Sitting of 22 May 1857

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Penryn and Falmouth, v. Thomas George Baring, esq., Lord of the Admiralty.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°Joint-Stock Companies, &c.; Fraudulent Trustees, &c.; Cinque Ports Act Amendment; Registration of Voters (Scotland).
3°Transportation and Penal Servitude.

COLONEL JACOB'S RIFLE—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the War Department, in continuing the experiments with the Whitworth rifle, would simultaneously cause experiments to be made with the weapon known as Colonel Jacob's rifle, to which the attention of the War Department has been officially drawn by Reports communicated from India?
SIR JOHN RAMSDEN, in reply to the question, said that some experiments had already been made with Colonel Jacob's rifle at a short range, and it was intended, when the rifle shells and balls were made, to make some further trials at a longer and more satisfactory range.

THE NEW CARTRIDGES.—QUESTION.
MR. STANLEYsaid, that, in accordance with the rule laid down by Mr. Speaker, he should explain the question which he was about to put, by stating a few simple reasons for putting it. That he might be in order, he should move that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that of course
712
if the hon. Member persisted in the Motion he must put it, but the hon. Member must be aware that, in putting a question, by the rules of that House he must confine himself to such few remarks as were necessary to render it intelligible.
MR. STANLEYsaid, that was all he meant to do; but, as the feeling of the House was against him, he would merely ask the Under Secretary for War if the various plans submitted to the War Department during the late war, of attaching the cap to the cartridge, or other contrivance obviating the troublesome necessity of the soldier having to bite the cartridge, have received the attention of the Secretary of State for the War Department, and if any of them is likely to be adopted?
SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, it was quite true that a very ingenious contrivance had been submitted to the consideration of the Government to obviate the necessity of the soldier biting the cartridge in loading his musket, but certain objections in detail rendered its adoption impracticable. The object, however, had been obtained in another way. The cartridges for the new Enfield rifles were made in such a way as to open by the hand, and when that rifle had been supplied to the whole of the army there would be no necessity for the soldiers to bite the cartridge at all.

REVENUE POLICE (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Report is correct that the Revenue Police in Ireland are to be dismissed, the men to be transferred to the constabulary, and a small gratuity to be given to the officers now serving?
  MR. WILSONsaid, that it was not the intention of the Government to abandon the present system of employing the Revenue Police in aid of the constabulary in Ireland, which had been commenced under the Act of 1854; but as that Act expired in the present year, Parliament would be asked to renew it with certain modifications.

THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) whether the Amendments introduced by him in the Industrial Schools Bill provide for the omission of all

  713
  clauses authorizing any charge upon the poor rate?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that in deference to the opposition to this Bill, of which the noble Lord had been the chief author, every allusion to the boards of guardians, and every charge upon the poor rates, had been omitted from the Bill, with the single exception of a permissive clause enabling boards of guardians, with the sanction of the Poor Law Board, to make use of these schools.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there would be any objection to lay on the table the Report of the Civil Service Commission on Monday next, prior to the Appendix being printed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the Report of the Commissioners had been presented, but the Appendix had not yet been received. He was given to understand that it would be ready in the course of the next week, and as it would be more conducive to the proper investigation of the subject to have the two together, the Report would be delayed until the Appendix could be presented with it.

THE SLAVE TRADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the magistrate who, according to the Report of Mr. Fitzpatrick to the Lieutenant Governor of the Gold Coast (dated Cape Coast Castle, in the year 1853), refused to give information respecting the slave trade to Commander Philips, of Her Majesty's ship Polyphemus, unless he was guaranteed some reward, still holds the Commission of the Peace at the Gold Coast; and whether the two other magistrates stated in the same Report to have been holders of slaves and pawns still hold the commission of the peace for the Gold Coast, and whether the two other magistrates stated in the same Report to have been holders of slaves and pawns still hold the Commission of the Peace for the Gold Coast?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that none of the magistrates to whom the questions referred continued to hold the Commission of the Peace of that colony.

THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALPOLEasked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he intends to propose that the House shall adjourn over Tuesday next, the day on which Her Majesty's birthday is to be kept. It would also be convenient if the noble Lord would at the same time state what adjournment he proposes for the Whitsuntide recess.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I intend to propose that the House shall, as usual, adjourn over the day on which Her Majesty's birthday is kept, and also over the following day, on which our Isthmian games are celebrated. With regard to Whitsuntide, I shall propose that we adjourn from Friday to the Thursday following. Thursday being a day on which the Motions of private Members are taken, I do not think it would be right to adjourn over that day; but I consider that it would be unnecessary to ask Members to come up on Wednesday for a morning sitting.

  TORTURE IN INDIA—QUESTION.
  On the Motion, "That the House at its rising adjourn till Monday next,"
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Control if he will state to the House what steps have been taken by the Government to put an end to the practice of Torture in the Presidency of Madras, since the Report of the Commission that has proved its prevalence in that Presidency? And whether similar investigations have been instituted in Bombay and Bengal; and, if so, whether it is intended to communicate the result of such inquiries to the House? It must be in the recollection of hon. Members that in consequence of the statement made by the Government of Madras a Commission was appointed to investigate the subject. That inquiry extended over seven years, and the result was that the Commissioners produced a book which showed not only that the practice of torture prevailed in India, but to a far greater extent than had ever been stated in that House. One of the purposes for which it was employed was to enforce the payment of the revenue. With regard to torture to extort confession, it appeared that there had occurred in the Madras Presidency 1,690 cases in which persons had been forced by torture to confess them-

  715
  selves guilty of offences with which they were charged, and out of that number not less than 890 were afterwards acquitted. It was impossible to conceive a more infamous state of things. Then, with respect to torture by the police for the purposes of plunder. The Commissioners stated that the practice was universal, and they stated the means of torture employed, which were of the most harrowing character, and, as regarded females, were too disgusting and indecent to be described. Moreover, the Commissioners stated that these instances which they had collected were only samples, for from the system pursued by the local authorities inquiries were obstructed; and even when parties were convicted their punishments were utterly inadequate; so that these outrages were rather encouraged. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might attempt to put him down by clamour, but he would maintain that the system was disgraceful to a free country. He considered that he was addressing an English assembly, representing the rights of freemen, protecting the interests of the subjects of the realm, and they ought not to try to drown the voice of an independent Member who was exposing a system of abuse degrading to the country. By attempting to silence him by clamour, hon. Members would involve themselves in the disgrace which attaches to those infamous practices of the native Hindoo police. There was another statement in the Report which showed that this hideous system was not maintained by the native police alone. It stated—
  "In this investigation one thing has impressed us even more painfully than the conviction that torture exists, it is the difficulty of obtaining redress which confronts the Hindoo nation."
  The Commissioners then drew a dreadful picture of the state of the native police. The police were under paid, which no doubt was one great cause of the evil; and the Commissioners stated,—
  "The police are banded together from the highest to the lowest for the purpose of extorting illicit gains, and violence, fraud, and torture are the chief means of detecting crime, or rather of implicating innocence."
  MR. STANLEYsaid, he rose to order. He was refused a short time previously the opportunity of saying a few words, but the noble Lord was allowed to make a speech. ["Order, order."]
  MR. SPEAKER: The two cases are very different. There is now a Motion before the House (that the House at its
  716
  rising adjourn), which gives the noble Lord the privilege of speaking; and if I am asked whether the noble Lord is strictly in order I am bound to say that he is.
  MR. STANLEYrose again, as if desirous to address the Chair. He was met by loud cries of "Chair, chair," but continued still standing.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have answered the question of the hon. Member for Beaumaris, and as I have stated that the noble Lord is in order, I consider that he is entitled to continue his address.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Beaumaris had not selected a very suitable task in rising to speak to "order." During the long period through which he trusted that Mr. Speaker would continue to hold the Chair he hoped never again to see him treated as he had been on that occasion. The present was a question affecting so many millions of our fellow-subjects, that he was sorry to see it attract so little the attention of hon. Members opposite, who had little respected its magnitude and importance. However, as they were so impatient he would take another opportunity of entering into details, and would conclude by requesting an answer to the question which he had asked.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he certainly should not follow the noble Lord into his details, considering that they had been a most inconvenient abuse of the Orders of the House. ["No, no!"] It certainly was admitted that questions might be taken up on the Motion for Adjournment, but that was usually understood to be confined to questions of urgency, and not to extend to questions of such a magnitude and nature as these asked by the noble Lord. He the more regretted that the noble Lord should have taken the present opportunity of introducing the question, because the inattention with which it had been met might be regarded here, but above all in India, as arising from indifference to the subject; whereas it arose only from the inappropriateness of the occasion. The answer he had to give to the questions of the noble Lord simply was, that he intended to move for the production of all the papers on the subject since September 4, 1855, which was the date of the last return. There had been a great deal done already in consequence of the valuable labours of the Commission, and he fully participated in the horror expressed by the noble Lord at the atrocities they had dis-

  717
  closed. He should do all that he could to extirpate such practices; and so, he was sure, Would his noble Friend Lord Harris, the Governor of the Madras Presidency. Letters had been written under his (Mr. V. Smith's) sanction to the authorities in India, representing the horror which these practices excited among the people of this country, and when the agents were convinced that the determination of the Indian Government was to put these practices down, he believed they would co-operate with the Government in that object. It was proposed to inflict additional penalties on those who might be guilty of these practices; and as there was a new penal code under consideration, it had been suggested that its provisions might be modified for that purpose. For his own part he did not shrink from investigation, and was sincerely desirous to put down practices so disgraceful, and with that view desired that public attention should be directed to them. But he did not know what other measures could be adopted for that end than those which had been thus resorted to.
  MR. STANLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have to apologise to you and to the House if I seemed just now to dispute your authority. I should be sorry, Sir, having had the honour of a seat here many years, to set such an example to younger Members. It was not, Sir, that I was not satisfied with your answer to my first question, but I wished to put a further question as to what I always understood to be the rule of the House—that a Member must speak to the question before it. No Member, Sir, will do more to support your authority than myself, and I again beg to apologise to you and the House if I appeared to disregard it.

  WESTMINSTER BRIDGE—QUESTION.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works as to the state and condition of Westminster Bridge, and whether the Government have come to any determination to proceed with the works commenced for a new Bridge? A Committee had been appointed at the close of the Session of 1856 to inquire into the state of Westminster Bridge, and had recommended that the works which had been begun for the erection of the new bridge should be suspended in consequence of a Report which had emanated from the Committee on Public Offices advocating the
  718
  purchase of a larger tract of land in the immediate neighbourhood of the existing bridge, with a view that public offices should be erected upon it. He perceived from the Report of what had occurred in another place, that the noble Lord the President of the Council, had stated that it was not the intention of the Government to apply to Parliament to sanction the purchase of a larger plot of land, and he therefore felt called upon to put to the right hon. Baronet the question of which he had given notice. He should inform the House that a sum of £50,000 had already been expended upon the new bridge, and that the river had been very much blocked up and impeded by the erections which had been rendered necessary in order to carry on the works. He believed he was also right in stating that many of the piers which had been constructed for that purpose did not correspond with the piers of the old bridge, but actually occupied the waterway between them, so that—as had been stated in the evidence given before the Committee£the result of a heavy frost might be to produce the most dangerous consequences, as the accumulation of a great body of ice might either lead to the carrying away of the bridge bodily by impeding the flow of the river, or to the inundation of the low lands in the neighbourhood.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that a similar question to the one now asked by the right hon. Gentleman had been put to him on the 9th of February last by the hon. Member for Lambeth, in reply to which he had stated that he had seen Mr. Page, the engineer, on the morning of that day, who had reported to him that, notwithstanding the suspension of the works connected with the new Westminster Bridge, it was his opinion that no danger was likely to result, as the condition of the old bridge proved it to be as safe as it had been in the preceding year. In consequence of the notice which the right hon. Gentleman had given him that he was about to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, he had sent for Mr. Page again that morning, but had not been able to see him. He had, however, received from his clerk of the works precisely the same information as Mr. Page himself had given him upon the former occasion. With respect to the question whether the Government had determined to proceed with the works of the new Westminster Bridge, he might

  719
  say that two Committees had, in the course of the Session of 1856, been appointed, the one to investigate the state of the public offices, the other, of which the right hon. Gentleman had been the Chairman, to take into consideration the condition of the old Westminster Bridge, and the course which should be adopted in reference to the progress of the new bridge. The former Committee had come unanimously to the Resolution that it was desirable to concentrate the public offices in the immediate neighbourhood of Downing Street, and the Government having taken that Resolution into their consideration, had determined that, in consequence of the state of the War-office and the inconveniences which arose in the conduct of the business of that department, it was expedient that a new War-office should be erected. They had also come to a similar conclusion with reference to the building of a new Foreign-office, and he felt assured that the right hon. Gentleman would concur in the propriety of that conclusion when he recollected that the noble Lord who had been at the head of the Foreign Department under the Government of Lord Derby, might have suffered most seriously in consequence of a portion of the ceiling of one of the rooms having fallen in, owing to the dilapidated condition of the building. The Government, under these circumstances, had endeavoured, in order that the new edifices might be worthy of the metropolis, to procure by means of competition, the services of the best architects, not only in this country but through out the world, and had with that view sent out specifications to almost every quarter of the globe. The appeal had been most nobly responded to, as was clearly shown by the designs which were now being exhibited in Westminster Hall. In connection with the designs for the two public offices to which be had alluded, however, it had been deemed expedient by the Government, taking into account the report of the Committee upon Public Offices, that specifications for designs for laying out the ground between Richmond Terrace on the north, Great George Street on the south, the Thames on the east, and St. James's Park on the west, should also be sent out. His noble Friend the President of the Council had, however, said correctly that it was not the intention of the Government to purchase the whole of that site, but he might state that they were
  720
  prepared to propose a Bill with a view of acquiring the property which lay between Downing and Charles Streets, in order to build upon it a War-office and a Foreign-office, should Parliament sanction their erection. One portion of the Report of the Committee on Westminster Bridge had been to the following effect:-—
  "Your Committee are of opinion that, subject to the consideration of professional advice to be obtained by the First Commissioner of Works as to the security of the old bridge, the further progress of the works of the new Westminster Bridge should remain suspended until the Government have had an opportunity of considering and deciding on the advice to be offered to Parliament upon this lost subject, when the site of the new bridge might be considered in connection with any general plan of alteration and improvement in the neighbourhood, as well as the all-important subject of the headway under the bridge."
  Now, in deference to the opinion which had been expressed by that Committee, he had set forth in the specifications the necessity of taking into consideration in any block plan which might be furnished the fixing of a site for the new Westminster Bridge. He had, a short time ago, with the sanction of the Government, appointed some gentlemen to consider the plans which had been sent in, in accordance with the specification, and he expected that those gentlemen would make their Report about the middle of next mouth. As soon as that Report had been presented, he should lay it upon the table of the House, when an opportunity would be afforded to hon. Members to enter into the whole subject, and to determine whether the new Westminster Bridge should or should not continue in its present site, and if so, whether it was expedient that the works should be proceeded with upon the present or upon a totally new plan.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising, to adjourn till Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN— MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS ROYAL.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhaving moved that the House should go into Committee to take into consideration the Royal Message on this subject.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I am reluctant to interpose at the present moment, but I believe that the opinions I am about to express are those which are held by a large body of my countrymen, and for that reason, and that alone, I believe that they

  721
  will be listened to with attention by this House. I do not think that anything I can offer will carry any weight with it, but as my opinion will be backed out of doors, I have no doubt the House will give me its attention for a few moments. Sir, I feel that I have on the present occasion a divided duty. I have a duty to perform to the Sovereign and a duty to the people. The Sovereign of these realms has so won the affections of her people that in her case they sink the monarch in the woman, and the respect and deference which we owe to Her authority as the Sovereign are, if I may so say, swallowed up in the affection for the woman. In all the relations of life—as daughter, wife, and mother—Her Majesty has set an example to Her people which, socially, is of immense importance, and on that account I am quite sure it will be our anxious desire, as it will be our very greatest pleasure, to meet her wishes. As this is the first of Her Majesty's children who has left Her parental home, and as it is therefore the first occasion on which Her Majesty has come to this House to ask for aid and assistance in setting that child forth in the world as a daughter of England should be set forth, we must all feel an intense desire to meet the wishes of the Sovereign. But, Sir, while doing this, we must not forget that we have another duty to perform, and that, although we are the subjects of the Queen, we are also the representatives of the people. We must not forget that while we endeavour—as I am sure we all shall endeavour, to meet Her wishes, we have also to consider the interests of the people; and, therefore, that while we are generous, we must endeavour also to be just—generous to the; Sovereign, but just to the people. But, Sir, what I wish to state is with respect to the mode in which we should endeavour to meet the wishes of the Sovereign. We have been told in the gracious Message which Her Majesty has sent, that she has selected a husband for her eldest daughter; and she calls upon the House to aid and assist her, and so to provide for that daughter as to do honour to the people of England, whose daughter she is, and at the same time to secure the comfort of her child. It must be the wish of the House to meet that sentiment as it deserves, but it is due to the people of this country to recollect that when we are providing for the wants—and that is a strong term—for the wants of the child of the Sovereign, we ought not to press too heavily upon the
  722
  people we represent. We must recollect that the Princess Royal is only the first of a large family, and that we are now considering a step which will be brought forward as a precedent, and what we do for the Princess Royal we shall be expected to do for the other Princes and Princesses. Now, Sir, we must also recollect that the Royal Lady who is about now to be married to the Prince of Prussia has chosen for her husband no humble, no obscure individual, no private person, but the heir to a great name and a great lineage. She is about to be married to one, who in the ordinary course of life will become one of the great Sovereigns of Europe. She is, therefore, allying herself to a great Power, and we do not intend, I suppose, so to provide for her as that she shall be considered a Royal Queen, who is about to be married, but to provide for her happiness as the wife of the Royal Prince of Prussia. But while we so endeavour to provide for her happiness, we have to consider what are the best means of so doing; and the only reason that induces me to rise and address the House is, the consideration of what has occurred on a previous and similar occasion. On the marriage of the Princess Royal of England, the daughter of George III., the House of Commons of England determined to apportion for her dowry a round sum of £80,000. They determined by this means at once and for ever to discharge this obligation. I know, Sir, that circumstances at that time allowed the then Sovereign to apply to Ireland; I know that an application was made to the Parliament of Ireland, and that they took a different course, and voted to the Princess Royal an annuity of £5,000 a year, thus imposing upon the people of Ireland the obligation of paying an annuity of £5,000, however long that lady might live. In order to express the feelings which, I believe, is held by a great body of my fellow-countrymen, I beg to tell the noble Lord that the course which the Parliament of England then took meets, as I believe, the feelings of the people of England at the present moment. What is desired, is, that we would generously, and as befits the people of England, provide for the daughter of England, but that we should make that provision at once by the payment of a certain sum suitable for the dowry of the wife of a Prince of Prussia. It is hoped that there will be no attempt to follow the example of the Parliament of Ireland and to fix the people of England

  723
  with the payment of an annuity. I have, therefore, ventured humbly and inefficiently to suggest to the noble Lord that he should on the present occasion propose to the Parliament of England the payment of a round sum certain. Let it be a generous sum, but let us not be hampered by an annuity, and let us at once and for ever discharge our obligations. Sir, we must never forget that this Royal Lady is about to be allied to one of the great Powers of Europe. With that Power—may God avert it!—we may be at war. In my own time that has been an event within men's expectations. I cannot forget how, under dynastic feelings, England has recently been treated by Prussia, and, although I have every feeling of respect and deference to my Sovereign, and every desire to meet Her wishes and enable Her to set her daughter forth in happiness, I cannot forget how my country has been treated by that House to which the Princess Royal is about to ally herself. Sir, this being the case, and receiving this as a warning, I say to the House of Commons, do not hamper this country or yourselves by an annuity to be paid every year. Send this Lady forth as a daughter of England ought to be sent forth. Let her have everything that her necessities and her happiness require; let it be done generously, but let it be done once and for ever.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I entreat the House not to enter by anticipation into a discussion upon a proposition which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to submit to the consideration of the House at the proper moment. I make every allowance for the earnestness of the opinions of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I submit to the House that it is neither consistent with the respect that is due to the Crown nor to the efficiency of our proceedings to discuss a matter which is not yet laid before the House. My right hon. Friend will state the proposal we intend to make, and the reasons upon which it is founded, and when the House knows what we propose, it will then be the fit time to discuss the subject.
  House in Committee, Mr. FITZROY in the chair.
  The Address in answer to the Queen's Message having been read by the Clerk at the table,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen rose and said: In rising to
  724
  request the Committee to redeem the pledge which it has already given in its Address to Her Majesty, and to take into consideration Her Gracious Message respecting the marriage of the Princess Royal, I trust that I need not say one word to them to entreat hon. Members not to suffer their judgment in any way to be anticipated by the remarks which they have just heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman, but to enter into the examination of the question with unbiassed minds, and to form their opinion upon the facts and arguments which it will be my duty to submit to them. Before I proceed to state the proposition which I shall presently place in the Chairman's hands, I beg the Committee to allow me to explain to them the nature of the arrangement under which the Sovereign and the Royal Family are provided for, in respect to their maintenance and their pecuniary means, under our constitutional laws and regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) said that this was an occasion on which we ought to be just before we are generous. Now, in the proposition which I have to submit to the House I shall not appeal merely to their generosity. What I have to put before them will address itself to their sense of justice. It is well-known to the Committee that in former days the Crown of this country possessed large hereditary estates and revenues, and that the entire expenses of the Sovereign and his family were defrayed out of those revenues, which were regarded as the inherent property of the Crown. By a succession of constitutional compacts those hereditary revenues have been surrendered to Parliament, which at the same time engaged to make an adequate provision for the dignity and the honour of the Crown, and for the maintenance of the Royal Family. During the last century the surrender of those revenues was partial, but since the reign of William IV. that surrender has been entire. It has been deemed a matter of policy in this country wholly to strip and denude the Sovereign of all hereditary property, and to render him during his life entirely dependent upon the bounty of Parliament. We see that in foreign States possessing free insitutions this constitutional jealousy has not been observed. It is well known that after the expulsion of Charles X. from his throne, and the succession of Louis Philippe, the latter was not called upon to surrender the large possessions which he

  725
  inherited as the head of the House of Orleans, but retained them as King of France, and, indeed, retained them for some time after he had ceased to be the Sovereign of that country. A similar arrangement exists in the kingdom with which the Princess Royal is about to contract a matrimonial alliance—I mean Prussia. Although the kingdom of Prussia possesses constitutional forms, and is governed by a Parliament associated with the King, nevertheless the Royal family has a hereditary provision which renders it independent of the votes of the Prussian Parliament, In England a different course has been followed, dictated by a constitutional jealousy of the overweening power of the Crown. The Crown has been deprived of its hereditary revenues. But in consequence of that deprivation there arises on the part of Parliament a corresponding obligation to make a sufficient provision for the maintenance and the dignity of the Crown and Royal Family. Therefore, on occasions of this kind, when it is the duty of the Executive Government to appeal to this House to make provision for those wants of the Crown which have not been included in the settlement of the Civil List, an obligation arises not merely of generosity find bounty on the part of this House, but one of strict justice, owing to the arrangement which has been made with respect to the hereditary revenues of the Crown. With the view of showing the position of Her present Majesty in regard to her income and expenditure, I will state to the Committee the arrangements of the present Civil List, and then contrast them with the Civil List of King George III., with which it appears to me most naturally to come into comparison; for this reason, that Her Majesty has a numerous family growing up and to be provided for. The same was the case with King George III., but it was not the case with any of the Sovereigns intermediate between King George III. and Her present Majesty. Now, the Committee ought to be informed that the comparison of the Civil List of King George III. with that of Her present Majesty is not a perfectly simple question, inasmuch as the Civil List of King George III. was founded on principles different from those on which the Civil List of the present reign was constructed. Agreeably to the arrangement by which not only the personal expenses of the Sovereign, but also various branches
  726
  of the civil government were charged upon the hereditary revenues of the Crown, the Civil List of King George III. included several important heads of expense not comprised in the present Civil List—such expenses, for instance, as the salaries of the Judges and those of the diplomatic Agents abroad. Therefore, in order to make the comparison fair, it is necessary to extract those items only of the Civil List of King George III. which correspond with the Civil List of the present reign. I have made that extract, and it is as follows:—

  "CIVIL LIST OF GEORGE III.

  Per annum.

  Privy purse

  …

  …

  £60,000

  Household bills

  …

  …

  236,000

  Ditto salaries

  …

  …

  121,000

  Ditto other salaries

  …

  …

  16,905

  Royal bounty, &c.

  …

  …

  13,531

  Total

  …

  …

  447,436"

  Thus £447,436 per annum was nearly the corresponding charge for the Civil List of King George III., as contrasted with that of the present reign. With the permission of the House I will make a short quotation from the Commentaries of Sir William Blackstone, in which he expresses his opinion upon the Civil List of King George III. And the Committee will see on this comparison whether the Civil List of Her Majesty may or may not be deemed moderate. This passage was written near the beginning of the reign of King George III., and it conveys the opinion of a very competent authority on that arrangement. Sir William Blackstone, in vol. 1, page 335, says:—
  "And though complaints have sometimes been made of the increase of the Civil List, yet, if we consider the sums that have been formerly granted, the limited extent under which it is now established, the revenues and prerogatives given up in lieu of it by the Crown, the numerous branches of the present Royal Family, and (above all) the diminution of the value of money compared with what it was worth in the last century, we must acknowledge these complaints to be void of any rational foundation, and that it is impossible to support that dignity which a King of Great Britain should maintain with an income in any degree less than what is now established by Parliament."
  This was the judgment of one who may be taken as a competent witness on the moderateness of the Civil List of King George III. Let me now compare with that Civil List the items of her present Majesty's Civil List. The Civil List of the Queen is as follows:—

  727

  "1st class, Privy purse

  …

  £60,000

  2d class, Salaries

  …

  131,260

  3d class, Household expenses

  …

  172,500

  4th class, Royal bounty, &c.

  …

  13,200

  5th class, Pensions

  …

  —

  6th class, Unappropriated

  …

  8,040

  Total

  …

  385,000

  The present salaries are £10,000 more than the allowance in the reign of George III. But then the Committee must bear in mind this fact, that at that time there was an extensive system of perquisites, gratuities, and fees paid to members of the Royal Household, and even I believe to the servants of that Household. Therefore, taking into consideration that system, the allowance for salaries was even greater than it is now. The total amount of the present Civil List is £385,000, as compared with £447,000, the amount of the Civil List of George III. Now, having stated the comparative amount of those two Civil Lists, I will, with the permission of the Committee, next call their attention to certain other facts which are material to the question before us. In the first place, King George III. did not surrender the whole of his hereditary revenues. Therefore, in addition to the allowance made for the Civil List he had certain hereditary revenues, out of which a portion of his expenses were defrayed. It appears that not less a sum than £12,705,461 was placed at the disposal of the Crown from the hereditary revenues during the reign of George III. Of this sum £2,600,000 was applied to the public service, and £3,372,834 was appropriated in payment of prize money during the war, leaving a sum of not less than £6,732,627 applicable to the expenses of the Sovereign. The Committee will therefore observe, that in addition to the Civil List provided by Parliament and payable from Parliamentary funds to King George III., he received in the course of his reign a sum of about six millions and a half, the whole of which has been surrendered by Her present Majesty, and no portion of which is receivable by her family. In addition to this, George III. received, during the minority of the Prince of Wales, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. A different course has been pursued during the reign of Her Majesty; the whole of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall have been set apart for his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and a portion of them has been applied to the expenses of his education and maintenance, but the whole of the surplus has been in
  728
  vested for his future benefit. That source of revenue, therefore, which was enjoyed by His Majesty King George III. has not in any respect accrued to our present Queen. But, in addition to this source of revenue which King George III. possessed, but which Her Majesty does not possess, there was at the same time carried on by the King and the Royal family a system of incurring debts to a large extent, which this House was called upon to pay—a system from which the reign of Her Majesty has been altogether exempt. The Civil List at that period was treated as a very elastic fund, considerable debts were incurred in various branches from year to year, and at certain periods the Executive Government came down to Parliament and proposed votes in Committee of Supply to pay off the debts of the Civil List. It is true those debts included the expense's of the civil government as well as the personal expenses of the Sovereign. There might be, for instance, some extraordinary payments for diplomatic purposes or other similar objects, and these would be voted in a general sum, together with the payments for the personal expenses of the Sovereign. It is therefore impossible, on merely looking at the votes for the excesses of the Civil List at that period, to define, without examination, what portion of them were for the personal debts of the Sovereign; but a considerable portion of them were undoubtedly voted for that object. I will trouble the Committee with merely a short statement of the amount of debts on the Civil List paid during the reign of George III. I think they will be surprised at the large amounts that were thus defrayed, and the frequent appeals which must have been made to the liberality of Parliament for what was in fact an increase, to a great extent, of the allowance to the Sovereign fixed by the Civil List. They were as follows:—

  In 1769

  …

  …

  …

  £513,500

  1777

  …

  …

  …

  618,300

  1784

  …

  …

  …

  60,000

  1786

  …

  …

  …

  210,000

  1802

  …

  …

  …

  990,000

  1804

  …

  …

  …

  591,000

  1805

  …

  …

  …

  10,400

  1814

  …

  …

  …

  118,800

  1816

  …

  …

  …

  185,000

  Making altogether for votes granted by this House for excesses in the Civil List in the reign of George III. not less than £3,297,000. But I do not mean to say that the whole or even half that sum was for the maintenance of the Royal Family.

  729
  I have already stated that some parts were applied to purposes connected with the State; but a considerable portion of it was, in fact, an augmentation of the expenses of the Sovereign as fixed by the Civil List. In addition to the sums which I have stated, George III, received certain indirect benefits from the cessation of charges for annuities to members of the Royal Family which had been fixed upon the Civil List. In addition to the allowance made to King George III. on his accession, the following allowances were added to the Civil List—namely, the Princess Dowager of Wales, £50,000 a year; the Duke of Cumberland, £15,000 a year; and the Princess Amelia, £12,000 a year, making altogether £77,000 a year. On the cessation of these annuities from natural causes the Civil List was, in fact, relieved to that extent. There were also other charges of a similar nature for the younger branches of the Royal Family, which, by a similar cessation, benefited the privy purse of the King, or at all events the Civil List, to the extent of £36,000 a year. Therefore the result of what I have stated is, that George III. during his life received from the un-surrendered branches of the hereditary revenues £6,732,627, and from special grants, £3,297,000, making altogether £10,029,627. A considerable portion, no doubt, of the hereditary revenues was applied to the expenses of the civil government charged on the Civil List; but I am unable to state the precise portion. Nevertheless, another considerable portion was in aid of those branches of the Civil List which were destined for the maintenance and benefit of the Sovereign. The Civil List also benefited by the cessation of annuities to the extent of £113,000 a year, as I have already mentioned. Besides the greater magnitude of the Civil List, which I have already explained, there were other allowances which George III. possessed, and by the non-possession of which Her present Majesty is placed in a less favourable position. The annuity to Queen Charlotte, the Queen Consort, was originally fixed at £58,000 a year, but at the commencement of the malady by which George III. was afflicted, it was increased by £10,000, making altogether £68,000 a year; whereas, the annuity of the present Consort, Prince Albert, is only £30,000 a year. Allowances were likewise made for the maintenance of the children of George III. from an early age. No such allowance has hitherto been asked for on behalf of
  730
  Her Majesty. There were allowances made for the education and maintenances of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, from an early period, and also for other members of the Royal Family. At a later time ample provision was made by Parliament by successive arrangements for the maintenance and education of the Princess Charlotte by grants to the Prince Regent, whereas nothing has been asked for the education of the daughters of the Queen. In 1801 the Civil List debts for the support of the Princess Charlotte were £21,967, and they were voted in 1802. On the 4th of June, 1801, the Prince of Wales was allowed out of the Civil List £6,000 a year for the Princess Charlotte when she was five years old, and that was continued until her marriage with Prince Leopold. By the 145th chapter of the 46th year of the reign of George III. a further sum of £7,000 was allowed to the Princess Charlotte. In 1813 further annual sums, varying from £1,400 to £1,800, were paid to the Princess out of the Civil List. In 1801 a sum of £28,635 had been incurred on account of the younger branches of the Royal family. These examples prove that at that time we were in the habit of making allowances for the maintenance and education of younger branches of the Royal family even from an early age, but of such allowances we have hitherto had no instance in Her Majesty's reign. Her present Majesty has been subjected to large expenses of a public nature, which could scarcely have entered into the consideration of Parliament when the Civil List was arranged, with regard to which, however, she has made no claim upon this House, although assistance for similar purposes was granted in former reign. I allude particularly to the visit which Her Majesty paid to the Emperor Louis Napoleon, at Paris—a visit which was purely for public and State purposes, and not for her individual pleasure—(laughter). With great deference to the Committee I repeat that visit was not made merely with a view to the private and personal gratification of the Sovereign, but for the public good, as was well understood at the time, and it was accepted by the Emperor Napoleon as a public, national, and State visit. I can hardly conceive that it is a novel idea to the Committee that the visit of our Sovereign to the Sovereign of a foreign country is not so much for that personal gratification which a private individual enjoys in visits, but rather for a more general

  731
  and political object. Similar visits were made by His Majesty King George IV. to his electoral dominions of Hanover, and to Scotland and Ireland; but, instead of the expense of those visits being defrayed exclusively from the Civil List, he received in 1821 from the Admiralty droits a sum of £40,000, and in 1822 a sum of £52,970. There is also a large expenditure which in former reigns was defrayed out of the Civil List, or in some cases out of the civil contingencies fund. I allude to the expenses attending the visits of foreign Sovereigns and foreign Princes to this country. In former reigns, too, there were considerable charges on account of the erection of palaces for the Sovereigns, whereas Her Majesty has out of her own purse paid for furniture and repairs at Buckingham Palace one amount of £12,800 and another of —pound;21,300. I beg also to remind the Committee that her Majesty has done that which by law she was not bound to do. It appears, that while on the one hand Her Majesty has voluntarily subjected herself to expense under these heads, the Civil List has, on the other, been diminished by a payment of £6,180 per annum for income-tax in time of peace, and of £15,500 per annum in time of war. The Committee will thus see that while on the one hand the allowance to George III. was much greater than the allowance to Her Majesty, she on the other has undertaken various expenses which George III. was not called on to defray. That being the case, I think I have shown the Committee good grounds for coming to the conclusion that the provision which I shall ask them to make with regard to the Princess Royal is one which appeals not merely to their generosity but also to their sense of justice. Without dwelling on this subject, I would remind the House that Her Majesty has on no occasion since the commencement of her reign made any appeal to this House for the payment of debts, that her household has been carried on with a strict regard to economy, that she has maintained her establishment within the income allowed by Parliament, and that she has to the very letter fulfilled her duty as a constitutional Sovereign, which, in this respect, consists in observing with perfect strictness and integrity the contract made with her at the beginning of her reign as an ample provision for her annual expenses. In making comparisons I may seem to disparage former Sovereigns of this country—this I have no wish to do; but I cannot refrain from call-
  732
  ing the attention of the Committee to the example which Her Majesty has set, at all events, to all future Sovereigns in the strictness and integrity with which she has discharged that obligation. The Committee are aware that the Civil List arranged at the commencement of the present reign makes no provision for the younger branches of the Royal family, and that it makes no provision for such an event as that now contemplated—viz., the marriage of Her Majesty's eldest daughter. It makes provision only for the duration of the Queen's life—which provision will entirely cease when another Sovereign succeeds to the throne, and the hereditary revenues of the Crown are resumed by him. Therefore, in the event of the House making any provision which shall endure for the life of the Princess Royal, it is necessary that a special grant should be made in her behalf. As the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has adverted to precedents, I will take the liberty to call the attention of the Committee to two precedents [a laugh] which bear on this case. The first precedent is that of the Princess Royal, daughter of George II. [Great laughter.] I am at a loss to understand why hon. Gentlemen laugh. It may provoke the merriment of the House to call its attention to a precedent of this kind, but if I do not, perhaps I may be taunted with having kept back from the House information which it is desirable it should possess. I am not bound to give hon. Gentlemen information on matters of history, but surely the accession of the House of Hanover is not an event so remote that my allusion to the second monarch of the line should provoke merriment, or that it should be a matter of surprise when I refer to precedents in that reign as not inapplicable to the present case. The Princess Royal, the daughter of George II., formed in 1734 a marriage with the Prince of Orange, which, though hon. Gentlemen seem entirely to have forgotten it, very much interested the nation at that time, and was received with great joy and congratulation. The question, however, to which I wish to direct the attention of the Committee is the provision which was made by Parliament on that occasion. An annuity out of the Civil List of £5,000 per annum was granted for life, and an Act of Parliament—namely, the 7th of Geo. II.—was passed for that purpose. In addition to the annuity so fixed she had a dowry of £80,000, raised by the

  733
  sale of certain lands in one of the West India islands, and that under the sanction of another Act passed in the 6th of Geo. II. The Princess Royal, the daughter of George III., received a similar provision when she married the Hereditary Prince of Wirtemberg in 1797. She received a dowry of £80,000 and an annuity of £5,000 from the Irish Parliament. On the consolidation of the two Exchequers this annuity came to be paid from the British exchequer, and I may further mention that one-half of the larger portion given to that Princess was settled upon her children. In submitting our proposition with respect to the provision for the marriage of the present Princess Royal we have followed as nearly as possible these two precedents; but, on account of the difference which exists in the circumstances of this marriage, we have altered the proportion which the annuity bears to the marriage portion. If the Government had thought it desirable to agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to reject altogether the plan of an annuity, they might have proposed a sum which, when invested, would have produced a sufficient annuity for her Royal Highness, and which at her death would have accrued for the benefit of her children. That seems to have been the idea which dictated the proposition of so large a portion as £80,000 in the case of the daughter of George III., on her marriage with the Hereditary Prince of Wirtemberg, but, inasmuch as the person with whom her Royal Highness the present Princess Royal is about to contract an alliance, is the eldest son of the heir presumptive to the throne of Prussia, it may be presumed that a similar provision for children is not desirable, and the Government have thought it more fitting to propose an annuity of £8,000 and a marriage portion of only £40,000. This provision may be regarded in a double point of view, either as a sum voted by Parliament or as a sum providing a certain benefit for Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal. In the case of the provision which was made in 1797, the sum of £80,000 was invested in the name of trustees in the English funds, and on account of the low state of Consols at the time—under fifty, I think,—it produced £165,000 stock, the income arising from which was —pound;4,950. Therefore, taking the annuity granted by the Irish Parliament into account, the provision
  734
  made for the then Princess Royal amounted to nearly £10,000 a year—an income much larger than that which we now propose. I trust that the Committee will, on reflection, agree that this is a reasonable and moderate provision for her Royal Highness. In cases of this sort it is vain to hope for perfect unanimity; some persons may wish to make the annuity smaller and the marriage portion larger, but on the whole I think the proposal which I have made is reasonable and moderate, and I hope the Committee will not diminish the graciousness of its act by minute criticisms upon the proportions which the marriage portion and the annuity bear to each other. Perhaps, before I sit down I may be permitted to call attention to the fact that Prince Frederic William of Prussia, whose alliance with her daughter Her Majesty has sanctioned, is not an alien in blood to the. Royal Family. He is a descendant in the direct male line from a daughter of George I., and is, in truth, within the limitation of the Act of Settlement, inasmuch as he is a descendant of the Electress Sophia, being a Protestant; and the alliance, therefore, which her Royal Highness is about to contract is in complete accordance with the recognised policy of this country, and the principle on which the succession to the Crown of England rests. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will have no hesitation in agreeing to this proposal. The rules of the House make it necessary that I should move the Resolution relating to the annuity in this Committee, and that relating to the marriage portion in Committee of Supply, but that is merely a matter of form, and it will only be necessary, after agreeing to the first Resolution, for the Speaker to take the chair in order to enable us to pass into a Committee of Supply.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the annual sum of eight thousand pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said annuity to be settled on Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, for her life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the Marriage of Her Royal Highness with His Royal Highness Prince Frederic William of Prussia."
  MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I rise to move an Amendment to that Resolution. I propose that this Committee do make provision for Her Royal Highness by a sum certain, and not by way of an annuity. It appears to me that to make provision by way of

  735
  annuity will get us into very great difficulty, and that we shall be thereby entering into what our cousins across the water would call the "entangled alliances." If we at once provide for the Royal lady by means of a sum certain, we at once discharge all the obligations we owe to the Sovereign, we provide completely for the happiness of this Royal lady, and we do not subject ourselves to the misfortune of considering this Vote annually, and thus create an annual grievance. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that upon the accession of William IV. all the hereditary revenues of the Crown were given up. But surely that is an error. Every year there is paid into the privy purse out of the Duchy of Lancaster a sum of £20,000; and I recollect perfectly well, from having been a student of Lord Grey's Administration, that previously to that noble Lord's coming into power, and when the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, it was proposed to give up all the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and I remember Mr. Brougham complimenting the then Ministry, as well as William IV., upon the magnanimity of such conduct. But I also remember full well that he was obliged to call back his words, for the whole of the hereditary revenues were not given up, as the Duchy of Lancaster was retained; and, therefore, to say that the position of Her present Majesty is different from that of George III. is not quite so correct. Again, take the Duchy of Cornwall. It is true by a certain wise regulation a sum has accumulated for the future provision of the Prince of Wales. I acknowledge that; and I am told that the annual net revenue of the Duchy amounts to £26,000. Therefore, I suppose, when the Prince of Wales comes to his majority he will have a large sum at his command, although a certain amount has been allocated for his education. But surely the doings of George III. are not to be brought before this Parliament as an example. The doings of an unreformed Parliament are not to be brought forward for this Parliament to follow. Anything more preposterous than the doings of George III. and his Parliament cannot be conceived; and so preposterous was conceived to be the mingling up the very heterogeneous materials comprising what is called "the Civil List," that when Lord Grey came into office—my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir J. Graham) will recollect the circumstance—upon the Motion of Sir H Par-
  736
  nell a Resolution was carried against the Ministry, separating the Civil List, and discarding from it altogether what was not connected with the personal consideration and comfort of the Sovereign; and from that time the Civil List has been conducted upon rational principles. Parliament knows what it has been voting—that it has voted a sum for the personal comfort of the Sovereign, and to meet the social requirements of her station. It should be remembered that every year we pay the Sovereign of this country a sum of very nearly £400,000. For her Consort we have provided; and not only have we given him £30,000 a year, but many lucrative situations. We have generously built for Her Majesty what I will not call a magnificent palace, for I ought to term it an abortion—(that, however, is not our fault)—but which has cost the nation a great sum of money; and measuring the result by the sum it has cost us, it is a great thing for us to have done. I would ask, therefore, is there one thing wanting to Her Majesty's comfort? Has there been one thing wanting to the comfort of her Consort or her Family? Have we not been to her Majesty a generous nation, and has she not deserved that generosity? She has shown herself worthy of the people over whom she rules, but we have shown ourselves worthy of her. I say that we have dealt out with no niggard hand everything required for her comfort and honour. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into his talk as to how little she has expended upon her journeys. I will not enter into the question how far those journeys have been for her pleasure or for the profit of the country. I should hope they were combined. But, Sir, looking to the future, I repeat the phrase—we have a large family to provide for. And it is somewhat too inconsiderate that we, who represent the hard-working, hard-handed, and often sorrowing people, should be unmindful of our obligations and be content with casting our eyes upwards and paying all deference and adoration to those in power and position. Sir, as the representatives of the hard-working people of England, we are bound, to be just before we are generous—I never said we were—but while we are generous we are bound also to be just. Therefore I will move, by way of Amendment-
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'that,' for the purpose of inserting these words—in the opinion of this Committee a suitable

  737
  marriage portion be granted to Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal in lieu of an annuity.'"
  MR. W. WILLIAMSseconded the Amendment. He fully agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and begged to assure the Committee that he had known no question relating to the expenditure of the public money in which the people of England had taken so deep an interest as they had in this subject. The desire out of doors certainly was, that a round sum, and not an annuity, should be paid to Her Royal Highness. He was anxious to deal liberally with this question, but he should like to be informed whether the Government intended to continue the payment of this annuity of £8,000 to the Princess Royal, after she became Queen of Prussia. Nothing could be more offensive to the people of England than the payment of money raised by taxes levied upon them to the Queen, either of Prussia or of any other foreign country; and it was worthy the consideration of the Government whether this annuity—if an annuity were granted—should not cease when Her Royal Highness became, as she probably would, Queen of Prussia. Was the Queen of Prussia to become a pensioner of England? [Cries of "Divide! divide!"]
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this Committee a suitable marriage portion should be granted to Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, in lieu of any annuity."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:The proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman is very difficult to deal with, because he does not state what gross sum he proposes to give, as a dowry, to Her Royal Highness. He has not stated that the proposition of the Government is

  Annuities Dropped.

  1837.

  Duchess of Kent and Princess Victoria

  £22,000

  1840.

  Princess Elizabeth

  13,000

  Princess Augusta

  13,000

  1843.

  H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex

  21,000

  1845.

  H.R.H. the Princess Sophia of Gloucester

  7,000

  1848.

  H.R.H. the Princess Sophia

  16,000

  1849.

  Queen Adelaide

  100,000

  1850.

  H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge

  27,000

  1852.

  H.R.H. the Duke of Cumberland, late King of Hanover

  21,000

  1857.

  H.R.H. the Duchess of Gloucester

  16,000

  £256,000

  an unreasonable one; and if he proposes to give a sum which will produce anything approaching to the annuity suggested by the Government, he must increase the sum to be voted in Committee of Supply to a very large amount. Allow me to say that, although he professes to speak for the poor taxpayer, he would, according to his plan, make a bargain which would be exceedingly disadvantageous to the public. He proposes that a large sum of money should be invested in the hands of trustees who should pay the interest to Her Royal Highness, and that at Her death the principal sum should be divided among Her children as She may appoint. What I propose is, that the larger part of the grant should be in the form of an annuity terminating with the life of Her Royal Highness; and thus, at Her death, a large portion will revert to the nation. We have diminished the proportion which in the case of the two Princesses Royal, the daughters of George II. and George III., the marriage portion bore to the annuity, for the express reason that it appeared to us desirable to increase the part of the grant which would cease with the life of the Princess Royal, and to diminish that which would be granted to Her and Her descendants in perpetuity. With reference to the objection which has been made to granting an annuity, let me for a moment call the attention of the Committee, in the first place, to the fact, that that has been the way in which former Parliaments have provided for the members of the Royal Family; and in the next place, to the great reduction which those annuities have undergone since the accession of Her present Majesty. The annuities granted or increased and those which have dropped during Her Majesty's reign, are shown by the following table:—

  Annuities Granted or Increased.

  1839.

  The Duchess of Kent

  £30,000

  1840.

  Princess Sophia

  3,000

  Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester

  3,000

  H.R.H. Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha

  30,000

  1850.

  H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge

  12,000

  H.R.H. the Princess Mary of Cambridge

  3,000

  H.R.H. the Princess Augusta, now Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

  3,000

  The Duchess of Cambridge

  6,000

  Granted

  90,000

  Saving

  166,000

  £256,000

  The Committee must see that if they accede to the proposal now made for granting an annuity of £8,000, the charge on the Consolidated Fund will be slight indeed compared with what it was at Her Majesty's accession to the Throne. In reference to the objection of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck), that in the event of a war with Prussia there would be an impropriety in paying this annuity, I am unwilling to contemplate any such contingency; but I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact, that during the late war with Russia, this nation, true to its financial engagements, continued to discharge the interest of the Russian loan, which was an international obligation very different from that which would exist towards an English Princess. With these explanations, I trust that the Committee will have no difficulty in agreeing to the original Motion.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that it appeared to him that before the House settled the dowry of Her Royal Highness, they ought to be informed what settlement the King of Prussia intended to make upon his nephew. That was the practice in matrimonial alliances entered into between private families, and he did not think that a practice so salutary ought to be departed from.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I confess, Sir, this matter which we have now before the Committee appears to me to be sufficiently simple. When Her Majesty came to the Throne the arrangement that was made was not, I conceive, as it has been represented by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck), one of extraordinary generosity, but a sum was fixed which it was conceived was a fit and proper sum to support the Royal dignity—a sum which, as a Sovereign coming to the Throne of these realms, she ought to receive to enable Her Majesty to defray in a fitting manner the expenditure of the Throne of England, and to maintain it with that dignity and splendour which becomes the Throne of such a nation. That settlement was made on the just principle, as I think it was, which was established by Lord Grey and Lord Althorp, that instead of having a Civil List, of which part should go for the maintenance of the Royal Household, part for the Judges' salaries, part for the salary of the Speaker of this House, and another part for the salaries of the Diplomatic Service—we should have a Civil List that should contain only those
  740
  sums that should be granted—first for the Privy Purse of the Sovereign, and next to defray the charges of the offices of the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Steward, and to maintain the Household of Her Majesty. Those charges were separated which had theretofore, to the confusion of the public accounts, been mixed up with what may be called the personal expenditure of the Sovereign, and the Civil List so settled on Her Majesty was the amount which was considered by Parliament a fit sum for the nation to grant for providing for the personal comfort and for maintaining the personal dignity of the Crown. I do not concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he says we have been showing extraordinary generosity in our pecuniary transactions with the Sovereign of this country. Since the settlement to which I have referred was made, we have had no pecuniary transactions with the Sovereign of these realms. Her Majesty has done what she ought to do, and which the nation cheerfully acknowledges, in observing that prudence and economy in the conduct of her Household—in taking care to guard against unnecessary expense, which might have rendered it necessary for her to come to this House to ask us to pay debts which she had thus contracted. She has maintained the splendour and dignity of the Throne, and the dignity of the nation as represented by the Throne, in a fitting manner, without asking Parliament for any increase over the sum originally fixed. That being the state of the case, we have now, after twenty years, an occasion when Her Majesty does apply to Parliament. That occasion is the extraordinary one of her beloved daughter being about to be married. Her Majesty having sanctioned a match in every way suitable for that daughter—a match, I believe, of affection—with the Prince of a Protestant country, a Prince of the Royal House of Prussia, it is necessary that some provision should be made for the Princess on that occasion, and accordingly we have a message sent down from the Crown for that purpose. It appears to me that the best way we can deal with this message is, if there is nothing preposterous or extravagant in the proposal of the advisers of the Crown, to agree to it, and to make that provision which Her Majesty's advisers ask at our hands on Her Majesty's behalf. As far as I am concerned £40,000 as a capital sum paid down, and an annuity of £8,000 a year, appears by no means an

  741
  extravagant proposal for the eldest daughter of the Queen of England on her marriage with a Prince—it having been always the custom that the eldest daughter should he provided for somewhat more liberally than the younger members of the Royal Family. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to give one large sum instead of the annuity as a dowry for Her Royal Highness. I confess that I see no advantage in that proposal. On the contrary, it rather appears to me—I having no great wish to prefer the one mode to the other, except on the ground of public advantage—it appears to me that as the Princess Royal on her marriage will not be placed at once in that affluent position that will give her a very large income, it is desirable that on her first commencing married life she should have such an annuity—such an income provided by Parliament as may befit the nation to which she belongs, and evince the affections which the people of that nation entertain towards their Sovereign, her mother. So far from concurring with the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are not, in agreeing to this proposition, acting for the advantage or in accordance with the wishes of the working classes of the people, I believe there is no class so poor that it is not ready to show its affection to the Sovereign by responding to Her Majesty's appeal, and that will not be willing to evince that affection by making, not an extravagant, but a reasonable provision for her eldest daughter on her marriage. Therefore I shall, for one, take no other course on this occasion but agree to the Motion of the Minister of the Crown. If, instead of making the proposal they have made, they had proposed the payment of a capital sum, giving their reasons why that course should be preferred, I should have listened to those reasons. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given reasons why it is desirable that an annual sum should be given to the Princess Royal, and has, stated very truly that in future years, if she should be blest with a family, there will not be any occasion for a large sum to be settled upon her children, as in the case of the Princess of Wirtemberg. I have not much acquaintance with that distinguished Royal Family with which Her Royal Highness is about to be connected, but I have, the honour of knowing something of prince Frederic William of Prussia, and I can safely say that a Prince more faithful to his word—more eminent for his good quail-
  742
  ties —I have never met. He is a gallant and distinguished Prince, and I only ask further to be permitted to express a hope that her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, on leaving this country, and that home where she has been brought up in the practice of every domestic virtue, and where the moral example has been as high as is to be found in any class in this kingdom, that in going from thence to the home of the Royal Family of Prussia she will find a home as virtuous and honourable as that she has left, and that her remaining days may be passed in happiness, and the practice of those domestic virtues which she has here acquired.
  MR. ROEBUCK: There was something in the tone of the noble Lord which seemed to imply that I was finding fault with the magnitude of the dowry proposed. Now, Sir, I think that I began by saying that I believed it to be the desire of the House to provide for a daughter of England in a manner befitting her honour and our own; and I stated that this House had never dealt with the Sovereign in a niggard spirit. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord in speaking as though I had entertained and expressed a different wish, was somewhat unfair. All that I propose is that the sum to be given should be given in a different manner. Now, what the Government proposes to give is equivalent to £216,000—["No, no!"] I beg pardon,—but I will rather trust to the official tables than to the authority of the hon. Gentleman who said "no, no!"—twenty-two years' purchase of the annuity added to the capital sum of £40,000 amounts to £216,000. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the fixed sum must be voted in Committee of Supply, and therefore I am not called upon to make any suggestion with regard to that sum in this Committee. The House is capable of judging what sum is necessary, and I am certain that the provision which it will make, whatever may be the form in which it is made, will be worthy of the House and of Her Royal Highness; but, for my own part, I am persuaded that we should best discharge our duties and consult the honour and comfort of the Royal lady most nearly concerned by acceding to the modification I have proposed, and fixing a certain capital sum. The question is one upon which different opinions may exist; but I do not think that any imputation can rest

  743
  upon me for the course which I have felt it my duty to pursue.
  MR. BASSthought the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments would he as applicable against a fixed sum as against an annuity. At his time of life he would rather pay an annuity of £8,000 a year than a capital sum down of £170,000. He thought there were many considerations in favour of the annuity combined with a capital sum instead of a larger capital sum only. They could not but recollect that Prussia, though a prosperous kingdom, had within the last few years suffered great convulsions. They could not tell what might again happen in that country, or whether we might not see the Princess back again amongst us. It was within the limits of possibility—but whatever might happen, Parliament would have a certain amount of control over the sum that was paid as an annuity. He did not mean that Parliament would ever withdraw one farthing of it, but it was possible that circumstances might arise, when the control it possessed in voting the money every year might be usefully exercised.
  MR. CLAYthought the Committee ought not to divide until they understood the question upon which the division was to take place. He should therefore wish to know from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield whether his objection was to the amount of the sum proposed or merely to the mode in which that sum was to be paid; for he seemed to have no objection to a provision being made. An explanation on this point would guide the votes of many hon. Members.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, Sir, that my objection is both to the amount and to the manner in which it is proposed to be paid.
  MR. DISRAELI: The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his opinion that upon a subject like this unanimity could not be expected; but I confess it seems to me to be one of those subjects upon which unanimity, if possible, is most desirable. So long as the question before us was merely as to the form by which the intentions of the Committee were to be carried into effect, the issue appeared to me of a very narrow character, and until the last declaration of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, I was in great hopes that the Committee would have come to a decision without, what I may call on this occasion, the painful ceremony of dividing. But, as
  744
  I understand now, the hon. and learned Gentleman not only objects to the form, but to the amount of the grant proposed, I could hardly allow the division to take place without troubling you with one or two observations. I have always felt, for my own part, that the Crown of England is placed in a somewhat painful position when obliged to make appeals on this or analogous subjects to the liberality of the House of Commons. But, on the other hand, it becomes us always to remember what is the cause of those appeals, and what is that power in the state which renders them necessary. It is the jealousy of Parliament carried, in my opinion, too far and too rigidly, which has rendered it necessary on every occasion to make those appeals to its aid and assistance, sometimes on matters comparatively insignificant. Remembering that it is the jealousy of Parliament which renders such appeals necessary, it becomes us to consider them in a cordial and generous spirit. Sir, I will not follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those ample and minute details which he has offered to the Committee, as to the pecuniary position of George III. Unquestionably there was a broad difference in the relative situations of our present Monarch and of her grandfather. There is no doubt there were sources of supply in the Civil List of George III. which Her Majesty has not had the advantage of. Neither can it be forgotten that, independently of those supplies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, Her Majesty has lost the revenue derivable from the kingdom of Hanover, which her predecessors enjoyed. It must also be recollected that, during the twenty years of Her happy reign, no appeal whatever has been made to us in consequence of any debts incurred by the Civil List; while there has been, as the noble Lord the Member for the City of London reminded us, a splendid hospitality maintained, which, after all, concerns the honour and the dignity of the country. Nor can I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that the Civil List, as settled upon the accession of Her Majesty, was a certain sum intended only for the advantage of Her Majesty, and the comfort of the Royal Family. On the contrary, I think that there were other considerations concerned in the settlement of that Civil List than the mere comfort of the Royal Family. There was a high ceremonial and an etiquette of state to be maintained, which concerned the dignity and the honour of the country quite as

  745
  much as it concerned the convenience and the happiness of Her Majesty, Taking all these matters into consideration—does it not come to this, that we are now merely discussing a point of a trivial character—calculations as to what may be the value of an annuity, or whether it would be desirable that this settlement should be made through the medium of a particular machinery. I think that man must have great confidence in his own opinion if he feels himself justified in taking upon himself the responsibility of laying down as a primary principle the most advantageous way of carrying this settlement into effect, either by a round sum, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield has termed it, or by the mixed process which has been proposed to us by the Government. If it be generally agreed upon that this is a proper appeal, and that we are all willing to respond to that appeal, and desire that it should be carried into effect—if there be a question in which confidence ought to be placed in the Government—a question in which we should defer to the opinions of those who it is reasonable to suppose must have given to it the most mature consideration, I think it is a question of this nature. That being so, I think it is most desirable, and the most gracious course upon an occasion like the present, that there should be no division upon any point of a trivial character. If the principle of the grant were opposed—if there were any denunciations uttered on the ground of its extravagance—I could easily understand the meaning of an opposition. But, as the principle is one to which a cordial assent has been conceded—and the objections as to amount are of a very ambiguous and doubtful character, I really think we ought to arrive at an amicable and unanimous conclusion; because we must not lose sight of the fact, that if that settlement which Parliament in its wisdom has thought fit to make in regard to the Civil List had not occurred, the Crown could have acted in this matter independently of the House, and Her Majesty would have had everything that was necessary for the maintenance and comfort of the Royal Family immediately at her own command. Inasmuch, however, as the jealousy of Parliament in dealing with the hereditary revenues has brought about this state of affairs, it becomes us, if we feel we have a duty to discharge, always to perform that duty in a spirit of liberality, and of an earnest
  746
  desire that we should be unanimous when an appeal of this kind is made to us upon the responsibility of the Government. Sir, I will say nothing of the circumstances under which this Royal Marriage is about to take place. It does not become me to speak of a personage so near the Throne as the illustrious Lady who is the immediate subject of this proposition. I believe, however, all will agree that she is one worthy of her family and her country, and that she is calculated to adorn the throne for which she is destined. All who have had the privilege of approaching her hear testimony to the brightness of her mind, and to the sweetness of her disposition. I beg the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield by no means to believe that I am now opposing the principle he has laid down as to the policy of settling this question by a round sum rather than by the Government mode. I admit that it may be a better way of treating a matter of this kind; but that, after all, is a moot question. The hon. and learned Gentleman may feel himself justified in the course he has taken, but I beg him also not to give currency to the notion that the feelings of those Members who strongly support this grant are not those of deep sympathy with the interests of the working classes. Their feelings may be quite as strong on this point as those of the hon. and learned Member himself. If the hon. and learned Gentleman came forward and objected to the Vote on principle, he would certainly be entitled to take up the position that he has lately assumed; but, as I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he opened the discussion of this evening, he expressed his willingness to meet this appeal to the generosity of Parliament. I hope, then, that he will recur, in his better thoughts, to that same feeling which influenced him in the early part of this evening. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, then, whether, upon the whole, considering that he concurs so heartily in. the main principle—whether he would not be taking the best and the most gracious course by at once adopting the proposition of the Ministry, which has been made after mature consideration and a knowledge of the circumstances with which we cannot be familiar, and by assenting to that proposition, end our parliamentary connection with an event which, I trust, will bring happiness to the Royal pair concerned, and to two kingdoms.
  MR. CONINGHAMwished to state his

  747
  reasons why he should support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck). He supported that Amendment, first, on pecuniary, and, secondly, and still more, on political grounds. The Princess Royal was about to marry into a foreign house—a German house. After she had once left these shores and had become identified in interest with a foreign house and a foreign dynasty, he decidedly objected to the continuance of such relations with this country as the proposed annuity would establish. Her domestic relations with this country would still continue, but so long as a German Prince was a stipendiary of this country he should view that connection with the greatest jealousy. On these grounds he was in favour of a fixed payment, and was opposed to an annual payment. He did not wish to stand between the House and the division, but would content himself with stating that he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, there was one point which had been lost sight of during the debate which deserved to be borne in mind. The people of this country interfered with the marriages of the Royal Family in a manner that Members of that House would not tolerate in their own case. He referred to the interference which was exercised in declaring whom the members of the Royal Family should marry. As long as this interference was kept up, Parliament was bound to act most liberally to them when marriages did take place.
  LORD ELCHOhoped that his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his Amendment. It was extremely desirable that upon an occasion like the present the Committee should adopt the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) and pass this Resolution unanimously. He was sure there was not a Member in the Committee who would not cordially respond to what had fallen from ever hon. Gentleman who had addressed the Committee, with reference to the loyalty and duty which they all owed to the Sovereign. The only difference between hon. members was whether they should pay the princess Royal an annuity or a sum down. He was strongly of opinion that, regard being had to the position of this country towards foreign countries, it was desirable, as a question of policy, that the dowry should be paid in one sum; but he did not wish to see the House divide on the
  748
  subject, and he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would be induced to withdraw his Amendment, so that the House might come to a unanimous vote in favour of the Resolution.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I do not desire to press my Motion. I have told the Committee what I think it ought to do, and if it will permit me I will now withdraw my Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn:—Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported on Monday next.
  The House resumed.

  THE SLAVE TRADE.
  On the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply,"
  SIR GEORGE BROOKE PECHELLsaid, that various treaties had been made by the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston), when at the head of the Foriegn Office, to abolish the slave trade, and large sums of money paid for the purpose, and he was astonished beyond expression at seeing what had happened since the noble Viscount had left the department of which he had been so conspicuous an ornament. The noble Viscount had succeeded in dissuading Brazil from countenancing the traffic, and Brazil now treated the slave trade as piracy. It was impossible to doubt that the Emperor of the Brazils was honest and sincere in his desire to put down the slave trade, and Brazil was doing her best to co-operate with us. There was now no further occasion for ships to watch the Brazilian coast, and they might safely be withdrawn and brought to a coast where the slave trade flourished more than ever. In 1853, Mr. Hume obtained a Committee to see what foreign countries had fulfilled or neglected the treaties on this subject. The Report of that Committee was drawn up with great moderation. The Spanish authorities passed a decree to enforce the registration of slaves. The British Government had been deceived by this proceeding, and had relaxed their efforts to suppress this vile traffic. The class of vessels employed on the coast of Cuba was not adapted to that service; they ought to be of light draught, whereas they were vessels drawing from sixteen to nineteen feet of water, and were almost entirely useless. Moreover, the ships were not numerous enough, many of the vessls that ought to

  749
  be employed on the coast are sent away to other stations. The blue book published on this subject last year showed that the Government were chargeable with laxity or some other quality in not compelling Spain to put down the slave trade with Cuba. The correspondence sent by the Commissary Judge of Havannah to Lord Clarendon, proved that large numbers of slaves were imported into Cuba, and that the system of registration was not honestly carried out. The owners of slaves were actually furnished with register tickets by the Cuban officials, to be ready when the next cargo of slaves arrived, so that the additional number on the estate were thereby provided for. The law of registration not being rigorously enforced, the traffic went on as before, unchecked. Mr. Crawford, Commissary Judge, wrote in July, 1855, that only one case of capture came before the mixed court during the previous six months. In January, 1856 again he wrote that no case had been brought before that tribunal during the last half-year, and yet thirteen days later they had the same authority stating that the slave traffic was carried on with more than ordinary activity. In 1855, 4,806 slaves were actually landed in Cuba, of which number the Spanish authorities captured only 125. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to various returns for the purpose of proving that no real effort had been made to suppress the slave trade in those seas, and that the vessels which ought to be engaged in looking out for slavers were employed in some West Indian port or other. The feeling of the inhabitants of Jamaica on this subject was shown on a late occasion in that island. A meeting was held in February last, the Bishop of Kingston in the chair, for the purpose of petitioning both Houses of Parliament to direct that immediate and effective steps should be taken to suppress the slave traffic in accordance with the existing treaties. They had adopted resolutions stating the constant violation of the treaties on the coast of Cuba, and calling on the Government to insist upon their proper observance. Last year he had suggested that some of the gun-boats which had been made use of during the war should be stationed on the coast of Cuba, and he had understood the noble Viscount to promise that this should be done. To his great surprise the First Lord of the Admiralty had since stated that these boats would be a great deal too hot for the crew in that climate.
  750
  Surely, however, proper vessels could be found of a light draught for the purpose required, and the Jamaica people were so impressed with the desirability of employing some sort of boat of this description that they had, in anticipation of their arrival, chalked out the very points at which they ought to be stationed; and if it was necessary to show the advantage of small vessels being employed, the case of the slaver captured by the boat of the Arab afford satisfactory proof that by such means these vessels can easily be seized. In dealing with the suppression of the slave trade there were difficulties to be encountered not merely with the Captain General of Cuba, but with the population of the island generally. Difficulties also arose from the fact of the ship-owners of the United States acting in complicity with the slave dealers in fitting out vessels for that trade and the use of the American flag. We ought either to compel the Government of Spain to observe the treaties which had been entered into, or withdraw our ships altogether. He thought if our Government made arrangements with the Court of Madrid to establish depôts of boats along the coast of Cuba it would be most effectual for putting down this traffic.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I give the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) every credit for his untiring efforts to effect the suppression of the slave trade, which he directs more especially to Cuba. I cannot, however, support his opinion, that gun-boats are adapted for that service. They afford no accommodation for officers and men, and would inevitably lead to a greater sacrifice of life in a climate where the heat by day and the dew by night debilitate the strongest frame, and dispose it to the most malignant fevers. I therefore must warn the First Lord of the Admiralty not to accede to that, proposition; but, in the employment of vessels upon that service, duly to regard the accommodation so absolutely essential to the preservation of the lives of officers and men. The circuit of the coast line of the Island, I may mention, extends 2,000 miles, and is hardly accessible for at least one-third that extent, owing to the prevalence of reefs and shoals, except to vessels of a light draught of water; and without the employment of a very large force it would be impossible to form any efficient blockade of the coast. In 1823 I was in command of a frigate off the coast of Cuba, for the purpose of putting down

  751
  piracy, and preventing the landing of slaves. I found my ship, from her draught of water, unfit for the service, and I was reluctantly compelled to employ boats, the orders under which I acted being to the effect that I was not to value life in the attempt, the atrocities committed by the pirates having arrived at so deplorable a state as to necessitate their extirpation at all cost. Being unwilling to employ officers and men on a duty I would not undertake myself, I went in command of the boats, and I was fortunately successful as regarded the pirates, but not with regard to the landing of slaves. The coast so abounding, as I have remarked, with creeks and inlets that, without a considerable force, it is impossible to suppress the slave trade in Cuba. I was employed for many weeks in the execution of this service, having with me from fifty to sixty officers and men. I searched from four to five hundred miles of the coast on the north side of the Island, and on my return to Jamaica my health was so broken as to oblige me to resign the command of my ship, by invaliding; many of my men did the same, and a fever breaking out in the frigate, led to the loss of several lives. No doubt the cause of humanity impelled us to take steps for the suppression of the slave trade, abhorrent as it was to every feeling heart, and a burning disgrace to our common Christianity; but still we should have some consideration for the lives of our brave officers and men, and not needlessly expose them. I confess I see no method of accomplishing the object in view other than to adopt the course which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had so successfully pursued with the Government of Brazil, to use his influence with the Crown and Government of Spain to come forward themselves, and put down the obnoxious traffic. They could do it with greater advantage; for they had men inured to the climate, and possessed full information on the subject. It is a circumstance deeply to be deplored, that after the earnest and unrivalled endeavours of this country to suppress slavery, that after the sacrifice of hundreds of officers and men, and the expenditure of untold wealth, to a great extent it is still carried on, with inhumanity revolting, and almost incredible, but for facts known universally.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir George Pechell) had been more suc-
  752
  cessful in pointing out the difficulties which beset our efforts for the suppression of the slave trade than in suggesting how they might be got over. No doubt many vessels were sent out from America which were sold or transferred, and then employed in this traffic; so that the difficulty of knowing the slavers from the genuine American merchantmen, which we could not touch, was very much increased. As to the suggestion that we should establish a series of coastguard stations round the coast of Cuba, if the Spanish Government would allow us to do that, they might just as well suppress the slave trade themselves, which they could do with the greatest ease. He was afraid, however, that the whole people of Cuba, from the Governor General downwards, were bent on favouring this traffic, from which they thought that they gained such great advantage. He was of opinion that the most effectual means of putting down the traffic, at present in our power, was by increasing the African squadron. The Government had considered the proposal to send out gun-boats, but English sailors could not stand the unusual heat and unhealthiness of the climate, added to the heat from the steam-engines and furnaces.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he did not consider it wise policy to keep our seamen employed on that coast. If we sent out any force at all to suppress the slave trade, it should be a large force; but he was opposed to sending out any force, because he believed it was sacrificing valuable lives with no result.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Ministers had of late addressed any representations to the Spanish Government, for the purpose of putting a stop to the traffic in slaves in Cuba? It would appear that the slave trade was at present more extensively carried on than ever in that quarter, as was shown by an account recently published in the public papers as to the enormous profits gained upon the cargoes of slaves. A captain engaged in the traffic, whose vessel had been seized, was reported to have said that, though he had lost £6,000 by the seizure, yet he stood to gain £32,000, had he succeeded in running the cargo. Perhaps the noble Lord at the head of the Government would afford some explanation with respect to the present state of the negotiations between the Ministers of this country and of Spain in reference to that subject.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had very recently renewed the representations which we had so repeatedly made to the Government of Spain with respect to the state of the slave trade along the coast of Cuba. The Spanish Government had invariably given the most satisfactory answers to those representations, and had issued orders for the exercise of increased vigilance for the prevention of that traffic, but had at the same time invariably expressed doubts of the truth of the accounts which the British Government had received, and had forwarded to them. The fact was, that it was very difficult to act through a Government at Madrid on a Government at Cuba, which Government, he was afraid, was swayed by arguments usually very powerful with those colonial authorities. He could, however, assure his hon. Friend that, as far as diplomatic representations could go, no efforts were wanting on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers to induce the Spanish Government to take real and effectual steps for the suppression of the slave trade in Cuba.

THE GERMAN LEGION AT THE CAPE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he hoped the House would allow him to take that opportunity of directing its attention to the excessive expenditure incurred in disposing of the German Legion by locating them on the Cape Frontier, and to the impolicy of thereby continuing and extending a charge on the revenues of this country in relief of the colonists from the defence of their own frontier against Kafir invasion. Although it was almost too late to express any opinion, seeing that the expense was already incurred, yet he thought it was the duty of the House to inquire whether the heads of departments in this country were justified in taking measures, involving a vast outlay, without having in any way consulted Parliament upon the matter. The reply that would be given, no doubt, was that it was the easiest way of disposing of the German Legion—that it would lead to the formation of military settlements on the frontier, and would tend to relieve this country of the share of expense of the Kafir wars. He thought he could show that those expectations were mistaken. With respect to the disposition of the German
  754
  Legion, he was of opinion that it could have been got rid of at a much less expense than had been incurred. He believed he could show by the clearest evidence that that object might have been accomplished at one-fifth of the expense which had actually been incurred. The men of the German Legion might have been disbanded by paying each of them 1s. a day, or £18 for one year, and £2 more for passage home, while the actual charge for sending each of those men to the Cape amounted to £100. All the men who had been discharged had been got rid of for £20 a head. There were in all 8,000 of those men, and at the rate of £100 for each, their removal to the Cape would have cost £800,000; and all that large sum would, by the offer of the Government, have been expended without the sanction and control of Parliament. But, fortunately for us, only 2,500 out of the 8,000 had accepted the offer to be removed to the Cape. It was true that the sum set down in the Estimate for that removal amounted to only £91,000, and there was a charge for building cottages and furnishing outfits. But, besides, we had undertaken to pay the men for three years, and there was to be added the cost of conveyance to the Cape, which, at a moderate estimate, was £12 a head, in addition to the conveyance of the men's wives and families. Indeed, so liberal was the scheme of Lord Panmure that he not only proposed to take out the wives of the men, but had sanguine hopes that the unmarried men might be induced to find wives here who should be taken to the Cape at the expense of this country. The Estimate made no mention of the cost of supplying the men, their wives and families, with rations for one year; nothing was said of public works, of schools, magistrates, courts, chaplains, and other expenses which the scheme expressly involved. It was true the Cape had offered to contribute the modicum of £40,000 towards the expenditure, but that contribution they would certainly reduce by the proportion of diminished numbers going out, as it was a vote on account for 8,000 men, and intended as their share of the £800,000 first proposed. It was said, that land in consequence of the location of the German Legion on the frontier would rise in value £100,000, which would go towards a liquidation of the expense. With respect to the expectation of the increase in

  755
  the value of land on the frontier, in consequence of the settlement there of the German Legion, even if such increased value should accrue, the benefit would be derived by the colony alone; and he repeated that the total expenditure to this country for each man could not amount to less than £100. But it was said that by that measure we should get rid, for the future, of the enormous expenditure entailed by Kafir wars. He believed, however, that it would be productive of no such result. The fact was that our immense outlay in those wars had arisen from the temptation held out to contractors in the colony by the ready offers of England to foment and prolong hostilities along the frontier, by which they were themselves certain to make large fortunes. There were many men who had been poor at the commencement of those wars, and who at their close had been in possession of very considerable wealth. Of course the proposed plan had been highly popular in the colony, and addresses expressive of satisfaction had been sent, as would always be the case when a promise was made of great expenditure by the mother country for the benefit of her dependencies. The system of sending out hired mercenaries to defend the frontiers of our colonies was one therefore which, in his opinion, was utterly futile, by way of stopping colonial warfare; and if English colonists could not defend their own frontiers he thought it high time that the connection with such dependencies should be severed. Indeed, he did not think it too much to expect, that they should not only defend their own frontiers, but contribute to the defence of Imperial interests. They knew that in the Russian war the colonists of Canada offered to raise a body of troops in aid of the British forces engaged, and would have done so had not Her Majesty's Ministers discouraged them. With the enormous possessions of England all over the world, if she could have the assistance of her colonists she would be superior to every other country. As a defence this German Legion was the worst that the colony could have. Regular armies had never been able to cope with the incursions of savages; and the best protection which the Cape colony could have was that commando system which the settlers themselves established, but which was suppressed in deference to the feelings of English philanthropists. That was abundantly proved in the case of Virginia; as
  756
  long as the American colonists had the so-called protection of regular troops from England, they were always at the mercy of the Indians, whereas, as soon as the protection of the frontier line was left in the hands of the hardy hunters who formed the colonial militia themselves, they very soon met them on their own system of warfare, and put an end to the conflict. The present experiment was to be tried on the representations of the governor, Sir George Grey, on the ground that he bad successfully tried it in New Zealand. Now he had considerable knowledge of that country, and he knew that, in the opinion of the settlers in New Zealand, no greater failure in the way of colonisation had ever taken place than in the military colonisation of New Zealand. The military pensioners could scarcely be said to have lived—they had vegetated; but further than that, they had done nothing. That body of settlers cost just five times as much as emigrants would, and were not worth more than one-fifth of what free settlers would be. Could the right hon. Gentleman point out in the whole of history a case under which such a thing had succeeded as military colonisation; or a case in which, for the same amount of money, a much better system of free colonisation could not be carried on. He knew that it was always considered a failure, and that it was at this moment as fast as possible being abandoned. Neither could he conceive how, as far as England was concerned, it could succeed. Every one knew what had been the fate of our own pensioners in Canada, who were even now troubling the Government; and the success of Russian, Austrian, or Prussian military colonies, if they had been successful, could not be cited as an example to us, because their colonies and their system were so entirely different from ours. Military colonies could not succeed, because they wanted all the elements of successful colonization—perfect freedom, perfect self-reliance, and perfect self-action. This was an attempt to combine two incompatible things—military occupation and colonization. Soldiers were the worst colonists in the world, and probably colonists made the worst soldiers. It was essential to the success of colonists that they should roam where they liked; and how was that possible, in this scheme of Sir George Grey's, for these settlers were actually to serve for three years, during which they were to be under drill thirty days a year; du-

  757
  ring the four succeeding years they were to be ready for service, and were to have twelve days' drill each year, and every Sunday they were to appear on parade. Fancy colonists going to parade every Sunday! Then what was to hold them to the spots to which they were sent? The Boers in the neighbourhood were raising funds to induce labourers to go to them, and what a ready body of immigrants this German Legion of their compatriots would furnish. Would they continue to serve us at 6d. a day, while their Dutch friends offered them 5s. a day, as labourers? What, then, would operate to prevent their emigrating to another part, and thus, as far as the system was intended as a frontier defence, it would utterly fail? In fact, the whole plan was just such a one as might originate in an office, and might be made to look well on paper; but even, supposing for a moment, that it could be carried out, what a state of artificial society it would be! Of all the systems of which he had ever heard, none was so purely artificial as this proposed combined system of defence and colonization. In conclusion, he stated that when the actual Estimate came before them, he should, if no other hon. Member did it, take the sense of the House upon it, with a view to check the progress of such a system.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he regarded the question to which the hon. Gentleman had called the attention of the House as one of the most important and difficult connected with our whole colonial system. To decide what plan should be pursued for the defence and protection of the Cape, was the most harassing to a person holding his position, of all within the sphere of his duty, and one which he ought to regard with the most constant vigilance. The House ought to take care not to be led away by principles whose primâ facie application to the question might be forcible, without considering the particular circumstances of those to which they were to be applied. The House had already had severe experience of the difficulties in which this country might be involved with respect to the affairs of that colony. Only a few years ago we were engaged in a war with the Kafirs which, besides all the misery it caused to the colony, entailed enormous expense upon the mother country. His belief was, that that war was mainly owing to the fact that the Government of the day, actuated by
  758
  the best motives, had left the colony entirely destitute of troops. Our experience upon that occasion ought to serve as a warning to the House not to carry any general principle to such an extent as might lead to the recurrence of similar calamities. They were aware that for the last two years there had been a constant apprehension of the renewal of disturbances in the same quarter. That another outbreak had been prevented was owing, he firmly believed, to the presence of a sufficient force of Queen's troops to overawe the Kafirs and maintain the tranquillity of the colony. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that we ought to rely for the defence of the Cape, not so much upon the troops of the Queen as upon the efforts of the colonists themselves; but it would be mere pedantry, the height of folly and absurdity, when one knew the colonists were not in a position to protect themselves adequately, to expose ourselves to the misfortune of seeing the colony attacked and being involved in a Kafir war with all its horrors and expense. The danger of the Cape at present arose from the fact that the whites were not numerically strong enough to resist their barbarous neighbours. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he (Mr. Labouchere) had been guilty of very illogical language whilst advocating a reliance upon the efforts of the colonists themselves in defending the measure of sending out foreign troops amongst them. But these men, he believed, would turn out to be very useful colonists, and able defenders of the country against the Kafirs. Why, any emigrant, any new man, would be an addition to the strength of the white population in resisting the attacks of the savages, and in defending the base of the triangle, at the apex of which lay the chief seat of the colony; but, above all, surely the presence of a certain number of men accustomed to the use of arms and to act together as soldiers must prove the best security for the preservation of peace. If they wished to preserve the colony at all, it was necessary that a body of men always capable of acting together should be on the spot to meet any emergency. In fact, the condition of the Cape colony called for unceasing vigilance on the part of all persons. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government had made an extravagant bargain in dealing with the German Legion. It would be recollected that the Legion was formed at a period when the Govern-

  759
  ment,at the call of the country, which was then engaged in an arduous struggle with Russia, was doing everything in its power to find soldiers to fight our battles. The war was brought to an honourable and successful close before the services of the German Legion were required; but, from what he had been told by those who were competent to form an opinion on the subject, he was convinced that if the war had continued, the men of the Legion, such were their efficiency and state of discipline, would have proved themselves worthy comrades in arms of our own brave troops. It was not their fault that they had no opportunity of rendering service to this country in the Russian war; and when they came to be disbanded, every Member of the House felt that they should be treated not only with justice, but with liberality. The Government had necessarily entered into very onerous engagements in raising the Legion. They had bound themselves to send as many of the officers and men as chose to remain under the rule of Her Majesty to the North American Colonies, and to pay them a sum of money each. The expense of carrying out that arrangement would have been about £64,000, which, of course, must be deducted from the cost that had been incurred in sending a portion of the Legion to the Cape. But, according to the hon. Gentleman, the House had been taken by surprise. He was astonished that the hon. Gentleman should have ventured to make such a statement, for the intention of the Government to send the Legion to the Cape was known to the House last year; it was discussed in the public prints, and was notorious throughout the whole country. Nobody could suppose that such a scheme could be carried into effect without incurring some expense. If the Government had been extravagant the proper time for censuring them was, when the accounts were laid before the House; but the very last charge that ought to be brought against them was, that they had taken Parliament and the country by surprise. The hon. Gentleman had also complained that it was not easy to make out what the expenses were. That arose partly from the items appearing in the estimates of different departments, and partly from the circumstance of the expenses being spread over three years. He was in a condition to state, however, that the total cost of sending the Legion to the Cape, including everything, would be £205,000. From that sum must be de-
  760
  ducted £64,000, the expense which would have been incurred if the soldiers had not been sent to the Cape. The colonists themselves had already voted a sum of £40,000 towards defraying the expenses of the Legion, and had made arrangements for voting a further sum of £40,000 for the same purpose. It was true that that grant of money had been made upon the supposition that a larger number of men would be sent; but he had no doubt the colonists would adhere to what they had done. After deducting those two sums—£80,000 and £64,000—from the £205,000 which he had stated to be the entire cost of sending the Legion to the Cape, the hon. Gentleman would see that the expense remaining to this country would be about £60,000, leaving out of the calculation that which the Governor mentioned as likely to be available from the increased value of land. The charge thrown upon the country by the proceedings referred to by the hon. Gentleman would not, therefore, be so extravagant as he seemed to suppose. He was unwilling to trespass further upon the attention of the House, but there was one question which had been alluded to with regard to which he wished to say a few words. A reproach had been cast upon the Government that they had shown a disposition to send troops to the Colonies from this country, while they had neglected to avail themselves of the military resources of the Colonies themselves; and the conduct of the Government with regard to Canada during the late war had been more especially adverted to. Now, he would remind the House that the Colonies were not the best places to procure troops, because in the Colonies labour was scarce, there was great demand for it, and consequently wages were high and, generally speaking, instead of being able to spare men, they were glad to receive additional labour, so that to raise troops in the Colonies would probably be neither economical nor satisfactory. Now, an impression did exist in certain quarters that Canada, during the late war, had not received that treatment which her distinguished loyalty and patriotic spirit merited, and that some slight had been cast upon the exertions made in that colony. Now, his answer to that charge was very simple, and he believed alo very conclusive. Some five or six public spirited gentlemen had, during the late contest, offered to raise troops for active service, and the course which the

  761
  Government adopted with regard to those offers was, he believed, the most prudent course open to them. They referred to the Canadian Executive for advice upon the subject, and the answer they received was, that the colony was at that time engaged in organizing its militia, to which they attached the greatest importance, and they strongly deprecated any endeavour on the part of the Imperial Government to induce the youth of Canada to leave their own country and enter into the service of this country. A proposal had also been made to raise two regiments for the British service, and that proposal had received the utmost consideration. For his own part he believed, that had it been possible it would have been of great advantage if some such scheme had been carried out; but the practical difficulties were so great, and the objections to stripping the colony of men were so strong, that that proposal could not be entertained. He could assure the House that there had been no intention of treating the colony with disrespect, and every one of those gentlemen who had offered to raise corps received the thanks of the Government for the public-spirited and patriotic feeling which had induced them to make that offer, though, from the reasons he had stated, the Government had felt themselves obliged to decline it. With regard to the Cape Colony, the defence of that colony had occupied his serious attention. It was neither wise nor politic to leave the colonists exposed to the frightful evil of a Kafir war, and he believed that, so far from abandoning the principle of teaching the colonists to rely upon themselves, the sending these German colonists, who were trained to arms and able to defend themselves, would tend to inculcate that feeling among them.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSdid not find any Vote with regard to the German settlers in the Navy Estimates, and he objected to a discussion upon military subjects upon going into Committee on those Navy Estimates, although he was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman intended to revert to the subject on a more fitting occasion. The subject was of too large a nature to be capable of being discussed on the present occasion. In the first place, the question might be raised whether this country should have employed these Germans at all, and then it might be asked why these Germans, who had never seen an enemy or heard a shot fired in anger, should be treated more liberally and gene-
  762
  rously than any portion of those troops who had undergone the danger and labour of the war. The regular troops had been disbanded with very little courtesy, and, in some instances, without much justice, but these foreigners had been enlisted for three years beyond the termination of the war. These Germans now had a claim to permanent protection, and at some future period, when unable to defend themselves, it might be necessary to send British troops to their assistance. There was no doubt that the frontiers of the Cape Colony at the present moment were in very much the condition of the northern border counties of this country some hundred years ago. There would always be cattle-stealing under such circumstances; but if they thought to defend the line of frontier by the settlement of a German Legion of 2,800 men, they would be very much mistaken. If the colonists were not able to defend themselves without their assistance, he was sure that they would not be able to do so with their help, and some additional measures would have to be resorted to. The experiment of a military colony at the Cape frontier had been tried twenty years ago and had failed, and yet the same course was being repeated. He believed the system was most fallacious. The principle was opposed to the whole spirit of colonial legislation of late years, and he for one could not regard it with favour. The late Sir W. Molesworth had directed his attention very earnestly to the promotion of the policy of giving the power of self-government to our Colonies, and it had over and over again been urged on behalf of the colonists that if that power were accorded to them they would be prepared to defend themselves; and that if that principle were adopted we should not be compelled to keep at the Cape so large a military force as was at present the case. Well, the colonists had now obtained self-government; and when Sir G. Grey had been sent from New Zealand to govern that colony, it was supposed that its affairs would be less expensively managed; but it appeared that a larger military force than ever was needed, dissemination, always an error, had been adopted, and, as a consequence, a greater amount of expense than existed before his appointment had been entailed upon the country. It had been generally believed that Government was about to withdraw a large portion of those troops, but, instead of that having been done, eight or nine

  763
  regiments of infantry, and a numerous body of cavalry had been kept there to defend the colony against a set of miserable barbarians. One of the arguments which had been used in favour of stationing our troops in large numbers in the colonies was, that the people of this country were opposed to their being quartered at home in any large numbers, and that troops quartered in the Colonies might be easily brought home whenever a great emergency should arise. Well, what had been the fact? Why, that we had not been reinforced by one regiment from the Cape during the last war. It was also stated that it was impossible to defend the colony except by means of the regular army; but it should be borne in mind that Sir George Napier, who had conducted that government for a period of seven years, had adopted against the Kafirs a course, or rather a calculation, not demanding the employment of large bodies of troops. He, in fact, calculated that about £5,000 worth of cattle was reciprocally stolen by the Kafirs from our settlers on the one part, and by our settlers, on the other, from the Kafirs. In short, he calculated that the system of retaliatory theft was far preferable to be allowed to continue rather than recurring to the heavy expenditure of a national war. Other Governors had, however, pursued a different course, and had made the most trifling occurrences the grounds for entering into hostilities. One war had taken place about a stolen hatchet and another about eleven head of cattle. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government, who was so zealous respecting the honour of the British flag, would of course regard this as a casus belli. That was a policy which he had hoped had been abandoned, but it would appear that it was one in which the Government were resolved to persevere, and even proceed further in by sending out a new description of armed force with which to contend with those wretched Kafirs. He could not but sincerely regret such impolicy on the part of the Government.
  MAJOR STUART WORTLEYsaid, that, having served three years in the Cape, two years of which he had been engaged in the late war, he hoped the House would extend to him its indulgence while he made a few observations upon the subject under their notice. He was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken call the Kafirs
  764
  "miserable barbarians," and he was sure he would not have done so if he had known that there were 12,000 of them in the colony who, when armed with rifles, formed the material of the finest light infantry in the world. During the late war at the Cape our troops, when opposed to them, met with a series of reverses, and he had had the mortification of seeing two of the best regiments in the service compelled to retire before them. The hon. and gallant Member was completely mistaken, therefore, in supposing that the Cape colonists could easily defend themselves against their attacks. They might have done so to some extent when the Kafirs were not supplied with guns, but they were now tolerably well furnished with both guns and horses, and it was plain that the old commando system could no longer be of avail. He felt it to be his duty, under those circumstances, to warn the House to vote money for the defence of the Cape colonists, otherwise they must be prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility of an amount of bloodshed which it was fearful to contemplate. Few persons in England had any idea of the nature of the Kafir tribes. He, however, had some acquaintance with their language; had, after the last war, been much among them, and had conversed with their principal chiefs. From the knowledge of their habits thus acquired, he felt confident that the only reason why hostilities had ceased upon their part was because they had expended all their gunpowder, and because no facilities for the manufacture of a fresh supply existed among them. The best way, therefore, to put a stop to a Kafir war was to prevent the importation of gunpowder from the colonies. Three years was the time usually allowed to elapse between those wars, and we might therefore expect to witness in the course of another year a fresh outbreak of hostilities. The only reason why he was disposed to look with any apprehension upon the presence of the German Legion at the Cape was, that they and the Dutch Boers were to some extent a kindred people, and that as a consequence, in case those Boers should again take it into their heads to rise in opposition to our power, they might succeed in seducing the soldiers of the German Legion from their allegiance. The subject was a serious one, and he hoped the House would not be niggardly in any vote for keeping up the supply of troops at the Cape. He was confident that it was only the awe which the

  765
  Kafirs felt for our troops that kept them quiet, and if that awe were dissipated there would be another Kafir war, at a cost of several millions of money.
  COLONEL SYKESobserved that there had been no attempt at amalgamation at the Cape of Good Hope, or to infuse good feeling into the breasts of the contending parties. He could not understand why the same system of amalgamation should not be pursued at the Cape as had been pursued in India—namely, that of enlisting under our banners some portion of the native population; and the result of which had been that such a friendly feeling had been infused into those once our enemies that they had become our friends.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, the German Legion had been enlisted under a pledge that they should receive certain pay, and if disbanded before a certain period, be sent out as colonists to Canada or the Cape of Good Hope. It might have been wrong to employ them, but, having done so, the question was really a narrow question of contract. If the sending them to the Cape were such an immense advantage as the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) represented, how was it that out of 10,000 men only 2,000 had accepted the boon?
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee.
  (1.) £40,000, Marriage Portion of The Princess Royal, agreed to.
  (2.) £46,772, Naval Miscellaneous Services.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYasked a question as to the votes of "blood money" for pirates killed by our sailors. It was a dangerous power to entrust any naval officer with the arbitrary power of putting men to death as pirates. It was a relic of barbarous times, and unworthy of a Christian country.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that some time since a new mode of computing the head money had been introduced. The first item in this Vote was to the Rattler and Tartar, for service in 1855. There were 1,750 pirates engaged, of whom 500 were killed and 70 taken prisoners. Under the old rule the officers and crews would have been entitled to £10,000, but under the new rule they only got £3,000. The officers and crew of the Rattler, for service from 1854 to 1856, got £10,000;
  766
  under the old computation they would have been entitled to £52,000.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYobjected to the principle of the Vote; it was placing too much power in the hands of an officer. The natives whom they attacked might be engaged in legitimate warfare, and it was a disgrace to a Christian country to give blood money in this manner.
  GENERAL THOMPSONdid not believe in pirates. He desired to know what was the proof that these were pirates. Were they the great pirates or the little pirates? We being the great pirates—avowedly bearing in the China seas no other character than an organised race of pirates—was it quite clear that the men who interfered with us were not Custom-house officers? Or might they not have been some of the collections of men who had made their appearance in China in consequence of political agitation, and who wished to proclaim themselves as Bible Christians, though Her Majesty's representative put them aside as not being first-chop Unitarians? We had seen in China the strongest examples of every violation of truth, falsehoods thick as hail, and conduct which would prove to posterity that what had begun with a violation of principle and honour, would in the end come back on the offenders.
  MR. VANSITTARThaving had a gallant relative in command of one of the ships could assure the House that whatever doubt there might be here as to the existence, the numbers, or the destruction of the pirates, there was none amongst the Chinese themselves, as was testified by the gratitude evinced by them. His gallant relative had been offered by the native merchants at Shanghai and elsewhere five times the value of the sum in question, and he had refused it because he thought it was not consistent with his duty to accept money except from the Admiralty.
  MR. AYRTONbelieved that this payment was made under an Act of Parliament, and it would be inconsistent in the House to refuse to vote the money to which the Officers thought themselves entitled. At the same time, the Act of Parliament under which this money was voted required re-consideration. It was entirely inconsistent with the honour of this country and of its navy that sums of money should thus be voted for one of those services for which the navy was maintained. When the House voted

  767
  £7,000,000 for the navy in time of peace, it was not too much to expect that it would in return render the service of suppressing piracy in the Eastern seas. It must be very embarrassing to a naval officer to receive money according to the number of men he had killed.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYbelieved that it was in the discretion of the Admiralty to give the money or not, and that the Act of Parliament was not imperative. The Admiralty sometimes withheld the money.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: It was not imperative upon the Admiralty to give this money when they did not think it was deserved. It was not quite fair, however, to raise the question of the desirableness of repealing the Act of Parliament upon the Vote to these officers.
  MR. STAFFORDwas glad to see that the Admiralty had doubled the Vote for the Sailors' Homes. He was anxious to know whether the Admiralty had increased the number of Sailors' Homes, and whether they had instituted any superintendence over them, or, still better, left them to the management of the benevolent individuals, by whom they were instituted.
  SIR GEORGE B. PECHELLbelieved that the Admiralty had a discretionary power in regard to the payments for pirates. He entirely sympathized in the objections taken by the late Mr. Hume to these payments.
  SIR CHARLES WOODwished to remind his hon. and gallant Friend of the captain who gave evidence before a Select Committee denying the existence of these pirates, and who was afterwards murdered by them. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would never meet with a similar fate. With regard to Sailors' Homes, the Government only contributed towards those at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Quenstown, but they had increased their contributions to all those institutions. The Government did not interfere with the management, except to aid them with their pecuniary support. No institutions could be better managed, and none could be more serviceable to the sailors. Here they found a comfortable home, with cheap board and lodging, and books and newspapers.
  In reply to a question put by Admiral DUNCOMBE,
  SIR CHARLES WOODstated that during the last three years there had been launched from her Majesty's dockyards
  768
  and other private yards for the navy, nine ships of the line, nine frigates, eighteen sloops and corvettes, 182 gun-vessels and gun-boats, nine floating batteries, and 104 mortar vessels and gun-boats.
  MR. AYRTONcomplained of the item of £1,500, included in the miscellaneous services, for per centage paid to the Bank of England for transmission of money to the naval accountants at Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke, to meet the payments at those stations for the naval department. He thought, considering that the country kept an average balance at its bankers of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, it ought not to be charged anything like £1,500 for such accommodation.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the men employed in the yards at Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke, were all paid in gold and silver, which rendered it always necessary to have a large supply of coin on the spot, and that was unavoidably attended with considerable expense.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, as they were now, as it were, auditing the national accounts, he wished to ask for information upon a point connected with the mode of presenting the Navy Estimates before the Committee. The Votes for the financial year 1856–7 were stated in the Estimates, and the Committee was now asked to Vote the supplies for the financial year 1857–8; but the Estimates did not show what had been the expenditure for the year 1856–7. He submitted there ought to have been a column showing the balance in hand, if any, at the end of the previous year, and that until that was supplied the Committee had no means of testing the accuracy of the statements in the Estimates.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the hon. Gentleman was probably not aware that whenever the full amount of a Vote of the previous year was not expended the balance was either paid over to the Exchequer at the end of the year or was not drawn out of it, and that every year there was what was called a finance account prepared, showing the sums not expended in the service of the year in every case where the actual expenditure did not come up to the amounts voted.
  MR. PALKasked what the per-centage paid to the Bank was?
  SIR CHARLES WOODstated that the percentage paid to the Bank of England for the transmission of money to the Naval Accountants at Portsmouth, Devonport,

  769
  and Pembroke was in the case of Portsmouth, 2s., and as respected the remaining two places, 4s.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £441,603, Half-pay and Retired Allowances.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision had been arrived at as to the allowance of half-pay to the captains, commanders, lieutenants, and masters who were connected with Greenwich Hospital. The governor, the lieutenant governor, and some of the Commissioners of that Hospital received half-pay in addition to their official incomes, and he did not see why the same principle should not be extended to the subordinate officers of the establishment.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could only repeat the answer he had given to a question which had been put to him upon this subject on a previous evening—that the case of these officers was still under the consideration of the Treasury.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONthought the position of the inferior officers of Greenwich Hospital was, in this respect, one of considerable hardship. The Governor of the Hospital, Sir James Gordon, who had a salary of £1,500 a year, received half-pay amounting to £760 a year. The Lieutenant Governor also received half-pay in addition to his official salary; but the captains, commanders, lieutenants, and masters were precluded from receiving half-pay.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that unless the Treasury decided upon allowing the subordinate officers of Greenwich Hospital to receive their half-pay, he would take an opportunity of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. He found that in the Estimates the full half-pay of officers of every rank was entered, while when those officers received their half-pay the amount of the income tax was deducted. He wished to know in what manner the country was credited with these deductions for income tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the country was credited with those deductions in the same manner as it was credited with the deductions of income tax from official salaries and from dividends.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTwished to know why the full amount of half-pay was included in the Estimates.
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied, because the full amount stated in the Estimates
  770
  was payable to each officer, but a deduction was made for income tax, and that reduction was carried to the credit of the Exchequer.
  Vote agreed to, as were also the two following Votes:—
  (4.) £278,163, Military Pensions and Allowances.
  (5.) £87,682, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
  (6.) £127,000, Conveyance of Troops.
  MR. STAFFORDwished to know whether they were to understand that this Vote was deemed sufficient by the Government to meet the charges connected with their extensive operations in the East, or whether an application was to be made by them for a supplementary Vote? If this sum was all that they would require, he must congratulate the Government on their skill in making so small a sum go so far.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, this Estimate was framed in the month of January, before a complete account of the operations in China had been received. Since that date it had been found necessary to send out a much larger force; and as soon as the Government were enabled to make up their minds as to the full extent of the exigency, they would lay on the table a supplementary Estimate to meet it.
  MR. STAFFORDinquired how soon that would be done?
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied, that that would depend, in some degree, on the next accounts which reached this country from China. It would be more satisfactory if they deferred their calculations until they could submit an Estimate that was likely to be final.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERthought the Estimates too low, even if we were not at war with China. There might be a breach between this country and France, and looking at the preparations made by the latter Power, it was imprudent for us to maintain so small a force. Cherbourg was only fifty or sixty miles distant from England and was a perfect naval citadel. There were there already four steam basins, and there would be another completed in 1858. The railways could bring troops from all parts of France to that harbour. Any number of vessels might there come alongside and load. Troops in divisions and brigades could embark with the greatest ease; nay, as not even boats were required, cavalry regiments could march on board. The First Lord of the Admiralty had told them the other

  771
  night a thing which no other Lord of the Admiralty had ever told them before—that France in its naval steam power was equal to ourselves, and that she was able to bring together any number of disciplined men to man her fleets quicker than we could. We were, therefore, no longer the first naval nation in the world. Since the peace of 1815, France had been increasing her naval power, but what had we done? It was not until 1830 that a First Lord of the Admiralty thought of taking steps to man the navy. In that year the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle passed an Act empowering the Queen to issue a Proclamation, offering in some cases double and in others single bounties of £10 or £5; but that Act could never be rendered available for fear of expense, for it was so carelessly worded that the moment the Proclamation issued every seaman already in service could claim the bounty as well as recruits. He could not understand why the best ships of the British navy were not kept in commission—such vessels experienced less wear and tear in commission than in ordinary. At last, after thirty years' consideration, it was determined that all men on the coast should be exempted from the militia, and rendered fit to serve, if necessary, in the navy, and in case of emergency they were obliged to serve for two years. These men went on board ship and were regularly drilled, and he understood the measure was working remarkably well. But the principle was not, he thought, carried half far enough. Every boy, after serving his apprenticeship to the sea, should be obliged to learn the duties of a man-of-war for twelve months before he became a registered seaman, and should be so well paid for that service as to be taught to look upon it as desirable. This would place at their disposal in the event of a war a large body of disciplined seamen, and would put an end for ever to the system of impressment. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty would bring in a Bill at an early period for the facilitating the manning of the navy. At present we were totally denuded of anything like a Channel fleet. That was not a position which this country ought to be in either in peace or war. There were only two ships at Portsmouth, and one of them, he believed, was making water at a great rate.
  MR. BENTINCKwas glad the hon. and gallant Admiral had called attention
  772
  to the insufficiency of our navy as a means of national defence. It appeared to him that the facts brought forward by the First Lord of the Admiralty actually told against his own Estimates. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had explained to the Committee the comparative strength of the English and French navies, and the means of each nation for raising a large number of seamen on an emergency. Those facts ought to determine the Committee to refrain from cutting down the Estimates, and went to show that, in the event of any difference unfortunately arising between this country and France, our navy was not in the condition it ought to be in. The comparison made by the right hon. Baronet, therefore, appeared to him to be not only conclusive against reducing the Estimates, but it was just as conclusive as to their not being large enough. So far, therefore, from regretting that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be obliged to come down to the Committee again with supplementary Estimates, he, for one, was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman must do so. It was a most remarkable fact that six months after war, all the incidents of war, and all that occasioned a great expenditure in it, were always forgotten, and an insane cry for a false economy arose, people forgetting that it was economy that had led to the enormous outlay incurred during the war. If the House had practised not an unwise economy, but a wise expenditure it would have saved the country millions of money which had been wasted. In this mercantile country he could not understand how as a matter of insurance the national defences should not be maintained on a proper footing, seeing what the consequences of a sudden invasion would be, if it only lasted for a fortnight.
  MR. LINDSAYdiffered from the two hon. Members who last spoke. They seemed to argue upon the idea that a fleet could be fitted out from France or any other country at once, and could come down suddenly on the coast of England. But no fleet sufficient to do any harm to this country could be fitted out in less than a month, and if such a fleet were being prepared in a foreign country the people in England would soon know all about it. The hon. and gallant Admiral had spoken of the difficulty of obtaining men. That might be the case at times, during a war of aggression, but during a war of defence, when the people were called upon to de-

  773
  fend their own shores, there would be no difficulty whatever in manning the ships. An abundant supply of men could then be got from the merchant service. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty would follow up the course of economy, and have no more men in the service of the navy than he conceived necessary for a time of peace. To go beyond that was to do an injustice to the merchant service. He also hoped that no compulsory measures would be adopted for manning the navy, for they were sure to be defeated. Were a law passed making it compulsory on lads to serve a year in the navy, the shipowners would cease to bind apprentices, and it would be a great injustice to the lads.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONsaid, that this was a question of very great national interest. France had on its registry of seamen 139,000 men, and though they might not all be immediately available, that was a very strong fact. Such being the case, he thought it was right for this country to give its utmost attention to keeping up the personnel of the navy.
  MR. BENTINCKhoped the Admiralty would always keep in commission, on the home station, such a number of ships as would be able to meet any emergency.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he was glad the Admiralty had adopted the plan of sending the young cadets on board ship to learn seamanship.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £565,064, for the Packet Service.
  MR. BENTINCKcomplained that a great portion of the coast of Great Britain was still without charts, although the surveys had been completed many years.
  Vote agreed to, House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.

  TRANSPORTATION AND PENAL SERVITUDE BILL—THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. WALPOLEappealed to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, on account of the lateness of the hour and the great importance of the Bill to postpone the third reading.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Bill was virtually unopposed in its previous
  774
  stages, and inasmuch as Lord Campbell would in a short time be compelled to go on circuit, he was anxious that the Bill should reach the House of Lords while that noble and learned Lord could attend there. He hoped that the Bill might pass into a law, so that the regulations to be framed under it might be made before any sentences were passed at the next assizes, and with that view he asked the House not to delay the third reading.
  MR. WARRENwas not hostile to the Bill, but he was anxious to express his opinions upon it. It was already almost midnight, and unless the right hon. Baronet consented to postpone the third reading, he (Mr. Warren) would feel compelled, owing to the many hours of exhausting attention which he had that evening given to the public business, to let the Bill pass sub silentio. The assizes would not take place till July, and there was no ground for the haste of the right hon. Baronet.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that postponement would involve indefinite delay, since there would not be the slightest chance of bringing on the Bill either on Monday or Friday next week, as the army Estimates would probably occupy the whole of these sittings.
  MR. NEWDEGATEurged postponement on the ground that many hon. Members were anxious to express their opinions on the subject of the Bill.
  Lord ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman should persist in his intention of going on with the Bill he should feel it his duty to divide the House against him. No one denied that the Bill was in the right direction, but he did not regard the question as to how our criminal population was to be dealt with as settled by the Bill. The House had not yet fully discussed the question whether convict labour could be made remunerative.
  MR. DRUMMONDwould not do anything to oppose the Government on this question, but he was ready to sit up till twelve o'clock the next day to discuss the Bill, although he was not fond of sitting up. There was one subject in connection with it which had not yet been brought under the notice of the House, although it was of some importance. No doubt many hon. Members were aware that the rules and regulations in the different county gaols were all different one from the other, although they had received the approbation of the Judges of assize. The effect

  775
  of this was to leave with the Judges the power of apportioning the punishment of offenders and of sentencing them to confinement in one gaol or another, according as they thought fit. But your humanitarians came in then; they said this was "an anomaly," and they insisted that all gaols should be conducted on precisely the same footing, and that all the regulations should be the same. Now, by this Bill they were giving the Judges no discretion to send prisoners to a place where the punishment would be peculiarly severe or otherwise, the Judges had simply power to sentence not to what in the second clause was called transportation, but in the third clause was described as conveyance beyond the seas. No doubt there was a difference between these two expressions which he could not discern. See, then, where the burden lay. It was thrown back upon the Home Department. If the power of determining the kind of punishment were to be vested in any individual in the world, there was no one against whom he should make so few objections as his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey). But Secretaries of State resembled ordinary men; they must eat, drink, and sleep like other people; and how was it possible they should rightly apportion the punishment of criminals, unless they went through, most inefficiently, by written documents the facts which had been elicited far more satisfactorily before the Judges by oral evidence? What was the necessary consequence? The right hon. Gentleman could not discharge such a labour. It would devolve, then, upon an official under him, upon whom would rest the apportionment of all those gradations of punishment which under the old system was left to the Judges—a system which had been abolished now for about forty years, and which was now about to be re-enacted in a most clumsy and inefficient manner. Such a provision was a very unsatisfactory one. Still, he should not oppose the Government. If they liked to pass a bad Bill it was their business.
  MR. W. VANSITTARTdid not wish to offer any factious opposition, but he must say he thought the Government were pressing on the third reading of this Bill with hot and unseemly haste, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would divide the House against the Motion.
  MR. CLAYknew that many hon. Members were anxious to speak upon this subject,
  776
  and suggested that the Government should arrange to take the third reading on Monday.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that the punishment of criminals would depend, under the provisions of this Bill, mainly on the reports made to the Secretary of State by the Prison Inspectors. The third clause of this Bill, which conferred these powers, had not been at all discussed; and, as those powers were entirely new to the constitution, he thought it was but reasonable that further time for the discussion should be allowed.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he acknowledged the importance of the Bill, but due notice had been given that it would come on that evening. There had been no reason to suppose that the other business would last till a very late hour, and if hon. Members had been so anxious to deliver their sentiments upon it, it was their duty to have remained in the House. He could see no reason why this measure should not be read a third time merely because some hon. Gentlemen had gone away, instead of staying to state their opinions on a subject in which they were described as feeling such a deep interest. The night was not then very far advanced—it was but a quarter past twelve—and this was a Bill the principle of which, as far as he recollected, nobody had opposed, nor had any material Amendment been proposed. A great many Gentlemen had, indeed, taken the opportunity at the various stages of the Bill to express their opinions upon the general question of transportation and secondary punishments, and no doubt they had conveyed to the House much useful and interesting information. Considering, however, the state of business for next week, and how important it was that this Bill should become law before the time when fresh sentences would be passed, he did hope the House would now either affirm or negative the third reading, even if they sat an hour longer for the purpose.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was bound to admit the desirability of passing the Bill before the next assizes, and also that the Government had twice postponed it, but thought it inexpedient that a measure of this acknowledged importance should be brought on at midnight, when it was impossible to discuss it. The noble Lord had alluded to hon. Gentlemen having left the House; but it would have been of no use for them to stay, since

  777
  they could not have spoken at so late an hour. He hoped the Government would accede to the arrangement proposed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), which would involve but a very short delay.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the proposal to postpone the third reading would lead to any practical result—if it were still possible to amend the clauses, there might be some ground for this appeal; but inasmuch as by the standing orders it was not possible now to make any but purely verbal alterations in the Bill, he really could not see the object of further delay.
  MR. BENTINCKhad certainly understood that the right hon. Baronet would not bring this Bill forward at a late hour that night, and believed this to be the impression of hon. Gentlemen who had left the House after the Navy Estimates were disposed of.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

LIGHTHOUSES.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. GROGANsaid, he wished to move
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return showing the names of the Officers and Clerks employed by the Corporation of the Trinity House, London, the Commissioners of Northern Lights, and the Corporation for improving the Port of Dublin, for the year ending the 31st day of December, 1856; the salaries and other emoluments, if any, and the duties of such Officers and Clerks respectively; specifying the names of the Officers and Clerks employed in the business and management of the Lighthouses and Light Vessels on the coasts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and total number of such Lighthouses and Light Vessels in each division of the United Kingdom; showing the total income received from Light Duties in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the year ending the 31st day of December, 1856, and the total expenditure, including the salaries and emoluments, if any, of the Officers and Clerks employed in the business and management of the Lighthouses and Light Vessels, incurred for the maintenance of Lighthouses, &c., in the United Kingdom, for the same period."
  MR. LOWEopposed the returns, not because there was any objection to the returns themselves, but because the hon. Member had given no reasons why they should be made, while they would entail a great waste both of time and money.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Viscount Bolingbroke; Several Lords.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Earl of Hare-

699
wood, after the Death of his Father; The Viscount Hardinge, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Reformatory Institutions.

THE REPORT ON MILITARY EDUCATION.

  EXPLANATION.
  LORD PANMURE: I wish, my Lords, to take the present opportunity of stating that I think some mistake, which I do not clearly comprehend, has got abroad with respect to the Report of the Commissioners on military education. In another place, and also in the public press, the Government and myself have been accused of endeavouring to "burke" or suppress that Report. It would be impossible, my Lords, to advance a more groundless or, let me add, a more malevolent insinuation. When the Commissioners were appointed the greatest pains were taken to let the public know that the duty assigned to them was to elicit facts illustrative of the system of military education in all the countries of Europe, with the view of guiding Her Majesty's Government and the military authorities in establishing some plan of education for the officers of our army. The Commissioners completed their inquiry in July last, and, so far from our attempting to "burke" or suppress the result of their labours, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) informed the House of Commons, by means of a minute which he laid on the table, that the Commissioners had returned, and were in the act of preparing their Report, to which we intended to give publicity. That Report was made. It was very voluminous, and, in the first instance, was presented to me for my perusal. It was then sent to the Messrs. Spottiswoode, the gentlemen who print for the War Department, and also for your Lordships, and when it was put in type a certain number of copies were printed and distributed, some of them among your Lordships. I had 300 copies thrown off which I sent to the House of Commons, 150 to be given to such Members as might particularly desire to have them, and 150 to be placed in the library, where all the Members would have access to them. I adopted that course, because I did not wish to incur the expense of printing an unnecessarily large number of copies, and because I knew that not above one-fourth of the Members of the House of Commons would care to read a bulky blue-block upon such a subject. My desire for economy has been turned against me, and I
  700
  am blamed for not having printed the Report, although I put it where every Member who chose might see it. That Report, my Lords, is well worthy your attention. The Commissioners go rather beyond their instructions, and I do not pledge myself to subscribe to all the opinions they have expressed; but I must say that their Report is one of the most able documents which I have seen upon the subject. It comprises in a very clear form accounts of all the systems of military education abroad, and I hope will receive from your Lordships, and from the Members of the other House of Parliament, an attentive and careful perusal. I may state, in addition, that the Commander-in-Chief and myself have been in communication for the purpose of establishing a system of education for the officers of the army; we have almost arrived at a conclusion upon the subject; a system has been sketched out which I hope we shall soon be able to promulgate; and your Lordships may be assured that no time shall be lost in carrying into practical operation that which is a great desideratum in our army—namely, a scheme for affording to our officers the means of acquiring the information requisite to fit them for staff and other appointments, rendering them as distinguished for their professional and technical knowledge as they had already proved themselves to be for their courage and gallantry in the field.

ROLL OF THE LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL.

  MOTION FOR AMENDMENT.
  LORD ALVANLEYrose, pursuant to notice, to draw the attention of the House to the Roll of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal just issued. It contained 458 names; but as those of the great Officers of State and that of the Bishop of Bath and Wells were entered twice, there were in reality only 450 Lords on it. He thought that the form of the Roll was wrong when it made the number of their Lordships' House appear greater than it really was. The noble Lord then moved—
  "That the Roll of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal be amended. That when the name of any Lord shall appear twice in the said Roll it shall be numbered but once.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was the duty of the Garter King at Arms to lay on the table a vellum roll of the Temporal Lords; the Clerk was afterwards directed,

  701
  by an order of the House, to prepare another containing the names of the Spiritual Lords also; from that Roll an alphabetical list was afterwards made out, and the names were numbered from this, according to their position on the other Roll, in order to mark their precedence.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND AND THE DUBLIN PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose to move that there be laid upon the table a copy of the Correspondence which passed during the month of April, 1857, between the Dublin Protestant Association and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The grounds on which he moved for this Correspondence were these. In one of the districts of Dublin there was a certain large school, in which a number of persons of both sexes, all Protestants, gave their gratuitous assistance in the education of children. During the latter part of the month of March, and the commencement of the month of April last, mobs of Roman Catholics surrounded the building, ill-used and insulted persons going in and out of it, and, among others, several ladies of respectability and station were subjected to that treatment. It appeared, moreover, that several policemen witnessed those disturbances, and not only refused to take any part whatever in trying to suppress them, but actually gave their countenance to the proceedings; for upon one occasion, when two policemen, met a body of women who were pursued, and assailed by a Roman Catholic mob, and were entreated to interfere, they not only refused to do so, but, by their laughing and cheering, actually encouraged that scene of riot and violence. In consequence of repeated outrages of that description, the Dublin Protestant Association thought fit to memorialise his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, for the purpose of ensuring for their Protestant brethren the protection of the law. Now, he was not himself a member of that association, nor in any way connected with it; but he could state that it was composed of persons, not only of the highest respectability, but also of property and station, and that it was both a legal and a constitutional society, and not of an aggressive character. In their memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, they
  702
  stated, that from the circumstances they had set forth, they had been led to think that persons who faithfully adhered to the Protestant creed were debarred from the protection of the Executive Government. The reply they received from his Excellency was to the effect, that although he had never distinctly recognised the body called the Protestant Association, he had been in the habit of receiving any representations coming from them; but that upon this occasion he felt compelled to consider that they had used expressions insulting to himself and to his predecessors in office—in fact, that they had cast a reflection upon the Executive Government in Ireland. The Association, in their reply, denied that they had intended to treat with disrespect his Excellency, or any other Member of the Irish Government; but they added that they were anxious to claim for themselves that protection to which they were by law entitled. The Lord Lieutenant then sent them another communication, in which he stated that he understood them to have withdrawn the offensive expressions used in their memorial. He (Viscount Dungannon) confessed, however, that he did not see how it could be held that they had withdrawn any portion of the language they had at first employed, or what there was for them to withdraw; for he did not conceive that there was anything offensive in the expression of an opinion, borne out by facts, that Protestants did not receive a fair share of protection from the Executive. The Government and the Parliament of the day might for a time regard with indifference proceedings of that character; but he believed the time must arrive when the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland would become aroused by the injustice with which they were treated, and the attention of the Government and of Parliament be directed to the subject. If such acts as those which he had stated had been committed by Protestants against Roman Catholics, he was persuaded that a hue and cry would be raised from one end of the kingdom to the other; and he did not say that such hue and cry would not be justifiable. He thought, however, it was not too much to expect that the protection accorded to one class of people in Ireland should be extended to every other. The Protestants who had been thus wantonly assailed were engaged in the meritorious duty of instructing the rising generation, and yet their efforts had been

  703
  met by even worse outrages than any he had yet stated. It appeared that persons in the neighbourhood of these schools had had their houses violently entered; and that the inmates of those houses had been cruelly beaten, solely because they had sent their children to those establishments. It further appeared that the authors of those acts of violence had been encouraged to perpetrate them by a Roman Catholic priest, and by the teacher of a neighbouring national school. These were matters which loudly called for inquiry, and if Her Majesty's Ministers should refuse to institute that inquiry, it was high time the subject should be taken up by Parliament. He hoped the Government would have no hesitation in acceding to the Motion which he then made for the production of this Correspondence.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no objection to the Motion. After the papers had been produced, their Lordships would be enabled to judge of the merits of the case.
  Motion agreed to.

  PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION BILL—COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Commencement of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Interpretation Clause).
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved an Amendment, the object of which, and of other Amendments, which he intended subsequently to move, was to withdraw from the jurisdiction under this Bill all real estates, and to confine the jurisdiction of the Court solely to personalty. There was no difference of opinion, the business connected with probates, and letters of administration, should be removed from the Ecclesiastical Courts, to a Queen's Court of Probate; but the courts proposed to be superseded, never had, or could have, any jurisdiction over real estate. The Ecclesiastical Courts had exercised a jurisdiction over personal property, because it was necessary to have some one person to represent and administer that kind of estate. But, their Lordships' title to property did not depend on the Ecclesiastical Courts; they required no power from any court to enable them to inherit the estates of their ancestors, and they were able to devise their estates, where they had a devisable interest, without any regard to those courts. There never had been any ground
  704
  why real property should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and, therefore, why should it now be brought under the jurisdiction of that Court which was a simple substitution for the Ecclesiastical Courts? It was said by persons extremely fond of uniformity that there was an anomaly in the validity of a will being decided by a Judge sitting in the Ecclesiastical Court, or in any new court, as far as regarded personalty, and by a jury as far as regarded realty; that the jury might come to the conclusion that the will was valid, and the Judge come to the conclusion that it was invalid; and that they might thus have two opposite conclusions by competent jurisdictions with respect to the same instrument. He believed that no one could quote two such instances within the recollection of any man. What he (Lord St. Leonards) would advise their Lordships to do was to leave the law as it affected real estate as it was at present. He would urge upon their Lordships the duty of maintaining untouched by this Bill the rights and immunities incident to their own estates and the rights and immunities of every landed gentleman in the kingdom; and he would especially caution them against a change which might tend to result in saddling the owners of real estate with probate duty in the way in which they had been already subjected to a succession duty. He might remind their Lordships that when a former Bill of his noble and learned Friend's (the Lord Chancellor) on this subject went before a Committee upstairs that very question, whether or not real estate should or should not be liable to probate, was most attentively considered and discussed, and that a majority of the Committee decided that real estate should not be made the subject of probate. It was true the present Bill did not propose to subject real estate to probate; but there were several clauses in it which brought real estate within the jurisdiction of the new court, and whenever there was a contest as to a will, the Bill enabled the heir-at-law, or the devisee of the real estate, to appear as a party in such contest. To that proposition he was entirely opposed, and he repeated that the law of England as to real estate required no alteration. He therefore again called upon their Lordships to accept his Amendments, the effect of which would be to leave the law precisely as it stood at present, and to assimilate the Bill in respect to real estate to the one which had been so

  705
  attentively considered by the Committee upstairs.
  Moved, to strike out the words ("Testament and") and the word ("other").
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it did not appear to him that the Motion of his noble and learned Friend properly raised the question which his noble and learned Friend had brought under the consideration of the Committee; but he (the Lord Chancellor) was nevertheless willing that that question should be raised at once and be discussed on the first Amendment. That question was whether or not, to the extent to which this Bill affected real estate, it ought to affect it. With regard to the merits of this point he owned that at a portion of his noble and learned Friend's address he felt somewhat annoyed. He certainly did not like, for the sake of the character of their Lordships' House, the sort of argumentum ad landowner or argumentum ad hominess used by his noble and learned Friend, by which he appealed to the landed interest in the country as distinct from the general interests of the community. He (the Lord Chancellor) on the contrary thought that all questions should be decided not by the interests within the House, but by the interests of the great body of the community. Now, what did this Bill propose with reference to real estate? The Chancery Commissioners, in their Report published in 1854, recommended that there should be one jurisdiction for real and personal estate, and that probate should extend to all property of every description. He acted upon that suggestion when he introduced a Bill on this subject in 1854; but during the discussions in the Select Committee, to which the Bill was referred, the general opinion seemed to be that the alteration would be attended with inconvenience; and he therefore confined the measure to personal estate. The Bill passed their Lordships' House in that form, but it did not pass the House of Commons. In 1855 and 1856 measures with the object of improving the testamentary jurisdiction were originated in the other House. But as it was the opinion of his colleagues that it was advisable he should introduce a similar Bill into their Lordships' House this year, he had most attentively reconsidered the whole subject, and he had satisfied himself that it would not he desirable to act upon the recommendation of the Commissioners with respect to real
  706
  property, and that the same necessity did not exist for probate of real estate that there was for probate of personal estate. In the case of personal estate it was necessary to have somebody to represent the deceased, to sue for the recovery of debts, and to receive personal property, which was of infinite variety, and probate with regard to that description of property was therefore absolutely requisite; but he did not think any such necessity existed with respect to real estate. There was, however, this extraordinary anomaly—that although, when a will had been proved as to personal estate, the title of the executor was conclusively established to every particle of the personal property—whether in the shape of leasehold, money in the funds, railway shares, debts: if a question were raised whether the will was properly executed, or whether the testator was of sound mind, that was established once for all as regarded personalty. But this was the anomaly, inasmuch as probate did not extend to real estate, the question which had been decided as to personal estate might, according to the existing law, be reopened with regard to the real estate. His noble and learned Friend said that these cases were of very rare occurrence. That was true; and if there had been no ready remedy it might have been better to bear the evil. But he (the Lord Chancellor) considered that it might be remedied so simply, so easily, and so effectually, that he should have thought himself wanting in his duty if, when he was proposing a plan for improving the testamentary jurisdiction he did not include in it a remedy for such an anomaly. What he proposed was, not that probate should be required with regard to real estate in all cases of wills disputed or undisputed; but that if a will were disputed upon the ground that the testator was insane, or for any cause which applied to the whole will, all the persons interested under such will should be cited immediately after the testator's decease, and while the evidence was yet available, and the matter settled once and for all. He could not conceive what possible objection there could be to such a course. His noble and learned Friend had said that cases of the kind referred to were of rare occurrence. So they were; but since he (the Lord Chancellor) had had the honour of holding the Great Seal the very question had arisen, and in a case of no small importance. In 1842 a gentleman died at Cheltenham, who

  707
  had made a will two or three weeks before his death, by which he bequeathed all his property of every description to his widow. The widow proved the will, which was a good probate as to the personal estate, and in virtue of such probate she obtained personal property in the funds, and of other descriptions, to the value of £150,000. The deceased was also the owner in fee simple of very large estates in Ireland, producing £7,000 or £8,000 a year; but after the widow had been in possession of those estates for some little time, proceedings were instituted by the heir-at-law for their recovery. A trial took place, and the jury found that the testator was insane at the time he made the will. The subject was brought by appeal before the House of Lords, and was argued very fully and ably at the bar. He had occasion to consider the case without the assistance of any of their Lordships. He thought himself disentitled to look at what had been done with regard to probate, but he came to the conclusion upon other grounds that the trial had not been satisfactory, and he therefore reversed the decision of the Irish Court and directed that a new trial should take place. The same result might follow from a new trial, but he mentioned this case to show the present anomalous state of the law, and he thought he should have been deservedly obnoxious to the charge of adhering too blindly to precedent if he had not taken the opportunity, now afforded, of remedying this state of things, and with this view he had proposed these clauses. The Bill would not involve the necessity of probate of real estate in ordinary cases, but he proposed that when there was a contest, probate should be conclusive both as to real and personal estate.
  On Question, that ("Testament and") stand part? The Committee divided:—Contents 56; Not Contents 35: Majority 21.
  Clause agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Granville, E.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Grey, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Minto, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Portarlington, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Abingdon, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Burlington, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Eversley, V.

  Effingham, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Fortescue, E.

  708

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  St. David's, Bp.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Belper, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Panmure, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Byron, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Carew, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and claneboye.)

  Stewart of Stewart's Court, L (M. Londonderry.)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Strafford, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Sunbridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  De Tabley, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Wensleydale, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Wycombe, L.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D.

  Ardrossan, L. (E. Eglintoun)

  Richmond, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Bath, M.

  Berners, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bolton, L.

  Colchester, L. [Teller.]

  Belmore, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Carnarvon, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Gray, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Harrington, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Seafield, E.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Talbot, E.

  Sondes, L.

  Combermere, V.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Doneraile, V.

  Walsingham, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Her Majesty to appoint Judge of the Court; the First Judge to be the present Judge of the Prerogative Court).
  LORD WYNFORDobserved that, on the previous discussion on this Bill, the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had represented that it was the opinion of Dr. Lushington that one Judge would he sufficient for all the duties of the Admiralty, Matrimonial, and Probate Courts. He was informed, however, that that learned Gentleman had said that his opinion had been modified since the period when he gave his evidence some years ago, and that, considering the increase of business which had taken place in the Admiralty Court, and the probability of further increase of business after the alteration of the present system, he was inclin-

  709
  ed to think that one Judge would not be adequate for the purpose. He therefore wished to know whether it was intended to leave the present clause as it now stood? A great part of the present business was conducted by paper out of Court, but if hereafter it should be conducted vivâ voce, the more frequent attendance of the Judge in court would be rendered necessary, and, considering that the attendance of the Judge would also be required at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he hardly thought that the services of one Judge would be sufficient.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas afraid that he had unintentionally gone beyond what his learned Friend authorized him to say. He had a conversation with him about a fortnight ago on the subject of the amount of business likely to come before the new Court of Probate, and was then told by him that twenty years ago he was examined before a Committee of the House of Commons, and gave his opinion that one Judge could do the business; but that since then the business of the Admiralty Court had no doubt increased, and that he could not now feel the same confidence that one Judge would be sufficient. Instead of representing the leaning of the opinion of that learned person to be now that one Judge could do the whole business, he thought he must state that the learned Gentleman was inclined to think, without expressing a confident opinion on the point, that one Judge would not be sufficient. It was, however, unnecessary to make any alteration in the present clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 22 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 23 (Court to have throughout all England the same Powers as the Prerogative Court within the Province of Canterbury).
  LORD ST. LEONARDSasked whether one Bill might not be introduced to apply to the whole of the kingdom? Why should Ireland be excluded from the advantage of such a measure?
  LORD CAMPBELLclaimed justice for Scotland also. Surely his noble and learned Friend, with the assistance of the Lord Advocate, might devise some scheme to make the law with regard to probates and letters of administration uniform throughout the whole kingdom.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORacknowledged
  710
  the desirability of such a measure, but said that he did not yet propose to make probates everywhere interchangeable. They would first make this Bill perfect for England, after which there would be no difficulty in framing an Act to extend to Scotland and Ireland.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Appeal to the Privy Council).
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved an Amendment that appeal should lie to the House of Lords instead of to the Privy Council. He considered it to be a great constitutional question. It was essential that the Judges who had to decide questions relating to the property of the subject should be independent of the Crown. But the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was a tribunal wholly unknown to the constitution of the country, and did not deal with questions relating to real estate, or such matters as were dealt with by this Bill; and a Privy Councillor was removeable at the pleasure of the Sovereign.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had not any serious fears of the Members of the Judicial Committee being under the influence of the Crown; but he thought that, constitutionally and wisely, the House of Lords was the proper Court of dernier ressort for all questions respecting the common law of England.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Amendment of his noble and hon. Friend (Lord St. Leonards) met his own views, and he would adopt it; indeed he had originally framed the Bill with an appeal to the House of Lords.
  Amendment made, and clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 38 to 95 agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 96 (Compensation to Registrars, &c., of existing Courts).
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONobserved that no provision was made in the Bill for the payment of the Chancellor and Registrar of the diocese of London. The office of Chancellor of that diocese was one of great importance, and had been held by men of high distinction, including Lord Stowell and Dr. Lushington. He hoped, therefore, that before the Report was brought up the noble and learned Lord would provide for the payment of those important officials, not only in the diocese of London, but in other dioceses.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that whatever remuneration the present Chancellor held, they would still be entitled to. But he did not see the propriety of making persons proving wills pay the salaries of ecclesiastical officers, however valuable and important their services might be.
  Clause agreed to; Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedules and preamble agreed to.
  Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.