Sitting of 14 July 1858

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—3o Local Government.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 7 (Manner in which Juvenile Offenders are to be dealt with.)
MR. GROGANsaid, he entertained an objection to the wording of the clause. The idea of requiring a profession of faith
1432
from young destitute children, who had either lost or been deserted by their parents, and whose heads were not as high as the table, was perfectly absurd. There was no such provision in the corresponding Act for England, and he should therefore move that it be expunged, with a view to insert words directing that the juvenile offender should be sent to such a Reformatory as his parents or guardians should select, with the permission of the magistrates before whom the conviction had taken place.
Amendment proposed,—
In page 3, line 42, to leave out from the word "offender" to the words "previous time," in page 4, line 7, in order to insert the words, "or to such Reformatory as the parents or guardians of such offender shall select, with the sanction and permission of the Judge or Justices before whom such offender shall have been convicted first had and obtained for that purpose: Provided also, that the;" and after "imprisonment," insert "to which such offender shall have been sentenced."
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member would not persevere with his Amendment. The object of the framers of the Bill had been to prevent everything in the shape of proselytizing by either the one party or the other; and the intention was, that there should be one Reformatory for Roman Catholic children and another for Protestant children.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that gentlemen of the strongest Protestant opinions in the south of Ireland were in favour of the separate system, and there was not the slightest fear that Protestant Reformatories would not be established under this Bill. The measure would be a curse instead of a blesing if magistrates were not strictly prohibited from interfering with the religion of Roman Catholic or Protestant children.
MR. GROGANsaid, he fully concurred in the propriety of keeping the children of different religious persuasions separate from each other. The words which he proposed to insert in the clause would, he thought, give the greatest freedom of choice to parents and guardians, with the consent of the Judge, as to the particular Reformatory the child was to be sent to. Formerly, when deserted children were found in the streets, the Roman Catholic police of Dublin always placed them in charge of Roman Catholic nurses, who had them baptized according to the rites of their own Church. His Amendment was also intended to prevent the renewal of that practice.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that

1433
abuses might have been committed by zealots on both sides; but this measure had been studiously drawn with a view to banish suspicions which would be fatal to the well-working of these institutions. The offenders to whom the Bill applied would be of fourteen, fifteen, and even sixteen years of age; and there would be no difficulty in ascertaining their religious persuasion.
MR. VANCEcontrasted the words of the Amendment with the original clause, for the purpose of showing that the former would render clear and intelligible what was vague and uncertain in the latter. The clause spoke of the religion in which it might appear that a child had been baptized. How could a child appear to be baptized? Supposing there was no distinct evidence of the child being of any religion, he thought that it should be considered a child of the State. He believed that if the clause were to pass in its present shape it would lead to a system of proselytism of the worst form.
MR. SPAIGHTsaid, he trusted that this Bill, which had been very favourably received by the whole community in the South of Ireland, and which was very much needed, would be allowed to pass.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,"
The Committee divided:— Ayes 42; Noes 15: Majority 27.
MR. GROGANsaid, he would then move to leave out that part of the clause which would give an appeal from the decisions of magistrates. He thought the language of the clause imputed to magistrates conduct with which they were not chargeable.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he should support the power of appeal.
MR. GROGANsaid, the law was not so in England, and the object of their legislation was to assimilate the law of both countries.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, it was not unreasonable to give a power of appeal in these cases. Every magistrate might make a mistake, and inserting those words did not cast a slur upon their conduct.
LORD NAASsaid, he saw no reason why an appeal should not be allowed.
MR. BARROWsupported the clause, and said he thought it would lead to an improvement of the English law in that respect.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 (Power to Magistrates to order Parents to contribute to the support of their Children to the extent of 5s. a week).
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he thought the clause required some explanation, as 5s. a week would be a very large sum for a man who only earned 9s. or 10 s. a week to contribute.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, the object of the clause was to prevent parents getting rid of their children in order that they might be supported and educated at the public expense. He thought it might well be left to the discretion of the magistrates to ascertain whether the parents of children were able to contribute to their support.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he hoped the Committee would not consent to any proposition to omit the obligation imposed by the clause upon parents.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 16.
Clause 17.
MR. BLAKE MR. BLAKE moved, in page 8, line 30, to leave out the words "House of Correction or Common Gaol," and insert the words "Debtors' Prison." His object was, that parents failing to contribute to the support of their children, should be sent, not to the common gaol and treated as felons, but confined in the debtors' prison.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDobjected to the Amendment.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to intimate that the promoters of the Bill would permit the latter part of the clause, rendering parents liable to imprisonment for the non-payment of their children's maintenance in a Reformatory, to be struck out on the Report.
MR. SPAIGHTsaid, he would go further than the Amendment, for he thought there was no necessity for incarceration whatever. If it was proved that a man had no goods or chattels, what was the use of imprisoning him?
MR. BLAKEsaid, he should, nevertheless, press his Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:— Ayes 94; Noes 1: Majority 93.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, the division was taken between two gaols, but he thought incarceration unnecessary. There was quite sufficient protection to the public in the fact that the parents had property to be seized for any arrears that might arise,

1435
and he thought the poor of Ireland would not risk the loss of their furniture for the non-payment of a few shillings a week towards the maintenance of their children in Reformatories.
MR. SPAIGHTsaid, he fully concurred with the last speaker. The clause was so penal in its nature, and so oppressive to the poorer portion of the population, that at the proper time he would support its omission altogether.
MR. BRADYconsidered that it would be harsh to send a man to prison and make him herd with convicts because he had not contributed to the support of his child. He would, therefore, appeal to the author of the Bill to give up the power of imprisonment altogether.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he was willing to substitute "ten days" for "three months," but he could not go further.
MR. BARROWsaid, the question now before the House was how long the party should be imprisoned. He thought three months was an extravagant period, and he proposed to substitute ten days, as in the English Bill. It was found from experience that short terms of imprisonment were more efficacious than long ones.
Amendment proposed to leave out the words "three months" and insert "ten days."
MR. BLAKEopposed the Amendment. He said that in the town which he represented (Waterford), there was a model lodging-house, and some tradesmen clear in £l or £1 10 s. a week, had sold their furniture and gone into that model lodging-house, defying their creditors, who were without a remedy. He would not send debtors into the same gaol with felons, but he would send fraudulent debtors to prison.
MR. P. O'BRIENobjected to a man being imprisoned in a common gaol for a debt. He should move an Amendment to that effect on the bringing up of the Report.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, he could not conceive anything more repugnant than the proposition contained in the clause to send the parent to a felon's gaol. However, he understood that the noble Secretary (Lord Naas) had agreed to omit the latter part of the clause.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought that, if the period were limited to ten days, there could be no possible objection to the clause.
MR. GROGANthought that if imprisonment were done away with it would be perfectly futile to attempt to make the parent pay.
Amendment agreed to; Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, that after nine attempts he had succeeded in bringing on this Bill for a second reading; but owing to the late period of the Session at which he had been enabled to bring it forward, he thought it would be a mere waste of time to go into a discussion upon it at present, and therefore it was his intention to withdraw the measure. He would merely say that the state of affairs in the House was now such that it was impossible for any private Member to get a Bill passed unless he introduced it at the very commencement of the Session. The Government had not merely the executive power, but they also possessed a monopoly of the legislative power. He moved that the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill be discharged.
  MR. COXsaid, this was the eleventh or twelfth time a Bill had been brought in for the purpose of enabling Sir T. M. Wilson to enclose the land round Hampstead-heath, if not to enclose the heath itself. He hoped that if the attempt were to be renewed next Session, a Bill would be brought in for the express purpose and not in such a shape as was likely to deceive the House.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, he must deny that in bringing forward the Bill he had acted with a view to the interest of any particular individual. He had not only no acquaintance with Sir T. M. Wilson, but be had never seen him. The object of his Bill was a general one, and he had received communications in its favour from many parts of the country.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for the Treasury whether he could give a detailed account of the moneys paid in bounty for the capture of slaves; and also, whether he thought the sum of £2,000 would be sufficient for the bounty which it was proba-

1437
ble would have to be paid in he coming year.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONlaid, that a Return moved for by an hon. Member would give details of the number of slaves captured in each year since 1847, with the sums paid for their capture. It was estimated that £2,000 would be sufficient for the payment of bounty in the coming year.
Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had to complain that the Charitable Trust Continuance Act had been read a second time last night before the Bill itself was printed, and notwithstanding the arrangement that no opposed business was to be taken after midnight. He had intended to address the House on the subject, and he must say he was surprised to see by the Votes that the Bill had actually been read a second time before it was printed. He now begged to give notice that on the question of going into Committee, he should move as an Amendment that Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair for three months. [A Laugh.]
  MR. SPOONERsaid, that he had another ground of complaint on this subject, namely, that the Bill was not properly described on the paper,
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Bill in question was a mere continuance Bill, and the Government had no reason to suppose that any objection would be taken to it, especially since they had expressed their determination to consider, during the recess, the best means of arriving at a permanent settlement of charitable trusts.
  House in Committee. Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
  (1.) £111,429, New Bridge at Westminster.
  MR. BENTINCKsatd, he understood that the amount proposed to be voted would be refunded by the sale of the bridge estate, which was likely to realise a very large sum. The transaction, so far, therefore, appeared to be an equitable one that could not be objected to. But he gathered from the Estimate he held in his hand that next year the House would be called upon to vote £96,021 for the completion of the new bridge, and that there were no funds out of which the money could be replaced in the public treasury. It was only fair to give notice, therefore,
  1438
  that when the House was called upon to vote that additional sum for the completion of the bridge out of the public purse, he should be prepared to give it his most determined opposition.
  Vote agreed to; as were also the two following Votes:—
  (2.) £1,500, Windsor Castle.
  (3.) £70,000, Court of Probate, &c.
  (4.) £19,296 British Embassy House at Paris,
  MR. BYNGsaid, that some explanation was necessary with regard to this Vote, before the Committee could be called upon to give it its sanction.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the attention of the House was called to the Vote a few days ago by Mr. Wise, who requested that the correspondence in reference to the subject should be laid upon the table. He (Mr. Hamilton) had at once moved for the production of the correspondence; but he was sorry to say, that it was not yet out of the printer's hands. There could be no doubt that the expenses incurred for the Ambassador's residence at Paris had been enormous; but unfortunately the state of the house was such, that unless something was done to put it in repair, there was a danger that the country would have to incur an expenditure infinitely larger than that which had already been made. The amount now asked for was the very least, and there was no use in disguising the fact, for which the house could be put in repair. His noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works had taken every care that the money should not, as in past years, be misapplied; and he trusted the result would be to put the premises in thorough and permanent repair, and that Parliament would not be again called on for the very extravagant Votes which had hitherto been proposed for the purpose.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that if he had the smallest encouragement given him, he should be inclined to divide the Committee against this Vote. He looked upon the Vote as a part of the lavish expenditure which was characteristic of the late Government, and especially of the foreign department of that Government. He understood that the Embassy House, at Paris, might be sold for about £120,000; and he submitted to Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be preferable, instead of asking the Committee for this Vote, to sell the house and grounds, and follow the example of the French Government, in

  1439
  the case of its representative in London, by renting a house for our Ambassador at Paris at £4,000 or £5,000 a year. We had already expended more than £l00,000 upon the Embassy House in Paris within a few years; and he did not see that there was any guarantee that the present Vote of £19,296 if agreed to, would be sufficient to place it in complete order. Judging by past experience, he feared the Vote would be only the prelude to still larger disbursements on the part of this House.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid that, as far as high professional character could be a guarantee, the Government had every security that the present Vote would cover the whole of the expense for the repairs put down in detail in the enormous volume he held in his hand. The hon. Gentleman proposed that a mansion should be rented for the embassy, but the Government were already in possession of a house with grounds, in a convenient spot, adapted for the object, and it was important that the residence of the English Ambassador at Paris should be on a scale commensurate with the dignity of the great country he represented. He hoped that the Committee would support the Vote, which he confidently expected would be the last of the sort.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsuggested that it would be better to postpone the consideration of the Vote until the Committee was in possession of further information, and until the right hon. Baronet the late Chief Commissioner of Works was in the House. He also thought the plans and estimates of the French architect ought to be submitted to the Committee, so that hon. Members might refer to them and judge for themselves.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDremarked, that he did not consider that if the suggestion were acted upon, hon. Members would be more competent to decide the question than they were at present. Besides, the details which the hon. Member desired to have placed in the library were so very minute that he did not believe that many Members would go there to consult them. There was no doubt that the expenditure for the Embassy House at Paris had been enormous; but at present, from the manner in which it had been built, the walls were very insecure, and dry rot was in the timber work. It was obvious, therefore, that to put such a large building in perfect repair would necessarily require a considerable outlay of money.
  1440
  With regard to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. White) that the House should be sold and the Embassy removed to another quarter of Paris, where it might rent a house at £4,000 or £5,000 a year, he thought any such measure as that would prove most inconvenient to English residents and visitors to Paris. He could assure the Committee that the estimate had been most carefully considered; that nothing was contained in it which was not absolutely necessary; and the outlay would be made under the advice of the most competent architects the Government could send from this country, and the most eminent persons they could select in France. Under these circumstances he trusted the Committee would agree to this, the last Vote that would be required for the purpose.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to remind the Committee that similar expectations had been indulged in many years ago and similar promises made of retrenchment; upwards of £130,000 had been expended on this house, and there was still a demand for additional money. He was sorry to hear that there were seventeen additional Votes in the present group of Estimates, and this was done in the face of a deficient income and a certain loss of £1,500,000 in the property and income tax.
  MR. BRAMLEY-MOOREwished to know from the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works, whether he had taken any tenders respecting the expense to be incurred in the renovation of the premises; because he must say, that he had no confidence whatever in the Estimates. He was quite sure, unless some precautions of that kind were taken, the House would by and-bye be asked for a supplemental Vote.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he should have greatly exceeded his duty, if before the House had sanctioned the Vote he had called for tenders. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government had taken every security fur the estimate being a bonâ fide one.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he was convinced that the £19,000 now asked for would turn out to be a mere instalment, and that in the end the patience of the House would be quite exhausted, and these Votes be indignantly rejected.
  MR. BRAMLEY-MOOREsaid, it was no unusual thing, when Estimates of this sort were prepared, for the architect to state that parties were ready to undertake

  1441
  the execution of the work at the sum he mentioned.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, that the French Ambassador in London only paid £1,000 a year rent for his embassy, and that it was now proposed that we should pay something like £6,000 a year, that sum representing the interest on £120,000 which the building had cost.
  MR. HUDSONsaid, that the rental of the French Embassy in London was considerably more than £1,000 or £1,500 a year. He granted, however, that the repairs of the British Embassy house in Paris came to a very serious sum. Still the property was eligibly situated, and he thought something might be done to reduce the annual expense.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that from what he knew of Paris it would be impossible for us to get a similar building as that which we now had for £6,000 a year. It was no uncommon thing for the owner of a hotel in Paris to realize £8,000 a year by letting it out in flats from the basement to the roof. He presumed it was not intended that our Ambassador should live in a flat!
  MR. BYNGasked, whether any opinion had been given by the architects on the point whether it would not be cheaper to pull down the Embassy house and rebuild it, rather than patch it up as proposed?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied, that the papers on the subject were now in the hands of the printer.
  MR. P. O'BRIENthought that was a reason for postponing the Vote.
  Motion made and Question put,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £19,296, be granted to Her Majesty, for the repairs and restoration of the British Embassy House at Paris, and for additional Fittings and Furniture, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 51: Majority 62.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £13,000, New Consular Office at Constantinople.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to the Vote. There were very few British sailors who went to Constantinople.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDstated that the best proof of the value of the hospital was to be found in the fact that in the year 1856 upwards of 2,000 British seamen were received into it.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that was in consequence of the Russian war, and was no proof of an increasing trade in that part of the world.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £1,092, Sir Henry Havelock's Statue, &c.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONexplained that hitherto, when monuments had been erected at the public expense, it had been usual for the Treasury to make a grant of metal for the purpose from the old stores. As those stores were, however, the property of the country, it had been thought more regular that a Vote should be proposed in Committee of Supply for the purchase of the metal required from the old stores. Since this Vote was inserted in the Estimates a similar application had been made to the Treasury for a certain quantity of old gun metal to be used for a monument in memory of General Neill, and he wished to state that if the application had been received in time the amount required would have been added to this Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £3,000, Major General Chesney.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, the work to which the Vote referred was probably of great value, but he wished to know why the country should be called upon to defray the loss upon its publication.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he thought hon. Members were taxed somewhat beyond the limit of Parliamentary endurance when they were asked for £3,000 to reimburse a gentleman for having written a very dull book. He had the book with him. It purported to be a history of the Euphrates expedition, but it was in fact a work of a most encyclopædic character, and treated upon almost every topic under the sun except the one it pretended to treat of. If the matter relating to the expedition had been put into small compass, the work would have been very valuable, but the consequence of a premium from the national purse was that General Chesney had already inflicted two thick volumes upon the public, and two more were threatened. He would appeal to the Government against the Vote, a Government which had among its members men, at all events, who did not write dull books. He begged to move that the Vote be expunged.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, whatever the merits of the work might be, General Chesney had been instructed by the Government to undertake its publication, and it would be most unjust that any loss sustained upon the sale should be thrown upon him. The work had not been profitable as a commercial speculation, and the loss actually sustained by General Chesney had

  1443
  been £4,300. The late Government had proposed that this loss should be shared between the Treasury and the East India Company, but the Company denied that they had incurred any liability in connection with the publication; and after looking carefully through the papers on the subject he must say there was great ambiguity as to the arrangements between the Company and the Government. The East India Company, however, agreed to contribute £1,000 towards reimbursing General Chesney, on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would contribute £3,000, but even under this arrangement General Chesney would still be a loser.
  SIR HENRY RAWLINSONsaid, that General Chesney's mistake had been, that he had devoted the first two volumes to the most uninteresting portion of the work, reserving that which was really interesting and useful to be published hereafter. If he had published the results of the Euphrates expedition in the first part of the work, placing what he had published in an appendix, there could have been no ground of complaint. They ought to have an assurance that the useful part of the work would be forthcoming before they voted this money.
  MR. WHITEobserved, that the results of the expedition, so far as they were interesting and useful, had been already communicated to Parliament in General Chesney's Official Report.
  MR. WHITESIDEdefended the Vote. The work involved a very large expenditure, which General Chesney had to guarantee. The Vote was a simple act of justice.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that this was the first time the House had ever been called upon to put their hands into the pockets of the country in order to remunerate an unfortunate author.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF TEE EXCHEQUERdenied that it was the case of an unfortunate author. It was the case of an unfortunate publisher, and that publisher was the Government of the country.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £5,000, Newhaven Harbour.
  MR. RIDLEYobjected to the Vote while the general Report on Harbours of Refuge had not yet been received.
  MR. CORRYsaid, this harbour stood on a different footing from all other harbours. It was the only one on the coast, and it would hardly, at present, admit of a gun-boat at low water. This small ex-
  1444
  pense would increase the water by several feet.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, this was the most important harbour on that part of the coast, and he hoped the Committee would not grudge the money.
  Loan HARRY VANEsaid, he thought the explanation of the Secretary to the Admiralty was a satisfactory one, though lat first he was startled at finding such a Vote proposed under the present circumstances of harbours of refuge.
  Vote agreed to, as was also
  (9.) £1,500, British North American Expedition.
  (10.) £6,479, General Board of Health.
  MR. ADDERLEYstated that this was a reduced Estimate, the Estimate in the Votes being for a sum of £7,400. The Estimate for 1857–8 was £11,125, but by the omission of the President's and one Inspector's salaries the Estimate for 1858–9 had been reduced to £7,400. He now proposed still further to reduce the Vote by omitting the salaries of two Inspectors, the Assistant Secretary, and the Surveyor, and the amount, therefore, which he now asked the Committee to vote was £6,479.
  MR. COXsaid, he must object to being called upon to adopt the Vote until the details were printed and in the hands of the Committee.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the details were contained in the Estimate, and he merely proposed to omit the items he had mentioned; but the amended Estimate would be printed and in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow.
  MR. CONINGHAMexpressed his wish that greater vitality could be infused into the Board of Health. He could bear testimony to the merits of Mr. Simon, the medical officer, but the Board had not displayed the energy and activity which might have been expected from them.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray tin charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day a March, 1859."
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, it might be supposed that this was the whole amount which would be at the disposal of the Treasury for civil contingencies during the next year; but that was not the case. The Committee appointed two years ago to inquire into the Estimates found that there was then a cash balance in the hands

  1445
  of the Treasury of about £100,000, besides an amount of about £150,000 on loans. Some of these loans, however, bad been out so long that they were doubtless irrecoverable, and might be regarded rather as grants than as loans. He must protest against this Vote unless the Committee were informed what was the balance in the Treasury, which he imagined must have been considerably reduced during the past year, and what expectation there was that the advances on loan would be repaid. He thought the whole principle was wrong of voting year after year £100,000, when the expenditure did not come up to that sum, while this year it was the same sum, though the expenditure of last year was much more than £100,000.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, this question was one which had received attentive consideration from the Committee on the Estimates, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that it was his intention to introduce a measure on the subject in consequence of their report. There had been last year some extraordinary and unforeseen expenses, and the excess had necessarily been defrayed from the balances of former years, the consequence being that the unexpended balance under the head of "Civil Contingencies" at the expiration of the year did not amount to more than £11,000.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would take this opportunity of denouncing the system which allowed an official to involve us in the enormous difficulty of a war with China. He hoped the present Government would get them out of that difficulty as soon as possible, otherwise he did not know what might be the consequences. He must also complain of the expense incurred in the Commission for settling the boundaries between Turkey and Persia, with which we had nothing whatever to do. Then there were most extravagant outfits for sending officials to various parts of the world. It would be much better to give those persons a sum of money and let them provide for themselves. No less than £5,000 were charged in the Vote for the services of police in order to protect camps—that was to say, police hired to protect soldiers. Was ever such a thing heard of—policemen protecting soldiers! There was only a charge of £1,843 paid to Lord Chelmsford for assuming the office for which he received £10,000 a year, and was very glad to obtain. Both these were charges which he hoped would be discontinued.
  1446
  Yesterday they had voted £1,800 for the Law Commission, and now they were asked for a further sum of £2,337. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the latter sum.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That the item of £2,337 10 s., for services rendered to the Statute Law Commissioners, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"
  put, and negatived.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he must complain of the large amount (£10,109) charged under the head of "expenses incurred on account of the embassy from the King of Siam in this country."
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONacknowledged that the expenditure was a large one, but it was deemed expedient to encourage the relations between this country and Siam, and the effect already produced had been highly satisfactory. The trade with Siam had received an astonishing development since the treaty, and Sir J. Bowring, on the 5th of April, 1857, wrote that, whereas during the fifteen years preceding the treaty the average number of vessels annually engaged in this trade was but twelve, no fewer than 200 vessels had since obtained lucrative employment.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he wished to call attention to the bill of £54 2s. ld. for newspapers, &c., supplied to Lord J. Russell during the period his Lordship retained a seat in the Cabinet without office in 1854 and 1855. Of cource it was very requisite that public men should see the newspapers; but this charge seemed excessive.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he did not think the charge an extravagant one. It was very important that a Cabinet Minister should be well informed of what was going on in the country.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would remind the Committee that the noble Lord had served in the Cabinet at the period alluded to without any salary.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow Committee to sit again To morrow at Twelve o'clock.

SALES OF POISONS BILL.—QUESTION.

  SECOND READING POSTPONED.
  In reply to Mr. FORSTER.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid that this Bill had come down from the House of Lords. He understood it met with much opposition from chemists in different parts of the

  1447
  kingdom. It stood upon the Orders of the day for to-morrow, and he would move that the order for the second reading be now read for the purpose of postponing it until Monday next, and in the meantime he would see several gentlemen connected with the chemists in order to ascertain the objections urged by that body.
  Motion agreed to.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Four o'clock.