirty-nine officers placed over his head, though he served as military secretary to Lord Gough; and of several whose names he would not take up the time of the House by reciting. Those officers that he had alluded to felt that younger officers were continually passing over their heads, though the Commission had recommended that the system of promotion which existed anterior to October 6, 1854, should not be immediately, but gradually, discontinued, and that there should be a certain fixed establishment of general officers. The promotion of those officers, situated as he (Colonel North) had stated, would cost nothing to the country, while it would give the greatest satisfaction in the army. It would, moreover, afford the Government
1522
an opportunity of performing a graceful act towards those gallant old soldiers to whom the country was so deeply indebted, if they even promoted such of them as have stood on the list previous to the 20th of June, 1854, to the rank of full colonels in the army. The next subject to which he desired the attention of the Government to be directed was the gazetting of officers for distinguished services. It was painful, no doubt, but it was sometimes necessary, to pass over officers, but it was just as necessary to reward brilliant services. The Commissioners recommended that brilliant services in the field only should be noticed in that form; and the army hoped that that rule would have been strictly adhered to. The next subject was the recommendation that staff appointments should be held only for five years. To subaltern officers that, perhaps, was no great disadvantage, as they had their regiments to fall back upon; but to officers holding higher commands, for instance, to colonels of regiments, it was the contrary. Staff appointments could not be held by such officers contemporaneously with these commands; and if a colonel or lieutenant-colonel was named to a staff appointment, he was obliged to give up his regiment. At the end of five years, however, by this recommendation he would be obliged to give up his staff appointment, and then he would be without either staff appointment or regimental command. No man with the least vestige of common sense could be expected to accept a staff appointment under those circumstances; and the effect of the recommendation, therefore, would be to affect injuriously the interests of officers entitled to staff appointments, and to affect also injuriously the interests of the country by limiting the field of selection and curtailing the number of superior officers eligible for such appointments. The next question he should call attention to was connected with the full pay retirement of calvalry officers. The 68th paragraph of the warrant proposed to give such officers a step in rank, with only the pay of the rank from which they passed, and a right to retire. As long, however, as the system of purchase existed, and the present rate for commissions was sanctioned by the Government, it was unjust to pay the infantry officer the same retirement as the cavalry officer, unless the difference in the cost of the two commissions was given to the latter—namely, £1,675. He therefore argued, that the cavalry officer—colonel, for instance—should have

1523
£1 3s. a day instead of 17 s., as was proposed; and he was fortified in this view by having been informed that it was the intention of the Commission to have re-commended the full pay of the rank of the cavalry officer on his retirement. Unless that was done the boon granted to cavalry officers by Her Majesty would be rendered nugatory, as officers were not allowed to retire until they had served twenty-one years, unless they were wounded or disabled in the service. He wished to make one more remark before he resumed his seat; it was as regarded substantive rank in the army. It was his opinion that in the cases in question brevet rank ought to be converted into positive rank. The warrant had been justly objected to as not regarding officers anterior to 1854; and an officer who had applied to the War Office had been informed that the warrant was not retrospective. In such case it was not quite fair to blow hot and cold with the same breath, and he thought that provision should be amended. In conclusion, he would wish to call attention to the certificate required from the military medical officers as regarded sick officers desirous to retire on account of ill-health. It was a certificate that no medical officer should be called upon to give, and that no sick officer should be subjected to, as a single glance at its terms would show. [The hon. and gallant Member then read the certificate.] He therefore hoped that the Government would lose no time in relaxing the rule as regarded promotion to the rank of general officers in the case of those gallant officers whose interests were so deeply and so injuriously affected by the warrant of the 6th of October, 1854, more especially as it would cost the country nothing, while it would gratify the feelings of those brave and distinguished men now considerably excited at seeing so many younger officers put over them.
LORD NAASsaid, he had learned that at the conclusion of the war in 1815 very great hardship was inflicted on officers by the course then pursued, and he hoped the Government would be able to give an assurance that the same course would not be followed now. He, therefore, wished to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to those gallant officers who had been in command of brigades in the Crimea during the late war? Many of them had been in command of brigades for a considerable time, some indeed throughout the whole period
1524
of the war, and others had had separate command, which they conducted with great credit to themselves and benefit to the country. He conceived, then, that the country would think that those officers, if they were to be sent back to their regiments without receiving that promotion which was their due, would be treated with great neglect by the Government. The hardship, too, with regard to the second lieutenant colonels, who, it was said, were to be put on half-pay, was equally great. They would actually be in a better position if they had never gone to the Crimea at all. He also wished to know what course was to be taken with regard to the officers of the Land Transport Corps, and whether any man who has served as an officer of that regiment is to be sent back to serve as a non-commissioned officer in regiments of the line. The officers of the Land Transport Corps had been taken from the non-commissioned officers of the line; and it would be an injustice now to send them back to that rank. It would be an injustice to these gallant men if they were placed in any disadvantage in consequence of their services during the war.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the question of the compensation warrant had argued it as though the Government received the money paid by officers on obtaining their different steps of promotion, while, in reality, it was paid by one officer to another and never reached the hands of the Government at all. Certainly, when an officer died holding a commission, the Government took advantage of commissions thus becoming vacant to bestow them upon the sons of old and deserving officers; but that arrangement he had always understood was held to be the most advantageous to the general body of the officers of the army. No doubt many cases of hardship arose under the application of the warrant of last March that had been so often alluded to in the course of the discussion, but neither of the two cases cited by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grogan) could be said to come within this category, so far as to constitute an accusation against the Government. The noble Lord the Secretary for War, when explaining the concession which he was about to make, distinctly stated that it was only to apply to the families of officers killed in action, and that was not the case with Colonel Hoey. With regard to Brigadier Tylden's case, the hon. Gentleman seemed

1525
to have forgotten that he was an officer in a scientific corps, and that, net having paid for his commission or for his promotion, his family were not entitled to receive any compensation which was a return of the money laid out by a deceased officer in purchasing his various steps. The hon. Member stated that, though between 200 and 300 officers had lost their lives in the course of the late war, the families of sixteen only had received compensation; but he overlooked the fact that the families of many officers had made their claims under the pension warrant. In fact, no less than seventy widows of officers had received pensions, and forty-one of these were at the highest rate. There seemed to be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member also as to the language held by the noble Lord at the head of the Government on this subject. What the noble Lord said was, that he was willing to concede that officers should be allowed to decide whether their families should have returned to them what had been expended in the purchase of their promotion, or should have the benefit of a pension; but it was never intended to allow compensation in any cases but those in which, according to the ordinary rules, a pension would be granted. Though the hon. Gentleman professed to be able to see no distinction between the case of officers who were killed in action and of officers who died of fever or cholera contracted in the field, yet such a distinction was recognised and acted upon by the rules of the service. A higher rate of pension was given to the widow of an officer who had been killed in action than to the widow of the officer who had died from disease, and certainly, if an equal compensation were to be granted in the two cases, the rules of the pension warrant must also be altered in the same manner. Where an officer was killed in action there could be no possible doubt that he had met his death in the discharge of his duty, but where an officer died from fever or cholera it was impossible always to say how far that might have been contracted in the discharge of his duty, or how far it might have proceeded from his own indiscretion or from causes which would equally have produced death had he been in another place. But if equal compensation and pensions were to be given in the cases of officers dying from disease before the enemy as would have been given had they been killed in action, there was no reason why the alterations should not
1526
also be extended to embrace the cases of officers dying from disease at home or in the colonies. The object of the warrant of the 6th of October, 1854 was to enable the Government to introduce into the list of generals a moderate number of comparatively young officers, and, at the same time, to select from the colonels young officers for commands usually held by general officers. The machinery by which those objects were carried out was requiring officers to serve a certain number of years upon particular staff appointments, or in the command of regiments before they attained the rank of colonel, and enabling the Government to confer temporary rank. But for that warrant it would have been impossible to make such suitable appointments to the commands of brigades and divisions as were made during the late war. As to the difficulties in the way of the attainment of the rank of colonel by field officers, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel North) had fallen into some errors. A captain or a major not in command of a regiment might obtain that rank either by holding certain staff appointments, or by serving for six years with the brevet rank of lieutenant-colonel. As to the hardships of old colonels, who were passed over by young ones, let the House see in what a difficulty the Government were placed by the contrary representations made to them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained of the injustice done to the old colonels by junior ones, who had held temporary rank, becoming generals; while directly afterwards the noble Lord (Lord Naas) urged upon the Government the hardship which would be done to officers who had commanded brigades, and held the local rank of brigadier-generals, if they were not made major-generals.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had mistaken what he had said. He was aware that the warrant had been beneficial to many colonels, but he maintained that by virtue of it many old colonels had been passed over in promotion by younger officers.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: Although in time of war it was necessary and indispensable that the Government should avail itself of the power of promotion given by the warrant of 1854, and should give to gallant Officers who had commanded brigades or divisions, and had performed distinguished services, the rank which they had earned, in time of peace

1527
their exercise of that power ought to be more abstemious. It was not the intention of the Government, as a general rule, to convert the rank of brigadier-general into that of major-general. The number of the generals' list was limited to 234, and so long as there were supernumeraries on that list, vacancies were filled up in the proportion of one appointment to three vacancies alternately from the supernumerary and colonels' lists. If those brigadiers, to whose case the noble Lord had called attention were made supernumerary-generals, the chances of a colonel's promotion to the rank of general would be much reduced. At the same time, he hoped that those brigadier-generals who had done such good service would suffer from no hardship, because they would have at least a strong claim to fill those appointments usually held by general Officers, which would be required by the new organisation of the army in brigades and divisions. That arrangement would also meet the case of the second lieutenant-colonels; because, if the senior lieutenant-colonel were appointed a brigadier, a second lieutenant-colonel would be required to command the regiment during his absence. As regarded the remainder, it would be necessary that they, as well as the supernumerary captains and subalterns, should go upon half-pay. But that, he apprehended, would lead to nothing like what occurred at the end of the last war, when nearly 7,000 officers retired upon half-pay. The number who would now have to retire would not be more than 800. The Land Transport Corps consisted of two parts, one of which was organised in this country, and the other was added by General Codrington, and was composed of men belonging to regiments in the field, with officers acting temporarily. The officers and men of that latter portion of the corps had, upon the conclusion of the war, rejoined their ranks, and were thus disposed of. Officers appointed in this country and gazetted would not return to the ranks, but would be entitled to be placed upon half-pay under the terms of the warrant of 1854.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, the hon. Under Secretary for War had simply made use of a set of technical arguments in his reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. Grogan) and the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North). He (Mr. Headlam) must also complain that the Government had most unfairly
1528
departed from the solemn promise with regard to the compensation which was made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government (Lord Palmerston). That promise was given in clear and precise words. He (Mr. Headlam) had, after some months' notice, brought forward a Resolution, saying that the family of an officer who died in the service should, as far as pecuniary circumstances were concerned, be in precisely the same condition as if he had sold out; every officer should, during his lifetime, be allowed to determine whether he would take compensation or the regulation price of his commission. That Motion the noble Lord accepted without any condition, and it was unfair afterwards to introduce qualifications. The loss to the country would not be great, because, although it was true that on the death of an officer the nation did not receive hard cash for his commission, yet the knowledge that death vacancies were filled up without purchase acted as an incitement to the performance of distinguished services. The requirement that the relations of an officer should declare that he had contributed to their support rendered the whole of the Government regulation an absolute absurdity. A sum of money might be paid by the friends of a young man to purchase him an ensigncy, and it was well known that on his pay a subaltern could not keep himself, still less contribute to the support of his relations; so that to require in case of his death that his relations should, before receiving the price of his commission, declare that he had contributed to their support, rendered what at first might be considered a benefit utterly nugatory.
COLONEL BROWNLOW KNOXsaid, he thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of Dublin was too important to be got rid of on account of an informality, and he should therefore move as an Amendment that the House do to-morrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider the topics adverted to in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He fully agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the effect of the declaration required from the relatives of deceased officers. He could very well understand why only a small number of persons had applied for compensation, instead of pension, for no lady would probably take advantage of the regulation, hedged round as it was with such vexatious and humiliating restrictions.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from

1529
the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
"This House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct alterations to be made in the rules of the Military Service, and in the Warrant of March, 1856, to the effect that the regulation value of the Commissions of Officers in the Army who shall have died of cholera or fever in active service during the late War may be paid to their representatives, and deemed part of their personal estate, and to assure tier Majesty that this House will make good the same," instead thereof.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, that all the present difficulty arose from the relaxation of the old rules of the service. If, however, the Government did relax those rules, it was but just to include not only those who died in the field, but those who died in consequence of climate or of disease contracted in the discharge of their duties. The recommendation of the Commissioners, as contained in the 52nd clause of their Report, was to the effect that all change should be carefully considered, so as in no case to run the risk of injuring officers already in the service. In consequence of that recommendation, a warrant had been issued to the effect that the new regulations should not apply to officers made lieutenant colonels before the 20th of June, 1854. By the old rules it was understood that lieutenant-colonels should not have other officers put over their heads, unless in consequence of a distinct recommendation from Her Majesty. Now, the House was possibly not aware that the new rules established a totally different order of things, and the sudden intervention of those new orders had been the cause, that lieutenant-colonels who had received their brevet rank in consequence of distinguished services in the field, lost their reward altogether. The warrant intervened—made the benefit they had received utterly useless—and threw them back into the position which they had occupied before it was issued. There was another class of officers also who had reason to complain of those new regulations. It was those, who were unable to purchase, and who had risen from the rank of captain to that of brevet-major and then to the rank of brevet-lieutenant-colonel. Those were men who had seen much service, and the entire advantages which they had received from their promotion were suddenly and entirely thrown away. A new rule was brought forward, which placed those officers precisely in the same position as if they had never been lieutenant-colonels at all.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, that, as a distinct decision of the House was about to be taken on the Motion originally introduced by the hon. Member for the City of Dublin, he felt it incumbent on him to explain the grounds on which he should give his vote, and the more so as that vote would be in direct opposition to the opinions expressed by all the other military Members who had spoken in the course of the debate. The question before the House was, as the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir D. L. Evans) had remarked, altogether a question of feeling, and nothing could be more dangerous than to decide a public question with regard to such considerations. For his own part, he could not see that the present system entailed on officers any such hardships as some hon. and gallant Members had described. He (Lord Hotham) was anxious to say a few words on the subject, as he was unfortunately absent last Session when the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle made his Motion. He regretted not being present on that occasion, for so strongly did he feel the injustice of the Resolution, that he should have voted against it even if he had stood alone. For his own part, he was free to say that he thought there was nothing in the hardship of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained. It should be remembered that no officer was compelled to purchase. His doing so was a voluntary act, and it conferred upon him great advantages—increased rank, increased emolument, and, better than all, increased opportunities of distinction. To say that those officers should enjoy all the advantages of their position, and at the same time escape from its attendant disadvantages, was totally to invert the indisputable but homely proverb, that "You can't eat your cake and have it too." It was asked, "Why should not the State refund the sum paid for the commission?" Now, that question assumed that the State received the money, which was quite a fallacy; the fact being that the purchase money went to the officer who retired, and created a vacancy for the person buying the commission. Without entering into the merits of the system of purchase, which was still undergoing investigation before a Commission, it was manifest there would be no justice, while maintaining that system, in exempting officers who had all the benefits of increased rank, increased distinction, and other advantages, from the

1531
corresponding disadvantages of their position.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he must contend that, as the purchasing system relieved the State from having to pay pensions, there were grounds on which they might properly call on it to "refund."
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he hoped that there would be no division on the Motion, the scope of which he regarded as far too limited. The families of officers who had been banished to distant stations, and, after a life of involuntary inactivity, had fallen victims to an unhealthy climate, had a stronger claim upon the country than the relatives of those who had perished gloriously in the Crimea. One of the many difficulties which beset the question was the danger that, by giving the friends of deceased officers the option of either accepting a pension or taking their compensation in one sum, a temptation would be offered to improvidence. Many would prefer to get hold of a large amount of ready money, and would then probably squander what was meant to be a permanent provision for their families. The position of second majors and second lieutenant-colonels, who had endured all the hardships of the late war and highly distinguished themselves, was calculated to cause deep dissatisfaction in the service. Those officers were to be discharged upon half-pay, which, after all they had undergone, was regarded, not unnaturally, as a great grievance. Far better would it be for these second lieutenant-colonels and second majors to be first majors and first captains respectively. It was idle to say that they had their reward in the medals and clasps which they had so honourably won, because, under the arrangements of the Horse Guards, they would have no opportunity of wearing those decorations. The juster course would be to retain that class of officers in employment.
CAPTAIN BELLEWsaid, he regarded the question before them to be, whether the warrant of which they had heard so much was to continue, and so to annul the promise which the noble Lord at the head of the Government gave on the subject last year. If the noble Lord would give an assurance that the warrant would be altered so as to meet the Motion before them he should vote with the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that
1532
many hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had given an interpretation of what he had stated last year which was totally at variance with what he had said. The Motion before the House was to the effect that the regulation for granting to the families of deceased officers the value of their commissions in lieu of pensions should apply to the ease of officers who died during the war from fever, or cholera, or any other disease. Now, if there were one thing upon which he was more particularly explicit than another last year it was, that the arrangement which was contemplated should apply only to the families of those who were killed in action. He most distinctly, and over and over again, stated that it would not apply to the families of those who died from disease; and he gave this reason for it—that, if it did, it ought to extend not simply to the families of those officers who might so die in the Crimea, but to the families of those who might die at any foreign station, or at home, or in time of peace as well as in time of war. He stated that there was no intelligible distinction to be drawn between all those cases, and that therefore it was the intention of the Government to confine the regulation solely to the families of those officers who should fall in action. For the same reason which induced him last year to draw that distinction, he was bound now to say that he could not agree with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grogan). He thought that there was a clear distinction between the case of officers who fell in battle and that of officers who died from exposure or disease. That distinction had been drawn last year. It was the ground upon which he had taken his stand, and he should be inconsistent if he were to agree to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He was not going to enter into those other questions relative to military promotion which had been discussed in the course of the evening, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War having given his reasons for the arrangements of the Government; he would only observe that a great deal of argument had been founded upon the assertion that the public gained something by the death of officers who fell in action or died from disease. The fact was that the public gained nothing whatever; for, as had been correctly stated by the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Hotham), the value of a commission was not paid to the Government, but to the officer who sold it;

1533
and, so far from the Government gaining anything by the death of an officer, they not only lost the services of a brave and gallant man, but they also had to provide pensions and allowances for the family which he left behind him. It was, therefore, a perfect fallacy to found an argument on the assumption that the purchase money of a commission went either directly or indirectly to the benefit of the Government.
MR. HEADLAMsaid that, as far as the case of officers dying from disease was concerned, the statement made by the noble Lord was perfectly correct.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:-Ayes 81; Noes 39: Majority 42.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
(1.) £10, in addition to former Vote of £7,000,000 for charge of Land Forces.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must express his surprise that no explanation had been given of the Vote on the part of the Government. The sum now proposed was certainly not large, but there were from 1,400 to 1,500 items embraced in the additional Estimates before them, and he considered that some explanation ought to have been given.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would endeavour to make up for the deficiency of the Government by pointing out some of the extravagancies which had led to this addition to the original Estimate; for, though the immediate sum before them was not large, the whole amount to be voted was considerable. He had, first of all, to compliment the hon. Member for Lambeth as the only Member of the Administrative Reform Association who was active on the side of economy in that House. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: I am not a member of the association.] That association had been lately polished up, and had now got an eloquent and energetic chairman. He therefore hoped a change would take place for the better, but hitherto the members had usually walked out of the House when the money of the country came to be voted away. The first piece of extravagance he had to complain of was that of having employed foreign instead of English troops. The enlistment of foreigners in America
1534
had nearly brought us into a war, and had certainly put us in a very disgraceful predicament, and all that had taken place was for the sake of enlisting 500 soldiers, which be believed was the greatest number we had succeeded in obtaining in the United States. He had some time since moved for the Conventions which had been entered into between the Governments of other countries and that of our own, relative to the enlistment of the Foreign Legion, and he had been enabled to procure those Conventions which related to Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. The number of men which had been enlisted in accordance with them he found to have been 15,000, but under which of those conventions the men who had been enlisted in America had been ranged he was at a loss to understand; nor had he been enabled to ascertain from the Government that any separate Convention with respect to that country was in existence. Passing over that point, however, he might be allowed to draw the attention of the Committee to the advantages which were possessed by the Foreign Legion as compared with those which our own soldiers were permitted to enjoy. For that purpose he should take the militia, which during the late war had supplied us with an army of about 30,000 men, and would simply state that while the foreign soldier had entered our service under the stipulation that he was to be considered as enlisted for one year after the ratification of peace with Russia—thereby being entitled to a year's pay, amounting in round numbers to about £20—that while at the end of the year he was to receive £20 more in the shape of a gratuity, making altogether £40; and that while it had cost the country £16 in addition for each of these soldiers in the shape of bounty, clothing, &c., before he reached the depôt, the expense connected with the employment of those who served in our militia regiments, taken in a similar point of view, had not amounted to more than £12, or, at the utmost, £15 per man. But that was not all. The Government had promised to send those foreign troops back to their own country, or to pay their passage to some of our North American colonies upon their being disbanded. That would, of course, be a cause of increased expenditure, and he would therefore ask the Committee whether the policy of the Government, in neglecting the services of their own countrymen, which services they might have obtained at a very much lower

1535
rate than that which they paid to foreigners, was not open to serious objection upon the score of extravagance, as well as for other reasons to which he need not then more particularly allude? He did not wish to say one word against the Foreign Legion. He had no doubt they would have made good soldiers, but from what had since occurred he was of opinion that those who opposed the enlistment of foreign soldiers had good grounds for doing so. It might be said that soldiers in sufficient numbers could not be procured in this country. That, however, was a proposition which he entirely denied, inasmuch as he felt confident that if terms equally favourable had been given to Englishmen as had been held out to foreigners, we might have had any number of men we wanted flocking to our standard. The services of such men, he might add, would not only be found more inexpensive than than those of foreigners, but if the statement which upon a former occasion had been made in that House to the effect that the Turkish Contingent—a foreign force under British officers—was not fit to march with Omar Pasha to the relief of Kars, were correct, would also be found to be more efficient. Before he sat down, he should urge upon the Government the expediency of keeping up such a nucleus in each militia regiment as would enable us in entering upon a future war to place our military force upon a satisfactory footing at once, and thus to avoid all those inconveniences and disasters to which our want of adequate preparation had in the late contest given rise. We should maintain an efficient militia staff. The scheme of retaining a whole parcel of sergeants and a few pupils was a mere delusion. It could be of no use whatever to have a number of men lounging about every county town without drill, and exposed to the total eradication of all those habits of military dicipline which they might have acquired. He saw by the Estimates that the Vote for recruiting expenses amounted to between £50,000 and £60,000. Why not, he would ask, employ the militia staff in recruiting? There was now on their way home from the Crimea a number of officers who were to be placed upon half-pay. Why not make use of their services in carrying out that object? Those were matters which deserved the serious consideration of the War Department, and he could assure them that unless some such policy as he had indicated were adopted, no real eco-
1536
nomy in our military administration could be attained.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he found himself compelled to complain of the way in which the Estimates had been brought before the Committee. At the commencement of the year, Army Estimates to the amount of £34,000,000 were voted. Now the reduced Estimate was to the amount of £20,000,000. That was a reduction of £14,000,000, and he thought it was only due to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance should in some general statement have explained the data upon which the reduction was founded. The almost unprecedented Estimate of February to the amount of £34,000,000 consisted of about twenty items, which were again before the Committee, and, without being critical, he might recall to their recollection that the statement which the Clerk of the Ordnance made at the beginning of the year was not of that lucid character that would render all further explanation entirely unnecessary. It was not acting rightly to a Committee of Supply that, when there was a reduction of £14,000,000 on an Estimate, the responsible Minister should not lay before them the data upon which he formed his original Estimate, explain why the reduction had taken place, and submit the arguments which had induced the Government to conclude that the reduced Estimate was sufficient in the altered state of the country. It was not acting in a proper manner that, when so great a change had taken place, the responsible Minister should content himself with putting a piece of paper into the hands of the Chairman of Committees, instead of offering such an explanation as Parliament and the country had a right to expect. Now, he would point out to the Committee what happened under analogous circumstances with another department a few days ago. At the commencement of the year, a large Estimate was voted freely by the House for the Navy; but on Friday last, in consequence of the fortunate change which had taken place in the position of the country, it was the pleasing duty of the responsible Minister connected with the Admiralty to propose a reduced Vote. Now, did the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty content himself with formally proposing the Vote? No; he condescended to offer an explanation—a clear and manful explanation—becoming a person to whom were entrusted such high

1537
administrative duties; and the Committee would not be doing their duty to their constituents or the country if they did not call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, before proceeding further, to make a similar statement with respect to the Army Estimates. Then they should have an answer to the able suggestions and inquiries urged by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, and there were many more subjects upon which the Committee had a right to expect information. The Clerk of the Ordnance should recall to the recollection of the Committee the circumstances under which he proposed his first Estimate; he should explain the reasons which justified such a great and happy reduction; and, in going through the twenty items which composed the Vote, he should refer at length not only to all those points to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) had adverted, but also to those which would infallibly suggest themselves to a Minister who was master of his business.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, nothing could have been further from the intention of the Government than to treat the Committee with any disrespect, but it was thought the most satisfactory course would be to afford a full explanation of the Votes as they were successively brought under consideration, instead of prefacing the introduction of the Estimates by a general statement. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was not the least desire on the part of the Government to withhold from the Committee a full explanation of all the details of the Votes.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he fully agreed with the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) that, considering the important changes which had been made in the Votes, the explanations afforded had been most unsatisfactory. He thought a statement of the reductions ought to have been placed before the House in print; but when he put a question on the subject a short time ago, he was told very curtly that reductions amounting to so much per cent had been effected. The amount of reductions was, he believed, £14,000,000, but no explanation as to their nature—not even a verbal one—had been afforded to the House. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) now told them that the Government was prepared to give an explanation
1538
upon each Vote. He thought, however, that that was not sufficient, but that a printed explanation ought to have been sent round to Members before they were called upon to vote the amended Estimates. In his opinion, the House of Commons had been treated in this matter with disrespect. His hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Dunne) had referred to the disbandment of the militia and of the Foreign Legion. He (Sir De L. Evans) did not wish to say anything to the discredit of the Foreign Legion, for the Government had been good enough to select for the command of that force very able officers whom he had introduced to military life. Baron Stutterheim had served with him as a cavalry officer in Spain, and he believed that under the superintendence of that gentleman and of other officers the Foreign Legion had been extremely well disciplined. That was no reason, however, for preferring German troops to English troops. He would ask the Committee to observe the contrast between the manner in which the militia and even English troops of the line were treated by the Government as compared with their treatment of the German Legion. He was not a militia officer, but he believed there had been no period in the history of this country, when the services of the militia were more valuable than they had been during the late war. The Government embarked in the war with most extraordinary and unprecedented want of calculation, and a catastrophe was only averted by the spirit and patriotism of the English noblemen, gentry, and people, who came forward to establish a militia, and who reinforced the army with nearly 40,000 men. About 33,000 of the militia—not mere striplings, but generally grown men—volunteered into the army, and between 5,000 and 6,000 militia undertook to relieve regular troops in garrison in the Mediterranean. He believed also that from 15,000 to 20,000 of the militia volunteered their services if they should be required, and many of them were ready to go to the Crimea. Yet that valuable body of men was treated by the Government in the most contemptuous manner. The Lancashire Artillery Militia, commanded by a friend of his, who formerly commanded the 79th regiment, volunteered to serve in the Crimea. In the course of the last month they received an order for their disbandment in ten days; and after some remonstrances the period was extended, he believed, for four days only.

1539
He understood, also, that the men of the militia regiments which had been stationed in the Mediterranean were not to receive fourteen days' pay, but the balance of the bounty, and were then to be sent back to their homes. He (Sir De L. Evans) was, no doubt, regarded by some persons as a very profane Radical, but he could not refrain from expressing his gratitude to the aristocracy of this country—to such men as the Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Buccleuch, and others of high station—who had come forward and devoted their time, attention, and abilities to the training of the militia. Those gentlemen had, however, notwithstanding their services, been disregarded by the War Department. There were some paltry arrangements with regard to clothing; he believed the militiamen were to be allowed to retain their fatigue jackets, but in many cases they had previously paid for them. But, on the other hand, the Foreign Legion were treated with wonderful indulgence and kindness. It was only the other day that about 300 Germans of the Foreign Legion, who had been enlisted from the United States, mutinied at Plymouth, and he believed it was necessary to send some British troops to put them down. What was the result? Were the mutineers punished? He hoped so. If they had been militia, they certainly would have been punished. But in this case, according to the newspapers, an officer was sent down from the War Department, and he told them, "You shall have a year's pay"—not fourteen days' pay, which was the sum allotted to the militia—"and you shall also have a free passage to any colony you may select, provided you conduct yourselves well." In the case of the militia, however, they were sent back suddenly to their homes, with but little regard as to their opportunities of obtaining employment, and he should not be surprised if the same course were adopted with reference to some of the regiments of the line which were returning from the Crimea. The poor unfortunate militia were sent to their homes in England or in Ireland, with the niggardly donation of a few shillings, while the German Legion were brought up from Sandgate and installed in the place of the militia at Alder-shot. He found, too, from the newspapers, that comforts and accommodation were afforded to the German Legion which had not been provided, in any one instance, for our own militia. Now, how was that?
1540
Was such a system to continue? He had heard that some of the German Legion were to be sent to the Cape, but he should protest against the disbandment of national troops, if Germans were to be stationed at the Cape. About a century back, there were great complaints as to the maintainance of Hanoverian troops in this country, but all other Germans seemed to enjoy a similar preference now. He might remind the Committee that the Italian Legion committed serious outrages at Malta; they were to receive, however, a year's pay, and some of them were to be sent to the colonies, while the officers were to receive three months' pay. He thought the War Department had acted with the greatest inconsistency with reference to these subjects. [Mr. F. PEEL: There has not been the slightest inconsistency.] Well, he only spoke from public report. It was announced, in the first instance, that the subalterns of the militia were to have three months' pay, and afterwards that they were to have six months' pay. Was not that an instance of some slight inconsistency? Then a general order was issued by the commander of the forces in the Crimea, recommending officers to get rid of their horses in any way they could, and they were told there was an auction at Bakshiserai to which they might send them. But what sort of prices did they fetch? He saw that the Russian Government had purchased horses for very inadequate sums, and yet the representative of the War Department had the audacity to assert, that there was no inconsistency in its management. On the contrary, he maintained that there was one continued system of inconsistency. Upon a former occasion, he had alluded to these extraordinary inconsistencies with regard to the orders sent to the troops. He would not renew that subject, but every word he had then said he could verify. The general officer would have been worthy of being cashiered for issuing an order to the officers to sell their horses in any way they could, unless he had had some intimation from Government to induce him to do so. The House was told when inquiry was made on that subject, that he had no authority for issuing that order; but if he had no authority for it, he ought not to be in his present situation. He, however, thought the general officer had some authority for it, but perhaps could not venture to say so, lest he should suffer for it in some indirect manner. He said distinctly there was a

1541
German influence obviously exercised in this country which was highly objectionable. When they were disbanding the militia and the troops of the line in the most ungrateful manner, to send up German recruits who had never fired a shot in the war, to be established in their stead, as it would seem, permanently at Aldershot, was a course of proceeding which surely ought not to be sanctioned.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he would endeavour to the best of his ability to explain the savings made on this Vote for the land forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster said that it would have been better to place the Committee in possession of a printed statement of the reduced expenditure under the different heads, but, upon due consideration, the Government had come to the conclusion that this could not be done in a way to satisfy the Committee. The army at the present time was in a state of transition from a war equipment to a peace establishment. The greater part was still in the Crimea, and it was impossible to set down under the different heads what would be the new establishment under the altered circumstances which had arisen. The remark which he made when he interrupted the hon. and gallant Member (Sir De L. Evans), that there was no inconsistency in the War Department, had regard to its dealings with the Foreign Legion. He asserted that the course taken by the Government had been perfectly consistent. Their engagements had been embodied in Conventions. They had in no respect deviated from the conditions by which they were bound, and it was their intention to fulfil to the letter everything which they had promised. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portarlington fell into a mistake with regard to the force raised in America. Those troops were not levied under the engagement with Baron Stutterheim. [Colonel DUNNE: I never said so.] Though Baron Stutterheim was not paid, the terms on which the men were engaged, so far as regarded their service, were precisely the same. If he were asked was there a separate capitulation for that force which formed part of the German Legion, he should say, no; but still the terms of enlistment in America were the same as those on which the other German soldiers were enlisted. With regard to the disbandment of the militia, and the feeling of dissatisfaction which the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster represented, he did not know whether the hon. and gallant
1542
Member was aware that the disbandment took place under an Act of Parliament. The Act only justified keeping the militia in an embodied state during the continuance of war. As soon as the war was ended and peace re-established the Government was bound to take the earliest opportunity of returning the men to their homes. When the militia were disembodied at the end of the last war fourteen days' pay, without any bounty, was considered sufficient. The militia would now receive fourteen days' pay and the bounty for the current year. He could not understand how more than was thought sufficient at the close of a war much more protracted than the late war should he now thought niggardly on the part of the Government. With regard to the Vote before the Committee, it was originally voted at £10,950,000, and they were content to take a sum of £7,000,000, being a saving of close upon £4,000,000. The total number of men of all ranks and of all arms of the service applied for by the Government was 246,716, and that number was introduced into the Mutiny Act of the present year. It was not intended to maintain that number, but if the Vote had been reduced, probably it would have been necessary to introduce a Bill to amend the Mutiny Act. The Foreign Corps numbered 21,719, the West India and Colonial Corps 8,568, the Land Transport 9,020, the Commissariat and Medical Department 1,795. Those branches of the service which were distinct from the regular army gave a total of 41,102, which, deducted from 246,716, left 205,614, which represented the strength of the Infantry of the Line, the Guards, the Cavalry, the Artillery, and the Engineers. He would now proceed to show the saving proposed to be made on the pay required for these respective forces. Taking, in the first place, the foreign corps, 21,719 was the number voted for the cavalry and infantry of all ranks. He would take that opportunity of correcting another mistake of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne), who had stated that under the Convention with these Foreign Legions the Government was bound to retain them in their pay for a year after the war had ceased. If the hon. and gallant Member had read to the conclusion of the Convention, he would have found that the Government were furnished with the means of disbanding those corps at any moment they thought proper. It was the intention of the Government to disband them under

1543
that power, and he anticipated that by the autumn the whole of the foreign troops would have ceased to be in the pay of this country. They had never raised the total number of foreign troops authorized by the Vote. The total strength was, probably, 7,000 short of the number. They had to pay twelve months' gratuity to the privates, and three months' gratuity to the officers; and he anticipated that with the saving of the pay, for the whole financial year, of the number not raised, and with the saving of the pay of the number which did exist, between the autumn and the month of April next, they would be just able to meet those gratuities without applying for any additional grant. There would be neither any saving nor exceeding of the sum voted for the foreign troops. With regard to the West Indian and Colonial troops, they were local corps, and would remain on the same footing and strength as at present. With regard to the Land Transport Corps, it was intended to keep a nucleus, which would admit of expansion if necessary, and to disband the excess. Of the £660,000 which was voted on this head, he thought they would be able to dispense with the sum of £300,000, which would leave £360,000 applicable to the expense of the corps, which had been very considerable during the period of the financial year already expired. With regard to the Commissariat and Medical corps, numbering 1,795, the Government would cease to employ the acting commissariat clerks and the acting assistant surgeons, and probably from 500 to 700 of the number would be released from service, but the saving under this head would not he considerable in amount. He had thus accounted for a saving of £300,000 on the special arms of the service, and he would now come to the regular branches of the army. The number of regulars voted was 205,614, which was made up of the Infantry, the Guards, the Cavalry, the Artillery, and the Engineers. He would take, in the first place, the infantry of the line. The House had voted 154,140 men, exclusive of the regiments in India; those regiments, being paid by the East India Company, might at once, therefore, be dismissed from the calculation. These 154,140 men were distributed among eighty-three regiments of the army, exclusive of the twenty-two regiments in India. The Government had had to consider what diminution of numbers ought to take place on the reduction of the army
1544
to a peace establishment. Their object was to form the regiments in such a way as to admit of their being expanded and contracted as the occasion might require, and they believed that that object would be attained by preserving the present distribution of the regiments into companies. At the beginning of the war just ended, the number of companies in each regiment was ten, eight of which were sent for service in the East, leaving two companies for the depôt, the object being that the depôt companies should raise recruits and supply the casualties. The war had not continued more than a month or two, before it was discovered that these two companies at home were insufficient; and when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert), in moving the Army Estimates for 1854, proposed to increase the number of companies from ten to twelve, there was, he believed, a general opinion that the latter number ought to form in future the permanent constitution of our regiments of infantry both in peace and war. Our regiments in the Crimea had the number of their companies increased from twelve to sixteen, eight in active service, and eight at home; the latter being not more than able to keep up the regiment to its full number. There were, at the present time, in the Crimea, fifty regiments of infantry with sixteen companies, but it was intended to form all the eighty-three regiments (excluding those in India) into regiments of twelve companies each. It would, therefore, be necessary to reduce by four companies each regiment in the Crimea, and the officers of those four companies would necessarily be reduced to half-pay. That would, therefore, be the organisation of the regiments as regiments in future. He would now come to the more important point of the strength of each of these companies. The Government intended that each of these regiments of twelve companies should have a force of 1,000 rank and file. The fifty regiments in the Crimea had been raised to a war establishment of 2,000 rank and file, and he believed that a company might be reduced as low as seventy-five men. The intention of the Government was, to reduce all the regiments in the pay of this country to the strength of 1,000 rank and file. Multiplying 1,000 by eighty-three, the number of regiments, would give a force of 83,000 rank and file, which with 12,000 commissioned and non-commissioned officers would give a total force of all ranks of eighty-three regiments of infantry, con-

1545
sisting of 95,000 men. The House had voted 154,140 men, and if the Government were about to reduce that number at once to 95,000, they would have to surrender a force of 60,000 men. But the Government did not propose at once to reduce the total force by that amount. Next year, for the first time, the Limited Enlistment Act for ten years would come into operation in its bearing upon discharges, and it would, of course, be quite impossible to say how many men would leave the army under that Act. It was calculated that the army lost annually 12,000 men from all causes, and there would have to be added the number of those who might claim their discharge under the Limited Enlistment Act. The Government, therefore, proposed to take a margin of 10,000 men to cover the loss which the army might sustain from that cause, and the reduction to 95,000 would therefore not be effected immediately. But if 10,000 were added to the 95,000 the total force would be, exclusive of the regiments in India, 105,000 men, leaving about 50,000 men to be reduced. Now, the expense of the infantry was on an average about £30 per annum per man of all ranks, and multiplying that sum by 50,000 men, the saving would be about £1,500,000. He would now take the opportunity of explaining the manner in which the twelve companies would be organised. It was intended to form the army into divisions and brigades both at home and in the colonies. The infantry establishment in India consisted of twenty-four regiments, but two had been withdrawn for service in the Crimea, and the number would probably be made up again. There would, therefore, be forty-one regiments at home, forty in the colonies, and twenty-four in India, making 105 regiments. It was proposed to separate those regiments into service companies, of which there would be eight, and depôt companies, of which there would be four. The service companies would be formed into divisions and brigades. There would be seven divisions and fourteen brigades, and each division and brigade would have staff officers appointed, which would give officers a much better opportunity of becoming acquainted with their profession. With regard to the depôt companies, they would not be distributed, as they used to be before the war, in different parts of the country, but would be formed into groups of consolidated depôts with three regiments in each depôt. They would in this
1546
respect correspond with the brigades, each brigade having three regiments of eight service companies. He calculated upon a saving of £500,000 upon the Guards, the cavalry, the artillery, and the engineers. The regiments of Guards would be formed into ten companies instead of twelve, the number for the line. At the beginning of the present year the Guards consisted of 9,744 men of all ranks. He calculated that they could be reduced to 7,000 men without altering the number of the battalions, or the companies in each battalion. With regard to the cavalry, it was not yet decided whether they were to be formed into regiments of eight troops or six troops. At present the regiments consisted of eight troops, and those in the Crimea had, or ought to have, 700 men on the list of each regiment. The great expense of the cavalry service consisted in feeding and purchasing the horses. There were about 550 horses in the cavalry regiments, which number it was proposed to reduce to about 350 horses. It was proposed to maintain a much larger proportion of men to the horses, the war having proved that the number of men to the number of horses ought to be about 400 men to 300 horses. The horses could be easily obtained if wanted, and the regiments would then be in an efficient state to take the field. With regard to the artillery the voted strength was 23,547 men of all ranks, including both the horse and foot artillery. It was not intended to make a great reduction in the artillery, and the foot and horse artillery would probably consist of from 20,000 to 21,000 men. At the commencement of the last war, in consequence of the unwillingness of the Government to ask for the means of maintaining a proper establishment of horses, the gunners and drivers received no training, and had it not been for the camp at Chobham it was very much to be doubted whether the six batteries which were sent to the Crimea at the outset of the war could have been despatched. He had much satisfaction in informing the Committee that it was not the intention of the Government to fall into the same error again; and, while the greater part of the artillery would be employed in garrison duty, it was proposed to maintain a proper number of field batteries, fully horsed and equipped. There would be 130 or 140 guns divided into batteries of four guns each, for which 4,000 or 5,000 horses would be permanently required. Of course,

1547
when the army returned from the Crimea a smaller number of horses would be required than the Committee were at present asked to vote. He had now accounted for a saving of £1,500,000 in the infantry and of £500,000 in the other arms of the service, to which he would add £300,000 in the Land Transport Corps. He had still, therefore, to account for a saving of £1,700,000. The sum voted for the Turkish Contingent was £300,000, but the whole of that force, except about 1,000 men, having been handed over to the Turkish Government, a saving of about £100,000 would be effected from that item. Another large saving would be made in the item of field allowances to officers and men on duty, including the extra 6d. a day for each man for service before the enemy. A vote of £818,000 had been taken for that item, upon which they might reckon to save about £600,000. There would he a saving to the same amount upon the Vote of £742,000 for the purchase of horses. All the more valuable artillery and cavalry horses would be brought to this country, but a great number of those which were less valuable, and also of animals belonging to the Land Transport Corps, had been purchased by the Turkish Government. He had now to account for £350,000, and that sum he calculated would be saved in the levy money of recruits. A Vote of £392,000 had been taken as levy money of recruits, calculated on the supposition that the casualties in the course of the year would be about 40,000 men, but of course it would not now be necessary to raise any considerable number of recruits, and the required saving would be easily made from that Vote. That made a total of about £4,000,000, and there might of course be other savings in such items as hospital expenses, the amount of which could not be exactly calculated. He had thus endeavoured to lay before the Committee a statement of the reductions and savings which were proposed to be made, and he hoped it would be found generally satisfactory.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Peel) was not altogether very satisfactory to him. It certainly was not his expectation that the hon. Under Secretary of War would have risen to give the information required. The name of Mr. Monsell was stated in the paper on the table of the House as the Member of the Government that was to
1548
move the Army Estimates in Committee of Supply, and he (Mr. Disraeli) had entered the House that evening under the impression that the statement would have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who, as Clerk of the Ordnance, was the Minister really responsible for it. Of course, so long as the Committee obtained the information from a responsible Member of the Government, it was a matter of little importance from what particular source it was derived. He would, therefore, leave that matter of etiquette to be settled by the hon. Gentlemen themselves, one of whom had his name placed upon the paper as the mover of the Army Estimates, while the duties were performed by another. After having listened to the speech of the hon. Under Secretary, there was one point to which he alluded, on which he (Mr. Disraeli) wished for information—that had reference to the position of a great part of our army. The hon. Under Secretary throughout his speech had spoken of the army in the Crimea, and, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) who followed him (Mr. Disraeli) in debate, and who supported him in the view which he had taken, defended his office for not giving the information which the Committee had a right to expect on the ground that there were fifty regiments still in the Crimea. Now, the other night, when the Navy Estimates were brought forward, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Admiralty informed the Committee that there was no army in the Crimea. The right hon. Gentleman said that every man was now afloat, and that the Guards had already reached Malta and were daily expected home. Now, there were not only discrepancies in words between the two Ministers that required explanation, but there were inconsistencies of statements which should be corrected, inasmuch as those statements mainly influenced the degree of information they could obtain in Committee. The right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, replied to the charge of the inefficiency of the Land Transport Service by this answer to all criticism, namely, that we had not a single regiment in the Crimea, and that fact was a sufficient proof of the efficiency of the Land Transport Service. But when the hon. Under Secretary for War was asked for information as to the state of our army, he replied by saying he could not give the Committee the details they desired because our army was still in the

1549
Crimea. Now, he wished that the two Ministerial functionaries would endeavour to reconcile the two statements, find tell the Committee where our army really was. He certainly desired that they would explain this apparent contradiction. Now, the Committee on the one hand were to be satisfied with the conduct of the Land Transport Service because the army had all been ordered with the greatest despatch from the Crimea, and on the other hand, according to the hon. Under Secretary for War, it was impossible to give them the information they required because our army was still in the Crimea. When the First Lord of the Admiralty was making his statement, he believed that the hon. Under Secretary for War was not present, and tonight, when the Under Secretary for War was making his statement, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty was not present. He (Mr. Disraeli) would draw from these circumstances this lesson for the instruction of the Government, that when the Estimates were being moved the Ministers should all be in their places—should listen to each other's statements—should be taught to tell the same tale—and should take care not to mention matters that were utterly inconsistent with each other.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he really thought that the right hon. Gentleman could not have been in his place when his (Viscount Palmerston's) right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty made his statement the other night; or if he were in his place, that he must have been engaged making suggestions to those around him, and not attending to what the right hon. Baronet was saying. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty did not make anything like the statement imputed to him by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire; in fact, he stated directly the reverse. So far from his right hon. Friend saying that there was not a regiment in the Crimea and that all our army were now afloat, he said the very contrary. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said that a great number of troops had been already despatched from the Crimea, mentioning at the same time almost the whole of the Sardinian army, the troops going to the North American provinces, and some of those that were destined to replace the militia in the Mediterranean. But his right hon. Friend stated that the bulk of the army was still in the Crimea, and he
1550
expressed a hope that they would be all moved away from the Crimea by the latter end of July or August. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire sets up a phantom, and distinguishes himself by his bravery in knocking it down. He hoped, in future, if the right hon. Gentleman could not find it convenient to be in his place when matters of public interest were under discussion, that he would take care to make himself acquainted with the real facts, and not come forward a week afterwards misrepresenting what was really said, and making statements that were utterly unfounded.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he believed that the noble Viscount was not in his place when his right hon. colleague (Sir C. Wood) made the statement referred to, for if he had been, though he might have come forward with his usual valour and skill to the support of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, it would have been with much less confidence. If the statement made the other night by the First Lord of the Admiralty and that just made by the Under Secretary for War were placed in parallel columns, it would be found that nothing could be more conflicting. Indeed, the reports in the papers to-morrow would, no doubt, expose the inconsistencies of the two statements. [Viscount PALMERSTON: State the contradictions.] The contradiction was this:—The First Lord of the Admiralty stated that there were scarcely any men left in the Crimea, while the Under Secretary for War said there were, at least, fifty regiments there. There, assuredly, was a great discrepancy between those two statements.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) must have been asleep, when, in answer to the question as to whether all the troops would have quitted the Crimea by the 10th of July, the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that he expected that they would all be removed by the end of that month.
MR. RICHsaid, he wished to bring back the attention of the Committee to the subject before them, at the same time he thought they were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) and the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster for the statement they had just heard from the First Minister of the Crown. He, however, wished to suggest, that in effecting the reductions which had been spoken

1551
of, care should be taken to provide an efficient reserve in case of the unfortunate necessity for an increased army. For years before the late war there had been numerous alarms that some foreign enemy might pounce upon this country at night, and produce great injury; and that had such an effect that very great expenses were incurred—the militia were called out, and our fortifications were increased. He did not wish for one moment to detract from the benefits which had been derived from our calling out the militia; but it was quite clear that this country ought not, in time of peace, to keep up a very large standing army. All past experience showed that, on the termination of war questions of economy would be entertained, and that the army and navy would be reduced. The Act introduced by the noble Lord at the head of the War Department for granting men their discharges after certain periods would come into operation next year, and he would propose that, as soldiers, after serving twenty-one years, were entitled to their discharge and a pension of 1s. per day, the option should be given them of a discharge after half that service with a pension of 6d. a day, coupled with a condition of being enrolled, and being liable to be called out every year for a certain number of days' duty. He believed that that plan would, in twelve months, provide a reserve of 40,000 or 50,000 men highly disciplined and in the prime of life. It would also offer a means of providing for the surplus officers otherwise than by the disagreeable means of retirement on half-pay. Another consideration arose out of the moral view of the question. No doubt an enormous improvement had taken place in the tone of the army. The barracks were better, but still required much improvement; the canteen abominations had been done away with, the schools were good, and in many regiments admirable, and the treatment of the soldier was very different from what it was at the beginning of the century. Yet, with all those improvements the army was not a popular service. One reason was the long service which the soldier had to go through. The head of the War Department had very wisely introduced a ten years' service; but, if that arrangement were not coupled with some such provision as he had suggested, the country would lose the men at the very time when they were exceedingly valuable. If ten years' service were made the general term of service in the army,
1552
men would enter gladly at eighteen years of age, if they felt that at the end of their service they had secured a pension of 6d. a, day. He, therefore, urged the Government to take into consideration the formation of an army of reserve.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, that the hon. Member had given the sketch of an army formed on a totally different principle to that ever adopted in this country. He seemed to have taken up the principle acted upon in many parts of the Continent, where the soldiers were levied by conscription; but such a system was inconsistent with the habits and instincts of this country. The hon. Under Secretary for War had stated that no less than forty different regiments were to be distributed through the British colonies, including, no doubt, the strong places in the Mediterranean, but the principle of late years adopted was to depend on the colonies for their own defence. He believed they were both able and willing to do so, and, therefore, he must protest against the army being distributed through the colonies in small bodies, which would prevent them being brigaded in masses, and tend greatly to the destruction of discipline.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he had not been able to follow the hon. Under Secretary for War in all his figures, and therefore would suggest that they should be printed and distributed to Members, in order that those not fully acquainted with military affairs might have an opportunity of coming to a proper judgment on them.
MR. PELLATTsaid, that with respect to the item of £17,800 paid for outfit to non-commissioned officers on their promotion to commissions, he wished to call attention to the loss of good-conduct pay which was suffered by the corporal and the sergeant upon their promotion respectively from the ranks.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was not sure whether he had rightly caught the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. F. Peel's) explanation with respect to the disbanding of the foreign corps. He feared that some heartburning would be felt in the country if those troops were placed in a more advantageous position than the militia. The remark of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir De L. Evans) would receive an echo, he believed, generally in the country. Why those foreign troops were to be sent to Aldershot he could not easily understand. The militia had had rather scant justice dealt out to them, whilst there was a prevailing feel-

1553
ing that the Government had been over lavish in their treatment of the Foreign Legions.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, a great part of the Legion had been employed in the East—3,000 at Scutari and 2,000 at Smyrna—and it was necessary to keep up the discipline of the rest until the bargain made with them on their enlistment could be carried out.
COLONEL BUCKsaid, he was sorry that no allusion had been made in the course of the debate to the subject of military education. It was of the greatest importance that some steps should be taken without delay to establish a plan of military education, more particularly for those officers who were destined for the scientific corps. The present system of appointments and promotions in our Engineers was most faulty and contrasted very unfavourably with that which was pursued in the French army. In the French génie, for instance, non-commissioned officers were allowed to compete with commissioned officers for advancement in the service, and the effect of such a stimulus as that was most beneficial to the service. In our army, on the contrary, the Engineers and the Artillery were the only corps in which the noncommissioned officers had no chance of rising to a commission. The life of an officer in the French génie was one of continuous exertion. He was obliged to apply himself with the most indefatigable industry to the study of his profession, and for every step he had to pass a competitive examination. There was no such salutary rule, however, in the British service. An hon. and gallant Member of that House, who was in the Engineers, had lately been appointed Deputy Inspector of Fortifications. The post was worth about £800 a year, and he had been at some trouble to ascertain what was the hon. and gallant Gentleman's peculiar merit for it, but he had not been able to discover that he had any. The hon. and gallant Member had the advantage of being in that House, and those who had appointed him, as a matter of course, had the benefit of his vote. Had he been in the French service, before getting an appointment of that kind he would have had to pass an examination to show that he had superior merit. His remarks with regard to the necessity of competitive examinations applied equally to the Royal Artillery. The valuable appointments connected with that corps ought no longer to be given for life, but for a certain number
1554
of years only, and those who were proved to be most worthy of them by competitive examinations ought alone to be appointed to them.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished the Committee not to pass the Vote without some further explanation. To make an increase of regiments in the colonies was a retrograde policy. It was proposed, as he understood, to make an addition of three regiments to the military force in the North American Colonies, thereby increasing the force to five regiments. Though such an increase might not be numerically great, it was most significant as to the policy of the Government. Five additional regiments could not certainly be regarded as a menace to the United States, nor as a means of protection to the extensive frontier of Canada. What advantage, then, he should like to know, could be gained by such an additional force? While, on the other hand, the certain result would be to check the North American colonies from raising their own forces, on which they ought chiefly to depend. He, therefore, called upon the Government to state, clearly and distinctly, whether an increase of force, from two regiments to five, in the North American colonies, was not in contravention of the policy laid down before the war; and whether, with two regiments as a garrison at Halifax, the colonists might not defend themselves without looking to this country for further protection? He wished also to refer to another illustration of this retrograde policy in the course which had been pursued for the purpose of defending our colonial provinces in South Africa. A sum of £45,000 had been granted to the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope to carry on a new experiment for the defence of that province. Now, he distinctly gave notice to the Colonial Secretary, that if he (Mr. Adderley) were here next year—as he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be there in his place also—and if the right hon. Gentleman should think it his duty to bring forward that Vote of £45,000 for what he (Mr. Adderley) considered to be a most mischievous experiment, he would divide the Committee against passing a shilling of that Vote. So long as that experiment was to be continued, so long must these forces be maintained, and that was the way in which the Parliament was prevented from reducing the war establishment.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon.

1555
Gentleman had asked whether the fact of increasing the amount of force for the North American colonies from two to five regiments indicated any change of policy in regard to the system of protection of those colonies. He had no hesitation in telling the hon. Gentleman that such an arrangement indicated no change of policy in that respect. The policy to be pursued in regard to the military defences of those colonies had already been clearly laid down, and to that policy Her Majesty's Government entirely adhered. It consisted in relying upon the courage and loyalty of Her Majesty's Canadian subjects. Her Majesty's Government were sensible that without that courage and that loyalty it would be impossible to maintain the safety and stability of that important colony, but that so long as those guarantees existed no difficulties or dangers of an hostile kind were to be apprehended. Lord Grey, when Colonial Minister, had stated that it was a part of the policy of this country to maintain garrisons at the three great ports of Halifax, Montreal, and Quebec. It was to those ports that these troops had been sent. But it was not intended to revert to the old system—namely, that of scattering the British regular forces over the colonies in order to form a mere body of police—a system which was at the same time extravagant and highly detrimental to the discipline of the troops. He could most confidently state, from communications which he had received from Canada, that there was no ground of apprehension that the troops which might be sent to British America would in the least degree damp the spirit of the Canadians or prevent the organisation of a native force of a permanent description. With regard to the question as to South Africa, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman was not present when that question was discussed. He believed that on a future occasion he should be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that but a very moderate sum of money can be expended in that colony, and that whatever might be the amount, it was expended on the improvement of roads, and of works which had the most important effect in tranquillising and civilising the Africans.
CAPTAIN LAFFANsaid, that as he was the only Deputy Inspector of Fortifications who had the honour of a seat in that House, he wished to make a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Colonel Buck). The hon. and gallant
1556
Member said that he (Captain Laffan) had been appointed to the office of Deputy Inspector of Fortifications, in order that the Government might secure his vote. Now whether the Government was right or wrong in forming a favourable opinion as to his capability for the appointment of Deputy Inspector of Fortifications, it was not for him to question; but he would state that upon the occasion of his getting the appointment he distinctly warned the Government that he was not a supporter of theirs, and that he did not intend to support them. In reply he was told that he might consider himself, as before, perfectly independent, and might vote just as he pleased; for that the appointment was a purely military one, connected with his own corps. On that condition he accepted the appointment; and he would only say, that if it was for a moment imagined that he ought to become in return a supporter of the Government, he would throw up the appointment at once. He would at the same time beg to state that during the period he had held the office for once he had voted with the Government he had voted three times against them.
COLONEL BUCKsaid, he must beg to explain that he had never meant to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had accepted the appointment through corrupt motives. All he would say, however, was, that whenever he had seen the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the House he had invariably seen him sitting on the ministerial side. What he meant to state originally was that in France an appointment like that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been a competitive appointment, and that the best man would have held it. He knew nothing himself of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he had asked other officers in the service as to his merits, and whether he had ever distinguished himself in any way. He had, however, been unable to ascertain that he had. [" Oh, oh!"] He only wished to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's face what he had said behind his back. He would repeat that in France such appointments were strictly competitive; but in this country they were not.
CAPTAIN LAFFANsaid, he could perfectly understand the motives which had induced the hon. and gallant Gentleman to bring forward the question. He was sure there was nothing personal in the matter, for he did not believe the hon. and

1557
gallant Gentleman and himself had seen each other more than once or twice in their lives. He thought, however, it was a great mistake to suppose that such appointments as he held could be made competitive. They might make the appointment of a subaltern a matter for examination, or even the elevation of a lieutenant to the rank of captain. But they might as well throw open such an appointment as that he held—which was purely an administrative one—to competition, as the office of Colonial or Foreign Minister.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to call attention to the position of the sergeants in the militia, than whom no class was deserving of greater encouragement—those non-commissioned officers attached to regiments recently disbanded were placed in a most unsatisfactory position.
MR. FREDERICK PEELin reply, was understood to say that they would receive fourteen days' pay in addition to the bounty already agreed upon.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he had expected to have heard from his hon. Friend (Mr. F. Peel) some explanation in reference to a subject brought before the House a few nights ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert). His hon. Friend had on that occasion said, that though he could not concur in all the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman, he had a plan of his own on the subject. Now, he (Lord Hotham) should have liked to hear an outline given of that plan. He should also be glad to know whether it was the intention of the Government to make any, or what, alteration in the constitution of the staff. His hon. Friend had alluded to the intention of having the army in future massed in divisions and brigades, which would give occasion to the employment of a great number of staff officers, and afford them an opportunity of learning their duty; but he should like to know what was in future to be considered the qualification of a staff officer—what education such an officer would be required to have, and in what manner, in the first instance, he would be placed on the staff. The other subject to which he would allude was in reference to the officers who were about to be reduced, more particularly that large class of junior officers who must necessarily fall victims in the reductions which were about to take place. In justice to them, as well as for the advantage of the country, he would ask whether it was
1558
necessary to turn those officers adrift in the first instance, and whether advantage should not be taken of such opportunities as might arise of restoring them to the service in consideration of the sacrifices which a great many of them had made in coming forward to serve their country when their country so much required their services?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that with reference to the question of the education of officers, the subject had been referred to a Commission. The officers to whom the noble Lord adverted, as likely to suffer from the proposed reductions in the army, amounted to about 800, but he had no doubt that they would be gradually reabsorbed in the army as opportunities were afforded for rendering their services available.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, that what he had to complain of was, not that the militia force was treated ill, but that the foreign corps had been treated too well. A distinction had been drawn between the two, which was not fair. The remuneration to the army chaplains was extremely inadequate; in one instance a chaplain had received £9 5s. for eight months' service. He should be glad of some explanation on that head.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for war, had stated that the arrangement with the German troops had no reference to those enlisted in America; and, under that arrangement, those troops could not be disbanded until the expiration of a year after the ratification of the treaty of peace. He wished to know if he had correctly understood the hon. Gentleman's observations on that subject. He also wished to know what was going to be done with the two regiments of cavalry which had been sent from India to the Crimea, and were now in England without horses?
MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied, that application had been made to the East India Company for transport, but no answer, as yet, had been received.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £10 in addition to former Vote of £1,000,000 for charge of Embodied Militia.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask in what state of efficiency it was intended to maintain the disembodied staff? Although it had been said that the militia were, on their disembodiment, to receive a gratuity of 14 s., many men in the neigh-

1559
bourhood of London had not received that amount.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the only alteration made was the retention of the quartermasters of regiments on the permanent staff.
SIR JOHN BULLERsaid, that in his regiment there had been no regular quartermaster, the duties of that office having been performed by subaltern officers, and he wished to know if those officers who had been acting as quartermasters would be retained on the permanent staff? The question was one which gave great anxiety to colonels of regiments, and ought to be decided at once.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that it was the intention of the War Department to place on the permanent staff only those officers who were actually the quartermasters of regiments. As to the gratuity of fourteen days' pay, that would be allowed to the men disembodied.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he had to complain of regiments being disembodied before the harvest, and more particularly so in the case of Scotch regiments, because in Scotland the harvest would fall much later than in this country.
SIR JOHN BULLERsaid, he felt it necessary to press his question again respecting the quartermasters, as some young men were waiting for the decision of the Government. He wished to know, also, respecting the permanent staff, what part of that was to be retained? He wished, in fact, to know what to do with his own regiment?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the last question had better be put into writing before he answered it. What had been done as to the quartermasters was this: Where those officers had already held commissions they were to be retained, but not where the office was merely held temporarily, by subalterns acting only for the time as quartermaster.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £10, in addition, to former Vote of £250,000, for charge of Army Works Corps.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to inquire if the Army Works Corps was to be put under the direction of the Officers of Engineers like Sappers and Miners, as a regular military organisation?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the force was about to be disbanded in a very short time. There were only 1,100 men at present under duty.
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, he was glad to hear that statement from the hon. Gentleman. He wished to know when the men were to be disbanded, and what was to be the gratuity to the men and the officers?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the gratuities to the men would be two months' pay. As to the officers, they were engaged for two years certain. They had served one year, and consequently were entitled to one year's gratuity.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.

SUPPLY—ST. JAMES'S PARK.
MR. FITZROYbrought up the Report of the Votes agreed to in Committee of Supply on Friday evening.
On the recital of the Vote of £3,500 for the erection of a suspension-bridge across the ornamental water in the Inclosure in St. James's Park—
LORD ELCHOrose, and said: Mr. Speaker, I have often heard it said that the proper way of conducting business in this House would be to vote first and to discuss afterwards, and assuredly the course I am about to take has at least this recommendation, that it merits the praise due to such a proceeding. I can hardly hope that anything I may say will induce the Government to rescind this Vote, or persuade the House to express an opinion that they should do so. But as I am aware that there are many hon. Members who, though anxious to have spoken on the subject last Friday, were precluded from doing so, and among them the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir J. Paxton), whose opinions are naturally looked to with interest on a question that has attracted so much attention both in this House and out of doors, I have thought it right to oppose the Vote upon the present occasion for this reason, if for no other—that the Members to whom I allude may be enabled to explain their views. There are two points, however, which I am particularly anxious to press upon the consideration of the House. The first is, whether we ought to sacrifice the beauty of our parks for the sake of public convenience; the second, whether we are prepared to intrust the expenditure of the public money to the Board of Works for the construction of ornamental works in this metropolis without having had the plans previously submitted to us. Now, Sir, the question whether public convenience and

1561
not beauty ought to be consulted in the arrangement of the parks was long ago decided, when the matter under discussion was the acceptance or rejection of the original plan which, as suggested by the First Commissioner of Works, contemplated the opening of a direct communication between Marylebone and Westminster. That project would, undoubtedly, have been by far the most convenient for the public. There would then have been a road right across the park, which would have afforded ample accommodation not only for foot passengers and equestrians, but for cabs, carriages, and omnibuses. But the plan most certainly did not find favour either with the public, the Committee, or the House, and accordingly it was negatived. The obvious inference from that fact is, that it is not desirable that the beauty of the park should be sacrificed to public convenience. But that question having been settled in the main is now again presented in a modified form. It is now proposed to erect a footbridge for passengers over the ornamental water. Now, Sir, that piece of water is so extremely beautiful that for my part I should dread to lay a hand upon it, lest I should spoil it. I should be sorry however to offer my own opinion as a rule of conduct in such a matter, but what I would venture to recommend is that the Government should take the course which any private gentleman would under the same circumstances adopt, namely, consult with persons competent to pronounce a decisive judgment on the point. Happily we have among us the hon. Member for Coventry, who, from the manner in which he has laid out the grounds at the Crystal Palace, is entitled to be regarded as an authority on such subjects. Due weight ought to be attached to whatever falls from him, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall be guided in the main by what he says as to whether any bridge will or will not detract from the beauty of the Park. With respect to the other point I have alluded to, namely, the propriety of entrusting to the Board of Works the expenditure of public money for the erection of ornamental structures, without an opportunity having been previously afforded us to examine the plans, that is a matter on which I have a very strong opinion. I think that as a general rule we should not do so; and I know nothing with reference to the general conduct of the Board in such matters, or as regards the taste and judgment displayed by
1562
the department, which should justify us in departing from that rule on the present occasion. And, talking of the taste and judgment of the department, I will mention a singular illustration of both. Two years ago £1,000 was voted for the erection of a new pedestal for the statue of King Charles at Charing Cross. The reason assigned was that the old one was in a state of decay, and that the safety of the statue required that it should be renewed. The old pedestal had been designed and executed by the celebrated carver, Grinling Gibbons. The attention of the First Commissioner of Works, the late Sir William Molesworth, was called to the subject. It was subsequently suggested, however, that the pedestal was not in so bad and unsafe a condition as had been supposed; and the First Commissioner having directed further inquiry to be made into the matter, it was found that, instead of an entirely new pedestal costing £1,000, all that was required was that some slight repairs should be effected, at a very trifling expense, on the existing beautiful specimen of art. Now this, I apprehend, points out that we cannot always depend on the taste and judgment of the Board of Works. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) had been a dictator, and there had been no press and no House of Commons in this country, we should now have had the park cut up by the intersection of a broad road for the transit of waggons, carts, omnibuses, &c. The right hon. Gentleman has, in my opinion, therefore, displayed no taste and no appreciation—I will not say for the beautiful in general—but for the beauty of St. James's Park. Under these circumstances, I do not think it desirable, when we are dealing with a park of such great and acknowledged beauty as St. James's, to entrust him with the erection of this bridge, without our previously seeing the design for the structure. Indeed, we ought to lay it down as a general principle, that whenever it is proposed to expend the public money on ornamental works, the plans sent in should be exhibited to this House, and public opinion brought to bear on the question, so that the best scheme may be fixed upon before the funds are voted. It is, therefore, with the view of insuring that a structure suited to the situation intended for it is erected, that I am anxious the money should not be granted until we have seen the design. I hope I shall not be deemed to be adopting a factious course

1563
on this occasion, but to be actuated simply by a deep interest in the preservation of the beauty of the park. Unfortunately in England all our public and private buildings, streets, and statues are more or less disgraceful; and I must say that, when one returns from Paris to London, he cannot but be struck with the dirt and meanness of our thoroughfares. With the exception of a few remarkable buildings, the metropolis has nothing but its, in our time, unequalled vastness to recommend it. In this metropolis we have but few bright and pleasant spots on which the eye delights to dwell, and which we are not ashamed to show to foreigners, and these are our parks. It is, Sir, precisely because I am anxious that we should not destroy those few agreeable places that I have brought this subject forward. It is, indeed, alleged that in the opinion of competent judges the proposed structure will not mar the beauty of the park; but I ask the House to refuse the money until it has seen the plan; and if I meet with any support, I shall divide the House against the Vote.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, had he been present when the Vote was proposed on Friday night, he would certainly have begged the noble Lord at the head of the Government to defer it till another season. Not quite a fortnight ago a Vote of £2,800 was asked for to construct a footbridge across the ornamental lake in St. James's Park, and which was to have been placed about two feet six inches or three feet from the water. He strongly objected to that plan, because it would have cut the ornamental water in two and spoiled the prospect; and next day the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) informed him that the Board proposed to put up a suspension-bridge eight feet from the water, so as to enable all parties to have a clear view of the ornamental lake and its banks. That appeared in some degree to obviate his objection; yet, when he came to reflect on the plan, he found that an inclined plane of considerable extent would be required to lead up to the suspension-bridge, and that such a project would still cut the park in two in much the same manner as the one previously proposed. The wiser course would be not to go on changing the plan for the bridge as had been done several times in the space of a few months, but to wait till some well-digested scheme had been prepared. If a bridge were really necessary—and he had never seen
1564
any reason to believe it was—the House and the public ought at all events to know the kind of structure intended to be erected. On those grounds, therefore, he hoped that the Vote would be postponed.
MR. TITEsaid, that Mr. Sydney Smirke had, in 1834, suggested a suspension bridge of iron wire, a structure which would not be open to objection in point of taste; he meant a bridge composed of what the French called fil de fer, supported on iron columns, and in his opinion a bridge of that construction would certainly not be an eye-sore in the park. Since the last discussion, however, he had presented a petition which altogether contested the necessity for this bridge, and declared it was not required for the public convenience. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, when he moved the Vote, stated it was necessary for the accommodation of the poor. Such a consideration would deserve every attention; but they must recollect that the park was closed at the hours when the workmen were likely to pass. If a bridge was necessary, he thought the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) and his advisers could erect one which would not be very objectionable in point of taste; but the real question was, as he had just stated, whether it was absolutely wanted? If not, they had better leave it alone. He did not think the necessity had been proved, and would therefore support the Amendment.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it was admitted that some convenience was required, and as all hon. gentlemen of taste in the House condemned both the high and the low bridge, he ventured to make an humble suggestion, which would answer all the purposes of convenience. It was to give the people a somewhat larger ferry boat, and pay the man who worked it, so that the poor could be conveyed across free: the present boat could be retained for those who wished to pay a penny. A boat to hold eighteen or twenty persons would answer every purpose.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he would allow that he had no right to interfere with the opinion which the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) might form as to his taste or judgment in those matters, or his fitness or unfitness for the office he had the honour to hold; but he thought it rather hard that the noble Lord should insinuate that in advocating this bridge he was promoting his own personal objects, and only seeking to

1565
serve those whom he had the honour to represent. He hoped the House would not believe he could be guilty of such a dereliction of duty. The noble Lord, perhaps, was not aware that when the old bridge was taken down in 1828 or 1829 the feeling in the metropolis against its removal was so strong, and representations made to the Board of Works so urgent, that the then surveyor wrote to the Treasury recommending them to sanction a Vote of £8,500 for the erection of a new one. That at all events proved that the present plan was not a new one got up for personal objects. He could assure the House that many representations had been made to him by the inhabitants on the south side as well as the north side of the water, and he could tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) that he had been earnestly requested to build this bridge as a great public convenience. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had also stated that he had no confidence in the Board of Works, because they had asked for £1,000 for a new pedestal for the statue of King Charles, and afterwards had the good sense to save the £1,000, and do what was necessary for £40. When he came into office he found the sum of £1,000 had been voted, but on examination he found that a new plinth under the horse was all that was required, and he thereby effected a saving of £960. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) suggested a ferry boat. That, he conceived, would be a very inconvenient mode of transit. He would undertake to say, that if the House sanctioned the Vote, the bridge should be of the lightest possible character consistent with durability and the weight it would have to bear, and one that, he apprehended, would not expose him to a renewal of the condemnation which the noble Lord had so lavishly bestowed upon him that evening.
MR. DISRAELI: I trust, Sir, that the House will not be tempted by the right hon. Gentleman into discussing the question of a vote of confidence in the Ministry. I was a Member of the Committee to which this subject was referred, and not having spoken when the former discussion took place I was reproached by some of my colleagues for my silence. I can only now say that I remember, with pride and satisfaction, that in that Committee I voted against every proposition of the right hon. Gentleman—against foot-bridge and suspension-bridge alike; and I hope that the House will allow me one moment while I
1566
state the reasons that induced me to do so. I was mainly influenced in the course which I took by the reasons which have been urged by the noble Lord who has called our attention to the precipitate Vote of the other evening. It appeared to me that the enclosure of St. James's Park was one of those few objects of which we as Englishmen might be proud, and that the effect of any bridge of such a description as was brought before us would be to turn one very pretty ornamental lake into two very ugly ponds. I admit that an objection to taste may, in a limited degree, be met by an overpowering sense of public necessity; but I cannot recollect that in the Committee we had any evidence upon the subject; at all events, there was none of a very overwhelming character. I believe that we formed our opinion principally upon conversation and upon one or two memorials which were brought before us. Certainly, nothing like evidence of a nature calculated to prove a public necessity was brought before us. As to the romance of the workman, which the First Minister introduced into the subject, it will not stand the test of criticism for a moment, because the workman, at break of dawn, repairing to the seat of his daily toil, cannot enter the park, seeing that its gates are not opened until some hours afterwards. The question is then, whether you will, for the accommodation of a few persons, living in very reputable habitations in the vicinity of the park, take a step which would outrage every principle of taste and beauty. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, says that we had a bridge before, which was accidentally destroyed, and that he can prove from the records of the office that there was a demand that the bridge should be restored. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot to remind us that that bridge was only an accidental and temporary structure, raised for the display of fire-works at the peace thirty years ago, which was not a period very eminent for taste; that there was no garden there then, but in its place a morass and a canal; and that the question was a mere consideration of convenience. I do not think, therefore, that the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman upon this point should greatly influence our decisions in coming to a vote with regard to it. What I wish to impress upon the House more particularly, however, is, that the Committee were called upon to decide on a very serious and extensive

1567
question, with very limited information, and in a very hurried manner. Remember, if this bridge is raised, whatever may be the subsequent opinion of the public upon it, however hideous they may think it—however limited the convenience which they may gain, we shall not very easily get rid of it; and therefore I think that we cannot take a more prudent or sensible course than at least to pause for another Session before we give a final sanction to its construction.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, after the tone of solemnity in which the right hon. Gentleman has discussed this subject, perhaps it may not be superfluous to state that I do not consider it to be of such magnitude as to make me recommend it to the House as one of confidence or no confidence in the Government. Assuredly the discussion which has taken place this evening is somewhat in opposition to certain well-established maxims, which are usually accepted in this country. One maxim is "De gustibus non est disputandum," and yet the whole of our disputation has gone upon nothing but matters of taste. However, as every man may express his opinion upon a matter of taste, I must say that I differ entirely from those who think that a bridge is a deformity which can only be justified by absolute necessity. That has not been the opinion of those who have had to lay out places which have excited the admiration of all who have freqented them. Has nobody been at Wilton, or does no one recollect the bridge there which cuts the water in two, which has not even a walk to it, and for which certainly there is no necessity? Does nobody recollect the bridge at Blenheim? There is no absolute necessity for it. It cuts the water into two parts; it might have been avoided; but it has always been considered a great ornament, and has been much admired. I think, therefore, that a bridge is, in itself, a beauty instead of a deformity; but of all bridges a suspension bridge is in its nature the most graceful. Everybody knows that the line which a flexible body suspended between two fixed points describes is that which is so much admired as the catenarian curve or line of beauty. A suspension bridge must, therefore, be an exceedingly handsome structure, and one which must give delight to every man of taste. Before leaving the question of the beautiful, I must make an observation upon what fell from the right hon. Gen-
1568
tleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who objected to a light suspension bridge as an object that would in his eye be ugly, and proposed instead a large lumbering square ferryboat that would fill up perhaps half the middle of the lake. I remember when I used to travel from London to Dublin that we had to stop at the Menai Straits in the middle of the night, and blow a horn until a man brought a large, ugly, lumbering ferryboat from the other side. According to the right hon. Gentleman that arrangement was infinitely preferable to that bridge over the Menai Straits, which people travel from immense distances to gaze upon as an object of wonder and admiration. Sir, I certainly am not for the old ferryboat. Believing that a light suspension bridge would be an ornament to the gardens, I come next to consider whether there would be any utility in it. We have been told by hon. Gentlemen on the other side that there is no absolute necessity for a bridge. I admit it; but, let me ask, what necessity can ever be shown for anything of the sort? There is no necessity for a communication between Belgravia and St. James's Street, and if the authors of the scheme had been put to show that it was a matter of absolute necessity, the passage by Marlborough House would, I apprehend, never have been broached. Again, it is all very well for those who ride in carriages or on horseback to say that it is immaterial to the people whether they have a long or a short road to travel over; but to those who have to pass between Westminster and the western and northern parts of the town, the question is a very serious one. At present they are compelled to walk round by the Horse Guards on one side or Buckingham Palace on the other, to get to a point which, if there was a bridge across the lake, they might reach with the utmost celerity. I am certainly of opinion that the bridge would be a great convenience to foot passengers, and I really think it is a mockery to tell the lower classes that, while we are consulting our own comfort by making a road for persons who use carriages, they must continue to walk all the way round by the Horse Guards or the Palace, because we think our eyes would be offended at seeing a bridge. Such language would be creditable neither to the taste nor to the good feeling of the House of Commons, and I hope will not be used upon the present occasion.
MR. BARROWsaid, it was admitted on all sides that there was no public necessity for this expenditure, which could not be, from all he had heard in the course of the discussion, of any use to the mass of the people. Under such circumstances, as the representative of a large constituency of working men who would be called upon to pay a portion of the Vote, he objected to it in toto, and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen whether it was fair that roads and bridges for their own personal convenience should be made at the public expense?
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, that he could assure the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the opponents of the Vote did not think a bridge a deformity; but when gardens had been admirably laid out without reference to a bridge, they believed that the introduction of such a structure would have an injurious effect. He agreed with those who thought that the people would be perfectly accommodated by a free ferry, which might be maintained with two boats at a comparatively trifling expense.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he must contend that the people of Westminster would derive great benefit from the proposed bridge, and he denied that the plan had been brought forward with a view to please the electors of Marylebone and Westminster.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he must beg to express his regret that anything which had fallen from him should have given pain either to the right hon. President of the Board of Works, or to the hon. Baronet who spoke last. He used the words "Marylebone and Westminster," merely to describe the localities which would be affected by the proposed bridge, and not with any view to offend the hon. Representatives of those places, who, he was well aware, would be the last men to use their influence in that House to promote their own private interests.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he was in favour of a bridge to accommodate the lower classes, and he hoped the Board of Works would take good advice before they spent their money.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 93: Majority 26.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of £4,977,200 for the Transport Service and Prisoners of War,
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he must again complain of the delay which had taken place in bringing back our troops to this country from the Crimea. Several large transports had been lying unemployed for weeks at Constantinople, and he thought great apathy, if not neglect, was attributable to the Government in leaving our gallant army exposed to the risk of disease in a climate which at this period of the year was most unhealthy. He believed that the ships sent out would not have been sent but for a letter from the Commander in Chief, stating that he would not be responsible for the health of the troops if ships were not at once despatched to bring them home. Had the Government shown any energy or decision the troops might have been brought back in ships of war, and one-half the expense for transport saved.
Vote agreed to; as were also the remaining Votes.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Joint-Stock Companies; Sir William Fenwick Williams's Annuity.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN—THE SARDINIAN LOAN.
THE LORD CHANCELLORread the following Message from Her Majesty:—
"VICTORIA R.
"HER MAJESTY thinks it right to acquaint the House of Lords that She has concluded a Convention with His Majesty The King of Sardinia, by which She has undertaken to recommend to Her Parliament to enable Her to advance, by way of Loan, to His Majesty The King of Sardinia, a Sum of One Million Pounds Sterling, contemplated by a Convention made between Her Majesty and His Majesty The King of Sardinia on the 26th
1472
January, 1855, in like Manner, Instalments, and Proportions, and subject in all respects to the same Conditions as if the late War had not been brought to a Close at the Expiration of Twelve Months from the Payment of the first Instalment of the Sum of One Million Pounds Sterling under the last-mentioned Convention:
"THE Government of His Majesty The King of Sardinia engages to accept the Advance of this additional Sum on the same Conditions in all respects, especially as to the Calculation and Payment of the Interest, as if such Advance had been made under the last-mentioned Convention:
"HER MAJESTY has directed a Copy of this Convention to be laid before the House of Lords, and She relies on the public Spirit of the House of Lords for enabling Her to make good the Engagement which She has thus contracted:
"V. R."
Ordered, That the said Message be taken into Consideration on Thursday next; and the Lords Summoned.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have waited to the last moment in the expectation—I think not an unreasonable one, considering the question put to the noble Earl on the last meeting of the House, and the reply which he then gave to me, that Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the course they should think it advisable to pursue with respect to our relations with the United States of America—I have waited, I say, until the last moment, in the expectation that the noble Earl would not have waited to be again questioned on the subject, but that he would volunteer that information on a subject concerning which he must know that the House and the country are most anxious to possess. It is impossible to overrate the position in which the country at present stands, or the serious responsibility that rests on Her Majesty's Government with regard to the advice they may give to the Crown with regard to the course to be pursued at this juncture; and I should have thought that

1473
the noble Earl would not have required me to put to him this question—namely, if Her Majesty's Government, since the House last met, have come to any conclusion as to the course which they would advise Her Majesty to pursue, and if they were prepared to state what that course may be?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I stated the last evening the House sat that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay before your Lordships, at the earliest period, the papers which have been communicated to us by the American Minister. Those papers have since been laid before the Senate of the United States, and they are in the possession of the people of this country. They are now in the printer's hands, and will be laid before your Lordships as soon as the answers to these despatches have been returned. Your Lordships must be aware that these answers will require some time and mature deliberation, and it is because they are not as yet prepared I did not take the initiative which the noble Earl thinks I should have taken. It is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to satisfy the very natural anxiety which is felt by the country in general with respect to our relations with the Government of the United States of America, and I therefore do not hesitate on this occasion to inform your Lordships, and through your Lordships the country, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty to suspend our diplomatic relations with the United States.
THE EARL OF DERBY: In the absence of the papers mentioned by the noble Earl, it would be extremely premature to enter into any discussion with respect to the announcement just made. I myself personally rejoice at that announcement, for this reason—because I believe that, although I deeply regret the course pursued by the United States Government, yet it is impossible for us to vindicate the conduct of our own Minister, and of those under whose authority he acted; and believing the United States Government have a just cause of complaint against us, I rejoice that Her Majesty's Government have sanctioned, by their acquiescence in the withdrawal of Mr. Crampton and the Consuls, the opinion which I myself entertain, that America has a just cause of complaint against this country. At the present moment I will not enter into
1474
merits of the case, but I rejoice that we have acknowledged our error, even though by acquiescing in that which I must say is humiliating to have to submit to on the part of this country—namely, the removal of our Minister from his position by the authority of the United States.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords the noble Earl said, that at present it would be premature to enter into any discussion with respect to the announcement which I have made to your Lordships. It is true that he has not entered into any discussion in respect to it; he has, however, pronounced a most positive judgment upon the matter, and I can only appeal to your Lordships, and through your Lordships to the country, not to follow the example of the noble Earl, and prejudge the case.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I have formed my judgment from the papers supplied by the Government themselves, and laid by them on the table of your Lordships' House.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
LORD OVERSTONE presented Petitions from the Directors of the Chambers of Commerce at Manchester and Glasgow against the Joint-stock Companies Bill; and said, that in presenting these petitions it was unnecessary to remind their Lordships of the great importance of the two commercial bodies from whom they proceeded. It was their peculiar function to watch over the interests of the greatest commercial communities of the empire; and, considering the high position they maintained in those important districts in which they resided, it could not be doubted that they were in every way competent to form a sound judgment upon any proposition in which a change affecting the interests of trade and commerce was contemplated. The petitioners stated their opinion to be that the measure which would come under their Lordships' consideration that evening was a most unwise and dangerous measure, and would, if adopted, be subversive of the best interests of commerce, and they prayed their Lordships not to give their sanction to its becoming law. In these views of the petitioners he most cordially concurred, for he believed the Bill to be based on principles which must tend to call into existence every species of fraud and trickery, and ultimately to destroy the high commercial character of this country. Connected with the petition from

1475
Manchester, there was a circumstance to which he would call the attention of their Lordships. When the Government issued a Commission to inquire into the state of mercantile law, thinking it their duty to put on that Commission some persons of practical experience, and who understood the wants and interests of the commercial community of this country, they very properly selected the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester. That Gentleman had joined in the Report of the Commission, condemning the principle upon which this Bill is founded, and the Members of that Chamber approved and confirmed the views which their President entertained and the course he had pursued. It was said that this Bill only carried out the principles of free trade to their legitimate conclusion. Now, no person had given a more steady and devoted support to the free trade policy than he had; but he certainly should never have thought of advocating that policy if he had understood that it involved such consequences as would, he believed, result from the measures now brought forward by the Government. It surprised him that the principles of free trade should be supposed to have any bearing upon this Bill, and he trusted there would be no reference to these principles in the course of that evening's discussion; but if there were, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would have the goodness to explain how it was that they reconciled it with freedom or with equal justice to all parties to introduce a measure which gives the privilege of unlimited liability to bodies of persons seven or more in number, while they withheld it from smaller associations of individuals, thereby holding out a great artificial inducement to the transfer of concerns now carried on as private concerns to Joint Stock Companies. Perhaps the Government would also have the goodness further to explain how it was, if the principles of this measure were of such value and were worthy of universal application, that they excluded from the operation of the Bill all companies engaged in banking or insurance. Besides the petitions to which he had alluded, he was intrusted with one on the same subject from the Trade Protection Society of Bristol—a society of traders, instituted for the purpose of protecting themselves from those frauds and deceits to which they were exposed. All these petitioners complained of the partiality and unfairness of the
1476
measure; they pointed out the injustice of conferring upon bodies of more than seven individuals privileges which were withheld from trading bodies less in number; and they stated that private parties engaged in trade on their own responsibility would be exposed to an unfair competition with companies formed under the proposed enactment, because the former would be liable to their creditors to the full extent of their property, while the liability of these companies would be limited. He would now intrust these petitions to their Lordships' serious consideration. They were not mere ordinary matter-of-course petitions; but they expressed a deep sense of the dangers to which such legislation would expose those great commercial and trading interests which had hitherto been so prosperous and had justly enjoyed so large a share of credit and of the public confidence. Speaking as men of great practical knowledge and experience, the petitioners solemnly declared to their Lordships their conviction of the injurious consequences which would result from this legislation, and their belief that Parliament was about to try a formiable and dangerous experiment, and to imperil that great commercial system which had hitherto secured to this country an unexampled degree of credit among all the nations of the world, and which, if there was either prudence or gratitude in man, it was the duty of Parliament to cherish and preserve.
LORD WYNFORDthought that the Government had no reason to fear the opposition of the noble Lord, because his general practice appeared to be, in cases of a similar kind, to present a petition and to make a speech against the principle of the measure proposed, but then to offer no further opposition to its progress. The noble Lord had acted in that manner with regard to the Limited Liability Act of last Session, and also with regard to the Mercantile Law Amendment Bill, passed a few evenings ago, on which occasion the noble Lord, after speaking against the Bill, left the House. He did not know whether the noble Lord intended to act in a similar manner on the present occasion, but he believed that if he continued his opposition to the Bill he would receive support, since it was diametrically opposed to the Report of the Commission of 1853.
LORD OVERSTONEwished to explain that on the occasion of the passing of the Limited Liability Bill at the close of the last Session, he was absent in Germany,

1477
and, with regard to the Mercantile Law Amendment Bill, he had acted with the full concurrence of those for whose interest he was contending, and in the manner which they deemed best calculated to ensure the final success of their resistance to the measure.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved the second reading of the Bill. He said, that he would first advert to the petitions which had just been presented, and to the observations which the noble Lord had founded upon them. He would, then, remind their Lordships, that the principle upon which the Bill was founded had been under the consideration of Parliament for a considerable period, and that although Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, and other large commercial towns possessed active, energetic, and intelligent representatives in the other House, they had not expressed any apprehension by the mouths of those representatives; and the inference, therefore, was, that the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord were shared in by a small and exclusive class, and were not felt by the large body of the community. It had been stated on a former occasion, that the Bill of last Session had been hurried through the House with indecent haste; but he would remind their Lordships that, when he asked their consent last Session to the Limited Liability Bill, he had stated that it was only a temporary measure, and he then pledged himself that a Bill should be introduced in the present Session to amend the Joint-stock Companies Act. In pursuance of that pledge, two measures had been introduced into the other House of Parliament—the Joint-stock Companies Act Amendment Bill, and the Partnership Amendment Bill, designed to meet the case of individuals and small partnerships. In asking their Lordships on the present occasion to assent to the former of those two Bills, he would shortly refer to the circumstances connected with the Joint-stock Companies Act. Not many years back Joint-stock Companies were looked upon as being out of the pale of the law, and were viewed with the utmost apprehension by commercial men. It appeared, however, so necessary in certain cases that such companies should be legalised that an Act of Parliament was passed in 1844 legalising such societies; but under certain provisions which, it was imagined, would prevent fraud. That Act provided for a provisional registration and, after
1478
certain conditions had been complied with, for a complete registration, and it required the establishment of a registry. Those provisions had been found totally useless, because scrip in provisionally registered companies was as negotiable in practice as scrip in completely registered companies; and one of the main objects of the present Bill was to do away with the inconvenience and delay which now attended the formation of a Joint-stock Company under that Act, by abolishing preliminaries which were found to have no practical value. He begged to remind the House that this was no new matter, but that the question of limited liability had been under discussion for many years. It had engaged the consideration of several Committees of the House of Commons, and in 1853 a Commission had been issued to inquire into the whole subject. That Commission was composed of men of great eminence, including lawyers and commercial men. Now their Lordships were told by the noble Lord opposite, that the Bill was founded upon principles diametrically opposed to those recommended by the Commission. He (Lord Stanley) could not allow that that was an accurate representation of the fact. That the Report was not a satisfactory one, he admitted. In fact, the Commission, as a Commission, made no report at all; but each member reported his own individual opinion, and a great quantity of valuable evidence was contained in the appendix. He ventured to say, however, after a careful perusal of the proceedings of the Commission, that those whose opinions were entitled to the greatest consideration, were in favour of the introduction of some such Bill as that now proposed; while the evidence, based upon the practice of foreign countries, clearly showed that the principle of limited liability was very generally in force, without danger, and with great advantage to the commercial intarests of those countries. In 1854, after the Commission had reported, the subject was brought before the House of Commons, and a Resolution was unanimously carried to the effect that the law of partnership ought to be altered, and that limited liability ought to be adopted. That opinion having been expressed by the other House two years ago, no one could be said to have been taken by surprise by the passing of the Bill of last Session, or by the introduction of the present one, further amending the law. He would not repeat what he had said last year as to the importance of settling this

1479
question; but he might remind their Lordships, that for more than two years the Board of Trade, which was being constantly asked to grant charters of incorporation to great commercial undertakings, had suspended its functions, and had felt that the time had come for Parliament to interfere and to pass some general Act. The Bill passed the House of Commons without a single division upon its principle; and the alterations which were made in Committee were calculated to extend rather than to narrow its provisions. That was the state of things when he brought up the measure of last year and asked the concurrence of the House to it; but at the same time he stated that it must be regarded more in the light of a provisional than of a permanent measure. He admitted that the Bill now before the House did not contain many of the restrictions and safeguards, as they were called, which were to be found in the Act of last year. [Lord OVERSTONE: Hear, hear.] The noble Lord cheered that statement; but what, he asked, was the value of those restrictions? He (Lord Stanley) contended that they operated as a mere delusion, that they were of no real value whatever, and that they only tended to prevent persons from exercising due caution as regarded the character of the promoters of public companies, and the nature of the schemes recommended to the public. In proof of this assertion, he would quote from an authority which he was sure would be received with respect by the noble Lord. Mr. M'Culloch, in his pamphlet entitled, Considerations on Partnerships with Limited Liability, referring to the Act of last year, said—
"And notwithstanding the laudable care that has been taken, in the compilation of the late statute, to guard against the machinations of such parties, we are well assured that the security which it endeavours to establish against fraud will be found to be of no real value. A, B, and C, may allege that they have each paid £1,000 or £10,000 to the stock of a limited liability association; but, as was formerly stated, you can have no security that such sums have been or will be paid; or, supposing them to have been paid, that they have not subsequently been withdrawn, or wasted, or lost in unprofitable speculations. …… As to official returns, oaths, declarations, and so forth, they bind those only who do not require to be bound; but whenever they become necessary they are good for nothing. Honest managers would act honestly though they did not exist; and dishonest managers easily evade them and set them at defiance. The pretended security which they afford is really worse than nothing, for it begets an undeserved confidence on the part of the public, and makes them trust to what is wholly unworthy of any trust whatever."
1480
Confirmed by that opinion, he had come to the conclusion that all those conditions and restrictions which were imposed upon companies were of little or no value—in point of fact, that they did more harm than good, and that they only tended to perpetuate and increase that fraud which they were supposed to be calculated to repress. In discussing this matter, however, it was desirable that they should go a little beyond the mere consideration of limited liability, which was only one ingredient of the question. Many persons objected to public companies altogether, because all joint-stock associations were to some extent an interference with the private trader, and the aggregation of capitals placed single individuals at a comparative disadvantage. He (Lord Stanley) contended, on the other hand, that in strict justice Parliament had no right to interfere with the application of any man's capital, and to say that he should not employ it in any way he thought fit. This Bill gave a man no privilege, but it was calculated to prevent an undue and unjust interference with him in the disposal of his capital. According to the old law, people might limit their liability with respect to individual transactions if they stated their limited liability upon every such transaction beforehand; and such was not only the law but the practice with insurance companies at the present moment. He proposed now to enable persons to do that by a general publication of the intention of the company to confine itself to a limited liability, which by law at present they could do with regard to each individual transaction. It was for those who objected to limited liability to justify the invasion of every man's natural right to employ his capital as he might think fit. He did not think he need say more on the general subject. In the first place, the Joint-stock Companies' Act, the Act amending the same, the Winding-up Act, and the Limited Liability Act of last Session, were repealed with the view of being consolidated into a regular code for the government of joint-stock companies, whether limited or unlimited. In the next place, banking and insurance companies were excepted from the operation of the Bill. The business transacted by banking companies was of a peculiar nature, and required to be regulated by a law of its own; while insurance companies, although it might be right to deal with them upon a future occasion, and although practically they were conducted upon the principle of limited liability, had been

1481
omitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat two years ago. In the third place, the Bill proposed that all companies consisting of more than twenty persons should of necessity come under the operations of the Act, and that all companies consisting of between seven and twenty persons might avail themselves of its provisions or not, as they pleased. When seven persons or more desired to form a company, the Bill required them to make a memorandum of association, stating the object of the company, the amount of the shares, the amount of the capital, and whether the company was to be limited or unlimited. They were then required to prepare for themselves articles of association—a form of which was appended to the Bill, to be used or not, as parties pleased—but if the company was formed with limited liability, the fullest publicity was to be given to that fact, that all persons dealing with them might know the conditions upon which they traded;—and when these articles had been executed, and a registry established, they were entitled to complete registration, and became a fully formed company, authorised to exercise all the functions of a partnership. Great complaints had been made against the system of registration under the Joint-stock Companies' Act. It was therefore proposed under the present Bill to require all companies to establish registers, to be kept at their own offices, open to inspection at all reasonable hours. Registration was to be evidence of liability. By another provision of the Bill, which he thought would operate beneficially by preventing improper management, power was given to one-fifth of the shareholders of any company to apply to the Board of Trade for the appointment of an inspector, whose duty it should be to inquire into the affairs of the company, at the expense of the applicants, and make a report thereon, such report to be the property of the parties so applying. The provisions for the winding up of companies were very important, and he believed would remove many of the difficulties which had been experienced under the existing Act. Companies would, under the new law, be instantly wound up whenever they became insolvent and unable to pay their debts. The principal conditions for the winding up of a company were—failure to commence its operations within a year after its formation, suspension of its business for a whole year, expenditure of three-
1482
fourths of its capital, and neglect or inability to pay its debts within three weeks after demand. In such cases the members might petition the Court, which would immediately proceed to wind up the affairs of the company. Such were the more important provisions of the Bill, and if their Lordships admitted the principle of limited liability—which he maintained they had done—they were bound to allow it to be tried in its integrity. He was satisfied that if they did so the event would not justify the apprehensions which were at present entertained in some quarters. That we should continue to have periods of excitement and over-speculation, though, perhaps, not to the same extent as before, he did not doubt; but that excitement and over speculation would not be fostered or encouraged by limited liability, which, on the contrary, would have a less injurious effect than the existing system of unlimited liability. If a scheming body of directors wished to form a company for fraudulent purposes, they would prefer a company composed of men unlimitedly liable, rather than one conducted on the principle of limited liability, because they could not avail themselves of the funds of the latter to the same extent; while from the fact of its being supposed that limited liability gave less security to the public, every one who dealt with such a company would feel it necessary to inform himself of its real character; the effect of which would be that, instead of those wild and extravagant schemes which had been so rife under the existing system, there would be much greater caution in the establishment of trading concerns, as well as greater circumspection in those who transacted business with them. The principle of the Bill was to allow every man to employ his capital as he pleased, but at the same time to require that the public should be fully informed as to the nature of the partnerships into which he entered, and the terms upon which they conducted their business. The provisions of the Bill had been framed with the view of carrying out that object, and he believed that, while permitting the ut-utmost freedom to capital, they would afford sufficient security to the public without imposing any of those so-called restrictions which experience had proved to be worthless.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he could not allow the Bill to be read a second time without addressing a few observations to the House. He was glad

1483
that their Lordships had not heard tonight a repetition of that most absurd and senseless of all fallacies—a fallacy which he had observed was not entirely out of fashion in another place—that the principle of free trade was involved in the present Bill. The noble Lord had alluded to exceptional cases in which the law now recognised limited liability; that proved but little on behalf of this Bill, for nobody denied that there were some enterprises which required the application of that principle;—no doubt we could not have had our canals and railroads and other great works completed except through the principle of limited liability,—no one ventured to deny that in such enterprises the principle of limited liability was rightly adopted; but that admission afforded no argument in support of the principle of this measure. The present was the third of a series of measures on the same subject which had been brought forward by the Government, all differing from each other; but this Bill realised to an incalculably greater degree than either of its predecessors all the evils he (Lord Monteagle) so much dreaded from them, without giving the protection which the other Bills afforded. His noble Friend said that the opponents of the Bill had been wrong on the former occasions in advocating that protection; but, even if that were so, what security had the House that they were right now in abandoning all precautionary measures whatsoever? The noble Lord said this Bill was especially for the benefit of small capitalists and traders. On the contrary, he (Lord Monteagle) believed that there was no class of the community likely to suffer so much from a Bill of this description as the humbler classes, who would be the most readily induced to invest their savings in speculations over which they would have no means of control, and who would thus be made the dupes of designing parties. Under this Bill any number of persons not less than seven, with a paid-up capital not exceeding 1s. a share, might establish a company to undertake any trade except that of a banking or insurance company. He might be permitted to doubt whether such a proprietary was likely to furnish instruments capable of conducting industrial pursuits, but however this might be, of one thing he was sure, that whilst such companies might be unsuited for ordinary trade and manufactures, there was one enterprise they would be well fitted for, and that was the manufacture of shares and the establishment
1484
of a spirit of gambling. He was told that their Lordships were not bound to protect people against imprudence by Act of Parliament, but that was not an accurate mode of stating the case. He would rather argue, as against the present Bill, that their Lordships were bound not to ruin people by Act of Parliament. He apprehended serious mischief from the Bill on the table, and therefore he entreated their Lordships to hesitate before they gave sanction to a measure that, so far from being required for the legitimate trade of the country, could not fail to be detrimental to those engaged in it. They had had experience enough in England of the great suffering and inconvenience produced by the establishment of joint-stock companies, even when the application of limited liability was legitimate and necessary; they all knew the amount of misery and ruin, and he might add, the disgrace and crime, which, the railway mania had produced. The manner in which all classes, even the highest, had engaged in the traffic in shares had been most disgraceful; but how much more would this be the case under such a Bill as the present, when gambling shops would be established at the corner of every street, and enterprises carried on for the benefit only of the small fraternity who organised them, and prosecuted so long only as suited their fraudulent purposes, leaving their dupes without a remedy? His noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade had not attempted a reply to the impressive speech of his noble Friend near him (Lord Overstone); nor had the noble Lord ventured to refer to the Report of the Royal Commission to seek arguments in support of his Bill. Indeed, with regard to that Commission it was of importance to remember, that it had given no sanction to such a Bill as the present, and that the most influential and experienced mercantile members connected with the inquiry were entirely opposed to such enactments. The noble Lord had referred to the example of foreign States; but he (Lord Monteagle) thought foreign countries were much more likely to benefit by the experience and practice of England than we were in adopting the system of commandite and limited liability. But he (Lord Monteagle) denied that on the present occasion we were adhering to foreign experience, if it were t admitted to be a safe guide. His noble Friend had indeed stated that the principle of this measure was recognised in almost every foreign country, but he (Lord Monteagle) challenged the noble Lord to men-

1485
tion any country in which it was adopted. Had such a legislative monster as the Bill now before their Lordships ever been produced in America, in France, or in any other part of the world? Wherever in foreign countries limited liability had been established, the principle had been coupled with safeguards and limitations, all of which were wanting in this Bill. They had been told that they ought not to attempt to regulate private interests by Act of Parliament, but should leave people to take care of themselves; but that was no reason why they should encourage a host of adventurers with shilling shares and five pound capitals to start such useless and mischievous companies, to the injury of their neighbours. He asked the House to consider the unfair and partial consequences this measure—upon which his noble Friend relied for the development of trade and commerce in this country—would entail upon persons who in employing their own capital had to encounter the risks of ordinary trade. Mushroom companies in competition with them would be established under the auspices of plausible secretaries and of gentlemen learned in the law; and he feared the term "limited liability," instead of being regarded as a warning and an indication of danger, would rather operate as a bait. And even if there was no fraudulent intent, the whole of the small capital of one of these undertakings, not being carried on upon true mercantile principles, would be wasted in extravagant competition with the legitimate trade. After the conclusive opinions which had been expressed by the noble Lord (Lord Overstone) in presenting a petition to-night, and also in a previous debate, supported as those opinions were by his great ability and experience, he (Lord Monteagle) was unwilling to occupy their Lordships' attention further upon this subject; but he must say that if any indifference existed in the public mind with reference to this question, it arose partly from the great pains which had been taken to argue the case in such a manner as to lead the middle and humbler classes to believe that the measure would extend to them advantages which had hitherto been confined to the wealthy. He would feel it his duty, even if he should stand alone, to say "Not content" to the second reading of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that he could not allow some observations of his noble Friend to pass without reply, although there was no intention of taking a
1486
division on the Bill. His noble Friend had congratulated the House on the circumstance that the Government had entirely abandoned what he considered the absurd argument that this measure had any connection with the abstract principles of free trade. But the Government had not done so. He (the Duke of Argyll) must, for himself, repeat the opinion he had before expressed, that there was a very close and intimate connection between the principles upon which this measure was founded and the principles of free trade. He conceived the doctrine of free trade to be, not merely that they ought not by any artificial restriction of law to prevent men from obtaining from abroad such commodities as they required, but that, as a general principle, it was unwise to prevent individuals from investing their property in what they deemed the most profitable manner. The principle of limited liability was objected to; first, because unlimited liability was necessary for the security of creditors; secondly, because it was requisite for the security of individual traders, who would be exposed to undue competition from companies established under a system of limited liability; and lastly, on the ground that the adoption of the principle of limited liability would give an undue stimulus to speculation. But the Bill would not deprive creditors of their security; for under the present law each individual or company could bargain with his or its creditors as to the extent to which his property should be liable. That principle was admitted even by those who were opposed to limited liability; and yet those who admitted it wished to throw all kinds of impediments in the way of a legal application of it. However, he would submit to noble Lords who agreed to that principle, that, with regard to the present Bill, all they had to do was to assent to the second reading, and then in Committee to see that proper securities for publicity and full knowledge to creditors of the terms upon which they were to deal were provided in the Bill. It had been admitted on all hands, including the noble Baron (Lord Overstone) himself, that any attempt to substitute legislative protection for individual prudence must necessarily fail. Then, again, as the usury laws had been repealed, and the creditor had been permitted to make his own terms with the person with whom he dealt, it was no longer necessary to retain the obstructions of the present state of the law; but, on the con-

1487
trary, Parliament was bound, in consideration of the shareholders, to remove all those impediments. A creditor was now permitted to measure the rate of interest he charged by the extent of risk which he imagined he was about to run, and, consequently, could protect himself in his dealings with individuals or companies, by exacting thirty or forty per cent, and after he had drained away all the profits by his exorbitant interest, he could still claim his capital like any other creditor. Then, with respect to the remarks which had been made as to the protection at present afforded to certain trades carried on by individuals, the meaning of that doctrine was simply "protection." It was admitted that in certain trades or businesses limited liability could be usefully granted, and it was said that in such cases the Board of Trade had power to grant charters to effect that object; but it must be remembered that in granting those charters, no consideration was given to the probabilities of success, or to the security which would be afforded to the creditors or the shareholders. With respect to the most important argument which had been urged against the Bill—that it would give an unnatural and unhealthy stimulus to speculation, he (the Duke of Argyll) could not believe that any apprehension need be entertained upon that head. If the State were able to distinguish between good and bad speculations, it would be the duty of the State to encourage the one and discourage the other; but it was admitted by all persons that the State could not attempt to exercise such power with advantage to the public. At the same time that the opponents of limited liability admitted the impossibility of discrimination on the part of the State between good and bad speculations, they called upon the State to offer a general discouragement to all speculations alike, whether good or bad. Such a course would not be advisable upon any principle, and in order to remove that evil the present legislation was required. It could not he denied that, in the present state of the law, all speculations, whether good or bad, were alike impeded, as was admitted even by those who were opposed to the present measure. His noble Friend said that every man who entered upon a speculation should be held liable to the whole extent of his means; but he (the Duke of Argyll) held that every man should be held bound to the full extent to which he bargained to be bound, but not beyond. There were de-
1488
grees of confidence with regard to the remunerating character of mercantile undertakings, and, if a man entertained sufficient confidence in a concern to risk £1,000 in it, why should you prevent him from embarking in it at all unless he risked his whole fortune? If every man were to be held liable to the whole extent of his fortune, why not go further, and say to the extent of his life? [Lord OVERSTONE: Oh, oh!] His noble Friend cried "Oh!" but he would remind the noble Lord that there were times when the matter would have gone to that extent; and by the Bubble Act persons were subjected to the penalty of a prœmunire. It was said that the legislation now proposed would lead to rash and dangerous speculation. Now, had the present law secured caution on the part of the public? The manias of 1825, 1834, and 1845 had been alluded to. Well, all these manias had happened under the existing law, and no proof had been given to show that such manias would now be increased. On the contrary, it appeared to him that there were several modes in which the proposed change in the law might operate favourably in preventing rash speculation. He did not believe that any law would entirely prevent these periodical manias; but was it not possible that the change now proposed might induce greater caution on the part of the public? The Committee which sat to investigate this subject spoke of the evils at present created by the use of the names of persons of great wealth and reputation in the formation of public companies. At present, if a man saw the name, for example, of his noble Friend in the prospectus of a new company, he would say, "Lord Overstone is a man of great wealth and prudence; he is liable to the full extent of every farthing he possesses; he must therefore have inquired fully into the probable success of this undertaking, and I can have no hesitation in joining the company too." But, under the law of limited liability, a man would say, "Lord Overstone is a man of great wealth; it is very well for him to play at ducks and drakes with his money, and to risk £2,000 or £3,000; but the loss of such a sum would ruin me; I must be more cautious," Another cause of the speculative mania was the facility with which money could be obtained on loan; and it seemed to him to be an advantageous change if people were induced to invest their surplus capital in taking shares instead of being forced to lend it from the want of a law of

1489
limited liability. He had heard various warnings given as to the danger of trusting too much to abstract principles in a complex state of society. Now, this was almost precisely the language which they had always heard used when changes in the law which had turned out of the utmost benefit to society had been opposed by unreasoning prejudice. He felt confident that this objection would be equally unfounded in the present case, and that, by carrying out practically the abstract principle that a man had a right to invest his money on what terms he pleased, their Lordships would be adopting a system which would neither weaken our credit nor encourage rash speculation, but which would be recognised as a great boon by the country generally.
LORD DENMANsaid, that he thought the restrictions introduced into the first Bill brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, by a noble Earl who had come from near the German Ocean to be present at its discussion, were highly salutary. He could refer to a case in 1827—in which a noble Lord, now high in the councils of his Sovereign, had suffered by joining the Devon and Cornwall Mining Company; and he did not think it useless to take precautions to prevent less sagacious persons from being deceived, and wished that a clause could be introduced to show the actual price given for the patent or other object of any speculation to the founder of the company. He thought the present Bill contained useful clauses in simplifying registration and facilitating the winding up of companies, and therefore would vote for the second reading; but if those in whose judgment he had confidence, and who had proposed restrictions before, should again bring them forward, he should feel bound to support them.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that in the present state of the House he would not trouble their Lordships with a lengthened argument, but hoped to convince them of the inexpedience of the measure upon a future occasion. At all events, he recorded his protest against it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORasked whether it was a reasonable course upon a Bill consisting of 116 clauses, among which were provisions of the greatest importance, not merely to traders under limited liability, but to those under unlimited liability, to oppose the second reading because objections were enter-
1490
tained to one portion of the measure only? The proper course, he thought, would be to allow it to go into Committee, and to oppose in Committee the clauses which were considered to be injurious in their bearing.
LORD OVERSTONEreplied, that it was quite a new doctrine that they should not record their votes against the principle of a measure, because that principle was only embodied in some of the clauses.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content 18; Not Content 5: Majority 13.
Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PROTEST.
Die Lunœ, 16° Junii, 1856.
Against the Second Reading of the Joint-Stock Companies Bill.
DISSENTIENT.— "1. Because the measure is wholly unnecessary; inasmuch as every concern has the means of limiting its liability by trading upon its own capital, and not upon the borrowed capital of others. Liability is not necessarily incident to trading or to the application of capital to the pursuits of industry; it is the result of taking credit or trading upon borrowed capital. Limited liability, therefore, is a measure of protection, not to the capitalist, great or small, but to the speculator, who wishes to trade for his own profit but with the capital, and at the risk of others.
"2. Because the principle of limited liability is antagonistic to, and will probably prove seriously destructive of, the sober and substantial virtues of the mercantile character. By weakening in the mind of the trader the sense of full responsibility for the consequences of all his actions, and limiting the obligation which now rests upon him to return in full all that he has borrowed from others, the general tone of commercial morality must be deteriorated. By limiting the unfortunate consequences of failure, while no corresponding limitation is placed upon the gains which may attend success, the due equipoise between the restraints and the stimulants to enterprise and speculation, upon which depend the solidity and safety of the commercial system, must be disturbed. By enabling parties to put a fixed limit to the amount of possible loss the chief incentive to caution or vigilance in the conduct of business will be taken away or seriously weakened, while by leaving the hope of gain unrestricted and indefinite, a gambling principle will be introduced into commercial transactions, and the risks of trade will assimilate themselves to the chances of the lottery-wheel rather than to what they now are, the legitimate results of hopeful industry and cautious enterprise.
"3. Because the measure in its present form, unaccompanied by safeguards or any attempt to obviate the clear and acknowledged danger of abuses to which the principle of limited liability must be exposed, is not only in opposition to the

1491
Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject, but is contradictory to the practice and experience of every country in the world which has admitted the principle of limited liability into its commercial code.
"In every other country the privilege of limited liability is surrounded by restrictions which are intended to guard against the danger—first, of excessive and reckless enterprise, naturally generated by the sense of strict limitation of risk; and, second, of fraudulent abstraction under the form of interest or profits, of that specific and fixed amount of capital which is alone appropriated as the security of the honest creditor.
"These restrictions indicate the universal conviction of all other countries that against these sources of abuse it is necessary that some proper safeguard be provided. If it be deemed impossible to render such safeguards efficient and satisfactory, the conclusion necessarily arises that a measure ought not to be persisted in which does not admit of effectual protection against injustice to the honest creditor and injury to the public interests.
"4. Because the effect of the Bill will be to give legal protection, and, therefore, to hold out moral encouragement, to dishonest practices in trade.
"Profits in trade consist of interest upon capital, remuneration for labour and skill, and premium of insurance on risk. In proportion as the risk in any business is great profits are usually high; but of these high profits a large share is by every honest trader set aside as the premium reserved against high risks. An unfortunate tradesman coming before the Bankruptcy Court would not be very leniently dealt with should it appear that, carrying on a very riskful business, he had year by year spent all the great apparent profits, making no reserve out of them to meet the high risks he was incurring. Now, this is the very practice which this Bill directly sanctions, and therefore encourages.
"The object of the measure is to enable concerns to limit their liability to a certain fixed sum, which has no reference to the varying magnitude of the risks which they incur, or to the high profits which, through those risks, they are appropriating to themselves, but not reserving for the honest protection of their creditors.
"They are, in fact, appropriating and misapplying the premium of insurance, which, under the form of high profits, they year by year receive; and in this immoral course they will have the authority and sanction of the Bill.
"5. Because the tendency of the measure must be to encourage and promote the transference of capital from trading concerns now constituted, and conducted with the caution and prudence which the sense of unlimited liability necessarily generates, to joint-stock companies, trading with small paid-up capitals, and embarking, under the protection of limited liability, upon risks which no person would otherwise venture to encounter. When loss occurs a heavy portion of it will be made to fall upon the unfortunate creditor, who deserves our sympathy, whilst the adventurers who ought to be the victims of their own reckless speculations will remain comparatively safe under the ægis of limited liability. Meanwhile the sober calculations and legitimate transactions of real trade will give way to a general spirit of speculation, in hazardous enterprises,
1492
and jobbing in shares—a state of things of which the history of 1824 and 1825 affords a practical illustration, and, at the same time, holds out a warning example.
"6. Because many very important advantages arise from the high moral character and commercial credit founded upon the full and punctual discharge of all its obligations which this country at present enjoys throughout the world. If the effect of the measure shall be, as is predicted by its supporters, to restrict rather than to increase credit, by filling the community with a mass of concerns notoriously undeserving of public confidence, the consequence must be serious injury to our commercial character abroad—a diminution of the confidence which other countries repose in the engagements of our merchants and traders—an interruption to the ease and freedom with which all our trading intercourse with the world is at present conducted—and, in the end, absolute pecuniary loss to the country.
"7. Because the measure is singularly inappropriate to the present state of this country as regards capital and enterprise.
"There is abundance of capital in this country. We are the lenders of our surplus capital to every nation of the world. Any sudden demand, any new opening for speculation is at once supplied with inexhaustible funds; whilst we are subject to the frequent recurrence of periods of undue and dangerous inflation of credit and speculation. When these periods occur, the tendency of the measure must be to extend and intensify these evils, by giving facility for the widespread introduction of Joint-stock Companies, reckless in their procedure because protected by limited liability, and filling the community with the instruments of gambling in the form of shares upon which little or nothing has been paid up. The real want of the country is competent and duly qualified men (in whom confidence is duly blended with caution, and the spirit of mercantile enterprise is regulated by experience and the sense of responsibility) to wield successfully the vast resources of capital and credit which the country is prepared to place at their command.
"The evil to the correction of which the Bill is apparently directed—namely, insufficient supply of capital to meet the demands of industry and enterprise—does not, in fact, exist; whilst the real difficulty is one which legislation cannot effectually remedy.
"8. Because the period chosen for the introduction of this measure is peculiarly unfavourable to the safety of the experiment. After a long-continued heavy drain of the precious metals from this country, the reflux has apparently commenced; a great accumulation of bullion may be reasonably anticipated. Under such circumstances, credit and a blind spirit of speculation are always developed to a dangerous extent. On the present occasion this danger will be rendered more formidable by the effect, the character and extent of which is yet to be ascertained, of the recent extraordinary discoveries of gold. The time is therefore approaching, according to all probability, at which the prudence and firmness of the community will, through the natural course of events, be subjected to a severe trial.
"At such a moment it is eminently inexpedient and dangerous to introduce a change in the law seriously affecting the mutual relation of the debtor and creditor interest, and which must, in the first

1493
instance at least, exercise a powerful influence on credit and speculation. Important changes of the laws which affect our monetary or commercial system, however sound may be the principles on which they rest, are almost invariably followed by rapid and excessive development, leading to temporary, but serious embarrassment.
"The crisis of 1825 was preceded by, and was intimately connected with, the rapid development of the warehousing system which resulted from the Acts passed in 1822.
"The crisis of 1837–9 was closely connected with the sudden and excessive expansion of the Joint-stock banking system which occurred in the years immediately preceding.
"The crisis of 1847 followed closely upon the extensive reduction of import duties introduced by Sir R. Peel and the sudden outburst of the railway system.
"Experience, therefore, compels us to anticipate a similar crisis as the necessary result of the first development of that great change in our monetary and commercial system which is involved in this abrupt and unqualified introduction of the principle of limited liability.
"If this crisis occurs simultaneously with the effect of a strong influx of the precious metals on the return of peace, and of the recent extraordinary addition to the total amount of the precious metals through the gold discoveries, the firmness and prudence of the country may be subjected to a trial too powerful to be withstood, and an artificial expansion of credit may ensue, causing monetary embarrassment and great mercantile disasters.
"OVERRSTONE,
"MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON."
House adjourned till To-morrow.