Sitting of 25 May 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Registration of Voters; Princess Royal's Annuity.
2° Cinque Ports Act Amendment.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

  COMMITTEES TO SIT NOTWITHSTANDING.
  On Motion of Sir GEORGE GREY, resolved that the House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday.
  MR. FITZROYsaid he would move,

  833
  that all Committees should have leave to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House. The pressure of public business rendered it very desirable that the sittings of all the Committees should not be suspended for two days.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that several Committees had already adjourned.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the Committee over which he presided had, with the full consent of counsel, decided not to meet to-morrow, but, with the permission of the House, to sit on Wednesday.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Motion was intended only to give permission for the meeting of such Committees as chose to sit during the adjournment of the House.
  MR. FITZROYsaid, he wished to explain that his Motion was in the usual terms, and would leave it to the decision of the several Committees whether or not they should sit.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That all Committees have leave to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House.

  THE INNS OF COURT—LEGAL EDUCATION—QUESTION.
  MR. WARRENasked the Attorney General, whether Her Majesty's Government have any intention during the present Session, to introduce a measure founded on the Report of the Commission issued to inquire into the subject of Legal Education.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that two years ago a Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the state of the Inns of Court, especially with reference to the facilities for legal study, the revenues appropriate for the purpose, and the means likely to secure a systematic education for students in the law. The Commissioners made a Report, recommending a course which they thought would tend to effect that object. Her Majesty's Government had expected that the Inns of Court would have voluntarily adopted the treasures thus recommended by the Commission for securing the great object of providing for the effectual education of students for the bar. To provide such an education was one of the trusts imposed upon those societies, and they had large revenues at their disposal to discharge that trust. He was sorry, however, to say, that there was a division between the different Inns of
  834
  Court upon the subject. The Inner and Middle Temple were desirous of carrying out the plan proposed by the Commissioners, but Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn were opposed to such a course, a resolution to that effect having been passed by a majority of one vote. If that state of things should continue, it would be the duty of Government to introduce a Bill upon the subject; but the subject having been under the consideration of the societies, and the Government believing that they were actuated by good intentions, it was not intended to bring any measure in this Session.

SURGEONS IN THE MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL GREVILLEasked the Undersecretary for War, whether it is the intention of the Government to issue pay to the surgeons of militia regiments who have been called upon by the War Department to reside at the head quarters of the permanent staff, for the purpose of taking medical charge of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and their families; and, if so, at what rate.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, it was the intention of the Government to issue pay to the surgeons of the militia regiments when they were residing at headquarters. The rate at which it would be issued, would be that which was fixed by the militia regulations of 1854.

  CUSTOMS DUTIES—QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWART: It appearing from a Return made to this House on the 20th day of January last that there are, in the table of Customs Duties, sixty articles producing to the revenue not more than £200 yearly, each; fifty-three articles producing not more than £100; thirty-six producing not more than £20; and thirteen producing only £5 or less than £5, yearly, each, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is the intention of the Government to consider the expediency of abolishing any of these duties, in the interests of commerce, and for further simplifying the tariff of Customs Duties?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the subject was under consideration, and there would be no objection to abolish the greater portion of the table of duties to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. But at the same time he would

  835
  remind the hon. Gentleman that the list would require careful revision, because there were some of the articles to which reference had been made, included in the tariff on special grounds. Paper, malt, and hops, being subject to an Excise duty, it would, therefore, be necessary to impose a countervailing Customs duty on beer, paper, and pasteboard, all of which were included in the duties to which the hon. Member referred.

LABOURERS IN BRITISH GUIANA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHEETHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he had received any communication from British Guiana, complaining of the difficulties which at present exists in obtaining an adequate supply of immigrant labourers for that colony, and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps in reference to the same.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Colonial Office had been for several years past in constant communication with the colony on the subject. During the last nine years no less than 30,000 had emigrated to the tropical colonies of this country. The Government were most anxious to promote by every means in their power, the emigration of labourers to those colonies; subject to their being treated when there as freemen, and to the engagements with them being strictly fulfilled, the Government would promote the sending of labourers in every possible way. On a future occasion he would lay such papers on the table as should inform the hon. Gentleman and the House of the facts in regard to the question.

  LEGISLATION FOR IRELAND—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked the Attorney General, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce in the present Session Bills for Ireland, relating to Probates and Administrations, and to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, similar in principle to the Bills for England now before the House of Lords. Also, whether it is intended that the Bill relating to Clergy Discipline, which the Lord Chancellor stated, shortly before the dissolution of Parliament, was then in preparation, should be introduced this Session, and whether it will include the Church in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALin reply, said, the Government never intended to introduce those Bills with regard to England only. There were, however, some technical difficulties which rendered it inexpedient to include Ireland in the Bills which had been introduced. When, however, the Bill relating to Divorce and the Probate of Wills came down to that House, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would move for leave to introduce Bills extending their principle to Ireland, and also for the establishment of a General Ecclesiastical Registry in that country. With regard to the subject of Church Discipline, a Bill had some time back been prepared and submitted to the Bishops for their approval. Those right rev. personages had returned the Bill to the Lord Chancellor; but some doubt existed as to whether it could be introduced during the present Session; however, if it were introduced, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that a Bill applicable to Ireland would also be introduced.

  STOPPAGES FOR FORAGE—QUESTION.
  MR. NOELasked the Under Secretary for War, what is the total annual amount of the stoppages which are deducted from the pay of cavalry officers for forage for their chargers, and whether the Government will take the matter into their consideration, with the view of doing away with those stoppages?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he could not state the exact amount of those stoppages. Cavalry officers had been subjected to them for a very long period, and a reduction in their amount must, of course, be regarded as an addition to their pay. The Government had had the subject under their serious consideration, but they were not prepared at the present moment to recommend that a reduction should be made.

  THE SOUND DUES—COMMITTEE ORDERED.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, that the passage in the Lords Commissioners' Speech relative to the treaty with the King of Denmark respecting the Sound Dues be read.
  Paragraph in the Lords Commissioners' Speech at the opening of the Session read, as follows:—
  "We are commanded to inform you, that Her

  837
  Majesty, in conjunction, with several other European Powers, has concluded a Treaty with the King of Denmark for the redemption of the Sound Dues. This Treaty, together with a separate Convention between Her Majesty and the King of Denmark, completing the arrangement, will be laid before you, and Her Majesty will cause the measures necessary for fulfilling the engagements thereby contracted to be submitted for your consideration."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to move, that the House take this passage into consideration on Friday the 5th of June.
  Committee to consider the redemption of the Sound Dues on Friday, 5th June.

DOWRY OF THE PRINCESS ROYAL.

  REPORT. LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. FITZROYbrought up the Report of the Resolution on Queen's Message [18 May].
  "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."
  Resolution read 2°.
  MR. CONINGHAM MR. CONINGHAM rose, for the purpose of proposing an Amendment to the Resolution which had been adopted apparently unanimously on Friday. He regretted very much that the House had not been afforded an opportunity of dividing upon the question on that occasion, as he felt assured that the public out of doors would have been undeceived with respect to the general concurrence with which the Resolution would seem to have been adopted. He was of opinion that if a division had taken place a very large minority would have been found to be opposed to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For his own part, he objected to the proposal on principle; he objected to its amount, and viewed it with disfavour as a precedent. The reasons which he had on the former occasion urged against the annuity still continued to have weight with him; but he should abstain from repeating them, and should content himself with moving an Amendment to the effect that the amount of the proposed annuity be reduced from £8,000 to £6,000. He could not, however, pass over a very remarkable omission which had occurred in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  838
  on Friday night—he alluded to the circumstance of his having abstained from all reference to the revenues which the Sovereign derived from the Duchy of Lancaster. That omission had indeed to some extent been supplied by what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck)—but only to some extent, inasmuch as the £20,000 a year winch had of late been paid into Her Majesty's privy purse, from the source to which he referred, had at one time been reduced to a much smaller amount in consequence of the gross mismanagement which, in dealing with the property of the Duchy, had for a long period prevailed. The subject was one which he should feel it to be his duty to submit before long to the notice of the House. Meanwhile he begged leave to move that £6,000 be substituted for the £8,000 mentioned in the Resolution, and upon that point he should call for a division.
  MR. COXseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "eight," in order to insert the word "six," instead thereof.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot help expressing my great regret that the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to raise a discussion on this provision. I had hoped that after what the hon. Gentleman himself has admitted to be the general concurrence of the House with respect to the Resolution before us, even those among us who might entertain individual objections to the amount of the Vote, or the relative amount of the votes which are to constitute the marriage portion of the Princess Royal, would be content to merge their objections in the almost unanimous wish of the House. I must again say, that in asking that a suitable provision should be made for her whom the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has very properly described as "the eldest daughter of England" upon the occasion of her going forth to hold a great and important position in a foreign kingdom—I did hope that we should not have been called upon to discuss the difference between £8,000 and £6,000, particularly when we reflect that either sum must be regarded as utterly insignificant when compared with the resources of the country, but which are of value as indicating the attachment of this House to the Sovereign and the dynasty under which it is our happiness to live. I shall, at all events, follow the example in one respect of the hon. Gentleman

  839
  who has proposed this Amendment in not making any lengthened observations, but shall content myself with earnestly entreating the House to abide by the Resolution.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he regretted that the noble Lord had thought fit to address the House, which he felt confident would vindicate by its Vote the decision at which it had arrived on Friday.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that had Mr. Roebuck—["Order !"]—he begged to apologize for calling the hon. and learned Gentleman by his right name; but had the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield thought fit to divide the House on a former occasion, he (Mr. Gilpin) should have voted with him. He did not think, however, that it was wise for his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton to reopen the question. He would yield to no one in a desire to do what was right to all parties—towards Her Majesty as well as towards his constituents— and was not prepared to divide against the Vote to which the House had come on a former occasion.
  Question put, "That the word 'eight' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes 328; Noes 14: Majority 314.

  List of the NOES.

  Blackburn, P.

  Pease, H.

  Blake, J.

  Stirling, W.

  Bowyer, G.

  Taylor, S. W.

  Corbally, M. E.

  Trelawny, Sir J. S.

  Dalgleish, R.

  Williams, W.

  Jones, D.

  Mac Evoy, E.

  TELLERS.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Coningham, W.

  O'Donoghoe, The

  Cox, W.

  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FITZROY, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Viscount PALMERSTON.
  Bill read 1°.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.
  (1.) "That the sum of £40,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the marriage portion of Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, read 2°.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he did not know whether he was in time to express an opinion and propose an Amendment to this Resolution; but he thought that himself and many other hon. Gentlemen were rather badly treated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) on Friday night. By the decision at which the House had just arrived they
  840
  had made, he considered, ample provision for the eminent personage with whom they were now dealing. He should not be acting as what he professed to be—a fair representative of the people—if he objected to give an amply sufficient dowry to the young Princess the eldest born of our Sovereign; but he should not be what he professed to be, a just representative of the people, if he did not express his opinion that an annuity of £8,000 was amply sufficient. Therefore he thought that the sum of £40,000 included in this Vote was unnecessary liberality on the part of the representatives of a nation which comprised many millions of poor and needy persons. He knew that many hon. Gentlemen might differ from him and accuse him of presumption for venturing to express his opinion upon the subject; but the feeling which he entertained on this subject on Friday night he entertained most strongly at the present moment, namely, that he was greatly disappointed by the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield— and on the part of some hon. Members he begged to say that they were equally disappointed. That hon. and learned Gentleman by assuming the position which he had on Friday night prevented hon. Gentlemen from putting the sentiments expressed by him into a practical form. The hon. and learned Gentleman came forward even before the Motion was proposed, and made a solemn appeal to the representatives of the people. He (Mr. Maguire) was greatly struck by the justice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, and he believed that many hon. Gentlemen would have gone into the lobby with him if he had laid his proposition in a practical form before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to express his opinion in the manner he had, unless he had intended to test the feeling of the House upon it. He addressed the House upon two separate occasions in support of his view, and it was his duty to have pressed the House to a division. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Vote of £40,000 be negatived.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the proper course would be to move the Amendment on the Question that the House do agree with the Resolutions of the Committee, and those who concurred in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman could vote in the negative of that Question.
  MR. CONINGHAMalso thought that

  841
  the annuity of £8,000 just granted was an amply sufficient provision for the Princess Royal. He came into that House pledged to support reform and retrenchment, and by supporting the large grant now proposed he should be violating in the most direct manner one of those pledges. Unpopular, therefore, as it might be, he thought it was his duty to oppose the Vote.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should be justified in assenting to the Vote by two precedents which occurred in the reigns of George II. And George III. In the reign of George II. a marriage portion of £80,000 and an annuity of £5,000 were granted on the marriage of the Princess Royal, and he believed that the same sums were given in the reign of George III. on the marriage of the Princess Royal with the Prince of Wirtemberg. As Her Majesty's Government had chosen to diminish the marriage portion and increase the annuity, and the two amounted to about the same sum as was granted on the two occasions of which he had spoken, he did not think that he had any right to object. He thought that the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria was entitled to at least as much liberality as was displayed towards the daughters of George II. and George III.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: As some hon. Gentlemen were pursuing the vexatious course of dividing the House on a question on which they were almost unanimous, I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not possible to revert to the ancient rule of directing one party to go forth into the lobby? If the "Noes" are ordered to "go forth" it will probably save us the trouble of a division.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYwished to know whether the noble Lord meant that the opposition to this Vote was "vexatious" to the people of England. For his own part, he should regret extremely if occasion were taken to divide against the Vote. He should have much preferred that the division had taken place on Friday last. He came down to the House to support any reasonable proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, but as that hon. and learned Gentleman declined to test the House, he (Sir J. Trelawny) now found himself in a most difficult situation; because, while on the one hand his conscience told him that he should act rightly by voting with the minority, he felt, on the other hand, most anxious to vote with the
  842
  majority. He did not know what course to take. He did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have asked them as reasonable men to be guided by precedents 100 years old—on such a question they ought to be guided by common sense. He would be the last person to express anything but admiration for Her Majesty, and his earnest wish was that every happiness might attend the Princess Royal; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted an important matter which ought to have been taken into account, and which was this—that in case of the death of the Prince of Wales the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall would belong to Her Majesty for life, although that was contrary to constitutional policy. Those who read Mr. Burke's Treatise on Economical Reform would find that the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster ought to be applied to the public use. Mr. Burke used to be a great authority with the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches, and at one time they were not so anxious as now to vote sums of money for the maintenance of the Royal Family.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthought the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his statement that if the country were deprived of the Prince of Wales the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall reverted to the Crown. The fact was, he believed, that it went to the next heir to the Throne. He should not argue the general question, but hoped the House would abide by the decision at which it already seemed to have arrived.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNY, in explanation, repeated that in case of the death of the eldest son of the Sovereign, the Duchy of Cornwall went to the Crown during the Crown's life. This was both fact and law.
  MR. SPEAKER, in reply to the question put by the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), said, that in 1836, in consequence of its being thought advisable that the names of Members who voted in divisions should be recorded, a Standing Order was adopted by the House that both the "Ayes" and the "Noes" should go forth into the lobbies. It was therefore necessary that the division should be taken in the usual way.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes 361; Noes 18: Majority 343.
  Resolution agreed to; subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he presumed the object for the Motion of the Speaker leaving the Chair was that the House might go into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates. He had given notice of a Motion to refer those Estimates to a Select Committee. He and many other Members of that House had very recently pledged themselves to their constituents to support economy and retrenchment, and they now found that they had laid before them Army Estimates more extravagant than any others from the termination of the French war to the commencement of the Russian war; and he thought it was high, time therefore that some means should be adopted by that House for putting a check upon the continually increasing expenditure of the War Department. If the House of Commons had one duty more important than another it was to see that there was a proper application of the taxes raised from the masses of the people, and that duty he now called upon hon. Members to discharge. He had looked over the Estimates with very great care; but they were quite unintelligible to him. They were made up in a different form from any preceding Estimates he had had an opportunity of seeing, and though he considered he had some little knowledge of Parliamentary accounts and figures, he was unable to make anything of them by comparing them with the Estimates of former years. What, then, must he the case with regard to new Members? Yet by such a comparison alone Members would he able to come to a satisfactory conclusion as to their moderation or extravagance. A large portion of the present House consisted of new Members, who would be totally in the dark when these Estimates were considered. The last Parliament voted a very large portion of the Estimates, and the present House of Commons had no information from these Estimates, how much had been voted and how much remained to be voted. He should like to know upon what grounds the Government were thus meeting the new Parliament. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in a business-like manner, stated the gross amount of the Navy Estimates, with the amount voted in the last Parliament; but no such information was conveyed with regard to the Army Estimates. If the
  844
  Government were conscious that they had proposed the Estimates in accordance with the just requirements of the expenditure of the army, they could have no objection to refer them to a Select Committee fairly chosen. He (Mr. Williams) was sure that such a Committee would point out means whereby they might effect a very large reduction. In France, the Estimates were laid before the Chamber of Deputies, and were then referred to a Committee. Very lately the Committee reported that the Estimates were extravagant, and that the amount proposed was not necessary for the public service—and what was more extraordinary still, that decision was reported in the public newspapers in France. Now, when he stated to the House the amount required by the present and former Governments, he was sure that hon. Members would be very much astonished. He held in his hand a return presented to that House in reference to the sums voted for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance from 1822 to the commencement of the Russian war, and he found that not in one single case was there to be found anything like approaching the sum required this year, indeed not within millions sterling. He would give two or three instances, and he would select periods of a very remarkable character. First of all he would take 1835—and on this he might say that the years preceding and following, namely, 1834 and 1836, were within a mere trifle of the same amount—but he selected, 1835 because the Estimates of that year were submitted to the House by the Government of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington, and afterwards adopted by the Government of Lord Melbourne, when he succeeded to power. The amount required in that year for the Army, Ordnance, and Navy Estimates was £7,560,000 less than those of this year. Then he would take the year 1852–3, the year before the commencement of the preparations for the Russian war. The Army Estimates which were submitted by Lord Aberdeen's Government, and adopted by Lord Derby's Government, amounted to £9,020,000. This year they amounted to £11,247,000. The difference between the number of men in 1852–3 and the present year was but 7,227. Now, adding those 7,227 to the number required in 1852–3, and allowing for their pay and maintenance £227,000, the Estimates of this year for the same number of men as in 1852–3 would show an increase of £2,000,000 sterling. He

  845
  would ask the House upon what grounds they could vote the cost of an army of precisely the same force as in 1852–3, at an additional expense of £2,000,000 sterling? He had looked over the Estimates very carefully, and he confessed he could See no reason whatever for this additional change. There were increased amounts in regard to some items, and great extravagance in regard to others, but he could see no way of accounting for the £2,000,000. The amount required for the Army this year showed an increase over the amount required in 1835 of £3,687,000. In the last year of the unreformed Parliament, the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, and the whole amount he required for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, was £13,294,000, being less by £5,856,000 than was required by the Government this year. In 1835 Sir Robert Peel's Estimate for these three services amounted to £11,657,000, less by £7,500,000, or a sum equal to the whole produce of the income tax at 7d. in the pound, than the sum required to be voted by the Government this year. In 1852–3, the amount required for the three services was £14,755,00, being less by £4,400,000 than the amount required this year, which was £19,150,000. It would, no doubt, be said that it was impossible to reduce the army all at once; but he did not see that there was any intention of reducing the army, for he found that there was a provision in the Estimates for £42,000 for the purposes of recruiting in ten different districts of the country. He would not trouble the House with a large number of items; but he would refer to two new establishments at Aldershot and Shorncliffe. The establishment at Shorncliffe cost £4,501. There were four generals appointed there, but what they did he was at a loss to conceive. He was recently in that neighbourhood, and ascertained that the number of troops there was between 2,200 and 2,500, and yet there were four general officers stationed there. Then there was the new establishment at Aldershot, costing £8,481, and five general officers and two full colonels were stationed there in command. It might be said that our soldiers required to be brought together not only in regiments, but in divisions. Now, there were in that House some of the most distinguished military officers of the last war, and he should be very much surprised if any of those gallant officers would say that the British army had ever, when acting in
  846
  masses, been found wanting in the performance of its duty. The charge for these two camps was but £14,000 or £15.000; but it was not so much to the expense he objected as to what he considered the commencement of an attempt to make us a military nation and to introduce into this country a military system like those which existed under the despotisms of the Continent. The navy was our proper defence, and he had never opposed any measures which were necessary to secure its efficiency. The way also in which the accounts were made up rendered it impossible to calculate the exact cost of different regiments in the service; but, as far as he could reckon, the cost of the Guards was nearly twice as much as that of regiments of the line. For his own part, he had never been able to understand the necessity of the proposed increase of expenditure on the army. It was said that if England should again be involved in war she ought to be better prepared than she was at the commencement of the last war. Now, he believed that if England in the course of a few years again went to war, she would be in precisely the same position as she was last war. Incompetent men would, on account of their connections, be appointed to command her forces, and after scenes similar to those which occurred in the late war the newspaper reporters would inform the public of what was going on; and then, when all was over, men of merit would come forward exactly as they were under the late exigencies. He would not detain the House further, but would move that the Estimates be referred to a Select Committee.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNY SIR JOHN TRELAWNY rose and said, that his only objection to seconding the Amendment was, that it would relieve the Government of the responsibility—
  MR. SPEAKER, interrupted, saying that he had supposed the hon. Member to rise for the purpose of seconding the Amendment.
  The Amendment, not being seconded, fell to the ground.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that before they went into Committee there were one or two questions he wished to ask of the hon. Gentleman, who now represented the War Department (Sir John Ramsden). He wished to know who was responsible for this great expenditure— whether or not it was the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, or who? He believed that in this case, as well as

  847
  in many others, it devolved upon irresponsible deputies and secretaries. There was another point of considerable importance to which he wished to call attention— namely, that the heads of Votes had been very much reduced in number. The number of heads before the consolidation of the Departments was twenty-nine or thirty, now they only amounted to twenty. If they wanted to check accounts, the only way was to insist upon having full details under separate heads—if they were placed under a few general heads it was quite impossible to comprehend them. He called upon the House to watch, and to insist in Committee that those heads of Votes should be increased. He was sure the reduction of the number of heads of Votes was a fatal error.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to put a question or two to the hon. Baronet who represented the War Department in the House. In the last Parliament he moved for the production of certain Returns, tending to show the sort of labourers employed at the manufactory at Enfield, and the expense attending such employment. Parliament ordered the Returns to be made, but in consequence of the sudden dissolution, the matter was at an end. He was, therefore, again obliged to move for those Returns in the present Session, and he wished to know when they were likely to be placed upon the table. He should object to going into Votes 5 and 6, until that and other information were given in respect to them. It would be in the recollection of the House that, in last Session, when asked to vote for the large expenditure at Enfield, they were told, that by the introduction of large machinery at that place the Government would be enabled to employ a large number of unskilled labourers, and that consequently they would not require so many skilled workmen as they were before compelled to employ. Now, he wanted the production of the Returns to show that such had been the case. He was informed that the case was altogether different. He was also told that the Government had been sending agents into Birmingham for the purpose of inveigling the workmen from their employment in the large manufactories there by great promises of increased wages, and by money actually paid down. He had documents in his possession to prove that fact. He had also received intelligence that the Government had lent £20,000 to a contractor to enable him to fulfil his contract,
  848
  which he otherwise would not have been able to do. There were two houses concerned in this contract, the one was English, the other American, and they had both failed. He wanted to know by what authority such money was given, and whether the money had been recovered. He was informed that it had not; that the securities were very doubtful; and that if oven they were realised a balance would still be due. If the Audit-office were worth anything, the accounts of 1856 should have been audited in March last. He wanted to know up to what time the War Department accounts were audited, and also upon what authority the Government had advanced that sum?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby), that the Secretary for War was responsible for all the expenditure proposed in the Army Estimates. The hon. Baronet had complained of the form in which the Estimates were drawn up, and he could only say, that the reason for the alteration of the form was, that they might be presented in a more simple shape, and at the same time afford every possible information to the House; and it was hoped that in their present form they would be found full and satisfactory. In answer to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) who seemed to think that some injustice had been done to the manufacturers of Birmingham by an attempt on the part of Government officials to draw away their workmen, he had to say, that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government that there should be any interference to the detriment of the manufacturers of Birmingham —on the contrary, the instructions which had been issued to the Government officials were to the effect that every possible information should be afforded to the trade in that town, with the view of promoting the improvement of the manufacture of arms. The only object of the Government was to get the best possible supply of arms, and they wished that every facility should be given to competition. He was ignorant of any loan of £20,000 granted to a contractor, and if the hon. Gentleman would afford the War Department information on the subject, every exertion should be made to clear the matter up and to show the real state of the case. As to the Returns asked for by the hon. Gentleman, they were in an advanced state of preparation at the end of the last Parliament; but

  849
  when the authority under which they had been ordered lapsed, they were laid aside, but as they had been moved for again, the preparation of them had been renewed, and they would soon be laid on the table.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHbore testimony to the great advantage which the military establishment at Aldershot conferred upon the country, by affording to our troops an opportunity of going through field manœuvres in large bodies. He himself had been a witness to the beneficial results which it produced in the training of various militia regiments, which, after a few months spent there, were turned out in a highly efficient state. He trusted, therefore, the establishment would be always retained.
  COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he thought the form in which the Estimates were this year laid before the House was a great improvement upon the old system; but he was nevertheless of opinion that a great subdivision of the several heads of expenditure might be made with advantage. The want of such subdivision led to much inconvenience, as was clearly shown by an instance which had occurred last Session. An hon. Gentleman had given notice of Motion with respect to the expenditure for barracks, and commenced his speech about ten o'clock at night. The discussion occupied nearly two hours, and just as the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Estimates was about to reply, another hon. Gentleman started up and turned the whole current of the debate to a totally different subject—a course which he was perfectly justified in taking, inasmuch as the subject, although of a totally different nature from the question of barracks, came under the same head in the Estimates. The consequence was, that the hon. Gentleman, whose duty it was to explain the various items, was not enabled to commence his reply until a very late hour, and then took advantage of the diversion which had been made to leave the objections which had been urged with respect to barracks altogether unanswered. The same want of a proper subdivision of subjects existed upon the present occasion, as might be seen by a reference to item No. 12, in which Civil Buildings and Barracks were again placed under the same head.
  MR. MACARTNEYreminded the hon. Baronet that he had omitted to answer one of the questions put to him by his hon. Friend—namely, whether the accounts of
  850
  the War Department for the year 1855–56, in pursuance of the provisions of the statute, had been passed through the Audit-office at the proper time?
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, that those questions showed the inconvenience of such explanations before they had gone into Committee.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that there was a concurrent audit of these accounts. There was one audit of the accounts from clay to day, and the reports respecting them were subsequently made to the Audit-office. At the end of the year the gross accounts were sent to the Audit-office. There was no arrear in the auditing of the navy accounts; but in respect to the army accounts he confessed there was some slight delay of about two months, in consequence of the war and the heavy transactions of last year.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONtrusted that there would be no hesitation in keeping up such an assemblage of troops at Aldershot as would enable them to be practised together in brigades and divisions. This was of the utmost importance, for regiments not accustomed to be brigaded were a positive mob when brought together. Of course, if there were brigades and divisions, it would be necessary to have superior officers to command them. An hon. Member had spoken of the "fighting regiments" as distinguished from the Guards. His impression was, that he had seen those regiments; and it was not quite fair to soldiers who had fought like the Guards to institute an invidious comparison to their disadvantage between them and their brethren of the line. There was, no doubt, much merit in the arms supplied by the manufacturers of Birmingham, but he saw no reason why the Government should not be able themselves to make and supply a proportion of arms accurately made, without trusting altogether to contractors.
  House in Committee; Mr. FitzRoy in the chair.
  (1.) £2,921,017, Pay of Land Forces.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, according to the usual course it would have been the duty of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the War Department (Sir John Ramsden) to move these Estimates; but, as my hon. Friend has but recently come into office, and has not been able to make himself master of the details of these Estimates, which he will clearly, and I doubt not satisfactorily, explain item

  851
  by item as they are proposed, I thought it would be more satisfactory to the Committee that a Member of Her Majesty's Government should give those general explanations with regard to the principles that regulate the amount of force which we propose shall be maintained both during the present year and generally in time of peace; and therefore I trust that the Committee will not consider that I am guilty, in departing from the usual course upon this occasion, of an improper interference. I would state, in the first place, that these Estimates comprise Estimates which in former years, owing to the separation of the departments, formed the subject of separate and distinct Estimates. They now contain everything connected with the military departments of the State, namely, those expenses that were heretofore proposed under the management of the Secretary at War, those that were heretofore under the Ordnance branch, and those connected with the Commissariat, which were under the Treasury, and have heretofore formed the subject of a separate Vote. The House have therefore now the means of seeing at one view the whole of the military expenditure. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) did himself injustice when he said that, from the alteration in the mode of framing the Estimates, he was unable to make himself master of the details. I am unwilling, to believe this modest statement on his part, and I am sure that these Estimates, which are in substance the same as those proposed before the dissolution of Parliament, though the form and headings of them have been somewhat changed, are not too much for the grasp of my hon. Friend. Sir, the first question that must naturally suggest itself to those who are charged with the duty of proposing the amount of the military establishments is, what, under the circumstances of the moment, is the establishment which, on the one hand, combines the greatest regard for economy, and, on the other, the greatest regard for the efficiency of the service and the defence of the country, Now, it is a well-known maxim that if you wish for peace you must be prepared for war—si vis pacem para bellum. In one sense, I differ from that maxim; in another, I think it is a sound axiom. If it is meant that this country should imitate the example of the great military monarchies of the Continent, and in time of peace maintain a military establishment adequate to the
  852
  emergencies of actual war, I say that such a system would be ruinous to the country, and calculated to defeat the very object for which it professes to be framed. When we see a great country, like some of those on the Continent, maintaining in time of peace armies of 300,000 or 400,000 men, we cannot but think that an unnecessary deduction is made from the productive industry of the country by the abstraction of so many hands from useful labour; an unnecessary drain is also made upon the pecuniary resources of the country; and we also see that there is a defect that counteracts the very object in view, because the people of those countries are accustomed to rely entirely on large standing armies for the public service whenever an emergency shall occur, and they are therefore not imbued when it does occur with that enthusiastic public spirit which we have seen in this country rise equal to any emergency which the accidental circumstances of the moment may require. Therefore, I think that our system of military arrangements tends more to the development of the national spirit, while the system of large armies adopted on the Continent is rather calculated to exhaust the national resources, and to impede the progress of national industry. Therefore, Sir, I should be sorry to see any Government in this country imitate the example of Continental Governments in this respect. If, on the other hand, we were solely to consider what is necessary for the internal maintenance of order, a very small military establishment would be sufficient, because here we fortunately do not rely, as in some foreign countries, on the military system for the maintenance of public order. There are civil means of enforcing an obedience to the law which supersede in a great degree, if not entirely, under ordinary circumstances, the action of a military force. But we must consider the peculiar circumstances of this country. We have not only our own islands to defend, but we have possessions of great value, of great political and commercial importance, scattered over the most distant regions of the globe. We must therefore consider what is necessary for the protection of those possessions and of the country, not in case of actual war, because that might require exertions of a very different nature, but what is sufficient to protect us against attacks arising without much previous notice. Therefore the military establishments of the country must be calculated as to their efficiency as

  853
  a means of defence against sudden aggression and as a sufficient force for the protection and preservation of our colonial possessions. Our position is one which—without meaning to imply any doubt as to the continuance of peace—requires special precautionary measures on our part. These considerations were well explained by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in moving the Navy Estimates. We have close to us a great military and naval power—a power far superior to us in her great military establishments—a power which is nearly equal to us in the amount of her naval establishments. And we must recollect that modern improvements have in a great degree altered the conditions of both countries in respect to naval and military war. The improvements in projectiles, the great improvements in shipping, have altogether altered the relative position of countries so near to each other. In former times, when we were at war with France—long may it be before that happens again!—the means of assault were confined to the collection of a great number of sailing boats in the shallow ports of the Channel, of which notice could be easily given, and it was therefore easy for the Government to take precautions against any danger that might arise there from. But, as was stated by my right hon. Friend, there is now at Cherbourg the means for collecting a large naval force. The ships which we now build are of such magnitude that whereas formerly only a few hundred men could be transported by one ship now more than 1,000 or 1,200 can well be embarked in a single vessel. It is impossible now for this country to rely entirely for its defence upon its naval means. There must be within the territory of the country the means of effectually maintaining ourselves, even supposing our naval protection to be denuded or ineffectual. On the one hand, I think it is the duty of the Government (and if the Government neglected their duty it would then become the duty of Parliament) to take care that our military establishment is not numerically larger than is really required for the emergencies of the time; but, on the other hand, having, as we ought to have, a comparatively small military establishment, it ought to be so organized as to be capable of speedy and great enlargement, and to contain within it those elements of science which are becoming every year more necessary for military establishments. It
  854
  should also be so organized that those who compose it should be practised in those military evolutions which they may have to perform upon taking the field either at home or abroad. Now, the great fault in our military arrangements hitherto has been, that they have ended with the regimental system. But I may observe that our regimental system is as perfect as that of any service in the world. Nothing could be superior to the British regiments. I remember hearing the Duke of Wellington say that the British soldiers, led by the gentry of their country, would do anything that was within the scope of human beings to accomplish. If we wanted any examples we should find them in the late war in the Crimea. Many of us have read that anecdote of the battle of Inkerman when our gallant soldiers, assailed by numbers which to many other men would be overwhelming, their ammunition being almost exhausted, and themselves in a condition in which any troops might with honour have retired, the cry went from one to the other, "Well, lads, we must stand our ground; for if we go back the girls of England will laugh at us." That simple expression of determination seems to me, Sir, just as heroic as any of those more eloquent and inflated sentiments of patriotism which are to be met with in the most eminently classical authors. Well, then, the arrangements in our regiments were as good as possible, but there they stopped. The condition of our army in a time of peace precluded that practice of evolutions and movements which belong to larger bodies collected together. The brigade system and the divisional system might be studied in theory and in the closet, but were seldom capable of being practised in the field. Those officers who have the good fortune to serve in India see these things on a larger scale, but our officers at home are compelled to study them only theoretically in the closet; and a man might as well expect to learn how to swim by extending himself on a mahogany table as to learn military evolutions by reading books in his armchair by the fire side. A great and most important improvement was made by the purchase of the land at Aldershot, and by the arrangements made there. The Government are enabled to collect there a considerable number of troops for summer exercise. They are there organized in the same mariner in which they would be organized for service in the field, in brigades

  855
  and divisions; and by that means the staff officers and the men themselves are made practically conversant with those operations and movements which, before, the greater part of them only knew theoretically. Every Government on the Continent that has military establishments has invariably practised these collections and exercises of troops. The French, the Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians, have invariably practised large bodies collected together, and by that means have enabled their general officers and staff officers to acquire that practical knowledge which is essential in conducting the operations of an army in the field. And therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth is entirely mistaken in depreciating the value of that establishment at Aldershot. Whatever may have been the cost, I say that the money has been economically laid out. It has been laid out with the greatest advantage to the public, and I do trust that nothing will ever pass in this House which will interfere with the continued benefit that Aldershot will afford to the public by being, as it is intended, the place where, between the months of April and October, considerable bodies of troops shall be collected to perform those movements and evolutions which they would have to perform if they were called upon for active service either at home or abroad. There are other points in which our army was deficient, and those deficiencies were greatly and severely felt at the outset of the late war. And, by the by, I may say that even the practice in the late war was not a practice particularly calculated to instruct officers in great field movements, because our army was stationary during the greater part of the time. It was not like a war carried on in the interior of a country with army movements and marches over a great surface of ground. But, in the first place, there was a great want of that which is essential to the movements of an army—namely, a field train, or what used to be called a waggon corps—men trained to attend to the sick and wounded, and to the different matters connected with the supplies of an army. There was great want of a hospital staff, of men practised in hospitals and conversant with the methods of treating the sick. These things have been remedied. By the present Estimates it will be seen that two new corps have been formed—one a field train and the other a hospital staff—composed of men trained to attend on the sick in hospitals
  856
  The Committee will see that, with regard to numbers there is an increase of about 6,000 over the numbers of the year 1853–4. That increase arises principally from the creation of these new corps, the augmentation of the artillery, and the retention of those supernumeraries who were appointed during the late war, and who might have been reduced, but whom the Government thought it would be hard to reduce. We determined therefore to keep them on full pay. The Commander in Chief willingly agreed to that arrangement at a sacrifice of that patronage to which some people think he attaches so much importance. We thought it better to retain as supernumeraries a great portion of the men who were about the establishment on full pay than discharge them, at once and have to replace them afterwards by recruiting. The general wear and tear of the army may be reckoned at about 12,000 men—including discharges, deaths, and other causes of decrease—and we thought it better to retain efficient men as supernumeraries than discharge them, and then have to go to the expense of raising other men. Then, I think it will be seen that the increase of expense, so far as the land force is concerned, arises from these supernumeraries, officers and men, the augmentation of the artillery, the field train, and also the hospital staff. Now, considering how much modern war turns upon the artillery service, I think the House will be of opinion that it was not bad economy or bad foresight upon the part of Her Majesty's Government to augment to a certain extent the artillery force of our army. At the beginning of the last war, we could not have put into the field fifty pieces of artillery, and to judge by comparison what that amount is, it may be stated that when the Russian army entered Hungary to assist the Austrians to put down the Hungarians they brought into the field 660 pieces of field artillery. By the augmentation of our artillery, I think that we could put well into the field, instead of fifty pieces, 150. I do not think that the House will be of opinion that that is a greater amount than is necessary. The total increase of charge upon the land force in the Estimates, as compared with the year 1853–4, the last year before the war, is £600,000 odd, a charge temporary in its nature, partly arising from these supernumeraries, and partly, but mainly, from those augmentations that I have mentioned. There is no increase in

  857
  the infantry of the line. There is, in point of fact, a slight diminution of about 120 men. There is a slight increase in the cavalry, arising from an augmentation of the dismounted men. There is an increase in the engineers, and also in the artillery. Now, I think that it is not very material, within certain limits, what is the amount of your infantry force. It should, of course, always he sufficient for the service of the year. An infantry man can be made (I trust that the military officers in the House will excuse me if I appear to make too light of the time necessary for the instruction of an infantry man) in a few months, and to judge from the example of the militia, I should say even in a few weeks. At all events, an infantry man may be rendered available for service in a very short time. A cavalry man requires a longer training, because not only have you to teach him what he himself has to do, but how his horse should be treated, and what it has to do. A double instruction is thus necessary in the case of the cavalry man; and that, therefore, is a reason why you should in time of peace increase your cavalry force rather beyond what, perhaps, might otherwise he considered necessary. The increase now proposed is entirely in dismounted men, and not in the number of horses; these dismounted men, however, will all be drilled to horse exercise, so that if it were necessary to render the regiment more efficient it would be only requisite to buy an additional number of horses and mount your men upon them. The artillery, however, is a corps which requires great practice and instruction. An inexperienced artilleryman is of very little value, and unless you have a good corps of artillery depend upon it your army will be very inefficient in the field. Next come the engineers, and that of all corps is one which requires most scientific knowledge, longest training, and the greatest amount of skill, experience, and instruction. The proposed increase of 1,100 men to the engineers is, therefore, one well deserving the approbation of the House. The total increase in respect to numbers under all these different heads is 6,917; the increase of charge is £636,000, part of which is temporary. These Estimates, in fact, must be considered as Estimates of transition, for, as I shall have to state very briefly (leaving the details to be treated by my hon. Friend), there is an increase in other items, which arises out of contracts made during the war and not yet executed,
  858
  but which must be completed and paid for, as well as out of works, which will not, it is hoped, occur again to the same extent in future years. Independently, however, of having a force sufficient for the defence of the country, there is another consideration which has of late years been much dwelt upon and much forced upon public attention, but which for a considerable time did not sufficiently attract the notice either of the Government or of the country—I mean the necessity of defensive works for the protection of our dockyards and commercial ports, and for the protection also of such points ns Dovor, which may be said to be the key to the southern coast of England. These works were for many years almost entirely neglected. Of late years more attention has been paid to them; from time to time annual sums of money have been voted for the completion of such works, and thus the object in view has, to a certain extent, been accomplished. Both Portsmouth and Plymouth may now be said to be unassailable from the sea side; but they both require additional fortification on the land side. Dovor is becoming a fortress of considerable strength. That place is certainly of the utmost importance, because if the enemy were to get possession of Dovor, with its harbour and the facilities it would offer for their landing, this would of course be a, very inconvenient position to us for them to occupy. It is, therefore, obviously of the greatest importance that Dovor should be placed in a situation which would enable it to defend itself if attacked until assistance and support could arrive. It is necessary also to impress upon the House the high importance of protecting the dockyards—our great arsenals at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Sheerness, and Pembroke—against the attacks of a small army landing in the neighbourhood and shelling them on the land side; because, if our naval resources in those dockyards were destroyed there would be at once an end to our naval superiority, you would be left comparatively defenceless, and would be exposed to have any number of men landed upon any point of our coasts. These, Sir, are matters of the utmost importance, which for several years past have seriously occupied the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) knows well (because he entered heartily and constantly into these deliberations when he was a Member of

  859
  the Government) the importance of this subject; he is aware that what has been done has not been useless, and that further application of the same means is required to accomplish the object we have in view. Then there is another item of expense which also belongs to the improved notions of the present day—I mean that connected with our barracks. In former times it was too much the habit to consider the soldier as a mere animal, to carry a musket during peace, and a thing to shoot and be shot at in time of war. Too little attention was paid to him as a moral and intellectual being, or to his comforts as a man, whether single or married. The attention of Government has been properly and usefully called by Parliament of late years to the necessity of better arrangements for the decent and comfortable habitation of soldiers in barracks at home. Such arrangements, however, are attended with considerable expense. When you have to provide for married men separate from the rest of their comrades; when you have to build places for their recreation, reading-rooms, and libraries, all these things require great addition to what used to be considered a tolerable barrack; and the construction of barracks upon new principles, as well as the alteration of old ones in conformity with those principles, necessarily increases the annual charge under this head. It is also very desirable that as far as possible the troops at home should he lodged in barracks. It is better for them as soldiers; it eases the civil population from that which is felt as a burden; it contributes to the steadiness of the men, to their moral habits, and is in all respects therefore a most desirable arrangement. But then, again, these arrangements cannot be effected without a considerable expenditure, and if the House therefore sees an increase under the head of "barracks," as compared with the expenditure of former years, I trust it will feel that this is really a sacrifice necessary for the accomplishment of objects which everybody admits to be most desirable, and which it is the duty of Parliament, as far as it can, to carry into effect. Then there is in the military departments a small increase, which may be the subject of diminution in a future year. The whole of the military departments are now brought under the Secretary for War, who is, as my hon. Friend (Sir John Ramsden) has stated, responsible for all the expenditure; and a great advantage to the service has
  860
  already arisen from the consolidation of the army, the Ordnance, and the Commissariat. In the manufacturing establishments there will be found an increase of £57,000 as compared with the expenditure of 1853–4. Now, I am quite aware of the jealousy with which those who represent the private manufacturers of arms regard the manufacturing establishments of the Crown. But I can assure the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Warwickshire that the Government never contemplated having establishments of this kind sufficient in magnitude to dispense with the employment of the trade. Such a thing would be out of the question. There is a great advantage in the possession by the Government of manufactories carried on under their superintendence, where experiments can he made, and where standards can be used with which to compare the works of private traders; but it would be absurd to suppose that any Government establishments could be upon such a scale as to supply the entire wants of the army with regard to muskets. We were obliged, when the late war broke out, to have recourse, not only to our own trade, but to manufacturers of arms in Belgium and America. Very objectionable in principle this, no doubt, was, but at the same time necessity has no law, and we had to choose between leaving the army with their old "Brown Bess," which everybody admitted to be an inferior weapon, or to go abroad to procure proper weapons for our troops. Even now, with all the contracts which have been fulfilled, and those which are in course of execution, we shall only be able to furnish Enfield rifles to the troops of the Line; there will still be the militiamen to be armed with them; and if they are to be armed at all I apprehend this force ought to have as good a weapon as any other branch of our force. There ought, also, to be a certain quantity of muskets in store to be ready for emergencies; besides which there is an annual consumption which requires to be supplied; and if we were ever called upon to defend ourselves what would the people of this country say if, offering themselves in hundreds and thousands as volunteers, we had nothing but broomsticks to place in their hands? We must, then, have a certain store of small arms in hand, and that is the object which the Government has in view. Well, then, there is the establishment at Woolwich, which is really deserving of a visit from any Gentleman who takes an interest

  861
  in these things. There is a perfection of machinery, a perfection of ingenuity, a successful application of science to practical purposes which must afford the greatest pleasure to anybody who can understand these things and take an interest in them. And the advantage of this establishment at Woolwich during the last war can hardly be exaggerated. If we had not had there men of great talent, and machinery of great power, it would have been uttely impossible to have furnished the quantity of ammunition and projectiles which were necessary to carry on the war in the Crimea. Among other things, I may mention that Captain Boxer, one of the distinguished officers of that establishment, invented a method of exploding a shell by a well-regulated fuse, which produced the greatest possible improvement in that weapon of war. Whereas before, shells used to explode no man could tell when or where—sometimes on issuing from the mortar, sometimes in mid-air, sometimes not at all, even when they hit their object—by the fuse which Captain Boxer invented the utmost precision was attained as to the explosion of the shell at the very point at which it was desirable it should burst. There is also a manufactory for iron and brass ordnance, which is scarcely of less importance than the manufactory of small arms. The amount taken for this year is comparatively small, but enough to make as large a number of iron guns as it will be possible to make carriages for. The great improvement which has taken place in the calibre of guns used both by sea and land, has entirely put out of the question the small pieces of ordnance which were thought sufficient in former years to arm our vessels and defend our forts. It is absolutely necessary that both our floating batteries and batteries on shore should he armed with guns equal to any which can be brought against them. In the wages of artificers there is, of course, a proportionate increase. With regard to the clothing of the army, there is a small increase of £3,783. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth criticized the change which had lately been made in regard to the clothing of the army; but I think that change has been productive of great benefit. Formerly a certain sum—so much per man—was voted annually for clothing the troops, which was handed to the colonel of each regiment. He provided an army clothier to clothe the men, and the surplus which remained after the
  862
  army clothier's charges were paid was the profit of the colonel. Of course it was the interest of the clothier—it was of the colonel too—but I know that that was not an object which was looked to—to make the clothing pass muster as narrowly as possible. Now an allowance is made to the colonels, in addition to their pay, in lieu of their clothing emoluments, and the clothing is provided by the War Department. I am enabled to say that the clothing now supplied is of incomparably better material, while the expense to the public is very much the same. In the items of provisions, forage, and matters of that sort, there is, of course, an increase, depending on the number of the troops and the price of provisions. With regard to warlike stores there is a slight increase as compared with the year 1852, owing to contracts made during the war not yet fulfilled, which the Government are compelled to pay for when the articles are delivered. With regard to fortifications and barrack accommodation, there is an increase on the whole of £242,000. These charges arise out of the considerations which I have mentioned as connected with the defence of the country. They comprise certain works at Portsmouth, in the Channel Islands, at Dovor, and a certain sum is taken for continuing works at some of the principal commercial harbours of the country. There is another object which has attracted, and most deservingly attracted, the attention of the House,—I mean the provision for the education of the officers of the army. It is quite obvious that, whatever may be the courage of your officers, and whatever the bravery of your men, unless there be with your courage a mixture of a certain amount of science and familiarity with the operations of war, if there be not a mixture of cultivation of mind generally as well as a cultivation of technical knowledge—you do not get your full value out of your courage, and you sacrifice lives which might be saved. Though the dogged courage of the British officer and soldier may, under any circumstances of disadvantage, carry out the objects for which they strive, still it is the duty of the country to give its military men that instruction which will enable their courage to accomplish its objects with the least sacrifice of life and with the least loss to the army. Great improvements have been made in the regimental schools, and with regard to the officers, a Council has been appointed (of which the

  863
  Commander in Chief is the head), consisting of officers of great distinction, in communication, of course; with my hon. Friend the Secretary for War (though he is not actually a Member of the Council), its object being to frame a system of education for the officers which will be calculated to secure to the army men skilled in the profession, and whose minds, already generally cultivated, have been improved by a course of particular study and training. When that Commission has reported, its Report will be laid on the table, and I trust they will be successful in framing a system of education calculated to accomplish the objects I have mentioned. The total amount of the charge for the effective service of the army was in 1853–4, £7,404,291; in this year it is £9,025,360, making an increase of about £1,658,787. This is diminished by a decrease in the charge for the yeomanry, which we do not propose to call out this year, and there is a diminution in the non-effective services of £9,534, which leaves a total increase of £1,611,526. We are sensible that it is the duty of the Government to endeavour to combine a due regard for economy with that efficiency which I am sure this House and the country will wish should belong to the military service. We have made a reduction as compared with the last year of the war, and we propose these Estimates for the present year after a careful consideration of the various items of which each charge is composed. These Estimates contain, no doubt, many items which are open to Amendment and diminution in future years; but I hope the House will vote for the present year the number of men and the amount of charge which we propose; and during the next year it will be our duty to endeavour to see what items can he diminished. Some portion will naturally cease by the operation of causes which are now in action. I do not think that the amount of force is greater than will be required for the service of the country in time of peace, and many of the other charges, the excess upon which composes the greater portion of the aggregate excess beyond the Estimates of the year 1853–4, I am in hopes will cease during the present year. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War (Sir John Ramsden) is quite ready to give the Committee every detailed information as we go step by step through the Votes, and I am quite sure he will do it with that ability and clearness which have distinguished him on every occasion
  864
  when he has presented himself to the House. Though I have thought it my duty to undertake to make this general statement to the House, it was not from any doubt of the perfect competency of my hon. Friend. In another year, when he has had an opportunity of making himself better acquainted with the subject, he will perform that duty which I have thought it better to perform for him on the present occasion. The noble Viscount concluded by placing in the hands of the Chairman the first Vote—
  "That a sum of £2,921,017 be granted to Her Majesty, in addition to a sum of £1,467,000 already voted, for defraying the Pay and Allowances of Her Majesty's Land Forces at home and abroad, exclusive of those stationed in the East Indies."
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, he had no doubt that the noble Lord would continue to give to the reform of the different departments the same attention he had paid since he succeeded to office: and he (Mr. Stafford) must congratulate the Committee on the improvements which had been made in the management of the army generally. He must, however, express his regret that the noble Lord had not touched on the grievances of the army medical department, and that the Government had, to all appearances, neglected the recommendations of the Committee which had sat to inquire into the subject. It was no answer to his complaints to say that a Commission had been appointed this year to inquire into this subject. It was better to appoint a Commission than to do nothing; but as a member of that Commission he should enter upon the task which it had undertaken with less hope, and should be less sanguine as to the results of its labour if he had seen any evidence of a greater desire to ameliorate the condition of this department than the Government had hitherto exhibited. So far as the comfort of the officers was concerned, the state of the army medical department was worse than it was before any inquiry took place, because their minds were more unsettled, their prospects were less determined, and, their anxieties were greater. What these officers desired was that the Government should either do something for them or should tell them that they would do nothing, and allow them to choose fairly between entering or continuing in the army, entering the service of the great steam companies, retiring into private practice, or emigrating to our Colonies or to America.

  865
  One effect of the present uncertainty was to retain in the senior ranks gentlemen who, without any disrespect to them be it spoken, were not now such efficient executive or administrative officers as they had been, and this was because they did not know what would be done with them. He hoped that some determination would be come to soon, in order that these gentlemen might have, at all events, that which was next best to a reformed medical body, a fixed and determined one, composed of men who knew what they had and what they had not to expect. The results of the last war, during which we saw our army at one time hastening to destruction, and at another so resuscitated that its average mortality was less than that in our own islands, had afforded us most important lessons, and we should be deeply guilty if we did not profit by those lessons. He was not prepared to object either to the number of men or the sums of money which the noble Lord had asked the House to vote, whilst, however, they ought on the one hand, to be justly proud of that spirit of order and loyalty which, not only in this country but in Ireland, rendered a large army unnecessary to enforce obedience, on the other hand they ought not to forget the severe pressure of the taxation to which the people of this country were at present subject. Of all delusions, that which was most noxious, prejudicial, and fatal, and most likely not only to ignore past experience, but to render it the parent of future disaster, was the opinion that our disasters during the late war arose from the insufficiency of our supplies, or the relutance of Ministers to ask that House to vote adequate sums for the maintenance of the military establishments. After the most careful consideration he had come to the conclusion that these causes had no more to do with our disasters than had the invention of gunpowder. Had we, under the same circumstances, sent out twice the number of men, and twice the quantity of stores, at twice the expense, the only result would have been that our mortality would have been twice as great, and our prestige would have been more than ever impaired. For the prevention of similar disasters in future we must look to other means than adding million after million to our army estimates and infinitely increasing our establishments. We must, as the noble Lord had said, look to the formation of such establishments as, not too expensive in time of peace, might
  866
  be efficient in time of war. If the Government bad arranged the establishments upon this principle, they would have established another claim to the gratitude of the country; but this could not be done so long as they left without adequate remuneration those to whom they must look for the health of the army—whom they could not stimulate by the brilliant rewards and splendid positions obtained by combatant officers, and who were now so dissatisfied with the service that the Director-General of the Army Medical Department had not candidates to fill up all the vacancies on his list. Therefore, he begged the Government to consider whether, during the present financial year, they could not do something for this department, especially by raising the pay of the assistant-surgeons and reconsidering the questions of retirement and of promotion from rank to rank. No doubt, much valuable evidence would be given to the Commission appointed to inquire into this subject; but much time must elapse before the Report of that Commission could be presented and acted upon, and he would therefore urge upon the members of the Government, and especially upon the noble Lord at the head of the War Department (Lord Panmure), that it was not yet too late to do something for the medical officers. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had justly praised the successful labours of the Commissioners who were sent out to the Crimea. The Army Medical Department felt that had they had power to carry out many of the suggestions made by that Commission, the state of the camp would not have been such as it was when the Commissioners arrived there. They felt aggrieved that credit should have been, given to the Commissioners for suggestions which they said they had previously made, but which had not been attended to. He (Mr. Stafford) had moved for the production of papers which would show whether or not this assertion was well founded. If it were, it would establish the necessity of giving to the officers of the Army Medical Department more powers; if it were not, it would prove that the officers of this department were deficient in the sanitary knowledge possessed by civilians, and would demonstrate the desirability of making some arrangement which should attract to it men of greater education and more scientific attainments than, under the existing system, would join the army. The Report of the Commissioners stated:—

  867
  "In May, 1855, the army arrived at its most healthy state. The weekly admissions into hospital averaged a little more than 1·6 per cent, of the force, and the weekly deaths little more than 8 per 1,000 of the force per annum. This death rate is about the same as exists in the healthier districts of England for males of the army ages. But assuming this present country rate as an attainable standard for the whole of England, we are at once struck with the very unhealthy condition of the army in home stations. It appears from the army statistical Report, 1853, that the mortality among infantry of the line in the United Kingdom is 16·8 per 1,000 per annum, from disease alone, while in the Foot Guards it is 19·8 per 1,000. In the model dwelling of the metropolis the mortality for all periods, from infancy to old age has ranged between 12·6 and 13·9 per 1,000 per annum, a little more than half the mortality of the metropolis for the same years. On comparing the mortality in these dwellings of all ages with the picked lives of the army, we have a most convincing proof of what may be done and how much requires to be done for the sanitary improvement of the soldier. The loss of efficiency from invaliding and sickness in the army also very much exceeds what is experienced by the working classes at the same ages."
  The noble Lord had said, and said most justly, that the Government had taken measures for improving the accommodation in barracks, and also in the clothing of the troops; but clothing, diet, and accommodation, whether in barracks or in the hospital, depended for their success upon the intellectual cultivation of the medical officers of the army. If none but the dregs of the young men adopting the medical profession were induced to enter the medical department of the army, so long would a wasteful prodigality be perpetuated, and so long would the lessons of the last war operate in vain.
  MR. WATKINbegged to express his thanks to the noble Lord for his able and comprehensive statement. He could assure the noble Lord that the greatest pressure had been put on all Members—at least on that side of the House—to urge the utmost economy in the Estimates; but, on this occasion, looking to the great reduction that had been made in the Estimates, they would be content to rely on the responsibility under which the noble Lord, as First Minister, had brought them forward—they must rely that Her Majesty's Government had duly considered the importance of maintaining the efficiency of the army, and had endeavoured to maintain the greatest amount of efficiency at the smallest practicable cost. He should have been glad to hear from the noble Lord something about the manner in which the Government proposed to follow up the progress of invention with regard
  868
  to the construction of arms and military machinery, for upon that much of the efficiency of a small army must necessarily depend. The system which was in force in the United States appeared to him to be well worthy of consideration. In that country a permanent Commission sat to inquire into all new inventions which might be brought forward from time to time relating to arms and military machinery, and every five years the army was re-equipped in accordance with their report, although doing so sometimes involved the disposal, at a loss, of a large quantity of arms and machinery. The result of that system was, to maximize the efficiency of the material of the army; and if ever this country should come into collision with the United States—which God avert!—it might be found that the army of the United States possessed improved weapons and material in which we were wanting. The noble Lord had told them, and all lovers of peace must have been glad to hear the statement, that England ought not to maintain a large standing army in time of peace, but that the endeavour ought to be made so to arrange our military organization that a small number of men might be sufficient for the defence of the country. Now, the utilization of the army for defensive purposes must depend in a great degree upon the rapidity with which commanders could obtain information from the coasts, and also upon the means available for transporting troops and material of war. With reference to the first of those points, he would venture to say that at present there were many places upon the coast where a hostile force, availing itself of screw steamers, and of the improved means of embarking and disembarking troops, might effect a landing without its being known for several hours even to the general commanding the district. He ventured, therefore, to call the attention of the Government to the expediency of constructing a coast telegraph, which might be worked by the coast-guard, and which would place every sinuosity of the coast in communication with head quarters. The question of the means which were available for the conveyance of troops and material of war was equally important; and how was the country provided in that respect? Why, he believed that notwithstanding the vast sums of money which had been expended upon railroads, and the number of miles of rails which had been constructed, a complete regiment of cavalry with its

  869
  Horses could not be conveyed from any of the principal termini in the country to any point without twenty-four hours' notice. Now, what was the cause of that? It was that the railway plant was not adapted for the conveyance of cavalry horses or military stores or appointments, and, therefore, in the event of an invasion, the practical difficulty would be felt of not being able to convey troops from point to point with despatch. Some years back this subject attracted the attention of the War Office, and experiments were made to test the facility of placing cavalry horses and field guns into railway trucks and cattle waggons, and those who witnessed those experiments had imagined that they would be followed up, and that something would be done, either by the Board of Trade or by the War Department, to provide against what would be a serious difficulty in case of invasion. That, however, had not been the case, and the result was that which he had described—namely, that the Government was utterly unprovided with the means of conveying troops with despatch. Now, he would venture to say that a little attention to the subject would enable these two departments, in communication with the railway companies, by a very slight alteration to make the present stock available for the purpose of conveying troops and material of war with despatch; and he believed that if the suggestion were acted upon, and if a coast telegraph was established, the country would, at a very small expenditure, obtain a far larger amount of efficiency for defensive purposes than it had ever before possessed.
  MR. MAGUIREcomplained that privates and non-commissioned officers were obliged to pay for the passage of their wives and children when they were moved from one place to another. In one case which had been brought to his knowledge, a sergeant, who was sent from a garrison in England to a garrison in Ireland, had had to pay no less than £3 12 s. for his wife and children. Before railways were made, the soldiers' wives travelled on the baggage waggons, but now the men had to pay for their travelling by railway, which they could ill afford. Now, that appeared to him to be a great hardship, and he should like to hear the opinion of some of the distinguished officers who sat in that House upon a point of vital importance to meritorious public servants.
  SIR. FRANCIS BARINGcomplained that the check which had formerly existed
  870
  with reference to the transfer of the Government of a sum of money voted for one department of the army to the service of another no longer obtained, inasmuch as the expenditure for the various military departments was combined tinder one head, so that under the present arrangement a sum which had been voted for the militia force might be laid out by the Secretary for War, with the consent of the Treasury, upon the regular army or upon the Commissariat without any new Vote of Parliament. But passing from that point he must observe that although he had listened to the statement which had been made by his noble Friend with great satisfaction, yet by no means with so much satisfaction as had been expressed by an hon. Gentleman who called himself an economist, he (Sir F. Baring) regarded the amount of the proposed Estimates as by no means inconsiderable. He found, indeed, that those Estimates exceeded by a sum of £2,000,000 the average annual amount of the military estimates from the year 1844 to 1854; while, taking the naval estimates into account, he found that the sum asked for the combined services, deducting the charge for the coastguard service, exceeded by £3,000,000 the average sum voted for a similar purpose during the period to which he had referred. No doubt it was to some extent satisfactory to hear that a part of this expenditure was temporary, and he quite admitted that the Government had done a great deal in reducing the war expenditure, and that this might be deemed a year of transition. The objection which he entertained to the amount of the Estimates, and which was entertained to it by those with whom he had communicated out of doors, had its origin in no desire that our military service should be established upon an inefficient footing—on the contrary, he, as well as they, was desirous that it should be rendered thoroughly efficient—but they at the same time were opposed to a greater degree of expenditure than was absolutely necessary in order that that efficiency might be attained. Whether it was expedient that the camp at Aldershot should or should not be continued was a matter of some doubt in the minds of military men; but, be that as it might, it was, at all events, perfectly clear that a larger sum should not be laid out upon it than was absolutely required to place it upon a proper footing. There was one item in the Estimates—that for the erection of fortifications and

  871
  the building of barracks—which appeared to him to be very large. The House perhaps was not aware of the amount it was pledging itself to. It was true that they were only asked for a very small sum this year; but that was taking a very shortsighted view of the matter. The total amount of the original Estimate for those works was £2,971,000; of which sum £1,484,000 had been already expended, while he found that a further sum of £1,800,000 would be required for the purpose, making a total of £3,284,000. That, he should repeat, was a very large sum, and the country had a right to know that, while the objects for which it was asked were in themselves good, no more than the necessary amount of money was spent upon their attainment. But the Committee would be wrong in supposing that these were the only public works that were going on. There was besides that sum, a further sum of £1,000,000 for works in connection with our naval departments; and then came the Votes for other public works under the head of the Civil Service Estimates; so that the subject of our expenditure in connection with improvements of that nature became one to which the attention of Parliament should be carefully directed. He hoped that such expenditure would be found, next year, to be diminished; but he was aware, from his own experience while in office, that when expenditure was once commenced it was extremely difficult to put an end to it. He was opposed—not-withstanding his objection to the amount of the Estimates—to the proposal for referring them to a Select Committee in the present year, because it was clear that no Report could be made before the close of the Session. He should, however, recommend the adoption of that course next Session, when a Committee would have full time to consider the subject, and in doing so he was advocating no new policy, inasmuch as the naval and military Estimates had in the year 1848 been referred to a Committee, at the head of which was the present Duke of Somerset. Great advantage had resulted from their labours, and he felt assured that a similar advantage would be found to follow the appointment of a Committee next Session with a similar object. If they should even come to the conclusion that the proposed expenditure was necessary for the efficiency of the public service, they would have conferred a benefit upon
  872
  the country, because then the community at large would be satisfied that they were not called upon to pay more than the real exigencies of the State demanded they should contribute.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he quite agreed that in the present Session it would scarcely be possible to carry out the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth; but at the same time he was convinced that, if a Select Committee were to be appointed without interfering with the Executive Government in regard to the present actual Estimates for the army, a very great advantage would arise. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Baring) had recommended that the Committee should be moved for in the ensuing year; but he doubted whether it were not better that the Committee should be appointed during the present Session. It was not well to put off everything until next Session; and even although the Committee should not be able to report during the present Session, the evidence which it would collect would be of the greatest service to the House. There must still be three months before the recess, and the Committee might then be renewed next Session. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) had alluded to the state of the Medical Department, in directing attention to which he had rendered great service. This department did not, however, yet occupy its fitting status. Its position ought to be raised for the advantage of the army, so that it might draw into it a due number of the competent persons who were to be found in the civil department of the profession. He concurred in the statements which had been made of the hardships suffered by the wives and families of soldiers, and it would be the duty of the Government to take care that these cruel circumstances did not occur again. With regard to Aldershot and Chobham, he must remind the House that the original intentions of Lord Hardinge in establishing camps at these places had been deviated from. Lord Hardinge's plan was a good one—of purchasing Aldershot for exercising the troops—but there was no idea originally of building huts there. It was very useful that the troops should be collected together for four or five months in camp, in order that they might go through the operations which might be required in actual war; but to plant them there for a whole year, during the larger portion of which no operations of importance could be executed, was perfectly

  873
  useless, and exposed both officers and men to hardships, while it put the country to great expense. It was found that the huts were not weather-proof, and now the Government were going to build permanent barracks. But the question was, whether there were not barracks enough in other parts of the country. In his humble opinion, this project ought not to be persevered in. It was very unadvisable to create disgust and dislike to the military service on the part of officers and men by exposing them to needless inconvenience. In the winter it was extremely irksome to be quartered at such a place. There was no power of practising the men, and if they were only to march on the main roads they could do that in whatever barracks they might be stationed. He would suggest to the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) that this subject ought to be reconsidered. It was extremely useful to have, as on the Continent, encampments of troops in those months of the year in which they could be exercised in great operations; but there was much inconvenience and unpleasantness to the troops in such permanent quarters, while the country was exposed to enormous expense. He regretted that he had only heard a portion of the speech of the noble Lord, but what he heard was, he thought, very able and satisfactory. He entirely agreed with him, that there was now more necessity than ever for placing our great maritime depôts, such as Portsmouth, Plymouth, Dovor, and Pembroke, in a state of perfect security. Hitherto they had not been in a state of security, and the introduction, of steam, the power of transporting great armies with rapidity, and the smallness of our standing army imposed upon the Government the necessity of providing for the defence of these places. It must be recollected that many of the great capitals of Europe, as well as their great depots, were most expensively fortified. It had been found possible in the late war to transport from England, a distance of 5,000 miles, and from the south of France, a distance of 3,000 miles, a force of between 300,000 and 400,000 men and 70,000 or 80,000 horses within a comparatively short period. Economy was to be considered, no doubt, but whatever expenses the Government considered it prudent to incur in providing for the security of our great depôts and arsenals, and in maintaining the requisite number of troops,
  874
  would, he had no doubt, be cheerfully voted by the House of Commons. The number of troops he regarded as a matter to be proposed upon the responsibility of the Government, and not of the House of Commons. Various attempts had been made to show that the House of Commons was chiefly responsible for the defects in our preparations at the breaking out of the last war. He could not concur in those charges; for he considered that, if at any time the Government had considered it necessary to maintain a larger force, and had stated their reasons, it would have been voted by the House. These defects were too much a consequence, as it seemed to him, of certain weaknesses on the part of recent Governments, and of the desire for popularity in keeping down the Estimates. When he found that at present there were only thirty-one regiments in England and seven battalions of Guards, he could not consider that we had an excessive amount of force. They were told last year by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the British army was a fighting army. He was glad to find that the noble Lord was now more fully alive than he appeared to be then to the importance of giving our officers a scientific and professional training. The House might depend upon it that our officers could not be too well instructed in the duties of their profession, and he trusted that the noble Lord would not lose sight of so important an object, but, on the contrary, would endeavour to promote it by every means in his power.
  COLONEL BOLDEROwished to call the attention of the noble Lord to two important points. The noble Lord had referred in his speech to the insecurity of some of our dockyards and arsenals, but he had overlooked the most important of them all—he meant Woolwich. He visited that place last week, and to his great surprise found an enormous mass of buildings recently erected at a very heavy cost. The machinery was of the most beautiful description, and he should think the value of the property in buildings and stores was not much less than £20,000,000. Now, Woolwich was entirely undefended; there was not a single fort to protect it, and, in the not impossible event of two or three fast steamers of the enemy dashing up the river and getting past Tilbury and Gravesend, and shelling the arsenal, one whole army and fleet would be seriously crippled for all the purposes of war—because, it must be remembered, that our works at

  875
  Woolwich were for the supply both of our land and naval forces. During the last European war, storehouses were built inland, and he believed that upwards of £1,500,000 were spent at Weedon in making it a grand depot for stores and powder. The Government were now drawing the stores away from Weedon and the Tower, and concentrating them at Woolwich, Now, Woolwich might he shelled in a night. Hence the necessity for making that place as strong as possible. He had heard some talk of block-ships, armed with heavy guns, being placed on the opposite side of the river. That, he believed, was the only mode of defence available, and he trusted the noble Lord would lose no time in carrying it into effect. He hoped, at the same time, that instead of concentrating the stores at Woolwich the noble Lord would remove at least part of them to Weedon and other places, where they would be more secure from the attack of an enemy. The second point to which he desired to call the attention of the noble Lord was the position of subalterns. When an ensign joined the army, it was necessary that, after paying £450 or £500 for his commission, he should have a good outfit and £20 in his pocket. The following table showed his income and necessary expenditure for his first year of service:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  50 days' pay to band and mess, on appointment

  13

  2

  6

  Liveries for servant, and other necessaries on joining, at lowest

  10

  0

  0

  Messing at 2s. 6d. per day, for 365 days

  45

  12

  6

  Breakfast at 1s. ditto

  18

  5

  0

  Servant, regulation wages, 1s. 6 dper week

  3

  18

  0

  Washing linen, regulation, at 16 s. a month

  9

  12

  0

  Servant's washing, at 1s. a month

  0

  12

  0

  20 days' pay, as per regulations, to band and mess, a year

  5

  5

  0

  £106

  7

  0

  Pay at 5s. 3d. per day for 365 days

  95

  16

  3

  Balance against ensign

  10

  10

  9

  £106

  7

  0

  It would be observed, that to keep his expenditure within £107, the ensign must not drink one glass of beer or wine, or take any amusement or recreation whatever. His loss during his second year was not so large, but still there was a loss, as the following table would show:—
  876

  £

  s.

  d.

  Messing, at 2s. 6d. a day, for 365 days.

  45

  12

  6

  Breakfast at 1s. ditto

  18

  5

  0

  Servant, regulation wages, 1s. 6d. a week

  3

  18

  0

  Washing linen, as per regulation, at 16 s. per month

  9

  12

  0

  Servant's washing, at 1s. a month

  0

  12

  0

  20 days' pay to band and mess, for one year, regulation

  5

  5

  0

  Wear and tear of clothes, boots, linen, and other necessaries, say

  20

  0

  0

  £103

  4

  6

  Pay at 5s. 3d. per day, for 365 days

  95

  16

  3

  Balance against ensign

  7

  8

  3

  £103

  4

  6

  Surely, that was not the position in which subalterns should be placed. It might not be prudent, at the present moment, to advocate an increase of pay; but there were other modes in which they might be benefited. In the first place, the barrack-room of an ensign ought to be furnished with plain simple beds and bedding, the same as the soldiers, but of a better quality. That was the French system, and it saved the French soldiers the disadvantage of carrying their beds and bedding with them, when they moved from one station to another. Next, if a band was necessary, the Government should find the instruments, as they did for the German and Italian Legions. They ought, also, to act in a more liberal spirit with respect to the messes, and it would be a great advantage to an ensign to have the price of his mess reduced by 1/s. or even 6d. a day; it would do something to enable subalterns to live on their pay. That was a very important object, particularly in reference to the promotion of sergeants from the ranks.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANwas understood to say that, though his views might not be very popular, he certainly was not a very exaggerated advocate for a reduced army. He could not conceive any advantage in referring the army estimates to a Select Committee; he thought they would be better understood by an officer of the department to which they belonged than by a Committee of this House. In cases where the wives of soldiers were permitted to accompany them, it was rather hard that they were not allowed some means of transit, as was the case before the time of railways. He observed that Aldershot had become a sort of military town rather than a camp, and was now a very bad place for soldiers, both as regards their discipline and their

  877
  health. They did not learn drill, nor, indeed anything at all but to grumble; they lived in dirty, damp, ill-constructed huts The camp at Chobham was infinitely better. There the men at least were under canvas. It was a diversion, and they liked it. It was quite a contrast to the dreary misery of Aldershot. In respect to the reduction of the cavalry, he would wish the House to observe that a cavalry soldier took two years to form. In the last war, we were lamentably deficient of cavalry; it was a most important part of any army, and it was quite impossible that, with our present force of that arm, we could carry on war on the territory of any foreign power. But the chances were a hundred to one against another campaign like that of the Crimea occurring, if we should be at war again. After one short march and one battle, they sat down to a siege; and, with the exception of that one memorable and fatal day at Balaklava, there was no occasion on which the cavalry could be brought into action. If they had marched into the interior of the country, there would not have been a day on which they would not have found the want of cavalry a serious detriment. Even on the principle of economy he objected to the course taken. If the army must be reduced, they ought not to reduce the rank and file, but the staff, which was kept at a much greater strength than was necessary. Then, if they were to amalgamate the regiments that were reduced, so that instead of keeping up two regiments at half their force, they would have one at its full force, there would be a great saving of expense. He complained of the hardship upon cavalry officers, that they had to find their own forage, which was not the case with infantry officers, who, when their duties required them to keep a horse, were allowed forage, or a certain amount of pay in lieu of it.
  GENERAL THOMPSONsaid, a subject like the present had three faces. There was the question of the goodness of the plans proposed; of the scale on which they were to be executed; and the purposes to which they were to be applied. If on either of the two last he should be obliged to join with those who were probably meditating an Amendment, he should be sorry it should be attributed to discontentment with the first. He would only take the opportunity to impress the enormous economy of having everything of the best. For example, an infantry soldier was held to cost £30 a year. The cost of a musket
  878
  was £2, and of a rifle £10; so that, if the rifle only lasted four years, it would make an increase of cost of £2 a year, and the question would be whether, for certain services, fifteen of the men at £32 a year would not be better than the sixteen at £30. In the case of cavalry it was the same. A cavalry man and his horse were held to cost £75 a year; and if it was proposed to add £20 to the price of the horse, and the horse lasted only four years, this would make the cost of the better mounted men £80 a year, and the question would he, whether, for certain services, fifteen such cavalry would not be better than sixteen of the other. There was a tradition in India, that an English officer visiting one of the Dutch settlements, asked the Governor how it was that all his troops were riflemen; to which the Dutchman replied, "We cannot afford anything else." This did not prove that all infantry should be armed with rifles, but only that the Dutchman knew it was true in his own circumstances.
  MAJOR KNOXwished to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that, although the War Department had paid the field allowances of the officers of the Italian Legion stationed at Malta during the war, they had not paid them to the British officers, and he thought it was due to the widows and families of such of the officers as had fallen in the Crimea that those allowances should be paid.
  COLONEL HERBERTsaid, in reference to the Arsenal at Woolwich, in which the whole material of our army was now concentrated, that no soldier could shut his eyes to the possibility of its falling into the hands of an enemy if they should once succeed in landing on our shores, in which case there was no place from which a battery of field artillery could be equipped, or a body of troops supplied with any of the ordinary material of war. He would not advocate the establishment of additional workshops, but he thought there might be other places in which stores might be kept in reserve. He found from the Estimates that considerable reductions had been made in the strength of our infantry and cavalry regiments, the reduction in the rank and file amounting to about 20,000 men; the regiments were in fact reduced to cue former peace establishment. He would draw the attention of the Government to the advantage which would result, when reductions were pressed upon them by popular clamour, from so making those reductions that they should be visible, tangible ones.

  879
  A decrease in the rank and file struck at the root of the efficiency of every individual regiment, while it left the number of regiments exactly the same. Now, he ventured to say that one of the principal causes of the sufferings of our army during the late war was the want of men. The regiments sent out to the Crimea from this country were made up in the first instance by spoiling other battalions. Some of the regiments which succeeded those, arrived out not more than 500 strong, and even then many of the men were recruits. The same result might be anticipated in any future emergency if we followed the same system and kept our regiments at so reduced an establishment as 840 men. What he would wish was that our regiments should muster at the very least 1,200 men, to accomplish which he would gladly see a reduction of ten battalions of infantry and of one-half the cavalry regiments. He should recommend that the number of regiments should be reduced, and that the saving thus effected should be applied in giving additional rank and file to those which were retained.
  COLONEL SYKESconcurred in the opinions expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster and others: namely, that the Estimates should be referred annually to a Committee, and trusted that so prudent a proposition would not be lost sight of. Such a course would have at least this good effect, it would satisfy the public mind that, although the Votes might be passed before comparatively empty benches, the details would be elaborately looked into by competent persons appointed by that House.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I cannot offer a word of objection to the proposal before the Committee. No doubt, it is very wise to have added 7,000 men to our former peace establishment, and the reasons of my noble Friend are sufficient to show the necessity for such a course. I own, however, that I have heard with some apprehension various suggestions made in the course of this discussion with regard to our military expenditure. It cannot but occur, I think, to any person who considers the state of our finances that unless very considerable reductions are made before the Estimates of next year are brought forward, those finances will be in a condition which this House cannot contemplate with satisfaction. I remember my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Parliament
  880
  stated that if our ancestors who incurred the great national debt had pursued the course which he and the present Government were now pursuing, we should not have had reason to complain of the burden of that great debt. But I fear, unless very large reductions are made, that next year we must either depart from the principle laid down by my right hon. Friend, or we must do that which this House will be very unwilling to do—impose new taxes to a very considerable amount. My right hon. Friend, when he brought forward the Budget, showed that his proposals were quite sufficient for the present year. But his revenue for the present year included about £4,500,000 of income tax which will not figure to his credit in the next year's accounts, and his whole surplus, after he had taken off £500,000 from the tea duties, did not amount to more than £400,000. Let the Committee consider what the state of our finances will be next year, if, not having this £4,500,000 of income tax, we have to provide Estimates anything like those of the present year, with an increase of £1,600,000 over our former peace establishment as to the army, an increase of about £1,000,000 in the navy, and a similar increase in our civil estimates, which have got up of late years with frightful rapidity. I am quite ready to support the present Vote and any succeeding ones that may be necessary for the service of the present year; but I trust that an opportunity will be afforded us next year, whether on the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) or of some other Member, for discussing the expediency of appointing a Select Committee, and that the Government will take into their serious consideration the amount of the Estimates, and endeavour to propose reduced ones for 1858. I know we are told, and frequently told, that it was the very great reductions made in our military establishments which created the difficulties of the war. We certainly undertook at the commencement of that war an operation which was somewhat beyond the means of an army such as we at that time maintained. An hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated very truly that the regiments which were sent out were strengthened by taking from other battalions the men necessary to form those regiments; and that thereby the whole army was weakened. The operations we performed at the commencement of the war was,

  881
  I believe, the best which, under the circumstances, could have been taken; but I do not think such an occasion is likely to occur again; and I am sure that if we are to be governed by the consideration that we ought always to be prepared for such another operation as the siege of Sebastopol, we shall want, not 126,000, but 200,000 men. I cannot suppose that either the Government or the Parliament will consider it advisable to keep up a large army merely on the chances of such a contingency. I should hope, therefore, before Parliament meets again (and we are told that everything is to be done rightly and properly next year), Her Majesty's Government will be prepared with considerable reductions both in the Army and Navy Estimates, but still more especially in those of the civil service. I am sorry to observe from the estimates for erecting permanent barracks and other buildings, that there seems to be a rage for laying out money in brick and mortar, which I am afraid will land us either in new taxes or necessitate the incurring of a fresh debt. In so saying, I know I rather run counter to the speeches made during the discussion on the present Estimates. I do not venture to differ with any of the military gentlemen who have spoken, and express no opinion as to whether it is right to keep up so large a staff, or to reduce the staff, and have a greater number of rank and file; but with regard to the general state of our finances and of the Estimates I hope they will attract the very serious attention of the Government during the recess.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he would endeavour to answer as well as he could the questions which had been put by hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Watkin) would find that two of his suggestions had already been anticipated by the Government. There was a Committee composed of artillery officers and scientific men whose duty it was to report on all inventions connected with the Ordnance. There was also another charge for a Committee which conducted investigations into the improvements of small arms. With regard to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), that the Government should undertake to provide for the carriage of the wives and children of soldiers, on page 14 would be found an item of £63,000 for the movement of troops at home, in which was included a charge for the carriage of wives
  882
  of soldiers who had accompanied their husbands to the port of embarkation, but who were not allowed to embark with them. Many hon. Gentlemen complained of the expense of Aldershot. No doubt the expense was great, but the object was great also, and a very large portion of the expense had been incurred in bringing up the barrack accommodation to the level of the recommendations of the Barrack Committee. Formerly the expense of constructing barracks used to be about £65 per man, now it was more than £100. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) spoke of the great inconvenience experienced by officers and men quartered there during the winter, but that inconvenience would be greatly diminished, as it was intended to make it a summer camp of instruction, and the troops quartered there during the winter would be accommodated in permanent barracks. He was glad to find that the hon. and gallant Member approved of the works now going on in Portsmouth; and with regard to the defence of Woolwich, which had been adverted to by the gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Boldero), whenever there was the chance of an invasion the Arsenal would be defended by block-ships and gunboats placed in the river. The reports given by the gallant Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) of the sickness of Alder-shot differed much from the reports received by the Government. The average of the sick there was 3 per cent, while the average in the different home barracks was 4 per cent. He would take care that the subject of the allowances at Malta, adverted to by the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon (Colonel Knox) was inquired into, but at the present moment it was impossible for him to give an answer. The Government felt all the importance of the subject of the reform in the Army Medical Department which had been raised by the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), and if there had been any delay it arose solely from the desire of the Government to make the fullest inquiries before taking any steps. When the report of the Commission which had been appointed was received they would take steps to place the department on the most efficient footing. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Colonel Herbert), the reason why the Government preferred to keep up the staff and reduce the rank and file, was that it

  883
  took more time to train officers than men, and in the event of war the ranks could be more readily filled up than any deficiencies supplied in the staff.
  COLONEL NORTHobserved, that the recommendation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) applied not merely to the wives of soldiers proceeding to a point of embarkation, but to carriage of them on all occasions when troops were moved from one station to another at home.
  MR. MACARTNEYcalled the attention of the Government to the case of the thirty-six captains of cavalry regiments who had been reduced to half-pay since the termination of the war. When the augmentation took place it was understood that it was not to be merely a war, but a permanent augmentation, and on the faith of that several officers had purchased their troops.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYdirected attention to the circumstance, that while sergeants who had obtained their promotion since the 10th of January, 1857, were entitled to extra pay, those whose period of service was longer, and who, consequently, were more deserving of it, remained as they were.
  MR. NOELsaid, he rose to complain of the stoppages from cavalry officers on account of forage for their chargers. Those stoppages amounted to a sum of £40,000 in the year, and as no similar deduction was made from the pay of such infantry officers as were allowed chargers, he thought the Government ought to take the matter into consideration, with a view to giving some relief to cavalry officers. He served on the Committee last year, when the Duke of Cambridge stated his opinion that cavalry officers ought not to be liable for charges for their horses.
  MR. MAGUIREexplained, that his question related to the wives of sergeants and privates moved from one part of the United Kingdom to another. He was acquainted with the case of three sergeants who, with their wives and families, had to travel 700 miles at an expense to one of them of £3 12 s., to another of £2 1s., and to the other of a smaller sum. The consequence was, that their pay was mortgaged for a considerable time.
  SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMScould not help saying a few words relative to the pay of the sergeants of the army. At present it was altogether inadequate. Any one who was in the habit of attending upon courts-martial must have felt convinced
  884
  that if the pay and position of the sergeants were bettered, they would not so frequently run the risk of degradation by the commission of such offences as they were now too frequently charged with. The discipline of the army would, therefore, be very much improved, and he hoped that in the Estimates of next year the consideration would not be overlooked.
  SIR DE LACY EVANScomplimented the Under Secretary for War upon the complete and accurate statement which he had made to the House, but expressed a hope that no extensive barracks would be constructed at Aldershot. It would be more economical and better for the service that barracks should be constructed elsewhere, and that the troops should be distributed during the non-exercising period of the year, and assembled during the summer in camp, and not either in barracks or in huts.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, that the barracks now erected at Aldershot were only for a portion of the troops quartered there. That point had been selected because it was at the junction of two railways communicating directly with Portland and the North Foreland, and by which troops could speedily be thrown upon any part of the coast between those two points. He thought, that when the arrangements for the coast defences were complete, the arrangement would be very valuable.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the permanent barracks to be erected at Aldershot would be for the accommodation of only 4,000 infantry, 1,200 cavalry, and two batteries of artillery. With regard to soldiers' wives and families moving—formerly, when regiments were on the march, the wives of soldiers were allowed to ride on the baggage-waggons. Since the alteration of the mode of travelling, their case had not been under the consideration of the Government; but he promised that the subject should receive the attention of the War Department. As to the stoppages from the pay of cavalry officers for forage, all he could say was, that the regulations were now being revised, and although he did not think the Government would consider themselves justified in making so large an addition to the officers' pay as the alterations in question would involve, still the matter was generally under consideration.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the position of the hon. Under Secretary for

  885
  War was a very difficult one. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), while stating that he should not oppose these Estimates, had given the hon. Gentleman notice, that if they were not reduced, he must next year he prepared for great opposition; and since then many officers of great experience had suggested additional expenditure in almost every department. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, early in the evening, have given what seemed to him a very unnecessary promise to strike off from the tariff thirty or forty articles, the duty on which no one felt, and to which no one objected. He defied any hon. Member to name a single article among those which he had mentioned, to which any working man had the slightest objection. Some Gentlemen, following the unwise example of Sir Robert Peel, had a great fancy for striking off small articles; but he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have shown a disposition to adopt such a course.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, a sum, not exceeding £369,055, be granted to Her Majesty (in addition to the sum of £184,000 already voted on account), towards defraying the charge of the Miscellaneous Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1857 to the 31st day of March 1858, inclusive."
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYwished to know the meaning of an item of £11,000 for "allowances" to the Guards, which were not made to the line.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that it was a sum in lieu of an allowance which had been made to the Guards from time immemorial, and he believed went to provide some extra hospital accommodation.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYcomplained of the privileges enjoyed by the Guards over their brethren of the line, which he was informed worked injuriously for the efficiency of the service. A captain in the Guards was a Lieutenant Colonel in the army, and the result in the last campaign had been, that Guards' captains had had the command over a number of officers superior to themselves in military knowledge and experience, and had had the command of 2,000 men in the trenches. He was informed, also, that the interior economy of a regiment of the Guards was
  886
  carried out mainly by the sergeants. He did not approve either of the preference given to Guardsmen in appointing them to commands. In the Crimea, three divisions were commanded by Guardsmen, the Chief of the Staff was a Guardsman, and so also was the Commander in Chief. He did not wish to detract from the merits of those gallant officers; on the contrary, he had a high opinion of them; but, at the same time, he thought that they had been chosen for their command more out of regard to their position in society than from their superiority over officers of the line. Officers of regiments of the Guards were appointed by selection of the colonel, and he saw no reason why the Guards and the line should not be on the same footing in that respect.
  MR. BYNGbelieved that there was nothing so detrimental to the army as these repeated attempts to draw a distinction between the Guards and the line. He believed that the utmost good feeling existed between the officers of both branches of the profession, and he could not sit still and hear it stated that the persons selected for high command in the Crimea had been selected by mere favouritism. The gallant Members for Greenwich (Sir W. Codrington) and East Norfolk (General Windham), were instances to the contrary. Such reflections were most injurious, and reflected no credit on those who made them.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he had no intention of saying anything offensive with regard to the officers who had held command in the Crimea; on the contrary, he had expressed his appreciation of their merits.
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, that one of the hon. Members for Tavistock (Mr. J. Tre-lawny) had not said anything offensive, nor had his hon. Colleague (Mr. Byng) accused him of doing so; but he had said what meant nothing, as far as regarded the estimate under consideration. With regard to the £11,000 referred to by the hon. Baronet, that was a sum which went to what was called the "Stock Purse Fund," and recruiting service of the brigade. Now, he had seen the hospitals of the Guards, and they were conducted in a manner which other regiments would do well to imitate, and which might serve as a model for the rest of the army.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONsaid, that he would not enter into the comparative

  887
  merits of the Guards and the line; he only rose to state that the custom had been for the Guards to manage their own hospitals with assistance from the Government. That assistance had been commuted into a fixed sum, but the management of the hospitals was still in the Guards themselves.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Byng) had appeared to forget that the Guards were in a totally different position from the other regiments of the service. A captain in the Guards was a lieutenant colonel, and a lieutenant was a captain in the army, and officers of the Guards received much higher pay than officers of similar rank in the line. Passing from that subject, however, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that thirty-four new assistant-chaplains had been appointed in connection with the garrisons stationed at our dockyards, each at a salary of from £200 to £300 per annum. Now, he had been informed that those garrisons had always hitherto been enabled to find sufficient church accommodation from the clergymen in their neighbourhood for a charge of from £25 to £30 per annum, and he could not see why the public money should be expended while the interests of religion were in no degree advanced.
  LORD LOVAINE, referring to the remarks which had been made with respect to the Guards, said, that if they held a higher rank and received a higher pay than the officers of the regiments of the line, they also paid a considerably larger amount of money for their commissions.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, that if one of the hon. Members for Tavistock had endeavoured to instil a poison into the discussion, so far as the Guards were concerned, the other hon. Member (Mr. Byng) had sought to administer an antidote. For his own part, he had no hesitation in saying that the officers of the brigade of Guards might challenge the strictest investigation into the system of promotion pursued in their regiments as compared with the rest of the army.
  MR. CONINGHAMasked why it was that the appointment of a Major General Inspector of Foot Guards had been made with an Aide-camp and Assistant Adjutant General, when there was already a Lieutenant General Inspector of Infantry,
  888
  who was one of the most distinguished officers in the British service?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the appointment had been made with the view of placing the Guards upon the same footing with other regiments. The Major General, in fact, was nothing more than the Brigadier who commanded the Brigade of Guards.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, it was not to the name by which that officer might be called he objected, but to the pay which he received, amounting, as it did, to £125 8s. 4d. per annum. He could not understand why the Inspector General of Infantry should not discharge the duties of his office in the case of the whole army.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that a major general was appointed brigadier of each brigade in the line, and that it had been desirable that the same course should be adopted in reference to the Guards.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the Committee would remember that in the discussion which took place in the House on Friday last, with respect to the expediency of sending out the German Legion to the Cape, he gave notice that he should take the sense of the Committee on that Vote. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had not accurately stated the expense which would be consequent on such a step. He (Mr. Adderley) had computed the charge which it would be necessary to incur on their disbandment in this country at the rate of £20 per man, while he had endeavoured to show that the Government had laid out upon those who were settled at the Cape at least five times that sum. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, attempted to cut down his calculation to something like one-fourth of its amount; but having since looked carefully into the matter he (Mr. Adderley) thought he should be able conclusively to establish that which he had in the first instance advanced. As the Votes appeared upon the paper, he found that there was a sum of £31,000 some odd hundreds set down as the amount of the pay of the German Legion per annum; and taking into account that that pay had been guaranteed for three years, the total sum on that head would amount to about £94,000. Now, he found that the second item—an item with regard to which he should wish to take the sense of the

  889
  Committee—was one of £50,000 for the purposes of erecting buildings upon those allotments of land upon which the German Legion was about to be settled in the colonies; while there was a charge of £11,500 for outfits. But to all these Estimates must be added £30,000 for their conveyance from this country; of £10,000 for; the conveyance of their families, whom he would take to be only one-third of the whole number; of £22,500 for rations, and £7,000, at the rate of one-third, for their families; of £20,000 for churches, schools, the salaries of chaplains, &c., all promised by Government; of £7,500 full pay, which they were to continue to receive on the voyage; of £15,000 for army camp equipage, &c.; of £200 for the passage of 20 supernumerary officers; and of £500 more for bedding. From this sum, however, the right hon. Gentleman claimed to make deductions. For instance, there was the sum of £40,000 voted by the Cape Parliament towards their expected receipt of the whole legion of 8,000 men; but on hearing of the offer from this Government being reduced by refusals to sending out 2,300 men instead of 8,000 men, they would no doubt reduce their Vote accordingly. The whole original offer of Government would have been a present of £800,000 to the Cape, and the colonists were so intoxicated at the prospect of receiving such immense plunder, that they voted £40,000, But when they found that only 2,300 were to be sent it was not to be supposed they would he bound by that Vote, which was a maximum Vote, only not to be exceeded. The Vote would probably be diminished to one-third, about £14,000. The right hon. Gentleman told the House it would have taken £64,000 to disband the German Legion, according to the lowest terms of the contract, being at the rate of £32 a man. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman to state how it would cost £32 a man. The engagement was to pay them a year's pay (£18), and to pay their expenses to Germany. [Mr. S. HERBERT: To North America.] That would perhaps be about; £5. [Mr. S. HERBERT: £7 or £8.] Well, £18 and £8 made £26, and that was a good way short of £32. The fact: was, however, that the two-thirds who; luckily had been so disbanded had cost, on the average, £20 per man, instead of £100. This House would abdicate its functions if they were to lavish five times as much as was necessary in projects of
  890
  this kind. They were told that they must defend the Cape; but he maintained that the German Legionaries were not the best force for defending the Cape. Were military colonists the best for that purpose, and if so, were there no soldiers of the English army to be found? There was already a large body of British troops, amounting to not less than 10,000, at the Cape. Then it was said that the Cape wanted settlers. But were these the best settlers? Were soldiers ever the best settlers? This was an ingenious scheme of the Governor of the Cape to form a body of military settlers who were at the same time to defend the Capo and to settle the country, and between these two stools his experiment would fall. In the whole history of colonization there had been no instance of the success of such a project. Sir George Grey, the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, had induced the Government to embark in this scheme upon the assumption of the success of a similar scheme in New Zealand, where Sir George Grey had been Governor. But there was not a colonist acquainted with New Zealand who did not condemn this experiment of Sir George Grey as a costly and entire failure, which had involved the colony in a debt of £90,000, while the colonists had not got so good a body of settlers as a similar expenditure would have obtained for them in sending out labouring men from this country. The Canadian pensioners were a similar burden, from which the country was still trying to free itself. This scheming, speculative Governor, who was of course himself very popular, had applied for a yearly vote of £40,000, which he obtained in 1855, and again in 1856, and which would again come into our Estimates this year, for improving the frontiers. He never could obtain any satisfactory information how this money was spent. It appeared that the Government were ready to give £800,000 for this experiment with the German Legion, and the right hon. Gentleman had to thank the roving tastes of the Legion that we were not saddled with a vote of £800,000. As it was, we incurred an expenditure of £270,000 in disbanding 2,300 Germans. If he were supported by the sense of the Committee he would move the reduction of the Vote by £50,112—namely, the allowance for building. If ever a Vote united extravagance with inefficiency, it was that which sent the German Legionaries to defend and settle the Cape.

  891
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £318,943, be granted to Her Majesty (in addition to the sum of £184,000 already voted on account), towards defraying the charge of the Miscellaneous Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1857 to the 31st day of March 1858 inclusive."
  MR. LABOUCHEREregretted that he should be under the necessity of renewing the discussion which had taken place on this subject so short a time ago. He regretted also that the hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to his argument to attack Sir George Grey, the present Governor of the Cape. It was not necessary that he should have done so. He had asserted that this scheme of settling the German Legion in South Africa originated with Sir George Grey. The hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken. If he had read the papers with attention he would have seen that the scheme originated with the Government, and not with Sir George. Grey; if, therefore, censure attached to the proposal, it was upon the Government it ought to fall, and not upon that distinguished man. It had been his duty to watch the conduct of Sir George Grey, and he had admired the calmness and courage with which he had met a state of things that caused the most alarming apprehensions in the colony, and which would have broken down the spirit of an ordinary man. He had upheld the courage of the colonists by the energy of his measures, and he had hitherto succeeded in preserving the colony from the evils, and this country from the expense, of another Kafir war. With regard to the number of Queen's troops now in the colony, he would rather stand there and justify the conduct of the Government in having sent timely succour to the Cape than have to explain and apologize for not having done so. In dealing with the Kafirs they had to deal with no common foe; and, far different from what they were some years since, they were now trained to the use of arms; they were formidable even to the disciplined troops of England; they knew what was the force which the British Government had at any time in South Africa; and he was convinced that the preservation of peace was due to the presence of those troops which the hon. Gentleman now blamed the Government for having sent to the Cape. But the question immediately before the Committee was the policy of the Government in encouraging the soldiers of the
  892
  German Legion to go to the Cape. He would in a few words remind the Committee of the circumstances under which that encouragement was given. During the war with Russia it was necessary for the Government to get soldiers wherever they could find them, and, among others, the men of the German Legion were enlisted in our service. Peace was fortunately signed before the German auxiliaries were called upon to fight; but he had been assured by those who were competent to form an opinion on the subject, that if the war had been continued they would have been found worthy to co-operate with the troops of England. The Government had entered into certain engagements with them, and it was both just and expedient that they should be dealt with in a liberal spirit. One of the engagements was to send the officers and men of the Legion, or as many of them as chose to remain under the protection of the British Government, to the North American colonies. He doubted whether sending them in great numbers there would have been the most useful measure that could have been adopted, either to the colonies or to the men themselves. The Government thought they could better dispose of them in another British colony. They considered the circumstances of the Cape, and how important it would be to have there a body of men trained to the use of arms and accustomed to act together as soldiers, who might be at once useful colonists and serve for the protection of the frontier. It had been asked, if they wanted military colonists, why did they not send English soldiers? That was a natural and popular observation to make, and it might, no doubt, have been possible for the Government to pick out a few men from different English regiments and send them to the Cape as mere colonists, and probably not colonists of the very best description; but that would not have served the same purpose as despatching thither a body of men tinder their own officers who had been disciplined and trained together, who went out as a regiment, and who were therefore in every way fitted to discharge the duties of military settlers.
  MR. ADDERLEYhad no wish that English soldiers should be sent to the Cape as military settlers. What he said was, that if the Government wanted soldiers, let them send soldiers; if colonists, let them send colonists.
  MR. LABOUCHEREcontinued. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think it a great

  893
  objection to the plan adopted by the Government that it was readily and gratefully accepted by the Cape colonists. Most persons, on the contrary, would regard that as a great advantage, and when the Government were able to act justly towards those with whom they had entered into engagements, and at the same time to do a thing exceedingly acceptable to a British colony, and calculated to add materially to its means of defence, while it relieved us from the necessity of maintaining a large military force at a great distance from home, they were bound to give the experiment a fair trial. But, said the hon. Gentleman, the measure had been a most extravagant one in point of expense. Now, the entire cost, as near as it could be calculated by the War Department, might be stated at £205,000. From that sum must he deducted the £60,000 which would have been expended under the original engagement in carrying the Legion to British North America, and also 80,000 which had been voted in two sums by the Cape colonists towards defraying the expense of establishing the men on their frontier. He was not sure whether the whole of that £80,000 which was contributed under the supposition that a greater number of men would be sent out would be received or not, but his belief was that it would. Thus, without taking into calculation that which the Government mentioned as likely to be available from the increased value of land in the neighbourhood of the military settlement, it would be seen that the ultimate expense to the mother country would be little more than £60,000. He did not believe that an extravagant bargain had been made with the German Legion. The transaction was in every respect perfectly justifiable; it was honourable to England, was calculated to add materially to the strength and prosperity of the Cape, and he hoped would receive the approbation and sanction of the Committee.
  MR. REBOWsaid, that 6,000 men belonging to the German Legion were quartered in his neighbourhood at Colchester, and exercised almost daily for six months in his park. He had great satisfaction in stating that, in his own opinion, and in that of the magistrates of Colchester, nothing could be more exemplary than the conduct of these men as long as they remained under the direction of their officers. He had been assured by the colonels of the different regiments that all the soldiers
  894
  would willingly have gone to the Cape, such was their desire to serve the British Crown.
  MAJOR STUART WORTLEYsaid, that nobody seemed to know whether the German Legion had gone to the Cape as soldiers or colonists. Such hybrids never had answered and never would. The probability was that if peace continued, their discipline would be relaxed. They would be disbanded, and would take service with the Dutch Boers. They would be in Boer-land when they were wanted, and we should in the hour of danger derive no advantage from them. But the men were now out; being out, houses must be found for them; and he must say that, after looking over the Estimates, he did not think the sum asked for was extravagant for the purpose. That being so, would the Committee be justified in refusing to agree to this Vote because they thought that the original policy of the Government was erroneous in sending them out?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the gallant officer had, he thought, set before the Committee the difficulty in which they were placed. The men had been sent out to the Cape by the Government; there they were, and we must keep the engagement we had entered into with them. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had dwelt upon the difficulty which the Government experienced in collecting these so-called well-trained foreigners during the war wills Russia. And what was done with them when they were collected? They were sent down to the park of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rebow), who became highly delighted with them. They were kept there in training so long that not a soul of them ever had an opportunity of getting sight of a Russian, The Government were so chary of these men that they seemed to keep them in training for the amusement of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. REBOWwas understood to say, that a, portion of than were sent to Turkey.
  MR. HENLEY: They were kept as a sight for the nursery maids of Essex. The Government, however, entered into an undertaking with them to send them to the Cape of Good Hope, and he should be the last man to urge that faith should not be kept with them; but he never could understand why our own soldiers were not treated as liberally as these foreigners. He did not believe that they would ever repay

  895
  us for our expenditure upon them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had told them that the elements of calculation with respect to this Vote were very uncertain, but it most unfortunately happened that the elements of payment were quite certain. He wished to be informed whether the pay of these men was to be the same in peace as in war.
  MR. LABOUCHEREbelieved that the payment was fixed. If called out at all, they would be called out as colonial troops, and be paid by the colony.
  MR. HENLEY: The men might get a taste for fighting, and it was possible that, as they were to be paid for fighting, they might enter into an arrangement with the Kafirs to keep fighting. He hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was very easy to make a joke out of anything, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) notwithstanding his very grave and serious look, generally contrived somehow or other to throw a good deal of jocularity into his argument; but really his last supposition—namely, that the German Legion might enter into an arrangement with the Kafirs to fight with them in order that their pay might be increased—was one which he was surprised to hear made with a serious countenance. They must be not only very good soldiers, but better logicians, and even more persuasive than the right hon. Gentleman himself, if they could succeed in making such an arrangement with the Kafirs. It was all very well to treat lightly the measures taken by the Government during the last war to increase the amount of the disposable force of the country. It was impossible to obtain British-trained soldiers. All that could be got were got. These foreigners, then, were enlisted into the British service, and notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's jocose allusions to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rebow) and his nursery-maids, there could be no doubt that, if the war had continued, they would have done excellent service to the country in whose ranks they were enlisted. A part of them had been sent to Constantinople, and the rest would have followed, had not peace been made, in the spring. At the moment when the war ended, there was great anxiety at the Cape lest there should be another outbreak by the Kafirs, and it was thought very expedient to send these Germans out there in the combined character
  896
  of colonists and soldiers, to assist in the defence of the Cape. Then the right hon. Gentleman said the Government ought to have sent English soldiers instead. But many of the soldiers who were discharged upon the reduction of the army were men who, for various reasons, were unfit for military service, and would not have made good colonists, while those who were discharged from the service, not being invalided, naturally preferred returning to their families and occupations to leading a wild life in an unsettled part of the Cape. With all deference, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman, and passing by the jokes he had been pleased to cut upon this subject, he (Viscount Palmerston) thought the Government were perfectly justified in resorting to this system of colonization for the purpose of adding to the defence of the Cape. The people in that colony were all of this opinion, and he had yet to learn that the result would not be such as to justify the measures which they had thought it expedient to adopt. Whether the Government were right or wrong, however, he agreed with those who had pointed out that the thing was done, and that it would be quite preposterous now to deprive these men of the means of settling themselves in their houses at the Cape. He believed the Government were perfectly right in what they had done; but even those who thought differently could not, he imagined, with any consistency, out off a sum intended to promote the comfort and well-being of men who were now actually at the Cape, and who had gone there on the faith of the promises made to them.
  MR. WHITESIDEsuggested that the arrangement would have been more perfect, had the Government made a settlement in the shape of pin-money upon the ladies who accompanied the German Legion. It should be remembered that, while they were making this magnificent arrangement, the Government were stripping militiamen of their trousers, and turning them adrift without a sixpence. The best argument in favour of the colonization of the Cape by the German Legion was, he thought, that we had got rid of these men.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he did not think this was a matter for jocularity, and he must repudiate the doctrine that a Minister of State might involve the country in the expenditure of £1,000,000 upon an experiment, the success of which, as

  897
  the House had been told, was very problematical, although this House had never been consulted in any way; and that when, for the first time, the Bill was laid before them, they were to be told by Ministers that the thing was done, and that it was too late to complain. Whatever jokes might have been passed on both sides of the House on this subject, he did not think the country would look upon it as a very joking matter. He proposed to divide the Committee, not in order to undo the mischief which had been done already, but to put a stop to future mischief. The Government had undertaken to keep this German Legion, not only for three years in our actual pay, but for four years more. Now, he wished to stop this experiment, and save the country from any repetition of it. Supposing the settlement failed (and there seemed every chance of its failing), we should have it on our hands for ever. These men might surely build cottages for themselves, or the colony might build them.
  MR. LABOUCHEREdenied that the Government were chargeable with having taken the House by surprize on this question. It was perfectly notorious in the House, and through the country, that it was the intention of the Government to send the German Legion to the Cape; and if that was the intention, as a matter of course it could not be carried out without considerable expense.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he thought the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was not correct in saying that the House had not been taken by surprise, because late in the Session of 1856, in answer to a question put to him, the noble Lord at the head of the Government said that, whatever the conduct of the Government was, it would be in accordance with the law and propriety. Now, he did not think that the Government had acted in accordance with the law, which only bound them to give to; the German Legion a year's pay, and a free passage to the colony.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was a part of the understanding with the German Legion that they should have a large sum of money expended upon the buildings in which they were to be placed after arriving at the Cape?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that all the details of this arrangement had been laid upon the table of the House among the papers connected with the German Legion.
  898
  He believed they did include this provision for buildings mentioned in the Estimates.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould state positively that it was part of the arrangements with the officers and men that certain sums should be allowed them for the erection of their houses when they got to the Cape.
  SIR JOHN WALSHhoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) would not divide the Committee. Though it had been pretty well established that the bargain entered into by the Government was, in many respects, an improvident one, yet the faith of the country had now been pledged to this bargain, which could not therefore be violated without casting a slur upon the national honour.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, as the sense of the Committee appeared to be against it; but gave notice that he should take an early opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon the policy of the Government.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £36,282, Volunteer Corps.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDEN, in reply to a question, said it was the intention of the Government to call out about one-third of the militia in the present year.
  COLONEL GREVILLEwished to know whether the men would receive £6 bounty whether called out for training or not, and whether any alteration would be made in the remuneration allowed to the surgeons?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the militia formed no part of the charge in the present Estimates. When the militia was embodied, it was under the direction of the Commander in Chief, and formed a part of the army expenses. But when it was disembodied, it did not form a part of the Army Estimates. The estimate for that branch of the service was framed by a Committee of the House appointed for that purpose. That would be done later in the Session, and it would be more convenient to postpone any discussion relative to the details of the militia service until the Vote came regularly before the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £122,909, Secretary of State for War, and Commander in Chief.
  MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the expense of this department.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that an

  899
  extra staff of clerks was at present being kept on to wind up the war accounts, but as soon as they were wound up, which would probably be this year, the expense of the Department would be very much reduced.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed. Resolutions to be reported on Thursday.
  Committee to sit again on Friday.

  BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. WHITESIDEappealed to the hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland not to proceed with this Bill at that late hour (twelve o'clock).
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that there were thirty unopposed clauses which he was anxious to pass through Committee; after they were agreed to be would consent to report progress. He moved that the Speaker should leave the chair.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 67: Majority 54.
  House in Committee.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he had not thought that there would be any opposition to the early clauses of the Bill, but as he had understood that such was not the case, he would not proceed with the Bill that evening. He wished, however, to mention that, from having yielded to repeated solicitations, he had postponed the Bill from time to time last Session until it was too late to send it up to the House of Lords, and his object in pressing the Bill into Committee had been to advance it a stage.
  MR. WHITE SIDEsaid, that if the Bill were fixed for consideration at a proper hour, he would afford every assistance; but he objected to a Bill containing so many clauses being entered into at an hour of the evening too late to consider its details properly.
  House resumed.
  Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday.

MINISTERS' MONEY BILL.

  POSTPONEMENT OF COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day that the House do go into Committee on this Bill, read.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the Government intended to adopt the suggestion
  900
  of his noble Friend behind him (Lord J. Russell), and to take charge of this Bill; and if there was no objection on the part of any hon. Member, he would now propose to go into Committee upon the Bill.
  MR. HAMILTONsaid, it was very material that the House should know, before it proceeded with the Bill, what was the real state of the case with regard to the property and funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland. Some Returns on the subject for which he had moved would be laid before the House in a few days, and he believed they would show that there had been a serious mistake in the representations of some hon. Members. He therefore thought it would not be desirable to go into Committee until they were in possession of those Returns.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONassented.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  House adjourned at half-after Twelve o'clock till Thursday.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords. PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Transportation and Penal Servitude Bill; Oxford University.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MAGISTERIAL OATHS—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWwished to put a question to the noble Lord on the woolsack relative to a petition presented by that noble and learned Lord on Friday night from a magistrate of the county of Hertford, complaining that he could not exercise his duties in consequence of the repugnance which he felt to taking that part of the oath of allegiance, which declares that "no foreign prince or potentate hath or ought to have any power or authority, spiritual or temporal, within this realm." He was not surprised that that gentleman, and many others, should object to take such an oath; for he thought it utterly impossible that any individual who considered the subject maturely could take it. They knew that in taking such an oath they were swearing directly contrary to what they believed; and it appeared to him a great absurdity, that while the great majority of their Lordships came down to the House and made that declaration on the ground of their not being Roman Catholics, a minority of their Lordships made the same declaration precisely because they were Roman Catholics. He knew the repugnance which their Lordships felt to making alterations in oaths; but now that a new system of oaths had actually been proposed in the other House by the Government, he might be allowed to express his astonishment that this particular and most objectionable framing of the oath was to be continued in all cases, except those in which Members of the Legislature were concerned. He had always been an advocate for relieving the Jews of their disabilities, and had supported every movement which had been made with a view to alter the present system of oaths. This was the first time that any alteration had been suggested in this particular oath, and in relation to it, the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was reported to have said, that as far as Roman Catholics were concerned, such of them as were Members of the Legislature would continue to take the oaths prescribed by the Emancipation Act, but it appeared to him that there

779
was no reason whatever that others of the same persuasion holding civil offices should he compelled to swear under the old terms of the oath. Therefore, as a decided supporter of the alteration of the oath, he should, unless an Amendment was made in the Bill to meet his objection, feel it his bounden duty to give it as much opposition as he could. He trusted, however, that the noble and learned Lord would never allow the Oaths Bill to be introduced into their Lordships' House without taking care that a clause should be inserted extending its provisions to the classes to which he had alluded. The question which he had to put to his noble and learned Friend was, whether there was any prospect, when the Bill came before their Lordships, that this most objectionable restriction would be done away with, or whether, in other words, a clause would be introduced extending the formula to all Her Majesty's subjects required to take the oath, instead of confining it to Members of the two Houses of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had received no notice from the noble Earl of his intention of putting this question; and considering the very irregular manner in which the subject had been brought before them, he did not think he ought to say a word on the subject. As had been stated, he did on Friday present a petition from a magistrate of Hertford upon the subject of oaths, but he presented that petition without a word of observation, and all he could say now was that when the Bill to which allusion had been made came before their Lordships' House, that would of course be the proper time for his noble Friend to propose any Amendment.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that that was the precise answer which he expected. The fact, however, was that in all probability the Bill would come on in the dog-days, when Peers would be disinclined to attend, and that consequently the Government would have it all their own way. It would have been far more satisfactory to him if the noble and learned Lord could have informed the House that a clause, of the nature to which he had alluded, would be introduced.

THE DIVORCE, &c. BILL.

  ACTIONS FOE CRIMINAL CONVERSATION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, before we proceed in Committee with the
  780
  Bill of my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, I wish to make a few observations upon a point which was but little discussed upon the occasion of the second reading; I refer to the action for criminal conversation. It is right that your Lordships should understand the position in which the question stands just now. When this Bill came before your Lordships a year ago a Motion was made to refer it to a Select Committee; that Motion was agreed to and a Committee was appointed which did me the honour to choose me for their Chairman. I proposed several Resolutions for the consideration of the Committee, and, among others, one which recommended the abolition of actions for criminal conversation. In consequence of that Resolution my noble and learned Friend near me (Lord St. Leonards) made a distinct Motion in this House upon the subject. That was followed by other Motions from other Members of the Committee. The subject was carefully and ably discussed, and I think I may state that the general opinion of the Committee was that the action for criminal conversation should be, if possible, entirely abolished. There was, however, some difficulty in deciding what should be substituted in lieu. Different Members took different views and were not able to arrive at the same conclusion; and in consequence the Committee did not report to the House any recommendation of the abolition of actions for criminal conversation. This is a subject of very great importance, and I thought my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack intended to introduce a clause to abolish that class of actions; but I find that the Bill before us, as it now stands, so far from abolishing those actions, will continue them under a shape and form still more objectionable than at present. I think I have collected from your Lordships that there is a strong feeling in this House for the abolition of this form of action. I am sure there is a strong feeling out of doors in favour of it. Whenever a case of that kind is introduced into a court of justice we generally find that not only the learned Judge, but also the advocates in the case themselves, reprobate the action in which they are engaged, and no one has expressed himself more strongly than my noble and learned Friend who sits at the table (Lord Campbell). He has more than once stigmatized this form of action as a scandal to our law, and has said, and said truly, that in no country

  781
  upon the continent of Europe is such a proceeding tolerated, and that it has been mentioned as a matter of reproach by legal men from across the water with whom he had conversed, that such an action should be maintained. I believe I can corroborate that statement of my noble and learned Friend. I have conversed with able and learned foreigners and never found any different opinion. In a work recently published I find these words, in reference to the action of criminal conversation—
  "The husband pockets the money without shame. The publicity which such prosecutions necessarily occasion, and all the proofs and details of the intrigue, are highly indelicate and scandalous. The testimony, for instance, of servants—of young chambermaids who are brought into open court to tell, in the face of the public, all they have heard, seen, or guessed at, is another sort of prostitution more indecent than the first."
  Such is the opinion entertained generally on the continent of Europe with respect to these actions. I may say, in reference to that passage, that it is no exaggeration, but, on the contrary, falls short of the reality. I can only describe the reality by referring your Lordships to a case which was heard in this House last year—the Talbot case, which lasted three days, in the course of which most indecent details were given, to the great disgust of your Lordships, which were subsequently printed and circulated throughput this country, and indeed throughout Europe. That, indeed, was not an action for criminal conversation, but the evidence given was of the same character as that usually given in actions of that kind in courts of justice. No sober, no sensible man can hesitate as to the propriety of terminating such proceedings. I will just remind your Lordships of the ground on which these actions are defended. By an order made in the time of Lord Loughborough, and at his instance, it was decided that no suit for a divorce should be instituted in this House, unless the party had in the first instance obtained a verdict and damages in an action of criminal conversation against the adulterer. The object was to prevent collusion if possible; but every person who is practically acquainted with courts of justice knows full well that it is altogether idle to suppose that a proceeding of this kind will prevent collusion. I will not ask your Lordships to rely upon my own judgment alone upon this point, but I will refer you to a passage in the Report of the Commissioners on the Law of Divorce,
  782
  which I think is absolutely conclusive on this point. Those able and learned persons say, "The verdict at law is practically valueless," and in a note they further add:—
  "In the majority of actions which are brought against adulterers judgment is allowed to go by default. This admits the defendant's guilt; and it only remains for the plaintiff shortly to prove the facts before the sheriff and a common jury, when damages are assessed as of course. In these cases it usually happens that no counsel appears far the defendant. The facts therefore sworn to are admitted without inquiry; the witnesses are subject to no cross-examination; the cause is heard ex parte. What security against fraud is afforded by such a proceeding? If the parties are anxious to collude, what is to prevent the plaintiff from receiving the damages with his right hand, and then, as soon as the Bill of Divorce has passed, returning them with his left? It is obvious that an action so conducted, and a verdict so obtained, are utterly undeserving of reliance or attention in considering the merits of a Divorce Bill."
  Thus, my Lords, you perceive the object for which this action has hitherto been maintained—namely, that it prevents collusion—has not been gained. My noble and learned Friend on the woolsack has said that in his opinion the Bill he proposes will, if passed into law, operate to the extinguishment of actions for criminal conversation through the transfer of divorce suits from this House to the tribunal proposed to be created. I do not at all agree with him; but even if such would be the consequence, I say that, considering the scandalous nature of these actions, it would be more becoming to the dignity of this House if they were abolished by Parliament instead of merely allowing them to be extinguished merely by a transfer of jurisdiction. I have never been able to understand the principle on which these actions are founded. The principle upon which it is said they are founded is fallacious. An action for criminal conversation is not intended as a punishment of the guilty party, but as a compensation for the injury sustained. Now, I ask your Lordships and every rational man what common measure is there between the wounded feelings, the affliction, the domestic misery occasioned by a violation of the sanctity of marriage, and the pounds, shillings, and pence of a tradesman's ledger? The injury is of such a nature that it is impossible it should be compensated by money. Many years ago I remember the manner in which Lord Erskine, who was fully conversant with actions of this kind, expressed himself when a Bill was before the other House of

  783
  Parliament relating to this subject. That eminent and learned man, who was engaged in almost every action of the kind which occurred in his time, said:—
  "He had often felt himself at a loss how to deal with the subject when he recollected what he was asking from a jury for the sufferer, since the man who could consider any sum as a satisfaction for such an injury deserved no damages at all. By giving damages when none could be received as a satisfaction, and allowing no criminal prosecution, the law seemed to be most curiously contrived to disappoint both the sufferer and the public."
  But, my Lords, this is only part of the evil which arises from this species of action. I beg your Lordships to consider the state of the woman. To her the result is far more important than to any of the other parties concerned; yet she is not allowed to appear, she is not allowed to examine a witness, she is not allowed to employ counsel— the whole proceedings take place behind her back. The woman has everything at stake—her character, her fair fame, her home, the society of her children, her position in the world, all her future prospects of happiness; and yet, as I have stated, though she has such a stake in the result, she is not allowed to take any part whatever in the action. Can anything be more scandalous or more inconsistent with the principles of justice? My noble and learned Friend on the woolsack has said that the woman in these cases is generally guilty. My answer is, that I have known many instances during my professional career where a verdict of acquittal has been pronounced, and where I presume, therefore, that the woman was innocent. I have known cases of another description, where a verdict of guilty has been returned, but where I think that verdict was not supported by the evidence. I remember that a noble and learned Friend, who is now absent enjoying the charms of a southern climate (Lord Brougham), stated a case within his own knowledge of a very singular character. An action was brought for adultery and a verdict obtained against the adulterer. The character of the woman was sacrificed and lost. She had, from an accidental circumstance, which is of very rare occurrence, an opportunity of investigating the case, and it was proved to demonstration, not only that she was not guilty of adultery, but that she never had any intercourse even with her husband. I therefore ask you, my Lords, as far as the woman is concerned, is it proper that this species of action should continue? The
  784
  noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, in the observations to which I have alluded, said that the woman was rarely innocent in such cases. Be it so. Are we entitled on that account to treat her with injustice? A man, however suspected, however strong the evidence against him, is never condemned without being heard. He has a right to defend his character, to offer anything in mitigation or palliation of the charge against him, anything to soften the opinion of guilt which may be entertained to his prejudice. Well, my Lords, I pass from this to another consideration. As the Commissioners have stated, there may be cases in which an action may be instituted, and the woman know nothing of it before judgment is obtained. A man brings an action against a person whom he alleges to be an adulterer. Judgment is given in default. No evidence is required, and it is not till after judgment is pronounced that the woman knows anything of the proceeding. I trust, my Lords, I have stated sufficient to satisfy you of the propriety of putting an end to this kind of action. Many years ago a Bill was introduced into this House by the late Lord Auckland for the purpose of doing away with the action for criminal conversation. It was supported by Lord Eldon, and by many Members of the right rev. Bench, and passed this House by a great majority. It went down to the other House of Parliament, it was there discussed, and was supported by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Stowell, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Wilberforce, and a large number of other distinguished characters. I allude to this as a strong sanction in favour of the observations which I am addressing to your Lordships. My noble and learned Friend on the woolsack has introduced into his Bill a clause altering and modifying the law upon this subject; but, as I have before stated, I think he makes the law even worse than it is at present. It is not my intention, at this stage, to discuss the merits of that clause; we shall have an opportunity of doing so when the Bill comes to be considered in Committee: but what I wish to impress upon the minds of your Lordships now is, that you ought to concur in the propriety of putting an end altogether to the action for criminal conversation. A noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) has given notice of some important Amendments. He proposes that it shall not be competent for any person to bring an action for damages for criminal conversation.

  785
  What shall be the substitute for it will be for your Lordships to consider when the details of that part of the Bill come under your consideration; but I hope my noble and learned Friend will be able to provide a sufficient substitute for this disgraceful proceeding, and enable your Lordships to send down the Bill in such a shape as will give it a fair chance of meeting the approbation of the other House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PRIVATE BILLS.
  On the Motion of LORD REDESDALEit was resolved—
  "That no Private Bill shall be read a Second Time after Monday the 21st Day of July next:
  "That no Bill confirming any Provisional Order of the Board of Health, or authorizing any Inclosure of Lands under Special Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, or for confirming any Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales shall be read a Second Time after Monday the 21st Day of July next:
  "That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended."

  DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK:—My Lords, when the subject of this painful Bill was last before your Lordships' House, I took the liberty of stating what was the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on this subject—I was met by the declaration that the doctrine of that Church might be a sufficient guide and motive for myself upon the matter, but that in an assembly, the vast majority of which consisted of Protestants, it was hardly to be accepted by them. I admit the justice and the propriety of the observation, and I am anxious to address myself to the subject from a purely Protestant point of view. My Lords, I think there will be no inconsistency in my doing so, because, though the Church of Rome holds both oral and written tradition, she holds not less the written than she does the oral; and, although I should indeed be puzzled to prove some of
  786
  her teaching by Scripture alone, this is not one of those cases. Here, by Lords, I maintain that the scripture teaching, even according to your own authorised version, is positive and clear upon the subject, and I may address myself to that alone without relying upon the authority of any church. My Lords, I ask, what is the basis of the present Bill? I have seen, my Lords, the Report of the Committee of your Lordships' House, and the Report of the Royal Commission. I have in vain sought to find in either of those reports any reference to Scripture. I have found a minute essay upon the state of the English law on the subject—the English law which you are going to alter. I have found an inquiry into the laws and customs amongst all the countries in Europe; and, speaking generally, I find that the Roman Catholic countries entertain one view, and the Protestant countries another. Now, it is this absence of evidence from Scripture which I seek to remedy by the proposal of which I have given notice. I do not think it necessary to dwell much upon the importance of the subject, for, although your Lordships would not, perhaps say that it is a sacrament (although it is referred to as a sacrament in two of the homilies of your Lordships' Church), and I will not press that matter, yet I know that there is not one of your Lordships who will not allow that it is a holy and sacred institution, an institution which is to be treated as a religious institution. Now, my Lords, there is more than one opinion upon this subject. Those who heard the able speeches of two of the right rev. Prelates upon the second reading of the Bill—those who heard the lucid and accurate scriptural arguments which those noble Lords adduced, must be aware that there are two opinions upon the matter. If you will grant us this Committee, I undertake to prove that there is scriptural authority against the main principle of the Bill which you are going to pass. I cannot be surprised at your Lordships not admitting the authority of the Roman Catholic Church; it is a very old matter, long since rejected. I cannot be surprised at the Fathers meeting with some misusage at your Lordships' hands; but I own I am surprised at your Lordships' seeking to alter that which is laid down by the Church of England, without reference to her own rule of faith upon religious teaching. Now, my Lords, I can conceive two arguments in opposition to

  787
  Motion. One of those arguments is, that this House is not the proper place for theological discussion. My Lords, I seek to remove the theological discussion from the body of the House to a more proper place, namely, a committee-room. Your Lordships are, in fact, constituting yourselves the theological judges, and you are seeking to act without evidence, whilst I ask you to have evidence for what you are about to do. There is another view, which I think may be opposed to the Motion which I now make, and that is, that the exceptional legislation of your Lordships' House may be produced as an authority that there is nothing contrary to the Word of God in this measure. My Lords, I find that the custom was introduced in the reign of Charles the Second, at a time when, to say the least of it, morals were much relaxed. The first case which your Lordships' House passed, seems to be involved in some considerable obscurity. The second case, my Lords, was very strongly contested—seventeen Bishops out of twenty voted against it. The King appears to have been favourably disposed towards it. It was a case of some importance, and there were a number of Catholic heirs not less objectionable than now. It was carried after a great struggle, the King being favourable to it, by a majority of only eight; seventeen Bishops being, as I have said, against it. Then, my Lords, it seems to have worked on, as those things do work on, being little thought of, and succeeding generations began to forget the scriptural argument altogether, until, at last, people do not look at the question with half the attention which they pay to a turnpike Bill; they are satisfied with the loose opinions which they hear about it. My Lords, I do not desire to trespass longer upon your Lordships, and I thank you for the attention which you have been so good as to afford to me. I will state to your Lordships that, at any time reluctant to intrude upon you, I have been particularly so upon the present matter. I consider it one of the most painful subjects upon which your Lordships can adjudicate, and I wish that my conscience would have permitted me to stand entirely aloof from it. That, however, is not the case, and I therefore move—
  "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, for the Purpose of taking Evidence and resolving as to whether the Permission for divorced Persons to marry again has any Warrant in Holy Scripture."
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, he had been unavoidably absent from the discussion on the second reading of the Bill; and as he did not entirely coincide with the views, so far as he had been able to become acquainted with them, of any of the noble Lords or of the right rev. Prelates who had addressed the House upon that occasion, he hoped their Lordships would then allow him briefly to state his views upon that important question. The observations he had to make would apply in a special manner to the Motion of the noble Duke who had just submitted his proposal to the House in a manner that did him infinite honour. The noble Duke had by his Motion, and by the language he had employed in its support, proved his own generous and noble and truth-loving spirit, and had shown, on a question on which he might without impropriety or inconsistency have stood aloof, that, while he was attached to his own Church, not from education or routine, but from the sincerest conviction of his heart, he was ready to submit the doctrines of that Church to the same test which Protestants were in the habit of applying to the doctrines of theirs. But he (the Bishop of St. David's) should state two reasons for which he felt I himself unable to assent to the Motion of the noble Duke. In the first place, he would observe that he could see no probability that the course proposed by the noble Duke would lead to any satisfactory result. It appeared to him that all that could be disclosed before the Committee was already patent to every one; namely, that the question was a very difficult one, and one which admitted of very wide differences of opinion which it was utterly hopeless to attempt to reconcile:—that, unfortunately, was a fact already sufficiently manifest. There was, however, another objection which applied to the substance of the noble Duke's Motion, with regard to which he wished to state his views with great deference and humility; for he was not sure how far they might meet with the concurrence of his right rev. Brethren or of their Lordships generally—but they had forced themselves strongly on his mind, and he believed they were at least deserving of a little of their Lordships' consideration. The Motion of the noble Duke involved a proposition which, as far as he could see, had been assumed in the House and out of it as an unquestionable truth, but for which he should take the liberty of saying that he could find no sufficient foundation either

  789
  in authority or in argument. That Motion assumed that our Blessed Lord had intended to take upon himself the character of a temporal legislator, and that all the precepts and prohibitions contained in the records of his teaching had been designed by Him to be embodied in the code of every Christian legislature. Now he (the Bishop of St. David's) believed that they would not be raising, but, on the contrary, very much lowering, the dignity of that Divine Person if they were to place him on a level even with Moses, much more with any uninspired legislator, or to suppose that He had assumed for himself any such character. He believed that they would be not raising but lowering the dignity of the sacred records which contained His word, His injunctions, and His prohibitions, by turning them into a letter which might become a dead letter, but which they sought to enforce by the sanction of civil authority and penal legislation. If he were told that such was the design of Our Lord, he asked for proof of that proposition. He had been unable j to find any proof of such a doctrine in Scripture; he could not find it in reason; it did not appear to him to be in harmony with the general tenor of our Lord's teaching; and; he thought it ought to be proved before it was assumed. If they were to act upon such, a principle, he wanted to know where their Lordships would draw a satisfactory line at which to stop? They had in history considerable experience of the consequences of such attempts. There had been periods of great religious excitement when human legislators had thought themselves bound to enforce the injunctions and prohibitions of the Gospel by secular authority; but he believed it was agreed on all hands that those attempts had been unsuccessful and unfortunate in their results. Most persons would probably admit that they had been injudicious in their means and processes. But he would venture to go further, and say that they were faulty in their fundamental principle. He believed that they had proceeded on a misconception of the whole spirit and design of I the Gospel, and that they tended to fetter the freedom of Christianity by the letter of the Mosaic law. Let it not, however, be supposed that he did not attach the greatest possible value to every precept and every prohibition of our Divine Master, or that he did not consider him, in another sense, as a Jaw-giver—namely, in the sense that everything he enjoined was binding on the consciences
  790
  of Christians. That was one thing; but it was another thing to say that a Christian legislature was bound to embody everything of that kind in its legal enactments, and that whatever Our Lord had said would be sinful was to be prohibited by the law, and that whatever He had said ought to be done was to be enforced by the same authority. He humbly submitted that the duty of a Christian legislature, as such, was to conform to the general principles and spirit of the Gospel, and, as far as lay in its power, to educate the people committed to its charge, with a view to that end: but that in the adoption of measures for that purpose they were left to the exercise of their own discretion. But, although, for the reason he had just stated, he could not deny, but on the contrary contended for the right of their Lordships to pass such a Bill as that under their consideration, he must confess that he regarded the measure as a whole with feelings of strong apprehension and much anxiety. If the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had, in the first instance, confined his Bill to the purpose of redressing the grievances, restoring the rights, and bettering the position of one of the parties to the nuptial contract, he would have dealt with a subject of sufficient difficulty and sufficient importance to have merited his undivided attention in one Session of Parliament; and after he had settled that matter he might have proceeded to take into his consideration the still more embarrassing question of the general state of our marriage law. But he (the Bishop of St. David's) could not but think that the tendency and almost inevitable effect of the passing of the Bill as it now stood would be to familiarise the minds of the people of this country with divorce, as under certain circumstances a common incident to marriage, and he did not believe that was a feeling which could conduce to the general well-being of the community. He thought, on the contrary, that however the measure might be reconcilable with the letter of certain passages of Scripture, it was unquestionably repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel, which undoubtedly went to preserve the marriage contract stable and inviolable, so far as it was in the power of man to make it so. He could easily understand that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, and other noble and learned Lords in that House, who had spent their lives in the administration of the law, should be desirous of

  791
  correcting the existing anomalies in the state of the law, and should attach great importance to the establishment of a new court of justice, and consider that as a panacea for the evils they wished to remedy. But he must own that, in his eyes, the anomaly by which those noble and learned Lords were so much offended was rather a recommendation of the present state of the marriage law. No doubt, in the abstract, regularity was preferable to anomaly; as, in the abstract, a good road was preferable to a bad one. But practically that would depend on the end to which it led those who travelled over it; and if it terminated in a quagmire or the edge of a precipice, it might be better to shut up the road altogether than to mend it. He did not think the noble and learned Lord's Bill would or could have the effect of multiplying the number of happy marriages in this country—he apprehended it would and must open the door to much collusion, and he thought that it failed even to satisfy the abstract principle on which it was founded, and to accomplish the object for which it was framed. It would evidently be limited in its operation to a certain class in the community; and it was not at all clear that this was the class by which it was most wanted. Under these circumstances, though it was too late to offer any opposition to the measure, he could not but lament that it had been introduced, and felt himself bound to deprecate it as unnecessary and inexpedient.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he could understand the right, rev. Prelate feeling the deepest solicitude in reference to the Bill under consideration, for it was one which nearly concerned the well-being of the whole community, and was especially worthy the grave consideration of those who were the appointed guardians of the public morals; but he thought the right rev. Prelate's opposition to the measure would have been more appropriate to the second reading than to its present stage, and it seemed to him to be founded on mistaken apprehensions as to its probable effect. With respect to the manner in which the noble Duke (the Duke of Norfolk) had brought his Motion under the consideration of the House, he must say it was one which would only serve to add to the general esteem in which the noble Duke was held wherever he was known. The noble Duke had expressed himself with that manliness, candour, good sense, and simplicity of purpose by which he had
  792
  always been distinguished, and which could not fail to induce in their Lordships' minds the wish that he might in future take a more frequent part in their deliberations. But, with respect to the Motion of the noble Duke, he (the Earl of Harrowby) would ask what kind of evidence he would wish to call before the proposed Committee? Would the witnesses whom the noble Duke would call be the Prelates of his own Church, and those of the Established Church? and if so, would their Lordships be guided by testimony of that kind on the question in dispute? The matter was one on which religious opinion was very much divided, and he (the Earl of Harrowby) doubted whether their Lordships would be bound by the evidence given before such a Committee. Again, much would depend upon the manner in which such a Committee was constituted, as to the construction they might put upon the important texts of Scripture bearing upon the question in dispute. For those reasons it was quite clear they could not refer to a Committee a question of this kind. He contended, on the contrary, it was one which ought to be discussed and decided in a Committee of the whole House, when they came to the particular clause to which the noble Duke's Motion referred, and he therefore asked their Lordships, as they had already sanctioned the second reading, to negative the Motion, and proceed at once with the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEbelieved the question propounded by the noble Duke was precisely such an one as was most proper to be referred to a Select Committee, and that if a Select Committee were appointed, the result must be an opinion in accordance with the noble Duke's views. Last year, in the Committee, he (Lord Redesdale) proposed the following Resolution:—
  "That any enactment whereby marriage with a divorced woman shall be permitted will give legal sanction to that which God himself has pronounced adultery, and ought not to be agreed to."
  And the Committee feeling themselves unable to negative the proposition would not allow the question to be put. Therefore, if the noble Duke pressed his Motion to a division, he (Lord Redesdale) would vote in its favour. He entirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate, (the Bishop of St. David's) that a Christian Legislature was not bound to enforce by positive legal enactment everything inculcated in the Scriptures; but, at the same time, he

  793
  thought that when an existing law of the land prohibited something which was believed to be forbidden by the Scriptures, they were not justified in sanctioning what they believed was prohibited by Scripture, and what was certainly prohibited by law.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, as a member of the Committee, must be allowed to state that their Lordships would make an erroneous inference if they supposed, from the noble Lord's remarks, that he had raised the same point before the Committee as was raised in the Motion of the noble Duke. The noble Lord, on that occasion, proposed a Resolution to the effect that it was inexpedient to sanction the principle of divorce à vinculo matrimonii at all. How many members of the Committee voted with the noble Lord? Only three out of a Committee of twelve. That division in his (the Duke of Argyll's) opinion, afforded a fair test of the opinions of the Committee. He trusted their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of the noble Duke, because even if successful, the House would not be bound by the decisions of the Select Committee. He regarded this Motion as an attempt to get rid of the Bill altogether; but although, in the opinion of some noble Lords, there might be many imperfections in the measure, he thought the proper course would be to consider it in Committee, when its defects might be amended.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he could not but regard this measure as calculated to sap the foundations of all social, moral, and religious obligations, and he should therefore feel bound to vote for the Motion of the noble Duke. If the fate of the Bill depended upon that Motion, his determination would not be changed, for he regarded some of the provisions of the measure with the greatest alarm, believing that they would facilitate illicit connections, and would, to a considerable extent, disturb that social and domestic happiness which had hitherto prevailed among the married class in this country.
  LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN rose, and commenced an address to their Lordships, but presently referred to a written paper, from which he proceeded to read his observations. On loud cries of "order," the noble Lord said he was merely referring to the papers to refresh his memory, and to prevent his opinions from being misunderstood.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY rose to order, and said, the noble Lord was not only
  794
  violating the rules of the House by reading his Speech, but he stated distinctly that he meant to read it, in order to prevent misapprehension.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he referred to notes in order to refresh his memory.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that unless the noble Lord obtained permission to read a speech, he must call upon the House to enforce its orders.
  LORD DENMANread a few more passages from his written paper, when he was interrupted by general cries of "Question" and "Order," and after expressing his regret that he had not been better acquainted with the forms of the House, and his belief that the Bill would be attended with the greatest benefit to all classes of the community, he resumed his seat.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided: Contents 123; Not-Contents 26: Majority 97.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Cambridge, D.

  Minto, E.

  Canterbury, Archop.

  Morley, E.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Munster, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Scarborough, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Seafield, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Spencer, E.

  Breadalbane, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Wilton, E.

  Westmeath, M.

  Westminster, M.

  Eversley, V.

  Winchester, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  Gordon, v. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Airlie, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Hill, V.

  Belmore, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Bradford, E.

  Burlington, E.

  Sydney, V.

  Chichester, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Clarendon, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Craven, E.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Effingham, E.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Essex, E.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Llandaff, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Granville, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Grey, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Harewood, E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Harrington, E.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Harrowby, E.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Alvanley, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Leicester, E.

  Belper, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Berners, L.

  795

  Blantyre, L.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Manners, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Brodrick, L. (V.Midleton.)

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Byron, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Panmure, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Carew, L.

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

  Churchill, L.

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

  Raglan, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Rivers, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Colchester, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Congleton, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Dacre, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Denman, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Downes, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Folkland.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Lilford, L.

  Wycombe, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D.

  Dungannon, V.

  Bath, M.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Durham, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Petre, L.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Pomfret, E.

  Stafford, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Powis, E.

  Wynford, L.

  Talbot, E.

  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Jurisdiction over Causes Matrimonial to be exercised by the Court of Marriage and Divorce).
  EARL GREYsaid, it appeared to him to be a defect in the measure that these questions were to be decided on by a court the Judges of which were to be taken from other courts. He thought it a bad practice to constitute Boards or Courts of persons whose time was at present fully occupied by other business. The result was that the persons supposed to transact the business had practically very little to do with it. By the present clause the new court, which was to deal with all these questions, was to consist of the Lord Chancellor,
  796
  the three chief clerks of the Common Law Courts, and one Judge in ordinary—the Judge of the new Probate Court. It was quite true that the single Judge in ordinary might deal with all cases except those which involved dissolution of marriage; but in the latter cases the attendance of three members of the court was necessary. The time of the Lord Chancellor and the three chiefs of the Common Law Courts was already fully occupied, and from the appointment of these Judges it might be inferred that the amount of business expected to come before the court would be very small. They had been told, moreover, that the object of the Bill was to remove a great anomaly and scandal, by which those only who could pay a large price for it were enabled to obtain divorce, and that whatever remedy was provided, the tribunal which was to render it must be accessible to all. If so, on what grounds could it be expected that the amount of business would be small? It was perfectly clear that if the tribunal was constituted as now proposed one of two things must happen—either such a scale of fees would be created as would debar all persons who could not command a large sum of money, or the court must very soon be choked up by the mass of business that would come before it—for he was afraid that the moral condition of the country was not so satisfactory but that, if you gave increased facilities for divorce, there would come before the court a much greater number of cases than it could possibly dispose of. He must say that he had great doubts as to the policy of giving such facilities as this Bill proposed for divorce à vinculo matrimonii; but if they were to give that remedy at all they were bound, upon their own principles, to provide the means by which it would be extended, not to one class, but to all. He thought that kind of divorce which simply implied separation ought to be made more accessible than this Bill made it to the humbler classes of society. Their Lordships were often disgusted by reading in the newspapers reports of cases of extreme cruelty on the part of husbands to their wives, and he was afraid that the punishment inflicted on the brutal husband was not unfrequently an aggravation of the evil to his wife, as he went back to her more exasperated than before. The proper remedy for such cases was to enable the wife to obtain a separation, and so put her in

  797
  the way of maintaining herself without the fear of her drunken or profligate husband returning and taking away her earnings. The present Bill failed to provide for this. Indeed, no one Judge could dispose of the number of cases of this kind that would occur. The right course would be to allow a husband and wife, in such circumstances, to apply to the ordinary tribunals for a separation, instead of being compelled to go to a special tribunal appointed for that purpose. The ordinary tribunal might have the power to hear the case and then report the result to some central authority that might be constituted, that authority being authorised to grant a divorce à mensâ et thoro.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his noble Friend seemed to suppose that the court would be more expensive because it was presided over by some of the superior Judges; but there was no reason why the court should be more expensive than if it were presided over by inferior persons. It was only in causes for obtaining a divorce à vinculo matrimonii that the full court would be required to sit. The number of cases would undoubtedly be increased. He would not attempt to gloss over that. But the question was whether the number would be so greatly increased that the business of the court could not satisfactorily be got through with. Now, no human being could possibly divine beforehand what the amount of business in the new court would be; but, judging from his (the Lord Chancellor's experience, it had always been found to be much more easy to add to the number of functionaries in a court that was found to work well, than get rid of functionaries when they had become useless. The Lord Chancellor already practically exercised the same jurisdiction as that proposed. As to the Chief Justices from the other courts, if the duties of the new court were found to occupy too much of their time, he (the Lord Chancellor) would have no objection to alter his Bill, so that one of the puisne Judges might occupy the place of his chief. There would be no difficulty as to that. He had only to say that the example of Scotland, which was set forth as a model in this respect, had been followed. There all cases of divorce came before the Court of Session. The system worked well, and he was certainly not prepared in this country to confer on any inferior tribunals questions of such delicacy and nicety as would come to be considered under the provisions of this Bill.
  The EARL OF DONOUGHMOREasked whether it was intended to reform the ecclesiastical law of Ireland, by extending the intended provisions of the present Bill to proceedings in divorce à mensâ et thoro in that country?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was his intention, if this Bill should receive the sanction of Parliament, to introduce a corresponding measure relating both to divorce and to testamentary jurisdiction in Ireland.
  EARL GREYsaid, that the answer of the noble and learned Lord that the expenses of the new court need not necessarily be great, had not satisfied him. The expense of bringing up witnesses to London must be great. It appeared to him that one of two objections must prevail—either the scale of expenses must be kept so high as to shut out the less wealthy classes, from the new court, or if the expenses were lowered so as to admit those classes the court would be so overwhelmed with work that it would speedily be swamped.
  LORD CAMPBELLthought that if their Lordships were agreed that it was expedient to transfer the privilege of dissolving marriages to a new tribunal, the court proposed by the Bill was the best that could be formed for that purpose. Judging from the paucity of causes for divorces à mensâ et thoro in the present court, he doubted whether the new court would be at all overborne by the weight of business.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15. (Wife divorced à mensâ et thoro to be considered as to Property a Feme Sole).
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved the Amendments of which he had given notice—

  1. "To confine the Provision in Section XV. to Alimony, and to strike out the Authority to grant a Divorce à mensâ et thoro in the Case thereby provided.

  2. "To provide for a Wife's Earnings and Property becoming her separate Estate after her Husband's Desertion for One Year.

  3. "To take away the Husband's Right of Action for Damages for Crim. Con., and to make Adultery with a married Woman a Misdemeanor, and to give the Husband the Right to prosecute and the Court Power to impose a Fine, which is to become a Crown Debt; but the Court may direct it to be applied, as far as it may be required or will go, in Payment of the Costs of any Proceeding by the Husband to dissolve the Marriage.

  4. "To provide, that if in any Case the Husband shall not prosecute but shall take Proceedings to obtain a Divorce, he shall be bound to

  799
  bring both his Wife and the Adulterer before the Court, and the Court shall have Power to impose a Fine on the Adulterer not exceeding £500, and to dissolve the Marriage; such fine to become a Crown Debt—but, if the Court shall so direct, to be applied as far as may be necessary in Payment of the Husband's Costs of Suit."

  The following Clauses to carry into effect the proposed Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
  1. To follow Sect. XIV.
  "Where a Wife is deserted by her Husband, and that Desertion has continued without reasonable Excuse for One Year or upwards, and the Wife is maintaining herself by her own lawful Industry, if the Husband, or any of his Creditors, or any Person claiming through the Husband, interferes or attempts to interfere with the Wife in respect of her Earnings, or of any Property acquired by her during her Husband's Desertion by Means of her Earnings, or to make her Earnings or any such Property as aforesaid liable for any Debt or Default of her Husband, then it shall be lawful for the Wife to make Application to any Justice of the Peace, and thereupon it shall be lawful for the Justice, if he shall think fit, upon hearing the Parties, to give to the Wife an Order in Writing, under his Hand, restraining the Husband, Creditor, or other Person aforesaid from interfering or attempting to interfere with the Wife's Earnings or Property in manner aforesaid; which Order shall be in force for Six Months from the Date thereof, unless sooner discharged or varied by an Order of Two or more Justices of the Peace in Petty Sessions, and while in force shall protect the Wife and her Earnings and Property aforesaid against all Actions, Suits, Executions, and Proceedings whatever brought or taken by or on behalf of the Husband, Creditor, or other Person aforesaid; and any such Wife shall be at liberty from Time to Time to apply for a Renewal of such Order at the Expiration of the former Order; and any Person acting in wilful Disobedience to any such Order as aforesaid while in force shall be liable to a Fine not exceeding Pounds, and in default of Payment to Imprisonment for any Time not exceeding Months.
  "Any Wife, whether she has made any such Application as aforesaid to a Justice of the Peace or not, may present a Petition to the Court of Marriage and Divorce, praying for Protection and Relief with respect to her Property on the Ground that she has been deserted by her Husband, and that the Desertion has continued without reasonable Excuse for One Year or upwards; and the Court on being satisfied with the Truth of the Allegations of the Petition may, it it shall see fit, make an Order granting her such Protection and Relief as aforesaid; and, subject to any special Directions by any such Order given, the Wife shall, by virtue of such Order, be and be deemed to have been during the Continuance of her Husband's Desertion of her in the like Position in all respects with regard to Property and Contracts, and suing and being sued, as under the Provisions of this Act she would be in case of a Divorce à mensâ et thoro obtained, on her Petition."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid it was extremely difficult to make a provision in these cases which would not lead to
  800
  greater evils than it was sought to remedy. The provisions of his Bill gave a wife a divorce à mensâ et thoro in case of being deserted by her husband for two years; Having obtained such a divorce the woman was restored to the position of a single woman in respect of her rights over her own property and earnings; but he did not think it would be well to take away the conjugal rights of the husband until such divorce had been obtained. To adopt the Amendment would he to render the law a dead letter. The repeated applications to a justice for a renewal of the order would swallow up in costs the whole of a wife's earnings, and lead to difficulties which would render the whole law delusive.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he did not see where difficulties could arise. There could be no difficulty in discovering whether a husband had deserted his wife or not, and whether the wife earned money by her industry requiring protection. The points which the magistrate would have to decide were of the simplest nature. His clause was to prevent an unworthy husband from sweeping away every penny of his wife's earnings. The Bill of his noble and learned Friend had not the slightest bearing on this part of the question; and, moreover, his noble and learned Friend had introduced the divorce à mensâ et thoro contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee, and against his own measure of the last Session. In other countries a woman could obtain from a Judge that protection against a husband under such circumstances which he (Lord St. Leonards) asked their Lordships to give in his Amendment as regarded men who wilfully deserted their wives. This clause did not go anything like the length of the Bill which had been introduced in the other House, and which went to place the whole marriage law of this country on a different footing, and would, in fact, give a wife all the distinct rights of citizenship. He believed the measure to be a most mischievous one, and he proposed his Amendment as going as far as was desirable, and so prevent a greater evil.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, the object of the Amendment was most meritorious; but he believed it would not work any good; while it would produce, in his opinion, the greatest confusion.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he should support the Amendment, because it would give the woman protection for

  801
  earnings, without driving her to the courts to seek divorce; and it was only a just protection to a woman in this position. He believed the woman would submit to almost any wrong before she sued for a divorce; whereas, if the Amendment was adopted, she would be enabled to take the intermediate step, and save her earnings for her children. He earnestly hoped, therefore, the House would adopt the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he thought the Amendment insufficient for the purpose, because it would only protect the wife's earnings of one year.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sasked the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment, to explain how the property of the wife could be secured from her husband if her person were not secured. If the husband came to her home and seized any little treasure she might have in her drawers, what was there to prevent his squandering it?
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, it was the property and not the person to which the clause applied. The Amendment left the husband that which by his desertion he had proved he did not value—namely, the wife's person, and secured that which he desired to steal—namely, her property.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the Amendment enacted that the justice should "hear the parties." But one of the parties would necessarily be absent in the event of abandonment on the part of the husband. Now, the Committee recommended in their Report, that the property of the wife should be protected only after a divorce à mensâ et thoro had been obtained.
  EARL GREYsaid, he could not see how, when a man who had deserted his wife, returned and claimed to live with her, it was possible to prevent him from having a claim to her property. But, on the other hand, he thought the arguments of the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) were conclusive to show, that in the humbler ranks of life some prompt remedy was highly necessary to protect a wife who had been deserted by her husband from having any little property she might have acquired in his absence seized by him, as at present, whenever he chose to do so. Besides, he could not understand why some local tribunal, upon due cause shown by the wife, and after the husband, if he chose to appear, had had a
  802
  full opportunity of being heard, should not be empowered to decree a separation à mensâ et thoro. He would not, however, give that power to a single justice, however high his opinion was of the magistracy of England as a body. The County Courts, however, administered justice in a perfectly satisfactory manner to all parties, and he did not see why the jurisdiction should not be given to them.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid nothing was more common than cases of desertion in the practice of petty sessions, and there was no difficulty whatever in issuing a warrant upon the application of the parish officers. There could, therefore, be no difficulty in protecting the wife through the medium of the bench of magistrates. He, therefore, supported the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, if there was one class of persons who more than another required legislative protection, it was that of poor women in the humbler ranks, who, deserted by their heartless husbands, were struggling to maintain themselves, and often, it might be, a young and helpless family. He was, therefore, glad that a clause of this description had been brought forward by his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), and if it should pass the House, it would be almost the very best thing the Bill contained. He hoped the noble and learned Lord would divide upon it.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEwas understood to say, that the principle of legislation was to legislate as was best on the whole, and in this view the law gave the whole property to the husband. He thought the Bill made a sufficient provision to meet the case, and should oppose the introduction of the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexpressed the hope that Lord St. Leonards would persevere with his Amendment, to which he gave his entire approval.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the clause impracticable. In the first place, until the husband returned the clause gave no jurisdiction. It was not until he returned to his wife, forced himself upon her, and took possession of her property, that the clause gave her a right to apply for protection. If he did not at once take possession of her property and sell it, then the clause conceded to her an order which would prevent him from touching it. What was to become of it the clause did not say. Whether it was to be

  803
  treated as a common fund, chargeable with the maintenance of any children that there might be, or whether the wife was to be permitted to spend it as she pleased, was left quite undetermined. So again, at the expiration of the six months the woman might apply for a renewal of the protection; but nothing was said in the clause about the circumstances under which the renewal should be granted or refused. He (the Lord Chancellor) fully admitted the evil complained of—an evil which he was as anxious as any one to remedy; but he did not think the proposed clause would answer the end the noble and learned Lord had in view. The real defect was the want of some cheap tribunal to deal with cases of the kind referred to. He defied their Lordships to give protection to the earnings of a woman deserted by her husband until they had first altered her status. He wished that that status should be called, not a "divorce à mensâ et thoro," but a "separation." The moment they decreed a separation they could give the wife protection; but so long as a husband had a right to force himself upon her it would be impossible to make any law that would protect her earnings.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sregretted that the noble and learned Lord should have made his clause apply to a mere hypothetical case. Why should a woman's remedy be dependent upon her husband's coming back?
  LORD ST. LEONARDSdenied that the clause was hypothetical: it provided against a given state of things, in which no remedy was required until the husband returned and endeavoured to seize upon her effects. Whilst his desertion of her lasted, and she maintained herself, she wanted no remedy. If she had any property she could maintain herself. A poor woman, deserted by her husband, acquired by her own industry a little furniture, took perhaps a small shop, or two or three rooms, and by her daily labour, or the sale of a few small articles, managed to maintain herself and children. The husband, finding that a little property was accumulated, just enough to excite his avarice, came with a broker, sold his wife's goods, and stripped her of everything. The clause would enable the woman to defeat the intended sale of her property. The noble and learned Lord asked what was to become of the property? There would be no property in the common meaning of the word. The case contemplated was where
  804
  the woman had saved some £20 or £30, a sum which it was ludicrous to talk of as a common fund for the maintenance and education of the children. The case he wished to provide for, then, was not the case of a wife deserted by her husband who might come back and rob her of all she had accumulated during his absence, but of a wife deserted whose husband had come back and attempted to plunder her of her little savings. As to the difficulty of giving protection, he would appeal to the common sense of his noble and learned Friend whether there could be any real difficulty. Questions of desertion came before the magistrates every day. The clause had nothing to do with the question of separation, but to give a remedy to the woman for a most notorious wrong. He could assure their Lordships that he had given the clause very great consideration, though it might be still imperfect; but it was as a question of principle that he would press it on the House.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that what had just been said had removed a difficulty he had felt, which was, that the remedy would be too slow. If he now understood rightly, the clause proposed that the woman should be freed from the liability of having her goods taken by her husband on his return after deserting her. He thought the remedy would be of no use unless the woman was already provided with it at the time at which the husband returned with the legal power of injuring her. He understood now that at the husband's return the woman had merely to go before the justice and get a temporary safeguard not as to separation, but merely to guard against the evil of the moment. This was a remedy for a very serious evil. But if the wife was to wait for her remedy till her husband returned, the remedy would not be sufficiently immediate. But his noble and learned Friend now proposed to take the division upon the principle that a woman should have protection against the sudden return of her husband, without any reference to divorce or separation. He was prepared to give in favour of the principle as cordial and unhesitating a vote as he had ever given since he had a scat in that House.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the clause was altogether without precedent, and it had been shown by those most competent to deal with it that it was impracticable. Even the noble and learned Lord did not seem quite pleased with it. They

  805
  were asked to agree to that clause, merely because there was a principle involved which they all wished should be carried out if it could be done; but all that he had heard had strengthened his conviction of the extreme difficulty of carrying it out, and he objected to pass a clause which all admitted to be impracticable.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he could not think the difficulty pointed out by any means insuperable. It might be removed by making the protection dependent on the wife, showing that she had reason to fear that her husband, or his creditors, contemplated the seizure of her property.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that the noble Lord should withdraw his clause, which had been admitted both by the noble Earl and the right rev. Prelate to be faulty, and should himself propose a corrected one at another stage.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWalso thought the clause had better be postponed, and an amended one submitted to the House.
  EARL GREYsaid, he thought the House ought to adopt some simple and cheap mode by which either a husband or wife might apply to a local tribunal for relief. He hoped, therefore, his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) would not press his clause at present, but endeavour, on the Report, to bring up a clause which would, in the way he had now suggested, deal with the whole evil. If Her Majesty's Government would undertake to consider the subject, with the view of providing a suitable remedy, he would vote with them on the present occasion, should his noble and learned Friend go to a division; but if they would not undertake this, then he would be compelled to vote for the clause, however defective he might think it to be.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no hesitation in saying that the Government would most seriously consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill. But he hoped that in saying so he should not be misunderstood. No one could feel more anxious than he did to arrive at the conclusion which his noble and learned Friend aimed at, but he saw clearly the difficulties that stood in the way. He believed that it was impossible to come at the result he wished to arrive at, unless a now status were constituted, in addition to the two that already existed. Till they could adopt some mode of having a separation between man and wife, every attempt of his noble and learned Friend to secure the object he had in view
  806
  would be delusive. All he could say was that he would most seriously consider the question; but he could not say that he should be able to come to a satisfactory result. More than this he could not say, as he was most desirous not to raise hopes which he might not be able to realize.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDhoped the House would observe that the noble and learned Lord had not promised anything which could be construed into a desire to carry out the wishes of his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards). The point which he promised on the part of the Government to consider was, the mode of effecting the separation of a wife from her husband; but that was not what his noble and learned Friend's clause aimed at. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) spoke of a third status; but no new status was meant by the clause now before the Committee. The object which the noble and learned Lord had in view was one quite different from that provided for in the clause, and therefore he hoped it would be clearly understood that the matter which the Government had agreed to consider was one of a very different kind from that contended for by his noble and learned Friend.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the statement of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) was made at the suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), who recommended that the clause should be withdrawn, and that Her Majesty's Government should seriously consider the question. His noble and learned Friend had stated accordingly that he was willing to take the matter into his serious consideration, provided, of course, the clause were withdrawn. If that step were not taken, then they must divide the House.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that the principle involved in his clause was one on which he should divide the House sooner or later, and he thought it would be more convenient to have their Lordships' decision now.
  The noble and learned Lord consented to certain alterations, suggested by the Bishop of Oxford, in the clause, which then stood as follows:—
  "Where a Wife is deserted by her Husband, and that Desertion has continued without reasonable Excuse for One Year or upwards, and the Wife is maintaining herself by her own lawful Industry, it shall be lawful for the Wife to make Application to any Justice of the Peace, and show Cause that she has Reason to fear that her Husband or her Husband's Creditors will interfere with her Earnings,

  807
  and thereupon it shall be lawful for the Justice, if he shall think fit, upon hearing the Parties, to give to the Wife an Order in Writing, under his Hand, restraining the Husband, Creditor, or other Person aforesaid from interfering or attempting to interfere with the Wife's Earnings or Property in manner aforesaid; which Order shall be in force for Six Months from the Date thereof, unless sooner discharged or varied by an Order of Two or more Justices of the Peace in Petty Sessions, and while in force shall protect the Wife and her Earnings and Property aforesaid against all Actions, Suits, Executions, and Proceedings whatever brought or taken by or on behalf of the Husband, Creditor, or other Person aforesaid; and any such Wife shall be at liberty from Time to Time to apply for a renewal of such Order at the Expiration of the former Order; and any Person acting in wilful Disobedience to any such Order as aforesaid while in force shall be liable to a Fine not exceeding Pounds, and in default of Payment to Imprisonment for any Time not exceeding months."
  On Question, whether the said clause shall be inserted? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 44: Majority 8.
  Clause agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Durham, Bp.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Westmeath, M.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Winchester, M.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Derby, E.

  Berners, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Blantyre, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Denman, L.

  Morton, E.

  Downes, L.

  Munster, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Pomfret, E.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Petre, L.

  Seafield, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Dungannon, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore). [Teller.]

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L, (L. Chancellor.)

  Albemarle, E.

  Burlington, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Clarendon, E.

  Breadalbane, M.

  Effingham, E.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Grenville, E.

  Westminster, M.

  Grey, E.

  808

  Harrowby, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Minto, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Manners, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Eversley, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Overstone, L.

  Panmure, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

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

  London, Bp.

  Rivers, L.

  Belper, L.

  Saye and Sole, L.

  Byron, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Camoys, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

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

  Vivian, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Congleton, L.

  On Clause 15, (Divorce à Mensâ et Thoro by reason of desertion of the Wife.)
  LORD ST. LEONARDSobjected to the power given by the clause, and preferred that proposed by the Bill of last year, which gave power to the Court to grant alimony in certain cases of desertion of a wife, but not divorces. He therefore proposed, according to the noble and learned Lord's own view last year, to confine the provision in this section to alimony, and to omit the authority to grant a divorce à mensâ et thoro in the case therein provided.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDagreed with the noble and learned Lord, and considered the power given by the clause as most monstrous. A man might be absent from this country upon perfectly legitimate business, and his wife might be persuaded by some cunning person to ask for a divorce, which, under this clause, would be granted, without the husband having any opportunity of opposing it, or even of knowing anything of it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the objections of the right rev. Prelate would not apply, because the Court must be satisfied that the desertion was a bona fide one, and there was no more probability that they would decide upon an ex parte hearing than the present Courts did.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONconsidered the clause as it stood a very dangerous one, as affording opportunities for collusion. It showed more than any other the dangerous consequences which were to be apprehended from this Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice; namely—
  "And be it enacted, That in any Case where

  809
  any Husband and Wife shall have been separated for Twenty Years and upwards by any Sentence à mensâ et thoro, without Condonation or subsequent Cohabitation, it shall be lawful for either or both of the said Parties to marry again: Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as intended to cancel or alter any Settlement or other arrangement of the Property of either Party, or to place in Doubt the Validity of any Jointure or Dowry of any married Woman ensured to her by her till then existing Marriage, nor to forfeit for her any Immunity of existing Dignity or Privilege; but the Relief intended by this Act shall be confined to authorize the Parties so separated, or either of them, to contract a Second valid Marriage, founded upon the Dictum of Holy Writ, 'That it is not well for Man to be alone.'"
  He thought that under the existing state of the law such an Amendment was necessary. Noble Lords might possibly not admit its necessity, but he would undertake to say that it would be only just. He quite went with the majority of their Lordships in thinking that the property of a wife as well as everything else relating to her should be protected from unjust or unkind treatment on the part of her husband. But he was prepared to prove from examples, and to forfeit his existence should he fail, in the opinion of all just and candid persons in so doing, that it was in the power of any woman who was separated from her husband by a divorce à mensâ et thoro to act in such a manner as to make her husband's life totally unendurable. This Bill was no sooner bruited—that is to say, this Session of Parliament was no sooner imminent, and it was ascertained that this Bill, or something like it was to be introduced to their Lordships' House—than a book was put forth of 200 pages, which was surreptitiously published—that is to say no printer's name was affixed to it—but bearing the name of the lady who did him the honour to call herself by his (the Marquess of Westmeath's) name. It was sent to all the clubs; and within the last fortnight a severe, and, as he thought, libellous attack had been made upon him in consequence in the columns of a most respectable newspaper, naming him and connecting him with the Bill that was now before their Lordships. This was why he now took the liberty of proposing that clause, and showing to their Lordships the necessity for its adoption. That newspaper, very properly, the next day but one after he had given notice of his intention, took a very fair line, and gave him (the Marquess of Westmeath) to understand that public opinion upon the matter should be suspended pending his notice. From
  810
  first to last this book contained the grossest perversions of matters where they related to fact, and some of the most unjustifiable untruths that could be put together to blast and ruin the reputation of the man who was the subject of it. The book was dedicated to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) who sat underneath him, and another noble and learned Lord who was not present. Their Lordships might think it a very serious thing for a man sitting in his place to be the subject of accusations which, if true, would make him unfit to move in any respectable circle of society, and disqualified to take his seat in their Lordships' House. Now, it was doubly incumbent upon him to prove what he had stated. In the first place, he stood in the situation of a man whose reputation and comfort in life had been dealt with by an institution which their Lordships were now about to abolish, and therefore he had the better claim to ask their Lordships' indulgence on the present occasion. He knew very well that it was impossible to say that their Lordships were not always willing to extend their consideration to any Member of their Lordships' House who might seek to set himself right before he presumed to come and take his seat amongst them. Now, this book bore the name of a most respectable person of the name of Ridgway. It was a most respectable name; and how it happened that the name of a respectable publisher, or rather depositary, of this book could have been attached to it he (the Marquess of Westmeath) could not tell. He must have been grossly imposed upon, for otherwise he would not have consented to publish such a book. He (the Marquess of Westmeath), on the 1st of May last, as he was coming from Dublin, just as he was stepping on board the steamer, a friend brought him a Dublin newspaper, in which a notice of this book was among the literary announcements. It consequently became his duty, the day after he arrived in London, to seek to obtain a copy. He sent upon two occasions—
  LORD REDESDALE(Chairman of the Committee) rose, and said he felt it his duty to call the noble Marquess to order. He could well believe their Lordships would, on a proper occasion, afford the noble Marquess an opportunity, if he wished it, of putting his own conduct in the light in which he desired it to be held; but when the House was in Committee on a Bill, it was hardly allowable to permit the

  811
  noble Marquess to introduce matters in which he was personally concerned. He (Lord Redesdale) therefore trusted that the noble Marquess, in moving this clause, would confine himself to such remarks as fairly bore upon the subject under consideration, and not enter into a discussion upon a topic which, however much he might desire it, was irrelevant, and which their Lordships would probably permit him to bring under their notice on a more fitting occasion.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that he was perfectly satisfied that the noble Baron thought he was doing his duty in interrupting him. But what he (the Marquess of Westmeath) was about to say were reasons why they should adopt this clause; he was about to prove to their Lordships that, the present state of legal existence of a woman separated from her husband. à mensâ et thoro, particularly by the instance which he proposed to adduce, unless he were interrupted, and prevented from so doing, was a state of the law which ought not to be allowed to continue in this country, but which ought to be repealed; and repealed in such a manner as to make sure that, after a woman had been so separated, she should not be permitted to make use of that situation, being a wife without a husband, to injure and asperse his character, and to destroy his reputation, so as to make him unfit for a seat in their Lordships' House. If he proved this, he should have fulfilled the purpose which he proposed to himself when he rose to address their Lordships. The book set out at starting by saying in so many words that he was a villain. Was he not right in stating this as an argument for the alteration or improvement of the law? If so, he was prepared to bring forward sis other irrefragable proofs of the proposition if he were not interrupted in doing so. He did not mean, and he had no wish, to break the rules of their Lordships' House. But he thought that his arguments and proofs were strong, and that he ought to be permitted to go on to show why his Amendment ought to be the law of the land.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY rose to order. He was sorry to have to interrupt the noble Marquess in his vindication of himself before their Lordships' House; but he was quite sure his noble Friend would see, on a moment's reflection, that the subject he was introducing was exceedingly painful to the House, and one which he
  812
  (the Earl of Derby) thought must be not less painful to the feelings of his noble Friend himself. He thought his noble Friend would feel the difficulty of tracing any connection between his own case and the clause he was proposing. What his noble Friend complained of was a series of scurrilous libels against his character, for which the law as it stood already gave him a remedy; but the clause he was now proposing would not afford him the slightest remedy for any injury his reputation might have suffered from that cause. He would therefore appeal to his noble Friend not to pursue a course which he was certain must be painful to his noble Friend's own feelings as well as to the rest of the Members of their Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Earl, he was prepared to acquiesce in his recommendation. But he would beg leave to make one observation more. His noble Friend said that the law was open to him. But this book had been surreptitiously published, and, though it had been widely circulated, it was with the greatest difficulty that he had succeeded in obtaining a copy. The Marchioness of Westmeath had named him at full length. He was told that the law was open, but he defied any lawyer to show how he had any means of redress. But he readily acquiesced in the noble Earl's recommendation, and would accordingly abandon the Amendment.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 16, 17, and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 (on Adultery of Wife or Incest of Husband, Petition for Dissolution of Marriage may be presented).
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to move an Amendment in the clause, for the purpose of allowing a wife a right to a divorce on account of the adultery of a husband, just as a husband was to have a similar right on account of the adultery of a wife. The Bill limited the right of the wife to divorce to the case of incest, bigamy, or aggravated cruelty; now he did not see any ground in Scripture or reason why the two parties to a marriage contract should not be put in that respect upon a footing of complete equality. It might be said that the adoption of his proposal would lead to the danger of collusion; but there was no reason why such a danger should arise from giving a certain privilege to the wife, any more than from

  813
  giving it to the husband. The noble Earl concluded by moving the omission from the clause of the words which limited the right of the wife to abtain a divorce on account of the adultery of her husband.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was an appearance of great justice about the proposal of the noble Earl—namely, that the same privilege should be accorded to the one sex as to the other. Primâ facie that seemed to be a very reasonable proposition. Their Lordships had not, however, to consider whether the sin was as great in the one case as in the other, but they were required to adopt such legislation as might be most expedient for this country. The question was not whether a husband who was guilty of adultery might not, in the eyes of God, be equally guilty with a wife, but whether such an act of impropriety or of sin on the part of a husband called for the same remedy which ought to be afforded when a similar act was committed by a wife. Without entering into any discussion of the question upon moral or religious grounds, every man must feel that the injury was not the same. A wife might, without any loss of caste, and possibly with reference to the interests of her children, or even of her husband, condone an act of adultery on the part of the husband; but a husband could not condone a similar act on the part of a wife. No one would venture to suggest that a husband could possibly do so, and for this, among other reasons which had been pointed out by jurists—that the adultery of the wife might be the means of palming spurious offspring upon the husband, while the adultery of the husband could have no such effect with regard to the wife. It was true there might be cases of adultery in which it was impossible for a wife to pardon her husband; but in such cases a remedy was already afforded to the wife.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that the state of the law which he wished to have adopted in this country was already in force in Scotland, and without any injury, as far as he could learn, to the morals of the people of that country.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that, on the second reading of this Bill, he had stated as fully as he was able the arguments by which he thought the Motion of his noble Friend might be sustained. He felt very strongly upon the subject, but he would not occupy the time of their Lordships by repeating the arguments he had before
  814
  urged. He had heard nothing on the present or on former occasions which at all affected the opinion he had formed on this important question, and if his noble Friend pressed his Amendment to a division, he would vote in its favour. He thought that as an act of justice the concession requested by his noble Friend ought to be made.
  LORD CAMPBELLobserved that this question had been most carefully and deliberately considered by the Commissioners upon whose Report the Bill was founded, and they came to a unanimous conclusion that it would not be safe to make any further relaxation of the law. They were of opinion that a wife should only have the right of divorce when it was impossible that she could continue to cohabit with her husband, or that condonation could take place—namely, where incestuous adultery occurred, or other cases of extreme aggravation. They thought that in the nature of things there was a material distinction between adultery on the part of the husband and adultery on the part of the wife, and that it would lead to the most lamentable consequences if the wife, in any case of adultery on the part of the husband, unattended with aggravating circumstances, should have the power to insist that the marriage should be dissolved. The example of Scotland had been referred to; but that was a country with a small population, with peculiar habits, and very religious notions, and, without meaning any disparagement to England, he might be permitted to say that that which operated innocently in the one country might operate prejudicially in the other.
  On Question, that ("incestuous") stand part of the clause—
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 71; Not Contents 20: Majority 51.

  CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Derby, E.

  Effingham, E.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Bath, M.

  Granville, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Grey, E.

  Westminster, M.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harrington, E.

  Abingdon, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Amherst, E.

  Bantry, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Burlington, E.

  Morton, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Powis, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  815

  Wicklow, E.

  Carew, L.

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

  Eversley, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Colchester, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Bangor, Bp.

  Delamere, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  De Tabley, L.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Downes, L.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  London, Bp.

  Manners, L.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Redesdale, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Belper, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Berners, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Byron, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Wycombe, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Winchester, M.

  Blantyre, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Minto, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Munster, E.

  Denman, L.

  Romney, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Dungannon, V.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.) [Teller.]

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Question again proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that on the second reading of the Bill he mentioned that he would move certain Amendments in the Committee; and in pursuance of that promise he should now propose an Amendment to the clause to the effect that wilful and malicious desertion for five years should be a sufficient ground on which a dissolution of marriage might be pronounced. It was not his intention to fatigue their Lordships by again going over in detail the grounds he had laid before them on a former night in support of this proposition; but would merely state, for the purpose of recalling his argument to their Lordships' recollection, the points he relied on. First of all, the desertion his Amendment contemplated was a breach of one of the most sacred and solemn engagements which man could contract; and a breach of the contract on the one side justified and called for the liberation of the other party from it. In
  816
  the next place, it entirely defeated all those important objects for which marriage was instituted; and, thirdly, the effect of this breach of contract on one side was an act of the greatest cruelty to the other party. Under these circumstances, he urged, if one of the parties to the contract disregarded all those points to which he had referred, and practically put an end to the marriage, it was the height of injustice that the other party should continue to be bound by it. Then the remaining question was whether this dissolution of the contract under such circumstances was consistent with Scripture. It was not for him to argue a question of this kind in the presence of the right rev. Bench. He had already stated to their Lordships that all the great authorities on this subject went one way. He had reminded the House that this was a subject that received anxious and mature deliberation at the time of the Reformation, and that the result of the discussions which then took place was to establish that malicious and wilful desertion was a scriptural ground of divorce. He believed there was no dissenting voice upon the question, and he might refer to a few of the names of the distinguished men who took part in those deliberations, and who concurred in affirming that principle. He might mention Archbishop Cranmer, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Ely, the Bishop of London, Martin Bucer, and many other distinguished men. He might further refer to the names of Peter Martyn, Luther, Melancthon, and a long list of eminent men who held the same opinion that wilful desertion was a ground of divorce. Everybody knew that in consequence of the conclusions then arrived at every Protestant Church on the continent of Europe acted upon the principle, and had done so from that time to the present, that wilful desertion for a certain period was a sufficient scriptural ground for divorce à vinculo matrimonii. In England, in the time of Edward VI., a Commission, composed of men eminent for their learning and ability, investigated this subject, and came to the unanimous agreement that malicious wilful desertion was a scriptural ground of divorce. Among the distinguished men who formed that body were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Winchester, and Ely, Latimer, Parker, and a great many other eminent divines. In Prussia, where the question had been long and seriously considered,

  817
  and where many alterations had been made in the law of divorce, they retained two special grounds of divorce—namely, adultery and desertion. By the law of Scotland desertion for four years was sufficient to annul a marriage; but he proposed that the period should be five years. It would, perhaps, be said this was in opposition to the law of England; but the object of the Bill was to correct the law, to act according to justice, and according to nature and reason. He proposed this as being in accordance not only with justice and equity, but with the doctrine of Scripture, and he trusted it would receive the sanction of their Lordships. The noble and learned Lord then moved an Amendment after "upwards," to insert "or of wilful desertion without reasonable cause for five years or upwards."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, with great respect to the deserved influence of his noble and learned Friend's opinion, this was a point on which he had less hesitation in disagreeing from him than on almost any other proposition. He felt perfectly satisfied that, instead of his noble and learned Friend's argument being sound, it was most unsound; and he was satisfied that if the Amendment were adopted, it would ensure the defeat of the whole measure. The moment they went one stop beyond the case of adultery, where and when would they stop? If desertion for five years was sufficient, why not desertion for four years, as in Scotland? Why not three, two, or one? The moment they laid down desertion as a ground of divorce they would have the husbands deserting their wives. Why not be consistent, and say at once that whenever the husband and wife, from incompatibility of temper, or to suit each other's convenience, thought well to part, they should, as in the northern States of Germany, be allowed to do so? That was at this moment the law of Prussia, and the Chambers were totally unable to change it; for when on a question of this kind they established a social system, it became difficult to alter it. He would not enter into the religious part of the question, for he agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of St. David's), that in legislation they ought to act on the spirit and principles to be justly deduced from Scripture, and not on the particular words of a few passages which might seem to favour particular tenets. It might be that the proposal of his noble and learned Friend might not be opposed to Scripture; but, deeming it inexpedient
  818
  and opposed to the interests of society he must certainly resist its adoption.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he had expected to hear his arguments combated by some more powerful arguments than those on which his noble and learned Friend had based his opposition to the clause. As to the question of where were they to stop, he would reply they should go no further than was consistent with the Scriptural construction of divorce. In Prussia the line had been drawn just at that point. So in Scotland, where the law of divorce was less contracted than in this country, no inconvenience had been felt, and no desire expressed for any change. The noble and learned Lord had said nothing of the breach of the solemn compact of marriage, nothing of the cruelty and hardship inflicted upon women who were the victims of the laws which men made. He repeated, that marriage was a compact of a most solemn character, and that if it were broken mercilessly by one party, how was it consistent with justice to hold the other party bound by it? He would not refer to texts of Scripture, but to the authority of able and learned men, whose business it had been to study the Holy Writings, and whose conclusions bore him out in the course he was now taking.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, that the noble and learned Lord had referred to no Scripture texts to prove his case. He produced a list of names, names distinguished no doubt, but such as could not supply the place of that argument on which he laid so much stress. He was himself utterly unable to recollect a single passage of Scripture either in the Old or New Testament that could, without the most violent construction, be brought to hear on the argument of the noble and learned Lord. To ask them to divide in favour of the proposal without citing some Scriptural authority for it, was expecting rather too much.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he could have alluded to several texts in support of his proposal, but the argument would have been too refined for such an assembly. What he maintained was this, that the law in this part of the island was an exception to the law of Protestant Europe, and to the law of Scotland on the point, and was, in fact, a remnant of the Church of Rome.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLopposed the Amendment, thinking they ought to keep as much as possible to the one ground of divorce mentioned in Scripture. There

  819
  was only one Scriptural passage that could be cited relied on in support of the view taken by the noble and learned Lord, and that only could be pressed into service by the most violent construction and special pleading.
  LORD CAMPBELLopposed the proposal, as contrary to the principle of the Bill, which was not to change the law of divorce, but only the mode of administering it.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, the law ought to be made to correspond with justice in this case as in all others. No evil results had taken place in Scotland from the law which existed there.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 8; Not-Contents 97: Majority 89.

  CONTENTS.

  Essex, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Harrington, E. [Teller.]

  Minto, E.

  Blantyre, L.

  Munster, E.

  Denman, L.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Spencer, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Talbot, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Norfolk, D.

  Doneraile, V.

  Dungannon, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Eversley, V.

  Bath, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hill, V.

  Westminster, M.

  Sydney, V.

  Winchester, M.

  Torrington, V.

  Abingdon, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Albemarle, E.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Bantry, E.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Durham, Bp.

  Burlington, E.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Clarendon, E.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  London, Bp.

  Effingham, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Fortescue, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  St. David's, Bp.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Granville, E.

  Grey, E.

  Belper, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Byron, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Campbell, L.

  Morton, E.

  Carew, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Clandeboye, L. (E. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Seafield, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  820

  Congleton, L.

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

  Delamere, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Downes, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Rivers, L.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Kenyon, L.

  Manners, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Petre, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Question again proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the evil of this clause was to be found in its connection with the 43rd clause, which gave an interpretation to the dissolution of marriage to which he could not consent. He should be obliged, therefore, on that clause to submit to their Lordships his reasons for opposing it.
  THE EARL OF DERBYput the case of a man who had committed incestuous adultery with his wife's sister, and whose marriage was dissolved on that ground; and he asked if that dissolution of the marriage, by which the party with whom the husband had committed incest was no longer his wife's sister, would preclude him, under the Bill, from marrying the woman with whom he had committed incest, the law as it at present stood prohibiting a man from marrying a wife's sister.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the husband would not be at liberty to marry the sister in that case, for the marriage would still be incest. If a person had criminal connection with a woman, it would be incest afterwards to marry her sister. What would have been incest before the divorce would be incest afterwards; besides the clause permitting the marriage only permitted it as if the former marriage had been terminated by the death of the wife.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked, if a wife who might obtain a divorce by this Bill on account of her husband's incestuous adultery was placed in the position of a woman who was dead, as respected the relation of the husband to her sister.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, clearly he would not be at liberty to marry his wife's sister in that case.
  EARL GREYdesired to know, if in the case of a man who contracted marriage, and it afterwards turned out that he had

  821
  had years before criminal intercourse with his wife's sister, such a marriage would be null.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, by the law ecclesiastical the connection with the unmarried woman made the marriage with her sister impossible. It would be a ground for setting aside such a marriage as being null and void, because by the law ecclesiastical it was an incestuous commixture.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Dismissal of Petition).
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYcited several cases of women who had been frequently divorced, and proposed the following Amendment:—
  "In case the Court on the Evidence in relation to any such Petition shall not be satisfied that the alleged Adultery has been committed, or shall find that the Petitioner has, during the Marriage been guilty of Adultery, or has been accessory to or conniving at the Adultery complained of, or has condoned the same, or that the Petitioner has been previously divorced on the Ground of Adultery, whether committed with the Person against whom any such Petition is presented or with any other Party, or that the Petitioner has committed Adultery with the Person against whom any such Petition is presented, and has thereby caused such Person to have been previously divorced, or that the Petitioner, previously to the Marriage, knew that the Person against whom any such Petition is presented had been previously divorced at the Instance of any former Husband or Wife, or that the Parties have notoriously cohabited previously to their Marriage, then and in any of the said Cases the Court shall dismiss the Petition.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobjected to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, it had happened frequently in Germany and Poland, where two adulterous parties had been first divorced and subsequently married, for one or both of them to commit adultery again, and go into court and be divorced a second time. A system like that would be a great scandal if allowed in this country; and he wanted to know how it was to be guarded against under this Bill?
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDhad known a case in which it was proved that the husband had seduced his wife before marriage, and afterwards, upon his applying for a divorce upon the ground of her subsequent adultery, their Lordships had refused the application, holding that he was not entitled to the remedy to which a husband would have been entitled had he come before them with clean hands. Now, inasmuch as the new Court would exercise no discretion, but administer the letter of the law, it was necessary that the letter of the
  822
  law should contain such conditions as would apply to cases of this sort, otherwise they would be introducing a licence to crime.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would consider the points referred to by the noble Earl opposite. He saw no objection to providing for a case of that sort, but he did not like to pledge himself off hand to the adoption of any particular provisions.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 22, agreed to.
  On Clause 23 (Alimony).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDcalled attention to the circumstance that this clause provided that a husband who obtained a divorce from his wife might be required to allow her alimony to such amount as the Court, having regard to the ability of the husband and the conduct of the parties, should think reasonable, but that the Bill made no provision for the allowance of alimony to a wife who obtained a divorce against her husband.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexpressed his readiness to consider the propriety of altering the clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBYgave notice that his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) would bring forward on the Report the clause of which he had given notice, constituting adultery a misdemeanour, and imposing a fine on the adulterer.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, that the morality of the country owed a debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for taking adultery out of the category of civil offences and constituting it a misdemeanour; but he thought that the punishment should be more proportioned to the offence, and that conviction should be followed by fine and imprisonment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhaving observed that enormous difficulties stood in the way of making adultery a misdemeanour in all cases,
  Clause 25 to 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Liberty to Parties to marry again).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he wished to say a few words in opposition to the clause. He would pass over the scriptural argument, having dealt with that already, by simply saying that the more he studied it the more he became convinced that the scriptural authorities were clear and plain against allowing the re-marriage of persons who had been divorced. He was confirmed in this opinion by some of the most

  823
  eminent divines of the Church of England, who had spoken most explicitly on the point, and declared that it was absolutely contrary to the law of God that either party should contract marriage after divorce. Supposing, however, the case to be doubtful, what were the alternatives? On the one hand they might possibly be withholding, in a few evil cases, a liberty which, if it could be granted with safety in others, might be granted,—that was all; but if, on the other hand, they made the law directly antagonistic, not to certain texts taken out of Scripture, but to the tenor of the instruction of our Blessed Lord on the subject, they opened a path for sin, and almost certainly led the coming generation into trifling with this holy ordinance. It had been said that there was not the least reason to apprehend this danger, because they took their stand on unassailable ground; but that, if they admitted other causes than adultery for the dissolution of marriage, then all those evils which were anticipated by some might follow. But had they not heard one who might be styled the Nestor of their assembly argue that it was a scriptural relaxation to grant divorce for five years' absence? therefore how impossible it was to say that they took their stand upon unassailable ground. The only argument beside the scriptural one that had been urged was the example of Scotland; but, looked at closely, the case of Scotland afforded no real indications of the working of the system. The law of that country had been, to a very great degree, modified in practice by her relationship to England. The overshadowing effect of the union with England had prevented Scotland from running into the same extreme as the nations of the Continent, and passing from one degree of liberty to another in the matter of marriage. Then, in considering this question, they ought to take into account the fact that the whole of Christendom, from the very earliest date, both in the East and West, had maintained views contrary to those laid down in this clause. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) referred the other evening to the case of Napoleon, which was the only one which his fertile brain and unwearied research could produce; but even this example of Napoleon was not a case in point. By a rule of the Council of Trent it was provided that in every nation in which its canons were published as part of the national law, there should be necessarily present a priest, and at least two witnesses
  824
  to make a marriage valid. In France these canons had been published as part of the law. Napoleon was married without the presence of the necessary witnesses; and afterwards, when he reestablished the Roman Catholic faith, he was strongly urged to be re-married according to the requirements of the Council of Trent; but he declined to do so, lest he should shock too much the feelings of those who had been married in the same way as himself. The Court of Rome therefore did not pass a divorce, but pronounced his marriage null and void ab initio, and Austria took care to have the fullest investigation into the matter before consent was given to a marriage with Napoleon, so that there should be no doubt as to the legitimacy of any issue that might follow. When, therefore, it came to be examined, the very case cited by his noble and learned Friend as showing that the Western Church allowed such remarriage broke down. As to the Eastern Church, the lax practices which prevailed in the countries under its influence showed the lamentable consequences that must ever follow a departure from right principle on the question of marriage. The practice there had led to the greatest laxity; so great, indeed, that the wife of a convict sent to another part of Russia was allowed to marry again: but the canons of the Eastern Church were equally clear upon the point, and declared that, though there might be a dissolution of marriage on account of adultery, there could be no re-marriage. Reference had been made to the time of the Reformation; but there could be no doubt that many of the men of that time, eminent and learned as they were, had gone to an extreme in their views as to the ground on which marriage might be dissolved. He asked them would their Lordships do that which they were not asked to do, and introduce licence when the general state of the law was acquiesced in? No one would pretend to say that there was any demand from the people of this country for such a change as was now proposed. On the contrary, it must be admitted that there was universal acquiescence in the present state of the law. [Lord CAMPBELL interposed an observation]. The noble Lord spoke of privilegium, but what were those privilegia but acts of that House to save particular people from the penalties of bigamy? He pledged himself that, if their Lordships threw out the obnoxious clause, he would come down to the House, and oppose every case of privilegium that

  825
  was proposed for their consideration. He repeated that the people of this country desired not this state of things; they had the example of other nations showing to what evils the loose practices they had adopted led them, and he would ask, why not stop the granting of those privilegia here? They had gone on giving those privilegia so long, that now they felt they could not refuse to consent to the extension of the indulgence, and therefore were prepared to grant it to anybody. He prayed them not to endanger, by such a measure, the morals of the people of England. They might depend upon it that, if they admitted these changes, the evil would recoil upon our heads, and then the determination of these nice and delicate questions would be left to tribunals utterly unfitted for the task; they might depend upon it, that that which was permitted to the rich by reason of their being able to incur great expense, would be claimed as a matter of right by the poor. If they made a law that a person who could afford to bring a bevy of witnesses from Cornwall or Cumberland to prove adultery was to have the right to marry again, it would not be possible for them to stop there; they must extend that right to every local class of society, and this would infallibly lead to the admission of the greatest licence. It was this that threatened the happiness of married life in England. Where, he would ask, were the hundreds of petitions asking for this liberty? where the husbands, where the wives desiring relief from bondage? If their Lordships appealed to England, in its homes, and amidst its shrines of domestic happiness, upon this point, the people would respond with one accord, and say with one voice, "Do nothing of the kind, do nothing that will endanger that sacred fence which hitherto has protected family charity and family chastity." He prayed their Lordships to pause. Let them not make particular laws to meet particular cases. Let them not give this fatal boon to the people of this country. Let them be as their fathers were before them, the maintainers of the law, the maintainers of God's truth, the ministers of the people's sanctity. He moved that this clause be omitted from the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF BANGORthought the interpretation placed upon the words of our Lord by his right reverend Brother was non-natural, and not in accordance with the mind of our Saviour. The passages which he has cited from the Sermon on the Mount and from Matt, xix., in older to
  826
  prove that marriages are indissoluble by the law of God, even in cases of adultery, relate exclusively to those divorces which were allowed by the Law of Moses, and neither have nor could have any reference to divorces by reason of adultery. He had been still more surprised to hear the reference made by another right reverend Brother to an alleged counsel of St. Paul to a husband to take back his adulterous wife. We must recollect that the whole of his advice in this chapter was given in answer to questions that had been put to him in reference to scruples which appear to have disturbed the minds of the converts, who were for the most part either heathens, or those, who had adopted from the Jews the doctrines of the Unity and Personality of the Godhead, and of a future state of rewards and punishments. Throughout the whole of the 7th chapter the Apostle is not pressing on them any specific duty or rule of action, but giving them such prudential advice as was suited to their present circumstances. But I will affirm, without doubt or hesitation, that the passage quoted by my right reverend Friend from the 7th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians has no more to do with the case of an adulterous wife than with the millennium or the construction of the tabernacle in the wilderness.
  LORD CAMPBELLhad heard with surprise the rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) state that if they allowed persons divorced to marry again they would change the law of England. That he must designate as a quibble and a notorious quibble. It would be to change the law of England if they dissolved marriages, and did not let the parties marry again. Indeed, to put away a man's wife necessarily implied the liberty to take another; and but for that liberty many great and illustrious families, which were in a flourishing condition, would have ceased to exist. It seemed to him a monstrous proposition to say that the injured person should be made to suffer for the misconduct of his wife.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, he had heard the speech of his noble and learned Friend with great surprise. There was not a lawyer in the House, or in the whole profession, who would assert that by the regular common law of England marriage was dissoluble. An attempt was made, indeed, to change the law at the time of the Reformatio Legum, but it never was carried into effect, although a system of granting private Acts had prevailed since

  827
  the reign of William III. That marriage was by the law of the land indissoluble was manifest from the fact that no court which administered the law could dissolve a marriage once validly made. He (Lord Wensleydale) thought the right rev. Prelate had just cause for complaint in the sweeping assertion which had been made by his noble and learned Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that of course his noble and learned Friend did not mean to say that marriage was dissoluble by any law which was administered by the courts; but everybody knew that the practice had prevailed for nearly two centuries of granting divorces by Acts of the Legislature. It was a mere verbal dispute whether it was by the law, or by a system of privilegia, that divorces had been obtained during the last 150 years. There could be no doubt that a divorce was at present granted by their Lordships, under certain circumstances, as a matter of right, and any person who was prepared to incur the necessary expense had no difficulty in establishing that right. He would go farther, and say, that it would not be possible for their Lordships to depart in that case from the established usage, and to interrupt the course of the judicial proceedings which ended in substantiating the right to the divorce. With respect to the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, he should observe that he did not see how any person who had voted for the second reading of the Bill could support that Amendment, as it would defeat the main purport of the measure.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not wish to continue the discussion, but begged to call their Lordships' attention to a point on which he thought the clause had been misapprehended by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell). He had spoken as if this clause were opposed not only to the law but to the custom and practice of England. He had contended all along for giving the injured party a remedy; but this clause did not confine the remedy to the injured party, but extended it to the guilty party as well. There were three propositions before the House. The first proposition was that of the Government, which was, that upon the dissolution of a marriage, the respective parties should be permitted to marry again. The second was that of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) who denied that either party was at liberty to marry again; and the third, that of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), took the
  828
  course recommended by the learned Lord Chief Justice, who would permit the injured party to marry again, but would withhold the right from the guilty party. Now he (the Earl of Derby) would suggest to the most rev. Prelate to move his Amendment upon the clause, instead of letting the clause pass, and then adding a proviso or introducing a subsequent clause.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I readily accede to the recommendation of the noble Earl in rising to propose the Amendment of which I have given notice, and without which I think that the present Bill is not likely to promote the object which your Lordships have at heart—the social welfare and the morality of the country. My Lords, I did not hesitate to support the main object of the Bill. I think that the injured wife or husband—injured in the tenderest point by the unfaithfulness of their partner—ought not to be denied the relief which the Bill affords, guarded as it is by the provisions and precautions which prevent collusion. But Clause 43, which permits the guilty parties to re-marry, appears to me to be full of danger. I can neither reconcile it to reason nor to the Divine command, which is our only safe and proper guide. My Lords, I think that we could hardly furnish a man who desired to possess his neighbour's wife with a more persuasive argument than this clause supplies. I think that we could scarcely place a woman, dissatisfied with her present lot, in a state of greater temptation, than by consenting to this clause. The present marriage, we assume, is unhappy. There is a way by which it might be set aside, and a happy marriage ensue. Could any stronger inducement be offered to an incipient passion than the prospect that in the end it might be legitimately indulged? My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will support the Amendment, which will prevent this blot from disfiguring your legislation.
  Moved, to leave out ("respective parties thereto") and insert ("party on whose petition the marriage shall have been dissolved").
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate as being inimical to morality. It might be a question, whether their Lordships would allow the guilty paramours to marry; but surely they were not going to enact that, having dissolved an existing marriage,

  829
  they would say to one of the parties, "You shall not marry again." Suppose a marriage dissolved at the instance of a wife; would they say to the husband, "You shall not many again; you must live with a mistress for the remainder of your life"? He (the Lord Chancellor) could not conceive a greater scandal to society than would result from such a state of things. He thought it would be alike cruel and unscriptural to impose such a restriction, and he must therefore oppose the Amendment.
  EARL GREYsaid, he could understand the difficulties in the way of condemning a person to celibacy; but, on the other hand, if there was to be no security against collusion in cases of this kind, he thought the House would be entering on a most dangerous course. At present, as the law stood, the great expense attending a private Bill for a divorce, though it practically had the effect of confining the remedy of divorce to the higher classes, operated also, it must be admitted, as a great check against collusion. One of the main objects of this Bill was, to make the remedy of divorce cheaper to the humbler orders; but, if their Lordships did that without any check or guard whatever against abuse, his conviction was, that in the course of a few years they would have the lamentable practice growing up of adultery being committed for the purpose of obtaining a divorce. His belief was, that if they were to adopt the course of dissolving marriage for adultery, it was absolutely necessary that they should have recourse to some system as stringent as the one now in force in their Lordships' House, which had been not to give relief unless there had been previously damages obtained in an action of criminal conversation—the effect of that rule being, that the damages awarded operated as a great security against collusion. No man could be more opposed than he was to the action for criminal conversation, which was so degrading in its character; but they should in some other way provide a substantial punishment for collusion in the shape—not of a money fine—but of imprisonment, and perhaps the proper course would be to provide that no proceeding for the dissolution of a marriage should be instituted, unless there had been a prior criminal proceeding against the guilty party, and that party had been subjected to substantial punishment.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he was impatient
  830
  to see the action for criminal conversation abolished; but he should not like to see it abolished without some substitute, for otherwise that would be a state of things which would operate as an encouragement to adultery.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 47; Not-Contents 53: Majority 6.

  CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Belper, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Cleveland, D.

  Byron, L.

  Cameys, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Campbell, L.

  Breadalbane, M.

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

  Abingdon, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Burlington, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Essex, E.

  Denman, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Mantrose.)

  De Tabley, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Harrington, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Manners, L.

  Panmure, L.

  Minto, E.

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

  Munster, E.

  Seafield, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  London, Bp.

  Vivian, L.

  Wycombe, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Abp.

  Dungannon, V.

  Eversley, V.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Bath, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Winchester, M.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Albemarle, E.

  Durham, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Effingham, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Grey, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Hardwicke. E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Berners, L.

  Powis, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Talbot, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  831

  Downes, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Stafford, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Petre, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  On the Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, though the clause was greatly improved by the most rev. Prelate's Amendment, he still considered it very objectionable, and should therefore move its omission.
  Amendment withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
  Clause 44 (Dissolution of Marriage to precede Action for Criminal Conversation.)
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, thinking that the discussion could not at that hour be continued advantageously, he should move that the House do now resume.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Motion.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, before the House went into Committee he had stated his desire to put an end to the action for criminal conversation. For the purpose of effecting that object, he would now propose that so much of the 44th Clause as began with the word "unless," down to the end, be excluded.
  EARL GREYobserved, that the House had been engaged seven hours and a half in discussing the Bill, and he did not think it would be consistent with propriety and with the dignity of the House to proceed any further.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought, that as the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) had borne the fatigue of sitting there so long to state his views, the House ought to have the patience to hear him.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he had previously explained his object. What he now proposed was, to strike out the word "unless," and the remaining words of the clause down to the end. The clause would then stand in substance thus:—"That no action for criminal conversation shall hereafter be brought." The Bill as it stood made the law in reference to that subject worse than it was at present. Providing as it did that no action for criminal conversation should be brought till a divorce had been obtained, it would prevent a Roman Catholic, who could not sue for a divorce, from bringing an action. One object of the Bill was, he understood, to
  832
  render the administration of justice as cheap as possible, and the clause as it stood would tend to prevent a man of moderate means from instituting proceedings. As to the substitute, his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell) might hereafter propose to make the offence committed a misdemeanour, punishable by fine, or by imprisonment, or by both. It was not necessary to settle that question then.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that this was a most important question, on which he had much to say. He should support the Motion that the House do now resume.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the House ought not to resume till the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Lyndhurst's) statement had been answered. He had raised a very grave question, and the House ought not to resume without some answer. The great objection to these actions for damages had hitherto been the form in which these actions had been brought. It was a subject which demanded much consideration, as to whether they should abolish a pecuniary remedy for what was very often a pecuniary damage. He wanted to know the views of the Government on this subject.
  LORD CAMPBELLagain urged the adjournment of the House. Even in the House of Commons it was not the custom to sit so many hours in Committee even upon important subjects. He urged the adjournment as a sincere friend to the Bill.
  After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock, A.M., to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.