Sitting of 10 August 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Metropolitan Police Force (Dockyards); Naval Discipline.
2° Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act (1856) Amendment; Party Emblems (Ireland).

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee, Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £100,440, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c, and other Charges connected therewith, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to give notice that he should early next Session call the attention of the House to the system of taxing the nation at large for Metropolitan improvements, as he thought

1099
it was an unjust one, and one that pressed peculiarly heavy upon Ireland. His observation did not apply so much to improvements in Royal Parks and national institutions—though he thought Ireland paid more than her proportion towards those—as to purely local improvements, in the benefits of which the nation at large did not participate. To record his opinion on the subject, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £18,000, which he calculated was about the portion of it devoted to those purely local works.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he should decline to enter into a discussion on the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, at that late period of the Session, and in so thin a House; but he could not allow the attack made by the right lion. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works on the Metropolitan vestries, in the course of his observations on the subject of the new ride through Kensington Gardens the day before, to pass unnoticed. He (Sir John Shelley) was prevented from performing that duty then in consequence of the impatience of the House to come to a division. It was easy for the right hon. Gentleman to get up a cheer in that House by sneering at the vestries of the Metropolis but he (Sir John Shelley) must protest against the statement made by that right hon. Gentleman, that the Metropolitan vestries were agitating for popularity. The right hon. Gentleman should recollect that so long as the Metropolis was situated as at present, and was without any corporate action, the vestry boards must be looked upon as the local authorities and the exponents of the opinions of the inhabitants of the parishes for which they were elected. What would the right hon. Gentleman think if the Town Council of Hertford, with which he was intimately connected, were to petition against a measure similar to this, and be told that they had no right to interfere? Yet the vestries of the Metropolis quite as fully represented the people of their respective parishes as the Town Council of Hertford did the people of that borough. The right hon. Gentleman talked of agitation on this question, but was the agitation confined to one side? On the contrary, those who were in favour of the scheme had given notice that signatures to a memorial in behalf of the ride would be received up to a certain day, and those who could not personally sign were requested to give authority to a Committee to put their
1100
names to the memorial. He protested against this mode of getting signatures to a memorial. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that if he persisted in this ride, which was now known by the name of "Cowper's folly," he might expect formidable opposition to it in future. If he made it a permanent ride, it would be absolutely necessary to widen it, and he would be under the necessity of coming down to the House for another Vote. He believed that if the Vote of the previous day had been for £1,000 instead of £250 the result might have been different from what it was; and if the right hon. Gentleman at a future time came down for a large Vote to make the ride permanent, he would probably find that the House was wholly indisposed to go along with him. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would abide by what he said in the first instance, that the ride was merely a temporary arrangement, and that he would wait till he ascertained what was the real and deliberate opinions of the public generally on the subject. Leaving that point, however, he wished to know what was to be got for the money now being expended at Kensington for the purpose of obtaining a pure supply of water for the Serpentine. He wished for information on this subject. He also wished to know something about the Vote of £1,800 for draining Richmond Park—what number of acres were to be drained? at what expense? and for whose advantage? He also desired to know whether the works were to be carried out by contract, and it would depend upon the answer he received to those questions whether or not he would move the reduction or omission of some of these items.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he desired to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any objection to open Storey's Gate, leading to St. James's Park, as especially in the case of hon. Members leaving the House, it would prevent a great detour which had now to be made.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHobjected to the mode in which the Estimates were arranged, as well as to the expenditure of £2,300 for supplying Battersea Park with water by means of a steam engine, and also to the item of £300 for "propagating pits" in Kensington Gardens. He expressed a hope that his hon. and gallant Friend would limit his Amendment to the omission of those two items, and he should have his support.
MR. BARROWcomplained of the enormous increase that was taking place year by year in the Miscellaneous Estimates, With regard to the expenditure for the Metropolis, he thought it discreditable in the extreme that the inhabitants should owe the luxuries of their Parks and rides to the general taxation of the country. He had no wish to revive the subject of the ride debated the day before, but he could not help thinking that when the people had enjoyed from time immemorial the privilege of walking in Kensington Gardens to send equestrians among them was an encroachment that could not be defended. He had no doubt that when the attention of the public was fully directed to this subject there would be an expression of public opinion against it very different from that popular outcry of which they had heard so much. He should like to know what was the object of draining Richmond Park, and who were to be benefited by it. He thought those who were to derive the advantage should be at the expense.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not wish to revive the discussion on the ride in Kensington Gardens, but would simply remark that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would find that in the end the question was a costly one for himself. The hon. and gallant Colonel complained of the charge for the Parks of the Metropolis, and raised the question as to the bearing of the expense on the taxation of the country. He (Mr. Ayrton) intended next Session to move for a Committee to consider the question of an extended municipality for the Metropolis, and the proper distribution and adjustment of the sums laid out on the Metropolis. He was in favour of an entirely new arrangement with regard to these questions, and he hoped he should have the support of the hon. and gallant Colonel when ho came to move for a Committee.
MR. HENLEYsaid, ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think of opening Storey's Gate for horsemen, as it would naturally interfere with what was a common playground for women and children. He thought that if the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets succeeded in getting the extended municipality for which he asked that body would become most unpopular the moment they began to tax the citizens.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he thought that equestrians enjoyed great pri-
1102
vileges at present, and he was opposed to any further encroachment on the rights of the million. The throwing open of Storey's Gate would deprive a large number of poor children of their daily play-ground, and under these circumstances he hoped the right hon. First Commissioner would not yield to the requests made to him in favour of the project. As to Richmond Park, he should like to have some information. A few days previous his carriage was stopped after he had entered one of the gates of that park, because he was not going to visit the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
LORD PERMOYsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment, because the Parks were the resort of the labouring classes of the Metropolis, and as such must be maintained; and until some more just or bettor means for doing that was pointed out, the House should be satisfied to take the Vote for that purpose in the Supplies of the year. With regard to Storey's Gate, he joined with the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord opposite in beseeching the First Commissioner of Works not to open Storey's Gate for the use of horsemen. He was one of those who felt that too much consideration had already been shown for those who were fortunate enough to have a horse to ride upon in London. He asked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) not to allow himself to be carried away too much by the Vote passed in Committee the day before on the subject of the ride through Kensington Gardens. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about agitation amongst the Metropolitan vestries on the question; but if there were any agitation on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman himself had originated it, because he was breaking through the old-established custom of people not rich enough to ride being-allowed to recreate themselves on foot in Kensington Gardens. His right hon. Friend was playing a game at which two could play, lie had seen the servants of the Board of Works, better known as the "Green Men," canvassing for names to be appended to a memorial in favour of his scheme, and notices were put on the trees of the gardens that the memorial lay for signature at the lodge. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that if he compelled those who opposed his scheme to have resort to agitation, they might appeal to popular sympathies throughout the Metropolis in such a way as would produce one of those great demonstrations in the Park

1103
which would make him regret that he had moved in this subject. The right hon. Gentleman sneered at the vestries; but he forgot that those vestries were the emanations of popular suffrage, and were, therefore, entitled to respect. When a general election occurred, there were none so ready as the leaders of the great Whig party to take off their hats and humbly acknowledge the value and importance of these parochial bodies. The vestries had a strong feeling that the health and comfort of the people belonging to their respective parishes were involved in this question, and they therefore protested against the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said the riders were a portion of the public, and had a right to the indulgence he provided for them; but he (Lord Fermoy) denied that they had a right to break in upon the privileges enjoyed from time immemorial by the people on foot. If these riders wanted to see the beauties of Kensington Gardens, let them get off their horses and walk. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his original statement, and regard this as merely a temporary ride. Let him consider the matter seriously during the recess. He presumed the ride would be shut up during the winter, for then it would be little better than a bog, and he hoped that by next Session the right hon. Gentleman would have come to the conclusion altogether to abandon the scheme.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid, he must join with hon. Members who had preceded him in asking for further information on the subject of the expenditure on Richmond Park. He objected to the item of £150 for improving the breed of the deer in the park. Surely with so many herds of deer in other Royal parks and forests, an outlay for improving the breed of those in Richmond Park could not be necessary.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he believed one of the items proposed in the reduction was for Battersea Park. The expenditure on that park arose from its not being yet finished. He had been frequently taunted with regard to Battersea Park, and it had been hinted that it belonged to his borough. Now Battersea Park had nothing whatever to do with the borough he represented. Again, the alterations made in the Regent's Park had placed it in an admirable condition in respect of drainage, seats, and every other desirable matter, and he could not understand now how £7,600 would be required for the further improvement of that park.
He hoped some explanation of that item would be given.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, there was much want of a building in Regent's Park in which on Sundays, and at other times, the public might be able to take innocent refreshments. He was not surprised that the subject of the new ride had again been brought up that clay; but he did not mean to continue the discussion. There was only one statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner to which he would call the attention of the House. He argued that Kensington Gardens were opened to equestrians as a part of the public; but if every part of the public were to be admitted, then it followed that people with carriages and cabs should be admitted among others. Reference had been made to the works for purifying the Serpentine. A sum of £1,700 had been voted for that purpose last year; but a Committee of the House had decided against the system of filtration for which that sum was last year voted. Then what was the use of the works now going on at such a great expense? He had to complain of the changes that had taken place in the appearance of the Serpentine in consequence of the works that had been carried out, and hoped that it would be found possible to restore things to their old condition, and yet have the Serpentine supplied with pure water.
MR. COWPERsaid he regretted that it should have been supposed that he had said anything of disrespectful intention towards the vestries. He was speaking at the time with his eyes fixed on the minute hand of the clock, and therefore hurriedly. What he intended to say yesterday was, that though the vestries of St. George and St. Marylebone were entitled to respect when they were deciding about rates and the management of their streets, but they might be disregarded when they assumed jurisdiction over the Royal Parks. Local representation was an excellent thing, and much to be admired when it kept within its proper sphere; but it was likely to fall in public estimation when local representative bodies assumed an authority that did not belong to them. He admitted that the subject of the ride was one on which there might very reasonably be a difference of opinion; but he complained that it had been represented as a question of antagonism between classes. It was not a question between the rider and the walker, for many who walked

1105
often rode, while those who rode often walked in the Gardens. When he spoke of admitting all the public to the Gardens, of course he meant riders in addition to pedestrians, and could not have contemplated carriages. Then, when he spoke of securing publicity as distinguished from privacy, he did not mean the riders only, but the walkers also, who obtained amusement from looking at the riders. The objections to the scheme seemed all to come to this:—that, whereas formerly this avenue was very quiet and unfrequented, it was now crowded with horses and pedestrians, and that which used to be a scene of quiet and seclusion was now one of noise and bustle and animation. Now, he contended that it was most unfair that any portion of the public should be shut out from this place of recreation, because there were a few people who wished to go and muse there in solitude. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone complained that this was an innovation, but it was not a rare innovation. Most of his predecessors had made important innovations for the purpose of improving the means of recreation enjoyed by the people, and some of those had been opposed with as much pertinacity as the present measure; such, for example, as the opening of Regent's Park to the public in 1841 and of its lake during the present year.
With regard to the Serpentine, he had to state that, a Committee of that House having reported against the scheme of filtration, he had in the contract superseded the filtering scheme, and substituted for it a well, for which, by means of an engine, would be pumped up a sufficiency of water daily to supply the Serpentine with pure water, and cure it of the evils so long complained of. By this process 2,000,000 of gallons would be circulated daily from one end of the Serpentine to the other. The drainage of Richmond Park, for which a Vote of £1,800 was asked, was resolved on under the advice of Mr. J. Parkes, who in 1857 examined the herbage, and reported that it was very much impoverished, and required to be improved by drainage. The expense would be at an average rate of £6 10 s. an acre, and Mr. Parkes calculated that two-thirds of the park would require draining. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne), he might state that the Parks had been under special arrangement ever since the agreement made with the Crown, and that this could not now be departed from. Votes were
1106
also given for the Phoenix Park and for parks in Scotland. The expense incurred at Battersea was for a supply of water from a well, and lie thought it was an expense which the House would not object to, as it would ultimately produce economy. He could not consent to the proposal for opening up the parade at St. James's Park to equestrians, as he thought that was the last place through which horses should be allowed to pass.
MR. SPOONERsaid he should support his hon. and gallant Friend in his Motion, because he believed the money of the public should not be voted for the improvement or decoration of any locality whatever. Let the inhabitants of each locality tax themselves for such a purpose.
MR. LONGFIELDsaid he should support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend. He could not but think it most unfair that £95,000 should be proposed to be voted for improvement of Parks in the Metropolis, while only £4,500 was to be voted for Ireland. That was like the proposal for devoting £11,000,000 to the defences of the country, of which about £100,000 was to be expended in Ireland, while Ireland would have to contribute about £2,000,000 of the sum that was to be raised.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, he could not see the necessity for having a well at Battersea Park, and an engine to pump up the water, when water could be so easily obtained from the Thames.
MR. COWPERexplained, that by sinking a well at Battersea Park an annual expense of £300 would be saved for watering the gardens, for water for the lodges,&c As to the deer in Richmond Park, he had acted under the advice of the keeper, and he believed the measures taken would be found extremely useful. With respect to the Regent's Park, £1,000—part of the estimate—was for re-instating the fence on the north of the Park, which was getting out of repair.
LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that when the Parks were established, the Metropolis had no special voice in the matter. The Legislature made them, and consequently the public had to pay for them. Now, however, the improvement of the Metropolis had been taken out of the hands of Government and that House, and been confided to the Metropolitan Board of Works. That he considered a wholesome system, seeing that the Board of Works was a popularly elected body.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he did not agree with the noble Lord in his estimate of the benefit to be derived from the Metropolitan Board of Works. That Board had lately pulled down several houses in High Street, Southwark, in order to make a new street, but he was quite sure that the new line of railway from London Bridge to Hungerford, and the railway bridge across the Thames, would be completed before the Board of Works would turn round to determine how the new street was to be made. He wished to take that opportunity of calling attention to the great inconvenience of maintaining the toll over Chelsea Bridge, or, indeed, of any bridge whatever. The state of the approaches of Vauxhall Bridge, for which a toll was also charged, was an example of the injury caused by such a toll. The railway bridge near Chelsea Bridge would soon be completed, and that would make it less necessary than ever for persons to cross Chelsea Bridge. The consequence of the toll was, that building land, which otherwise would be occupied, was left totally bare of houses, and would continues so as long as the toll was maintained. He thought, then, that was a good opportunity for the removal of the toll.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he certainly would support the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, if he were to bring forward next Session the Motion he proposed for a Committee.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £82,440, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c, and other Charges connected therewith, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 66: Majority 51.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHobjected to the expenditure of £2,300 for lakes and a steam-engine in Battersea Park, and also to that of £300 for a propagating house in the same park. It was a mistake to have anything beyond shrubberies in the public Parks. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote of £9,629 for Battersea Park by the sum of £2,600, the total of the two items to which he objected.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the item of £9,629 0s. 7d. for Batter-sea Park, be reduced by the amount of £2,600."
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, it might
1108
enliven the conversation if his right hon. Friend would explain what was meant by a "propagating apparatus."
MR. COWPERsaid, that a propagating apparatus was intended for the raising of plants and flowers, and he thought if there were no flowers in the garden next year great complaint would be made.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEfelt it his duty to endeavour to arrest the proposed expenditure on Battersea Park. He was not disposed to go into the flower question; but he objected to the expenditure for the well and the steam-engine. Again, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state what the expense of the well would be.
MR. BAZLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would reject that Vote for the steam-engine. It would he a great nuisance. Here, in fact, was both the bane, in the shape of the steam-engine, and the antidote, in the form of flowers.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsupported the same view. It seemed as though enormous expense was being incurred to bring to the garden what was to be had close by—namely, water in the river Thames.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHamended his Amendment by moving for the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £2,300 instead of £2,600.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he should vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) for reduction of the Vote by this trifling sum. He thought the experiment should be tried.
MR. COWPERsaid, that it would cost just as much money to got water from the river as from a well; and he thought that if Thames water were used in the gardens, Battersea Park was likely to be a very disagreeable place.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the said item of £9,629 0s. 7d. be reduced by the amount of £2,300.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 55: Majority 34.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, with reference to the drainage of Richmond Park, that a far greater expense was being incurred than was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the drainage was to be at the rate of £6 10 s. an acre, and that it was to be under the management of Mr. Josiah Parkes. He did not wish to put the screw on with too much

1109
severity; but this rate of drainage was manifestly too high, and he should, therefore, move that the sum of £1,800 should be reduced by £400.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it might not he absolutely necessary to expend the whole amount voted, and if they would allow the item to pass, his right hon. Friend would inquire into the matter, and see that such sum only as was necessary should be expended.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the item of £1,800, for Draining Land in Richmond Park, be reduced by the amount of £400,"
Put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2) £5,000. Probate Court and Registries.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYcalled attention to the necessity that existed for providing better accommodation for the persons connected with the Probate Court. If ever there was a case of cruelty to animals, it was exhibited in the treatment of those gentlemen who were cooped up in most uncomfortable and crowded rooms to transact the business of the court.
MR. COWPERsaid, additional room would soon be provided for the persons connected with the Probate Court, till accommodation could be found for them under the great plan which was one day to embrace all the law courts. But with that question the present vote had nothing to do. It was merely to defray the expenses of local Courts of Probate and registries in the country.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,635, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses, &c, Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
MR. CHILDERSasked whether the sum voted in 1858 for this purpose was yet wholly expended?
MR. AYRTONasked why two embassy houses at Constantinople were still kept up?
MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved to reduce the Vote by £650, the amount asked for the repairs of the Ambassador's house at Therapia. The house was originally taken on account of a fire which took place some I time ago, and burnt down the Ambassador's former residence. But that residence had been rebuilt, and there could be no occasion for keeping on the residence at Therapia.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the item of £650, for Casual and Ordinary Repairs and Painting, Repairs of Furniture, Fittings, and Contingencies of the British Embassy House at Therapia, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to refer to a subject of great importance that called for explanation— he meant the subject of unexpended balances. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had told them on a former occasion that the matter was so complicated that with all his experience he could not fully understand it. It was not wonderful, therefore, that he (Sir James Graham) was at a loss to know how the practice stood with regard to these unexpended balances. He found that with regard to harbours of refuge, parks, Ambassadors' palaces, and other Votes there were large unexpended balances that might be applied without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. The Government had promised to endeavour, during the recess, to apply a remedy to this evil, in conformity with the advice of a most competent Committee; but, pending that decision of the Government, he wished to know with reference to the current year what was the opinion of the Treasury with regard to the appropriation of these unexpended balances.
MR. LAINGsaid the system with regard to these balances was this:—A certain sum was estimated as required for a certain service; supposing the whole sum was not expended within the year, a balance of course, remained on hand. An account was established at the bankers, and the subsequent Vote taken was used to feed, as it were, the balance, and keep it up for purposes of expenditure. It would be seen, however, that no expenditure could take place without being sanctioned by Parliament. The balance that stood over could only be expended as a Vote sanctioned by the House. If the balances were found to accumulate to an excessive amount at the end of three years they were then paid into the Exchequer.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid that in the great departments of the army and navy the balances at the end of the year must be paid over into the Exchequer, but the Committee would see how different the practice was with regard to the civil service, for three years' balances might accumulate; and even at the expiration of three years it was at the option of the Treasury whether payment over to the Exchequer

1111
should take place. On the Vote now before them the Committee might suppose that they were only voting £650 for repairs and works at the Ambassador's palace at Therapia; but if there were—as he had no doubt there was—a balance on the Vote generally, and it turned out that the expense of the palace of Therapia should be a great deal more than £650—say £2,000, instead of £650—then £1,400 of additional expenditure might take place, and the House have no knowledge of it until the annual accounts were in the hands of hon. Members, which would not be till the year 1861. He could not exaggerate the importance which he attached to the subject of balances.
And it being ten minutes before Four of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress."
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this day, at Six of the clock, after the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland) Bill.

LOSS OF PROPERTY AT GREYTOWN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps had been taken, or were intended to be taken, by Government to induce the Government of the United States to compensate Mr. Geddes, Her Majesty's Consul, for the loss of property at Greytown?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLstated in reply, that it was the opinion of the Government, formed on legal advice, that in the case of regular hostilities by a Foreign Power, no compensation could be demanded for any loss of property which might be occasioned thereby. It was impossible, therefore, to make any official application to the Government of the United States in favour of Mr. Geddes.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.—QUESTION.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would beg-to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Sir Charles Eastlake, the President of the Royal Academy, has been this year re-appointed to the Directorship of the National Gallery?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the appointment in question expired on the 5th of the present month. Some weeks
1112
ago the trustees of the National Gallery informed him that the office would soon be vacant and recommended the re-appointment of Sir Charles Eastlake. It seemed to him, from his knowledge of Sir Charles Eastlake, that there could not be a fitter man for the post, and, as he did not think it expedient that the office should be vacant, he took the Queen's pleasure that Sir Charles should be re-appointed for the same period as before. The re-appointment of Sir Charles Eastlake, however, would not preclude the action of Parliament upon any portion of the National Gallery.
Afterwards,
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, considering the lateness of the Session and the length of time which must elapse before the Vote for the proposed alterations in the National Gallery will come before the House, he will agree to take no further steps on the question during the recess of Parliament? The Vote in question was in No. 7 of the Civil Service Estimates. The House had not yet got further than No. 1, and, judging from the present rate of progress, when the House got to No. 7 there would be no one left in it but those on the Treasury Bench. He trusted that good faith would be kept with the public, and that the Report of the Select Committee would be carried out.
MR. COWPERsaid, he was sorry the noble Lord had been put to the inconvenience of waiting in the House until the Estimates came on; but it was an inconvenience which every hon. Member was subject to. He did not think he would be justified in putting off a matter of urgency, because parties who wished to take part in it could not conveniently attend. There was not sufficient accommodation in the National Gallery at present, and if fresh pictures came in there would be no place for them. He was sorry he could not accede to the proposition that had been made.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, it might be urgent to obtain more space for the National Gallery, but it did not follow that the Royal Academy should he also retained in that building, since additional space would be obtained by their removal.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that after the assurance given last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the tenure of office of the Director of the National Gallery would not be renewed until the House had had an

1113
opportunity of reconsidering the question, he was greatly surprised to hear that the President of the Royal Academy had been reappointed to that office. Circumstances had occurred since last year which strengthened the objections then urged against that appointment. A collection of paintings which a gentleman in Paris had purchased at various auction rooms for about £5,000 had recently been sold to the National Gallery for between £9,000 and £10,000. The officials of the Gallery had a most objectionable practice of purchasing a mass of worthless pictures for the sake of two or three good ones, and then of selling off the rubbish at Christie's. It was obvious that such a system afforded wide scope for jobbery of the worst description. One of the gems of the recently acquired collection, which was entitled the "Portrait of Ariosto," painted by Titian, had formerly been known as a portrait of Torquato Tasso, by Giorgione, and was altogether worthless. Certain pictures attributed to Giulio Romano in the same collection were, he asserted, not by that master, and did not even belong to his school. In the face of such proceedings he thought he had good ground for complaining of the renewal of the Director's tenure of office before the House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. He regretted, also, the statement which had been made that evening as to the removal of the National Gallery. He need hardly remind the House that the Committee had reported in favour of Trafalgar Square as the site of the National Gallery; and that without a shilling of expense the simple removal of the Royal Academy would afford ample room for all the pictures in the collection which were worthy of exhibition. He had no hesitation in saying that one-half of those pictures ought to be expelled from the Gallery, as calculated to do injury rather than good to the public taste. He believed there was a deliberate intention of forming, under the Privy Council, a vast department which should exercise a despotic influence in all questions of science and art. An attempt had already been made to tamper with the scientific and art collections of the Metropolis. Under the pretence of economy there had been an endeavour to break up the magnificent collections in the British Museum, and Cabinet Ministers, Gentlemen who were not in the habit of attending the meetings of the trustees, had been induced to vote for the removal of a considerable portion
1114
of those collections to Kensington, an operation which would entail an expenditure of something like half a million of money. He trusted that the House would take this matter seriously in hand, and insist upon the postponement of the question relative to the National Gallery until next Session. The intrigues of the superintendents of the galleries at Kensington, who were at the bottom of all these extraordinary movements in our scientific and artistic collections, would be paralyzed if the House did its duty on the present occasion.
On Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday,

MR. BRIGHT AND THE PAPER DUTIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I gave notice last night that I should take an opportunity, before the House separated, and on this evening, to call the attention of the House to the position in which we stand with regard to a matter which has excited great interest during the Session—to the question of the Excise duties on paper, and the effect which the course taken upon that measure has had upon the position and privileges of the House. I cannot say that I have any very definite question to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I want rather is to make two or three suggestions to the Government and to the House. I have abstained, since the discussion on the Resolutions proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, from taking any part in this matter, because I did not think it wise for an independent Member to submit to the House a Resolution, or to ask the House to come to any decision or division upon a Resolution, as I was sensible that unless the Government took part in such a division, and in favour of such Resolution, in all probability the division—if the House were to divide—might place the House in a worse position, with regard to this question, than it occupied after having accepted unanimously the three Resolutions which were proposed by the noble Lord. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) is in the House, but if he had been here I should have suggested to him that he should not persevere in the proposition he has given notice of, or ask the House to divide upon it, unless, at any rate, he had

  1115
  the consent and support of the Government, which would enable that Resolution to be carried. I am myself so conscious of the delicacy of the position in which we are placed that I would much rather stay where we are, awkward as is the position, than do anything to make it worse, and therefore I have come forward with a view of making two or three suggestions, which, I think, if the Government and the House were willing, might still lie adopted with a view to save us from the painful and perilous predicament in which we have been placed during the Session.
  Now, I think it is worth while for a moment to advert to the two parties who may be said to be damaged by the present state of things. Those persons throughout the country who are engaged in a most important trade—the manufacture of paper—have themselves suffered grievously from the transactions of this Session, and I think the House of Commons itself has suffered not less. When the Session commenced—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget—his proposition was this, that the Excise duties upon paper should be entirely abolished, and the import duties on paper also abolished. Papermakers, therefore, would by that proposition have got rid of the grievance of the excise, and would have been of course deprived, for the future, of whatever advantage they had in the protection they enjoyed in an import duty over and above the amount of Excise duty. Well, what have we done? The conjoint action—it was not exactly a conjoint action of Parliament—is this, that the papermakers are left with the grievance of the excise; but they have been deprived of whatever advantage they enjoyed from what they considered to be a compensating protection. Now, I am of opinion that an excise—that the grievance of an excise—cannot well be measured in so many farthings per lb. in respect to paper, or anything else. I think it one of those tyrannies which never ought to have been established, and never should be tolerated in a free country. Men in the pursuit of their daily and honest industry should not be tracked about, interfered with, overlooked—and, I will say, damaged in a very large degree—by officers of Government, who have no natural right whatever to he upon their premises or take any part whatever in their transactions. But these paper manufacturers are in this unfortunate position at this moment. I have heard
  1116
  some people say, "Serve them right, for they have not shown themselves very wise during this Session." I admit they have not been very wise, but I am afraid men are very seldom wise in their own affairs, and also not willing generally to take good advice. The papermakers committed this unfortunate mistake. To maintain their protection they went into partnership with The Times newspaper. The Times was afraid of the cheap papers, and the papermakers were afraid of free trade in paper, so they clubbed their interests together. There has been nothing for many years which has been so obnoxious and so worrying—I will undertake to say—for Members of Parliament as this partnership action of The Times newspaper and the paper manufacturers. No Member could get into the House or out of the House without having them upon him, and I am told that hon. Members on this side of the House—there may have been some on the other side—have been canvassed by persons connected with the staff of The Times newspaper, even from the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) down through all the ranks of its editors, and I do not know-that there is anybody connected with the paper that has not been canvassing with regard to this matter. We have had, at the same time, as the House knows, in the columns of that journal, the most violent and malignant attacks on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as if the right hon. Gentleman were about to do something contrary to the public interest in abolishing the paper excise, and in allowing foreign paper to be introduced. That, I have no doubt, is the secret of the abundant malice with which the right hon. Gentleman has been attacked during the whole of this Session by the writers in the columns of The Times. But passing all this by—and I am willing to forgive and forget it all—there remains this fact; that this large industry—these 300 or 400 firms in the United Kingdom—are at this moment suffering, or will be after the 15th of this month, from an excise which is kept on solely by the authority of the House of Lords, under circumstances most grievous, because it is admitted on all hands that the excise cannot, and will not, be fairly levied. There are exemptions which act with great injustice to persons who are not exempt, and there are certain articles which the courts in one case have decided to be paper, and in another case have de-

  1117
  cided not to be paper; and it is extremely difficult for the Inland Revenue officers to know whether certain articles ought to be charged with excise or not. Well, that being so, I say that these paper manufacturers have a real and solid complaint to make to Parliament on account of the position in which they are placed. The Inland Revenue Department has condemned this tax; the House of Commons has passed a Resolution—and I call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government especially to this—the House of Commons passed a Resolution two years ago that this Excise duty on paper was not a fit matter from which to raise a permanent revenue. Therefore, it has been condemned in a most emphatic manner, even before this Session commenced. This Session has seen it not only condemned by the House of Commons, but a Bill has passed through all its stages in this House abolishing the excise, and on the 15th of August—some day next week—that excise was to have terminated, 'and so it would have terminated but for that which has not happened before in this country for 500 years past. But for the interference of a branch of the Legislature which has never heretofore, within historic period, done such an act as this—but for that interference, unexpected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hardly to be credited throughout the country, this excise would have been abolished. Now, however, instead of that, from those papermakers, after next week, will be collected about £30,000 per week, or £1,500,000 per annum in the shape of a tax for the public Exchequer—a tax which this House has not only not sanctioned, but which it has condemned emphatically, and has passed a Bill to repeal, and they will be paying it solely by the authority of a vote of the other House of Parliament. I say, then, that we ought, as the House of Commons, to take into consideration the grievous nature of the injustice which is inflicted upon this important industry, and it is partly on this account that I have risen for the purpose of asking the House if it is not worth while to consider whether a course might not he taken even now, before the Session of Parliament ends, to put an end to what I think is a monstrous injury to a most important class of manufacturers in this country.
  But then conies the other and I admit a much greater evil—one in which we ought to take more interest—and that is the
  1118
  damage which this House has suffered by the course which this affair has taken. Now, let me appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because they, from their silence, are supposed to have approved what has been done—I appeal to them as Members of this House, and as representatives, at least, of some portions of the English people—do they not feel that the House of Commons, now, within a fortnight, it may be, of the end of the Session, is in a very different position with regard to its rights and its power over the taxation of the country, from that which it occupied when the Session opened? I think it is impossible, whatever any man may say, as to the paper excise, as to the Government, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the House of Lords—I think it impossible for any man to conceal from himself the fact that the House of Commons at this moment is shorn of a portion of its power, and that it has permitted itself to be hustled out of—if I may use the expression—and deprived of an authority which for 500 years past our predecessors in this House have exercised without contradiction and without control. Now, your Chancellor of the Exchequer—and hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown sometimes not a very favourable feeling towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer this Session—but your Chancellor of the Exchequer, be he the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else, is an officer now, at this moment, in a position inferior to that which he occupied at the commencement of the Session. Both the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been subjected to a new authority, and an authority, I will undertake to say, which, if it be permitted to work, and be not manfully resisted, is one which will bring not only this House, but itself—before any very long period—into great difficulty, and it may be, into serious disasters. I will ask hon. Gentlemen, whether they believe that a majority of the House of Lords is likely to work well in financial questions with the majority of the House of Commons? There has been no Liberal majority in the House of Lords since the Reform Bill, or long before. There is no probability of there being such a Liberal majority. There is every probability that the majority of this House, whatever it call itself, will not be of the same political complexion as the majority of the other House of Parliament. Therefore you are establishing, in this respect, a permanent, a chronic dissension between

  1119
  the two Houses, which may lead to difficulties that every man in the House, I think, would wish to be avoided.
  If any hon. Gentleman here thinks I am at this period calling the attention of the House to a subject which is not worthy of attention, or which is absolutely settled, I would refer them to the language of Ministers of the Crown in the last discussion, if I am not out of order in so doing. I am, indeed, afraid it is not sufficiently in order, and, therefore, I will not refer to the discussion, but will simply refer to expressions which Ministers of the Crown have used on this subject. The noble Lord at the head of the Government told us that if he thought that course, that is, the course pursued by the House of Lords, was the beginning of a new practice on these questions, he would advise the House to resist it by every constitutional and legal means in its power. But if the noble Lord were to turn back to a man to whose authority he will probably pay some respect—I mean Lord Chatham—he would see that Lord Chatham declared if you admit a principle like this, you may rely upon it that that principle will be constantly put in practice so soon as it can be supported by power. That is precisely the dread which now I have before me, that if this be permitted, so hungry is the appetite for power in all bodies of men, we shall before long have this pleaded as a precedent, and that we shall have the principle supported by power, and that unfortunate state of things which Lord Chatham hoped might never arise will arise under the Government of the noble Lord and by the permission of the Parliament in which we are now sitting. Well, the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, who is a great authority on questions of this nature, told us that he believed no question so grave had happened in his life time; and he said on one occasion, he considered it equal to a total change in our system of government. It must be a matter of some importance that would draw from the noble Lord—from one so cautious and so experienced—words so grave as those. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently held the same opinion, for he said this was a gigantic and dangerous innovation.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is out of order to quote words used in a previous debate during the present Session.
  MR. BRIGHT: I thank you, Sir, for the intimation; I have no other reference
  1120
  to make to those speeches; and I thought I was not trespassing upon the rules of the House in bringing the evidence of Her Majesty's Ministers to bear in favour of a conclusion at which I wish the Ministers and the House to arrive. The question is what, under the circumstances, have we done? We have passed three Resolutions, very harmless, it may be; but they were introduced in a speech which was far from harmless. If in the search which we made in that Precedents Committee, we had found, within the last fifty years, three cases like this, I will undertake to say that the Committee would have been forced to admit that there were precedents of a very overwhelming description regarding the power of the Lords to deal with questions of this nature. Well, fifty or twenty years hence, if this matter remain as it now stands, there may be another Committee, there may be partisans of the policy of the Lords upon that Committee; they will light upon the Resolutions which the noble Lord has proposed and the House agreed to; but they will say, what matter these Resolutions? The Resolutions of this House or the other do not make a precedent—but the thing done, the final conclusion—where the matter rests—that is the precedent as to the action of the two Houses; and, therefore, they will look upon this as a precedent a hundred times more fatal to the powers of the House of Commons than any of those that were produced by the diligent researches of the officers of this House, and which have been laid upon the table. Now, I may be asked what would I have done in this matter. There are several things which might have been done. If the noble Lord had been a man of the spirit of Chatham, or of the spirit of Canning, in a matter of this nature, he would have come down the day after the rejection of the Paper Duty Abolition Bill, and he would have asked the House—not because the Excise duty on paper was a great question, hut because the rights of the House were something of still greater value—immediately to have suspended its Standing Orders, in order to permit him to pass a new Bill, re-affirming that which had been declared in the Bill just rejected. But the noble Lord was afraid to do this. I am told that there were great doubts whether it could be done. It was said that more money was wanted for the China war, and that you could not ask the House to do this. But after all the money was a mere bagatelle in the

  1121
  £70,000,000 you are voting and spending. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, says it is only £700,000 up to the commencement of the next financial year, and, therefore, it is perfectly idle to say that it was worth while for the sake of that sum to put in jeopardy the rights of the House of Commons, and to resign that authority over the taxation of the country into the hands of the other House, which this House has exercised, without question, for a period of not less than five hundred years.
  But there was another course, and it is still open, which the noble Lord might take, and for which he could find a most conclusive precedent if he were anxious for it. In the year 1734 there was a case in which the Government of the time wished to save the country gentlemen from the pressure of a heavier land tax, and they agreed to take not less than £1,200,000 for the service of the year out of the Sinking Fund, and apply it to purposes for which, of course, it was not originally intended. When they brought that Bill into the House it consisted only of two clauses. They moved, on going into Committee, that the Committee should be instructed to receive clauses of appropriation; and they hound up the appropriation clause of the year with those two clauses. They took £1,200,000 from the Sinking Fund and appropriated it to the service of the year, and the two matters together in one Bill went up to the House of Lords, and were passed by that House. Well, there is an appropriation Bill to be yet passed by the House of Commons this Session; and I say the House of Commons itself, if it possesses, as Mr. Canning said in 1827, a spark of spirit left in it to maintain its own privileges and rights, will avail itself of that, or of some other equally proper mode, for the purpose of restoring itself, at the end of the Session, to the independent position which it occupied when we met. But there is another mode which I would recommend to the noble Lord. He will see that I am merely offering suggestions for his consideration and for that of his Colleagues in the Cabinet. There is a mode, nearly resembling that which Mr. Canning adopted in 1827. On that occasion the House of Lords rejected, by a substantial alteration, a Bill which modified the duties leviable upon foreign corn. Immediately afterwards—I think the very next day—Mr. Canning came down to this House, and in language of a severity ex-
  1122
  cecding anything that has been used with regard to the Peers during the discussion of this question, asked the House of Commons to take a course to maintain their rights. But he said, as Minister, he felt that it was his duty, if possible, to prevent any collision between the two Houses; and, therefore, he asked the House not to pass exactly the measure which had just been rejected, but to pass another Bill, including its provisions, but limited to a duration of nine months. And I think he expressed a hope that Heaven in the meantime might' grant intelligence and good sense to the legislators in "another place"—so that at the end of nine months they might agree without discussion to that which the Commons had determined on. Now that was in point of fact very much like a Bill of suspension. I would suggest to the noble Lord and his Colleagues, that they might, if they thought proper, introduce into this House a Bill—and I am sure the House would sanction it—for the suspension of the collection of the Excise duties on paper until the month of March or April next, which would allow time when Parliament met again for the reintroduction and passing of a Bill abolishing the Excise duty upon paper for ever; and I think such a course as that would be judicious in every way. There is one other course which might be pursued, and that is the one which was recommended by the hon. Member for Finsbury, at the beginning of these transactions. My hon. Friend proposed a Resolution, and though it was not in a form whip' could be accepted, its intention, the House will remember, was, that steps should be taken—I presume by an address to the Crown—that Parliament should not be prorogued as usual, but adjourned till November, to allow the postponed Bill to be reconsidered by the House of Lords, and by taking up this Bill and passing it, as I believe they would do, to restore harmony between the two Houses. Now both of these two courses—that of suspension, and especially that of adjournment—would be propositions of conciliation as between the two Houses, and not propositions which might be said to bear this character that the House of Commons was endeavouring to override the House of Lords. One of these courses, I think, the Government ought to take, and I believe the House would support them. The Government had just the same fears the other night about that question of seven-eighths of a penny in the pound of Customs' duty

  1123
  on paper. How many weeks did they hesitate in their course respecting his questtion? Nobody knew why they hesitated, unless it was because they doubted whether they could carry their proposals, and did not like to run the risk of defeat. Why, in one night's debate, the argument being triumphantly in their favour, the good sense of the House of Commons gave them a majority which is three times the majority that the noble Lord believed he possessed when first he met Parliament. Sir, I think that if an equally direct course had been pursued with regard to the paper duty abolition, the House of Commons, disregarding the question of £600,000 or £700,000 of revenue, would have risen to the height of the occasion, and would have supported him in maintaining their privileges as representatives of the people. Now, I want to put this question to the House—Are they willing to sustain their rights, or are they willing that the year should be marked by a concession of this dangerous, and even of this ignominious character? The Government is the depositary of the rights of the House; and whatever the Government determines upon a question of this nature the House is generally disposed to follow. If hon. Members have read any foreign newspapers, whether American, French, or Belgian—the newspapers of any country where there is freedom of discussion on subjects of any kind—they will find but one opinion expressed with regard to this question—an opinion that the House of Commons have made a great mistake during this Session; that we have had a fall; that we have not risen from it; and that rights which belong to the representative assembly of a free nation have been needlessly surrendered to a power against which the House of Commons, whenever they choose to meet it, can always fairly assert their rights. As the matter stands, we have not been faithful to those who have sent us here. I believe—I never believed anything with a firmer conviction—that if the noble Lord had dissolved Parliament upon the question of privilege as connected with the Excise duty question, he would have met with a response from all the constituencies of the country, and would have gained a majority such as there has not been in Parliament for many years, to carry out his policy, and to sustain the rights and interests of the House of Commons.
  I have said I should recommend, as I have recommended my noble Friend (Lord
  1124
  Fermoy), not to ask the House to come to a decision upon any question of this nature. I prefer to remain where we are unless we can take steps in advance, and I am so tender of the rights of the House of Commons that I know of no greater calamity that can happen to the country than that we should impair the confidence which the people should have in us, and that we should lessen our power over the great and constantly increasingly great questions which affect the finances and the taxation of the country. Now, there is such a thing as treason. It is a crime which is probably known to the law of every country. We have it in our law. It is committed generally against a Monarchy or against a State. It may have in it much that is evil, and it may have in it much that is good. Treason of that kind is a crime that may load a man with shame for ever, or it may cover him with lasting renown. But there is another kind of treason, which is treason against a people, which may be committed by a Minister of the Crown, by a consenting Cabinet, and by a compliant Legislative body; but that is a treason which is all evil, which has no good whatever in it; it covers no man or body of men with renown; but it covers them with contempt and infamy, decreed, I believe, by the just judgment of posterity. I hope and pray that when, the impartial pen of history in after times shall tell the story of our doings in this Session of the British Parliament, it may not have to say that the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and the House of Commons supporting them, let down the power of the House of Commons, and sacrificed and betrayed—as I fear we are in danger of sacrificing and betraying—those most solemn and important rights which we are bound to maintain, I undertake to say, by sanctions and engagements stronger than any which oaths can give. We are bound to maintain them by all that our forefathers have done upon this question, and by that which all those who may come after us will have a right to expect at our hands. I ask the noble Lord and the Government a question. I do not say he should answer me now—that he should rise in his place and say, "It is impossible that anything can be done, and that we have given a final opinion upon this matter." The noble Lord is not infallible, any more than any of us, but he might do much to band together those who, for the most part, have cordially supported the Government during this Session; he could

  1125
  do that which would be approved by the great party in the country which has sent us to this House; and I say, moreover, I believe, to the credit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if he would do this he would have the support of many on that side, and Parliament would unitedly rejoice that we could separate having left the same powers in the hands of the House of Commons undisputed, uncontrolled, unimpaired as it had when we began the Session.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I had hoped that the House had sufficiently discussed, and, at all events, disposed of for the present Session, a question which threatened to bring about a serious collision between the two Houses of Parliament. It is allowable, no doubt, for those who, like the hon. Gentleman, entertain very strong and extreme opinions upon this matter, to take advantage of any fair and proper opportunity for impressing those opinions upon the House, and urging that they should be carried into practical execution. But, I must say, if the hon. Gentleman entertains those strong opinions, which he has expressed to-night as to the consequences upon the character of this House, and upon the constitution of the country, which would follow from nothing more being done than that which the House, by a majority of, I believe, 400, agreed to do—it would have better become the hon. Gentleman if he had produced his opinions, and proposed his course of conduct at the time when the matter was under the consideration of the House, when the House was full, when the events were recent in the minds of hon. Members, and when, therefore, this, House was more in a condition to determine, and the country more in a condition to accept a Resolution than they can be at this moment. I think that I performed my duty to this House and the country by the course I conceived it right to recommend the House to pursue; and that opinion has, I think, been confirmed by the immense majority by which those Resolutions were sanctioned. If I had thought that measures such as those to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted as having been adopted by Ministers in former days, would have been proper for this occasion; and that it was necessary to propose them to the House, I trust I should not have required the stimulus of the hon. Gentleman's advice to point out the measures and the course which, as the responsible Minister of the Crown, I should
  1126
  have deemed it my duty to recommend to the House. I did not think the occasion required more than that which I proposed, and which the House adopted. I think we did sufficient to maintain the dignity and assert the privileges of this House of Parliament. But I think that, if there is one thing which is more undignified than another, more humiliating and degrading than another, either to individuals or to assemblies, it is to resort to puling lamentations, to fruitless complaints, well knowing at the time such lamentations are uttered, and such complaints are made, that no practical result can follow, except that of declaring to the whole world that, in the opinion of the speaker, an injury has been sustained for which, at the same time, he admits no remedy can be obtained. I think the hon. Gentleman would better have consulted his own character and the dignity of Parliament—he would have shown more regard for the constitution of the country, if, not choosing to make these proposals when the matter was under consideration—he had been content to let it rest upon what a numerous majority of this House deemed to be a satisfactory footing, and which I take leave to say was approved by the great bulk of the nation. The hon. Gentleman says that if we had dissolved Parliament, and appealed to the country upon this question, we should have had a large majority; but I will tell him that I am of an entirely different opinion. I am persuaded that the country would not have supported a Ministry who deemed that, under the circumstances of the case, it was a question upon which to place the issue before the electors of the country. I am not prepared for any of those courses which the hon. Gentleman has proposed. Towards the conclusion of his speech he has been pleased to tell us what, in his opinion, constitutes the crime of treason. There are those who think that men who would wish to overthrow, one by one, every component part of the institutions of the country—who, whether in Parliament or out of Parliament, in their minds conceive plans, which, if carried into execution, must come under that denomination, deserve to have that appellation applied to them. But all I take leave to say is, that when the hon. Gentleman says that the course which the Government have taken, is, in his opinion, a treason against the people which would cover that Ministry with contempt and infamy—I say I leave with

  1127
  confidence the question between the hon. Gentleman and myself in regard to this matter to the deliberate judgment of posterity—aye to the judgment of the present time and of all future ages—and I am not at all afraid as to which of us two will be deemed to be deserving of the epithets which he has bestowed upon me.
  Afterwards—
  LORD FERMOYsaid, that as he had been appealed to by the hon. Member for Birmingham with regard to the Instruction he had put on the Notice Paper, he thought it only fair to state the course he meant to pursue upon the paper duty.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the noble Lord was entirely out of order in explaining what he intended to do in regard to a Motion of which he had given notice.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, after the speech made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the very able speech made by his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Bright), he had a right to make a few remarks. He thought, since the question had been raised in the House, and particularly since the Resolutions of the noble Lord had been carried, that the House of Commons and the other House of Parliament did not stand in a satisfactory position. Either the House of Lords had infringed the privileges of the House of Commons, or it had not. If it had not infringed the privileges of the House of Commons, the Resolutions of the noble Lord were superfluous. If the privileges of the House had been infringed, the passing of the Resolutions had not redressed the position in which they were placed; and therefore he thought it would be more expedient that they should take some further movement. The noble Lord at the head of the Government in his speech said his own opinion, and the opinion of the Government, with regard to the present position of the House, was unchanged. The noble Lord had declared his determination not to take any further steps; and therefore, if other steps were taken, they would be met with the united opposition of the Government. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Bright) occupied a very important position in the House of Commons as regarded this question; he also occupied a very prominent position in the country with regard to many questions. The hon. Gentleman was followed by a number of Gentlemen who placed implicit confidence in him. He (Lord Fermoy) was in this position. If he pursued the course of which he had
  1128
  given notice, he would be opposed by Her Majesty's Government; and therefore, in order not to inconvenience hon. Members, and in deference to the advice of his hon. Friend below him, and others in whom he had confidence, he felt he had no alternative but to abandon the question during the present Session.

ENCLOSURE OF HAINAULT FOREST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the enclosure, which was rapidly going forward, of forest ground in the neighbourhood of London. He might say at once that he found, as usual, the blame shifted from one Department to another, so that he could not fully ascertain who really was responsible. The first question which he would ask the right hon. First Commissioner of Works was, by whose authority those enclosures were carried out? He wished to ask next, whether the Government intended to continue them. Epping, Hainault, and Wanstead forests formed a range of forest reaching up to within six miles of the east end of London. They were crossed by several lines of railway from different points of the East end. They were, therefore, singularly accessible to the hundreds of thousands of hard-worked shopkeepers and working men in that aggregation of great cities, Spitalfields, Whitechapel, Mile End, Stepney, Shoreditch, Hackney, and other parts, crammed with human beings, who were thus provided with noble and beautiful parks, which cost nothing to buy and cost nothing to keep up. He could speak from personal experience of the immense use which was made of them. He understood that last year upwards of 100,000 persons went down by rail alone to enjoy them, and nearly as many more by vans, carts, gigs, and other conveyances. He had spent many summer evenings in those forests, and could only say that he had never seen any spectacle that had given him greater satisfaction than the thousands upon thousands of pallid, over-worked mechanics, with their wives and families, enjoying themselves among these beautiful glades. On Sundays, especially, there used to he tens of thousands diverting themselves, some quietly, some noisily, but all happily and harmlessly, and inhaling health to body and soul. But all this was now rapidly coming to a close. These lovely forests had by ill-luck fallen into the

  1129
  hands of red-tapists of the deepest die. At the very time when they were spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to form and maintain parks for the people, at that very time the authorities, whoever they might be, had chosen to sell the Crown rights over these natural parks, the delight and comfort of hundreds of thousands of Londoners, and which cost nothing whatever for their maintenance, There might be some shadow of excuse if they had sold those rights for an important consideration. But the fact was that the Crown rights over Wanstead Forest—the loveliest part and the nearest to town—were actually sold for less than £3,000 to the EARL of Mornington. For that wretched pittance the Commissioners had for ever deprived the public of as delightful a part as could be found. He had visited Wanstead Forest the other day, and was filled with indignation to find the trees cut down, the ground ploughed up, and great palings erected to keep the public off from what they had lately possessed and so highly valued. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would put a stop to what ho considered one of the stupidest of the stupidities that had been done in the present day.
  Afterwards—
  MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEasked the Secretary to the Treasury on what principle the Woods and Forests having taken 1,873 acres of the King's Woods of the late Forest of Hainault, in full satisfaction of all Her Majesty's rights over the said King's Woods, now claim a further portion of the residue of the King's Woods that the Crown gave up for the benefit of the Commoners; and also on what grounds they included in the Bill, which they promised the Commoners of Chigwell and Lam-bourn to bring in for the division of the part of the King's Woods so given up by the Crown, the manorial wastes of Chigwell and Lambourn, and this without the consent of the Commoners of Chigwell and Lambourn?
  MR. LAINGsaid, it devolved on him, and not upon the First Commissioner of Works, to reply to the two questions put respecting these forests, because they were not public parks but private portions of the hereditary estates of the Crown. If they were public parks, he admitted that in many respects it would be desirable to preserve them for the purpose of affording recreation to the public. But being private property, very different considerations supervened. Those grounds were to all in tents and purposes the property of the
  1130
  Crown. That being so, it was the duty I of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to manage those estates for the benefit of I the property, as might be the case with any other private property. As regarded the last question relating to the division of the forest of Hainault, it was partly a question of the rights of private property. The rights of the Crown were of two sorts. The Crown had a right of soil and a right of forest over a large portion of the forest known by the name of the King's woods, and the Crown was proprietor of certain enclosed land in the adjoining parishes, possessing the ordinary rights of common over the unenclosed land in the neighbourhood. Some time ago an arrangement was come to by which the right of soil and of forest in the King's-wood was commuted into a specific grant of upwards of 1,800 acres; but it was duly recited in the Act that the rights of common of the Crown were not in any way affected. In 1851 another Act was passed for apportioning a large mass of common land, in which the Crown obtained a certain interest as one of the landowners in the district. The Commissioner appointed under that Act made a certain award; but an appeal from his decision, raising the question of the legal right of private individuals, was now pending in the Court of Common Pleas. The case of Epping Forest was somewhat different. The Crown had no right there over the soil, but simply a right of forest. That right was for a long time quite unproductive, and the Commissioners of Woods thought it their duty to make it profitable for the estate of the Crown by selling it to the adjoining proprietors. They were doing nothing themselves to enclose any portion of the forest, hut by the sale of the right of forest they had indirectly put the adjoining proprietors in a position to obtain enclosures, which might not otherwise have been available. He admitted, however, that it was highly desirable that some portion of the district should be preserved for the use of the public, and, although he saw considerable difficulties in the way, he should be happy to communicate with the Commissioners for the purpose of ascertaining whether, consistently with the rights of the Crown, a satisfactory arrangement could not be made.

DISTURBANCES IN SYRIA.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign

1131
Affairs, Whether, with reference to the interference of the Great Powers in Syria, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to limit the aid rendered by England to the appearance of a Naval Squadron off the coast? And, whether or not, in the event of the horrible massacres being continued and the troubles in Syria extending to fresh places, is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send aid in troops, or to permit France to obtain all the honour and credit which must result from an active military support of the Christians against the terrible proceedings of the Mahomedans?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend, who has asked whether we have limited our operations to the mere appearance of a naval force on the coast of Syria, I have to reply that we have not so limited our interference; but that our naval squadron will do all in their power to prevent the massacres, and, if they are not otherwise able to do so, the Admiral is instructed to land the marines, in order to prevent a recurrence of the scenes that have lately been witnessed. It has been communicated to me by the Turkish Ambassador, that there are accounts from Fuad Pasha that nearly 400 persons have been arrested for taking part in the recent outrages; that extraordinary tribunals have been established; that several of those persons have been condemned; and that, if found guilty of taking a part in the massacres, they will be immediately executed. He informed me likewise that Fuad Pasha states that all the well-disposed people in Damascus have assisted the Government in arresting those who had participated in the outrages, and that the troops of the Sultan have behaved with the greatest loyalty. No doubt, when the representatives of the various Powers met at Paris, it was their opinion, and that of Her Majesty's Government, that there was considerable reason to fear, from the misconduct of the Turkish troops, and those who commanded them, that the cause of order would find faint and uncertain support from those troops. It was therefore thought necessary to agree that a body of French troops should be sent to support the [authority of the Sultan, to prevent bloodshed, and restore tranquillity. But it was thought far better, in the first instance, that one Power should take charge of the movement of the troops. If it became afterwards necessary to send an additional number of troops, according to the protocol
1132
laid on the table, it would then be for the Powers to consider which of those Powers should furnish the additional troops, and of course Her Majesty's Government will have to give their opinion on that subject, and, if necessary, will take a part in the operations. I trust, however, that no such necessity will arise. I am inclined to believe, from the vigorous measures that Fuad Pasha is taking, that although murders are still going on in the country, and although the unfortunate Christians are afraid to return to their homes, the state of things will very soon be much better, and that the forces of Turkey and France will restore tranquillity and order to that country. If that be the case, instead of an additional number of troops being required, the Government of France will be enabled to recall the troops they have sent. We wish that this operation maybe a speedy one, and that we shall soon hear that order has been restored and that these horrible massacres have ceased. Of course, the general restoration of order is a matter of the first importance, and we shall then have to consider what measures should be adopted to prevent a repetition of these outrages.

IRISH BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, Sir, I gave notice yesterday, that I should on this evening call attention to the conduct of Irish business, and also ask some questions relating to the Poor Law Department in Ireland. The mode in which Irish business has been conducted, both in and out of this House, is a subject too large and important to admit of having full justice done to it, without transgressing the bounds of that privilege still enjoyed by independent Members, upon the usual Motion to adjourn from this Day until Monday. This privilege is naturally disrelished by Ministers, who would willingly narrow its legitimate limits, because under existing arrangements it supplies almost the only opportunity for directing attention to special subjects. In my observations upon the conduct of Irish affairs, I shall be as brief as practicable, and will avoid every expression at all irritating to any Member, whether in or out of office. What are the Irish measures which have either been presented to Parliament, or are likely to become law during the present Session? Of the latter class there are only the Irish Land Bills, which are useless—perhaps harmless—abortions;

1133
and the Maynooth College Bill, which will simply abstract some funds from educating the poor students, in order to keep the roof over their heads, thus "robbing Peter to pay Paul." The other Government measures for Ireland were the Reform Bill, which was withdrawn; the Irish Prisons Bill, also withdrawn; the Births, Deaths and Marriages Bill, likewise abandoned. A Poor Law Bill, afterwards converted into a mere Continuance Bill, with two valuable clauses introduced by independent Members in this House, but struck out this very evening in "another place." There are on our paper for this night two Coercion Bills for Ireland, the one called "Peace Preservation Bill," and the other "Party Emblems Bill." We are to have no Volunteers for Ireland, though myriads of men have been enrolled in England and Scotland; no coast defences for Ireland, though millions of pounds are to be expended on them in England; and no effectual step towards remedying the atrocious injustice of English and Scotch deportation of Irish paupers, beyond the appointment of a Select Committee, whose Chairman is also President of the English Poor Law Board. The grave question which now most interests Ireland is, whether a mixed system of National education shall continue to prevail there, or separate aid be supplied for the schools of each religious denomination. That most urgent of all subjects has been thrown over and postponed, notwithstanding repeated remonstrances from the Catholic Prelates of Ireland, and from others whose position ought to entitle them to some attention. In November last I wrote to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also applied to him Early this Session, but could extract no reply or information, beyond an intimation that the proper time to explain the views of Government would not arrive until the Estimates for National Education should be submitted to Parliament. It is now near the middle of August, but no Irish Estimates have been brought forward; and it will not be until after "Partridge Day" that a thin and impatient House will be invited to discuss this perplexing question. It is, therefore, manifest that any settlement of it must necessarily lie over until next Session. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is all bland civility, which invites corresponding courtesy. Accordingly, I handed to him yesterday morning a copy of my intended notice for this night, and he received it with that distinguished suaviter in modo,
1134
which often accompanies the fortiter in re I have no means of actual knowledge, but can easily conceive that, on receiving my notice for this evening, the right hon. Gentleman at once directed the preparation of a counter notice, in the form of the usual Government circular, to Members occupying seats on this side of the House. That circular I got this morning in an open envelope, and it is, therefore, no secret, nor its production any breach of confidence. These are its precise terms:—
"Certain Division—Tour attendance is earnestly and particularly requested in the House of Commons on Friday, August the 10th, at the evening sitting, on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, second reading."
That was the vigorous response which I received in reply to my present notice. I have now endeavoured to present briefly a faithful outline of the mode in which Irish business has been conducted in Parliament during this Session. For any shortcomings, I do not altogether blame the Irish portion of the Administration, as it is probable English matters interfered, regarding which English Members may have their own grounds for complaint. But, what has been the conduct of Irish affairs out of Parliament, and in Ireland itself? That country is governed by an English Lord-Lieutenant, through English Commissioners, and heads of departments, constituting a system of foreign bureaucracy, which deserves the old title—"The English Garrison in Ireland." In addition to the Chief Governor of Ireland, we have a Chief Secretary for Ireland, an Under-Secretary for Ireland, the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, the Commanding Officers of Artillery and of Engineers in Ireland, the Inspector-Generals of Irish Militia and Irish Hospitals, the Chairman of the Board for inspecting Irish Prisons, the Chief and three others out of the five Commissioners of Poor Laws in Ireland, the Chief Officers of Income Tax, Excise, Customs, Fost Office, and other departments in Ireland, who are not natives of that country. The Protestant Archbishop of Dublin—who, with the Commander of the Forces and the Lord Chancellor, usually govern Ireland during any temporary absence of the Lord Lieutenant—is also an Englishman. It would occupy much time to expose fully all the practical evils, arising from a system of functionarism, presided over by persons whose natural ties and interests do not identify them with the governed country. Some of those mischiefs may be collected

1135
from a description given by a philosophic traveller, of the bad effects of the bureaucratic system in Continental countries. In his Observations on Europe, Mr. Laing (father of our present Secretary to the Treasury) says—
"In all countries of Germany, occupied by the French, the established functionaries, in every district and department of public affairs, became the willing instruments in the hands of the French, of the most grievous exactions, contributions and oppressions; which without their assistance and organization, could not have been carried into effect by the French Commissioners. The chiefs only of a few departments had to be removed, or rather to act under a French functionary; but almost all the machinery of functionarism remained. Every man sticking to office, and quite as effective for the enemy as ho had been for the sovereign of his country."
It is notorious in Ireland that the smallest official there has more real weight with the local government of that country than the united influence of all its independent Representatives, not one of whom is ever consulted about its affairs, or as to any intended measures. Indeed, all Bills which concern Ireland are invariably preserved as profound state secrets from Irish Members, and the first intimation that we ever receive respecting them is the ordinary printed notice on the papers of this House. The Lord Lieutenant is a sort of roi faineant, with a mock regal court in Dublin, where he gives pleasant banquets and parties, at which the several officials with their families dine, dance, and make merry together, as well as at their own habitations; thus becoming a family party, which, in effect, governs the whole country, and arranges all its public affairs and appointments. Should the official conduct of any among that compact coterie happen to be impugned in this House, they have their Chief Secretary here to defend it, however culpable, as was recently exemplified in the case of the Rev. Mr. Fox, whom the Irish Poor Law Commissioners dismissed so unjustly from his office of chaplain to the South Dublin Union. A main objection to Austrian rule in Lombardy was the exclusive employment of Germans in its civil and military affairs. For my own part I should not in the least object to a large English element amongst officials in Ireland, were there any reciprocity observed by a due infusion of Irishmen into Imperial offices and counsels. But I do protest against the present one-sided arrangements. It is, perhaps, useless to reiterate any solitary protest, that although the so-called
1136
Act of Catholic Emancipation was passed more than thirty years since, not one Roman Catholic has ever been admitted into the Cabinet of the Empire. From the present Ministry all native-born Irishmen are also rigorously excluded, though some subordinate situations are occupied by Irishmen, who have been already described as outside passengers upon the political omnibus of the noble Lord. Two of those inferior offices are filled by noblemen of great consideration in Ireland, who represent the counties of Kerry and Wicklow (Lord Castlerosse and Lord Proby). A third office is occupied by the Member for the county Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue, heir presumptive to a peerage, and known amongst Englishmen through his Oxford career. The Attorney General for Ireland is necessarily an Irish barrister, my right hon. Colleague for the county of Cork, whose abilities well qualify him for the office. There is also an Irish Lord of the Treasury, which inferior post was refused by two Irish Members, and afterwards accepted by a gentleman of large position in his own district, the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell). Now I do not suggest that fitter gentlemen could have been selected for Government appointments, but I do assert that, in their subordinate positions, they are utterly powerless to influence the counsels of the Ministry, or urge their own views as to public affairs in the manner they might desire. That they were really anxious to benefit their own country, and procure useful measures for it, by accepting office under the present Government, appears from some of their addresses upon that occasion. The hon. Member for Clonmel, in his election address of June, 1859, stated, no doubt most sincerely, that—
"Having accepted office in a Government composed of all sections of the great Liberal party, I trust by unremitting attention to imperial and local interests, to prove that, by joining the most advanced Ministry that has ever ruled in this country, I have neither surrendered my principles nor relaxed my endeavours to procure useful measures for Ireland."
With equal sincerity the present Attorney General for Ireland, in June, 1859, addressed the electors of Cork county in those terms:—
"The Government under which I have accepted office is composed of the most Liberal statesmen, chosen from all sections of the great Liberal party, and is especially a Government of progress. In the benefits of that progress, I believe that Ireland

1137
will largely participate; and that the new Government will seriously and promptly address itself to the remedy of grievances long felt, often admitted, and too long left unredressed. You will find that in office I will endeavour, honestly, to carry out those views, which I have uniformly advocated when I was unconnected with, or in opposition to, preceding Governments."
We may reasonably conclude that those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are even more distressed and disappointed than ourselves at the supineness of their English colleagues, who have not merely left all old grievances wholly unredressed, but have so conducted affairs as to lose all political influence in Ireland, and to injure seriously "the great Liberal party" by alienating from it many of its Irish Members. And here I wish to address myself especialiv to English Liberals, who should clearly understand that a defection of fifty Irish Liberals to the opposite ranks will in effect cause a difference of 100 votes, which can only be compensated by corresponding accessions in England or Scotland. Formerly some seventy-five of the Irish Members, constituting five-sevenths of their entire body, used to occupy seats upon the Liberal side of the House. That state of things is at present reversed, there being now perhaps about seventy-five on the Tory, and hardly thirty on the Liberal benches. Some of those thirty Members retain their positions with difficulty, and probably against the wishes of their constituents, but being Liberals of long standing, and not mere mushroom Liberals of yesterday, it is repugnant to their political feelings to cross over to the Tory side of the House. They may, however, have to do so soon, or to leave the House altogether, should Irish remonstrances remain unregarded, and admitted grievances be left unredressed. Even now there are but few who have faithfully adhered to the Liberal side, and the last "rose of summer" may ere long be "left blooming alone" on these seats. Under these circumstances, and even in an English aspect, every reasonable means should be adopted to revive and restore the Irish Liberal party, instead of alienating its members still further, as would seem to have been wantonly done at a Ministerial meeting in Downing Street, on Monday last. Being no supporter of the present Government, I did not go to that meeting, but we have all heard various versions of what occurred there, and that in consequence of some ill-timed expressions of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), no fewer than twelve staunch Liberals, representing
1138
Irish constituencies, deliberately abstained that evening from recording their votes in favour of the proposed reduction of duty upon foreign paper. Not having attended the meeting in Downing Street, I experienced no personal slight, and felt at liberty to vote for the reduction of duty, on the obvious grounds that such reduction formed a part of the Commercial Treaty with France, which I had already supported; that the opposition to it was a mere set against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I ought not to lend myself; and also because I felt that the vote would give me a stronger hold upon English Liberals, as well as upon the Government itself, in any remonstrance I might afterwards make with regard to Irish matters. I will now take the liberty to suggest to the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) that he should profit from his recent experience, and not again venture to—
"Cast off his friends, as a huntsman his pack; Assured, when he likes, he can whistle them back."
For, it may happen, that the more the noble Lord shall whistle, the less they will feel inclined to return; and that when he may desire to recall his departed "spirits from the vasty deep" of Toryism, they will disregard his invocations. It is possible, however, that he may feel personally indifferent to these consequences, because he can safely calculate to be the political "Vicar of Bray," in any conceivable complication of circumstances, or form of administration, But it is manifest the proper conduct of Irish business vitally affects the Liberals of England, as well as the Liberals of Ireland. I have submitted these remarks in the most temperate, and almost subdued language, though not in any terms of "puling complaint,"—to borrow an expression used this evening by the noble Lord. They are offered in a spirit neither hostile nor friendly towards the Government, but from a simple desire that some remedy shall be devised for the existing evils, by those who have the power to apply it. Any which I might suggest, may not be accepted in good part, and, perhaps, were I to point out the right course, that might only be a reason for taking the wrong one. But, I venture once more to warn English Liberals that, unless some effectual remedy is applied during the tempus penitentice afforded by the approaching recess, they will probably find that Early next Session a strong Tory Government will be permanently located in office. I

1139
shall now conclude by asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether the Rev. Mr. Fox is actually reinstated as chaplain of the South Dublin Union; and is it intended, on the part of the Government, to infuse a due proportion of Irish and of Catholic elements into the constitution of the Irish Poor Law Board, which now consists of five Commissioners, of whom not one is a Catholic, and only one an Irishman?
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT (1856) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CARDWELLmoved the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would propose that the Bill should be read a second time on that day three months. He submitted that no grounds existed for asking for the strong repressive powers which this measure would confer on the Government. They had the evidence of the Prime Minister himself, and of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the people of Ireland were well affected. He admitted there had been times in Ireland when, owing to misgovernment, it was necessary that the Executive should be armed with stringent repressive powers; hut, although the misgovernment still remained, the diminution of crime and the absence of outrage rendered quite unjustifiable the proposal to renew the obnoxious Act of 1856. In short, there was no country in Europe in which the records of crime were so small as in Ireland, and in support of the statement he referred to the addresses delivered in various counties by the Judges of assize during the late circuits in Ireland. He quoted the addresses of the Judges to the Grand Juries in Monaghan, Roscommon, Clare, Meath, Limerick, Wexford, King's County, Westmeath, Down, Wicklow, Leitrim, and Waterford. In all those places the Judges congratulated the Grand Juries on the lightness of the calendars. Under these circumstances, it was a strange proceeding on the part of the Government to ask for repressive powers from Parliament.
  MR. MAGUIREseconded the Amendment.
  Notice taken that Forty Members were not present: House counted; and Forty Members being present,
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BLAKEsubmitted that it was impolitic on the part of the Government to press this measure, because by doing so they would give the people of Ireland to understand that they had no claim upon their affection, and could not trust them.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask why the Bill was brought forward, because, as far as his information went, there was no necessity whatever for it. In every county in Ireland the Judges had congratulated the Grand Juries on the absence of crime and the great contentment of the people, and he was, therefore, astonished at a measure which, as far as Ireland was concerned, suspended the British Constitution. Moreover, the Act itself was totally unintelligible. It vested powers in the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of a most objectionable character. Not only had he the power of transferring forces—police and military—from one place to another, whenever in his judgment he deemed the peace to be in danger of being disturbed; but he had the power also of levying a tax for their maintenance. He also had the power of ordering any person suspected of possessing arms to be searched, and likewise the power of ordering prisoners to be moved from any one part of the country to another. Now, was that the case in any other part of the United Kingdom? For these reasons he should support the Amendment.
  MR. LONGFIELDdenied that the Peace Preservation Act had anything to do with the pacification of the country, and the prevention, detection, or punishment of crime. It was often a mere excuse for laziness on the part of those whose duty it was to enforce the general law. Wherever the ordinary powers of the law had been put into force, they had been found quite effectual. Within the last few years there had been in England crimes of greater magnitude than in the sister country, such as the Chartist riots, the insurrection at Monmouth, Thorn at Canterbury, and the Stockport riots. He repeated that this

  1141
  measure operated only as an excuse for apathy and negligence on the part of the authorities. For an offence which in England would only give rise to the interference of the ordinary authorities, all Ireland was degraded in the eyes of civilized nations by an Act which, from long experience, he believed to be utterly useless and inefficient. Believing that no case had been made out for this exceptional and degrading legislation, and that in point of number, magnitude, and atrocity, crimes in England had, within a given period, exceeded those in Ireland, he should also support the Amendment.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, ho hoped that it would not be considered an insult to the people of Ireland that he should propose to continue for a limited period an Act which experience had shown to be productive of good effects. He gladly recognized the fact of the satisfactory state of Ireland in respect of crime; but he could not understand why the continuance of these powers should be construed into an impeachment of the people of that country. While he admitted with great pleasure the satisfactory state of Ireland in that respect, he could not overlook the fact that there were circumstances occasionally occurring in Ireland which did not occur in this island—circumstances which it was the duty of the Government to guard against in the interest of the peaceable and well-disposed portion of the community. They had all heard of recent occurrences, into which he would not then enter, and he had received information that "there was a sham fight, at which 500 or 600 persons were present, with an immense quantity of arms." That was contained in a Report from a Government officer, dated August 4, 1860. [Mr. BUTT: Where was that?] At Scarvagh. The Bill which he asked the House to accept contained only two powers—one to enable the Government to take away arms in proclaimed districts; and the other to impose the expense of an additional police upon the proclaimed district. He thought there was nothing unreasonable or unjust in either proposition, but that both powers were essentially for the interest of Ireland, as tending to insure the maintenance of peace and tranquillity. It was said that the powers of the ordinary law were ample; and that might be if the object in view was only to punish crime; whereas the powers of the Bill he proposed were intended and calculated rather to prevent crime. What had been the state of the town of Belfast in
  1142
  1857? There were continuous riots, which were not put an end to by either police or military, but by the simple proclamation of the town. He repeated that the Continuance Bill before the House could not be regarded as an insult to the people of Ireland, but as a protection for the peaceful and quiet inhabitants. It was said, too, that the police had no influence on the repression of crime; but what had been the case in King's County? At the Summer Assizes of 1858, it was determined to withdraw the additional constabulary. In 1859, there were no less than forty-three serious outrages; and in December, 3 859, the magistrates applied for additional police. The Chief Justice, in the present year, noticed the heavy nature of the calendar, but congratulated the county upon an increased activity on the part of the police, and, consequently, greater success in the; detection of crime. The principle of the Bill was, first, that a district should be held responsible for any extraordinary amount of crime committed within it; and next, when large numbers of persons possessed arms which it was likely they would use to the injury of themselves or others; then there was a power not of punishment, but of prevention. It was only desired to continue the provisions of the present Act for a limited period, and that there was no wish on the part of the Government to enforce those powers unnecessarily was evident from the fact that at present there was not a single constable charged upon any district in Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill, which the Government had felt it their duty to introduce to meet any occasional outbreaks.
  MR. M'MAHONobserved, that the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman would he tested by one question. Had Scarvagh been proclaimed?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that Scarvagh was situate on the borders of Down and Armagh, and the whole of the latter county was under proclamation.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would then further ask, whether it was intended to take away arms from the people in the North of Ireland? He did not believe it, for the Protestants had never been deprived of their arms. This Bill, which had been renewed from time to time, was originally that Crime and Outrage Act of 1847 which, like the Coercion Act of 1841, was passed to meet anticipated disturbances. But now there was no such state of things, and

  1143
  he could not 3ee what necessity there was for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the King's County; but the reason why crime had diminished there was not the proclamation, but the greater attention which the police had paid to their duties. The disturbances at Belfast in 1857 were traceable to the fact that the police of that town were appointed by the corporation, and were all connected with the Orange body. The Bill was distasteful and unnecessary. The argument that it was intended to prevent crime was the old argument which was employed to stifle liberty everywhere. The true principle to go upon in regard to Ireland was, to allow to the people their common and ordinary rights, and when they abused those rights then to punish them. But let them not, on the pretence of preventing crime, cast a slur upon four or five millions of people, and make it a misdemeanour for any man to carry a gun or pistol in any district which the Lord Lieutenant may have proclaimed. He trusted that the Government would reconsider the whole matter, and satisfy themselves that there was really no necessity for a renewal of the Act.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that when he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland declare that Ireland was a peaceable country, and that this measure was taken as a matter of precaution, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have also said that it was the intention of the Secretary for the Home Department to have introduced so admirable and excellent a Bill into England. If that were not done, he (Mr. Butt) asked the right hon. Gentleman what had he said to justify his exceptional legislation for Ireland? He (Mr. Butt) could term this measure nothing but a coercion Act. It belonged to that code of legislation which a great Irishman in that House had stigmatized as "Algerine." The whole purport of the Act was, that no Irishman should be entitled to have a gun in his House unless he obtained the permission of the Lord Lieutenant. The only justification offered for this Bill was the fact that 700 or 800 persons assembled at a place in the county Down, and had a sham fight, but which was followed by no breach of the peace. He asked was there ever heard such a justification for such an Act? Assize after assize in Ireland, the Judges congratulated the people on the diminution of crime, and it was under such circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to
  1144
  renew an Act, the preamble of which set forth that it was necessary because, "crime and outrage are generally prevalent in Ireland." Measures such as that before the House were mischievous to the peace of Ireland, unless some strong necessity was shown for it. Unhappily, there was a tendency in Ireland, fostered by misgovernment, to throw everything upon the Government and to do nothing for themselves. It was a tendency which unhappily prevailed through many departments of Irish business, and therefore, the moment they told a magistrate of a county that when an outraged occurred, instead of exerting the powers of common law, he had nothing to do but to call for measures of coercion, he (Mr. Butt) said it was a premium upon that tendency which of all others it was their duty to discourage. It appeared from a return of the number of counties in Ireland that had been proclaimed that nearly every one had at one time or other been subjected to that indignity; and in a large proportion of cases the reason assigned for the step was of the most frivolous kind. It was an accusation against the Austrian Government in Italy that a native was liable to punishment who had arms in his house without the licence of the Government; yet that was the system which it was proposed to revive in Ireland. This measure was proposed in 1848, renewed in 1852, again in 1856, and now in 1860 it was again proposed to renew it for two years more. No one could doubt that in 1862 the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the day would again come down and propose that the Bill should be, as a matter of course, renewed again. He asked English as well as Irish Members—Protestants as well as Roman Catholics—whether any justification had been shown for continuing this Algerine measure in a time of profound tranquillity? He would make the Chief Secretary for Ireland a proposal which must be admitted to be a reasonable one. If the Government would limit the operation of the Bill to a few months, and let it expire on the 1st of May next, so that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the Bill in the month of April, and not in the month of August, he would not object to the reenactment of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to justify this Bill in consequence of a sham fight. But what was a Government worth if it could not prevent a few hundred men from having a sham fight in Ireland? The sooner those

  1145
  who made this admission gave up the Irish Government the better. In 1846 a similar Act broke up the strongest Government this country had seen for many years. Lord J. Russell, who then came in, proposed an Arms Act, which was to expire on the 1st of May, but at the close of the Session he was obliged to give up that measure. He called upon the House to declare that the day was gone by when Coercion Acts were required for Ireland.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he could not congratulate his hon. and learned Friend on the consistency of his speech, because, after speaking of this as an Algerine Act, a measure of coercion, an insult to Ireland, and a suspension of the Constitution, his hon. and learned Friend ended by proposing that this measure, introduced, as he said, without any justification or reason, should be enacted for the whole of the ensuing winter. When the hon. and learned Member read to the House a portion of a return, he scarcely acted quite fairly to a preceding Government: for he omitted the fact that the proclamations had been withdrawn.
  MR. BUTT: I beg pardon; they have not been withdrawn.
  MR. DEASYsaid, many of the proclamations had been withdrawn. The proclamation, for instance, with regard to Cork was withdrawn in 1851. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield) had complained of the inefficiency of the local and stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. Ho differed with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and thought his remark most unjust to the Magistracy of Ireland. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M. Mahon) had stated that if there were as efficient a police force in Ireland as in England, all crime and outrage would be detected and prevented. He (Mr. Deasy) held in his hand a resolution passed at a meeting of the magistrates of Tipperary, presided over by Lord Ha-warden, declaring that the present tranquillity of the country was owing to the efficiency of the police. He believed the Irish constabulary to be as efficient in the detection of crime as any men could be. The Bill had excited displays of feeling not warranted by its provisions, or by the circumstances under which it was introduced. In 1846, when the Peel Government was displaced, there was, in consequence, a cessation of the provisions which had previously existed restricting the use of fire-arms. But, in 1848, the Whig Government, which had succeeded to power,
  1146
  introduced a Bill reimposing the restrictions; and they had been continued by every successive Government from that time to the present. Speaking on his official responsibility, he believed that the rejection of the present Bill would be attended with mischievous consequences, and that the security of life and property during the coming winter might be seriously endangered if the House were to refuse to the existing Government those powers which Parliament had conceded to successive administrations and which had never been abused. Nothing was further from his intentions than to appeal to religious prejudices, but there were two grounds upon which the Government had a right to ask for a continuance of the Act of 1856—first, the unfortunate excitement which at present prevailed in the north; and, secondly, the existence of the Ribbon confederacy in many districts of Ireland. The Ribbon confederacy was gradually being suppressed, but if the House rejected the present Bill it would spring up again with renewed vigour. King's County and Westmeath might be mentioned as districts where Ribbonism existed. What was the state of things in the north? lie recently received a report, stating that an assemblage of Roman Catholics, armed, had created terror among the Protestants, and had produced a counter assemblage of armed Protestants in the neighbourhood of Armagh. Was that a state of things which, particularly in the present condition of Ireland, ought to be allowed to continue? Without the powers now sought the Government would be unable to put a stop to it, and therefore he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had defended the unpaid magistracy, the stipendiary magistrates, and the police—a proof that the ordinary law was sufficient for the repression of crime. Every Judge in every assize town concurred in stating that the country was unusually free from crime. Where then was the justification for the Bill? It was said certain things might happen next winter; but there was nothing in the present state of the country to render such occurrences probable. If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman had been out of office, they would have opposed the Bill vehemently. [Mr. DEASY: I supported the Bill of Lord Derby's Government.] He must contend that the facts cited by the right

  1147
  hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) were proof that there was no necessity for the Bill. He said that the Ribbon conspiracy was dying out. If the police and magistrates were so efficient, why could not they put it down altogether? It had been suggested that the Bill should be accepted, if its operation were limited to the 1st of May next, hut although he had no sympathy with crime or criminals, he would oppose the renewal of the Act for a single day. Whatever the intention of the Government, the Bill was a practical insult to the country. The opinions of the Judges cut the ground from under the feet of the Government. It was a lamentable comment on English Government in Ireland, that after sixty years of the Union, such a Bill as this should be necessary. Were a case made out he would vote for the Bill; but as it was, ho considered it wholly unnecessary and mischievous. He did not believe that the magistrates and police had been rendered more efficient by this Bill; it was rather attributable to a rebuke by the Lord Chief Justice from the Bench. Because there were a few isolated crimes in Ireland, was the whole country to be stigmatized and scandalized in the eyes of Europe? Were there no crimes in this country? Look at the Road murder. Had not the police and the most intelligent persons been baffled in the discovery of the murderer? And yet who would propose that all England should be stigmatized on that account? The Bill was a piece of insulting irritating legislation; it had done no good, and was a disgrace to the Government.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that a meeting of armed persons, threatening to the public peace, could not be prevented without the provisions of the present Bill. By the common law any meeting, especially a meeting of armed persons threatening to the public peace, was illegal, and the magistrates had the power to put a stop to such meeting. No exceptional laws were required for that purpose; the common law was sufficient to preserve the peace, except in cases of an extraordinary description. Now, did such cases exist in Ireland? The county of Louth, in which the borough he had the honour to represent (Dundalk) was situated, though it was perfectly tranquil and peaceable, was a proclaimed county, not, as was stated, on account of any particular crime, but of confederate societies. Now, he did not believe there were any
  1148
  Ribbon Societies in Dundalk, and that was confirmed by the fact that of eleven men who had been arrested and tried there on the charge of being Ribbonmen every one of them was acquitted. Throughout Ireland no reason could be adduced for the continuance of this exceptional law. They were often told about tyrannical proceedings in foreign countries, and if they had heard that such a law existed, say in Italy, to what a great deal of declamation it would give rise! Hon. Gentlemen should look at home. He objected to the measure, because it was unnecessary, unjustifiable, and insulting; because it gave the people to understand that the Government did not trust them, and, in fact, treated them as criminals; and because the Government thereby stimulated the very crime they vainly attempted to extinguish.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought he should fail to act a manly part if he concealed his opinions on that question. He should support the Government in the course which they proposed. He agreed that exceptional laws were objectionable, and that the burden of proving their necessity lay on those who proposed them. But such proof might be furnished. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the county of Louth. In 1852, when he (Mr. Whiteside) was Solicitor General, and was on that circuit, he was waited on privately by a grand juror, who said, "My life is in danger; every hour of my life I am a miserable man. I have received notice that I am to be shot." This gentleman, in the management of an estate, had done something which offended the confederacy, and he received notice—they were courteous then—that he would be murdered. Prom the circumstances that transpired at the time, he (Mr. Whiteside) believed that it was not the grand juror whom it was intended to kill, but a relative of the present Under Secretary of the Colonies, than whom he did not believe a more amiable gentleman could be found, and there were several other gentleman in Louth whom it was also intended to murder. It was necessary to institute a prosecution, and an opportunity was afforded. Three men came to murder a gentleman whom they did not know. The difficulty was not to kill the wrong man, because that would render it necessary to kill the right man afterwards, so they got hold of a railway labourer, who was at work near at hand. This man was well paid, well fed, and

  1149
  clothed, and he was to point out the victim to the persons who were sent to hill him. The labourer did as he was requested, and the men dogged Mr. Eastwood's steps as he was going home at night, until, finding a favourable opportunity for their purpose they sprang upon him. But although armed they did not use their arms. The place in which they committed the deed was of a populous character, and they feared that if they had resorted to firearms disagreeable consequences might ensue to themselves; so they determined to stone him to death. As ho lay upon the ground, however, one of the men plucked from his pocket his gold watch, and gave it to the railway labourer for the civility with which he had assisted their designs. The man concealed the watch in a feather bed; the police discovered the watch there, and arrested him. He disclosed all the facts of the case; the murderers were arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. During that trial the whole nature of the Ribbon confederacy was disclosed. The law was put in force; the county of Louth was proclaimed. The hon. Baronet was right in saying that crime had ceased in the county, but it ceased by reason of the vigorous enforcement of the law and by the application of the powers of this Act—an Act which every gentleman of every persuasion who had any property in the county wished to see enforced, if they desired to retain their property or their lives. He believed that no Government would ask for powers of this kind unless it were necessary. The prosecution of Ribbon men at the last assizes had been adverted to. The Judge had tried the case fairly, and, although the men got off, that by no means proved that the confederacy did not exi3t. The hon. Gentleman had asked what would be said if there were such a law in Italy. There were strange laws in Italy, and, taking all in all, he should prefer to take the Parliament and system of England rather than all the advantages enjoyed in any part of Italy. With a free press and a free Parliament to point out grievances and rectify any evil, there was no danger of the abuse of such a law as the present. For a short time it might be necessary to pass such a Bill. He had refused for a long while to believe in the insurrectionary movement in the county of Cork; but what were the circumstances of that affair? A man sent to Lord Eglinton a long case and a letter, and inside the case was an improved model of the old Irish pike. The
  1150
  writer said in the letter, "It is the only-model I have," and using a well-known Irish term—"It is a needle you will find sharp and penetrating, and I recommend you to get a stock made, for they will be useful." Other persons swore that at night they had seen by the light of the moon bayonets glistening, men actually under arms, and had heard the word of command given. All that was proved at the trial. The men prosecuted were convicted, and the Judge pronounced a sentence of fourteen years' penal servitude, for he said, in passing sentence, "conspiracy struck at the root of government, and must be checked." It could not he said that the law of this country, particularly when it approached to treason, was enforced with severity. On the contrary, so safe was the monarchy in the hearts of the people that no offence was more leniently regarded. The hon. Member for Dungarvan was right in saying that there were many counties in Ireland in which scarcely any crime appeared to have been committed at the last assizes. Well, if the hon. Gentleman could show that the Government were about to apply the present Act to those counties ho would vote against it. Something, however, must be trusted to the discretion of the Government. They must give to every Government the credit of believing that they would not pervert the law or act despotically; and, although he was opposed to the present Government, he did not believe they would act in such a manner—least of all did he believe that the law officers of the Crown would act otherwise than from a paramount sense of duty. That was a matter in which he disclaimed anything like party feeling. He was prepared to leave it to the judgment and discretion of the Irish Government whether the Bill ought to be renewed or not for a short time, feeling satisfied that they would use the powers intrusted to them with moderation and forbearance.
  MR. MONSELLheld that it was a serious matter to apply exceptional legislation to one part of the United Kingdom. It was melancholy to think that, while England and Scotland was allowed to join in the Volunteer movement for the defence of the country, it should be considered necessary to prevent the people of Ireland from testifying their loyalty and patriotism in the same way. The Judges on circuit were unanimous in congratulating the country on the absence of agrarian outrage; and, in order to instance any cases of the kind,

  1151
  the right hon. Gentleman opposite was driven to ransack the annals of the past. The only justification for the measure was the unfortunate religious contests which were prevalent in certain parts of Ireland; and he believed that these differences were attributable solely to the distinction which was drawn by the laws and institutions of the country between people of different religions. In the Colonies, where no such distinctions were established, Irish Protestants and Roman Catholics lived together in peace and harmony. If the Government believed that these religious disputes could only be suppressed by the continuation of this Act, he would not venture to oppose it; but he hoped that when the time came for the next renewal, there would not exits in the state of the country even a shadow of an excuse for it.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that he found in the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland a confirmation of the prediction made at the time of the Union that no Irish Member would be admitted into the Government until he had ceased to have the feelings of an Irishman. It was admitted on all hands, that neither as regarded disaffection nor crime was there any ground for the measure; and it was only that ungenerous distrust of the people of Ireland which debarred them from being allowed to join in the Volunteer movement which animated the promoters of that measure. He wished to see political distinctions put aside, and that his fellow-countrymen should remember, above all, that they were Irishmen. He should not be induced to support the Bill, by the promise that the Party Emblems (Ireland) Bill should be carried against the Orangemen. He did not think any Gentleman would stand up and say he thought it was necessary for the security of property and life that this Bill should pass.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYopposed the Bill. If the measure was such an excellent Bill as it had been described, why was it not applied to England as well as to Ireland? He ventured to assert that the Attorney General for England would not propose its application to this country. The argument in support of the Bill was of the weakest character possible, and resolved itself into an Hibernianism, that because the sham fight referred to was not a real fight, therefore the Bill was necessary. The common law of the land and the police force in Ireland were sufficient to preserve the peace of that country. Westmeath had been
  1152
  under proclamation since 1848; but it had failed to accomplish its object, though the common law had been found sufficient for the preservation of the peace of that county; and the same applied to other counties in Ireland. The county of Tipperary, which was now peaceful and remarkably free from crime, with no trace of Ribbon conspiracies, and no Orangemen, was placed under proclamation in 1847, and had remained under it ever since. That, he maintained, was a gross abuse of the Act. Yet the hon. Member for Liskeard would, no doubt, vote for this Bill; because that hon. Gentleman would rather go wrong with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, than go right with him. No Irishman spoke in favour of this measure, except the Attorney General who was in, and the Attorney General who expected to be in. The proposal was supported by those who knew nothing of Ireland, and he would not say cared less. Hon. Gentlemen came from libraries, smoking-rooms, and cups of tea, to outvote the Irish Members. The House had two Coercion Bills before it; the one to put down the Ribbonmen, the other to put down the Orangemen. Let them have nothing to do with either Bill, but be all friends, and seek to suppress disorderly conduct by moral suasion, and the influence of a good example.
  MR. BRADYobserved that his own county was eminently tranquil. The Judge at the last assizes sat only half a day; and yet it had remained proclaimed during the last thirteen years. And so of Donegal and other counties. He wa3 determined to oppose the Bill to the utmost of his power, not because it was brought in by the present Government, because it was totally uncalled for by the present circumstances of Ireland.
  MR. LEFROYremarked that he should support the measure, not as a means of putting down one party or another, but as necessary for the preservation of the peace of Ireland.
  MR. HENNESSYmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could hardly believe that the hon. Member was serious in making such a Motion, which was, in fact, seconded by an hon. Gentleman who had already spoken.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had actively opposed the Bill throughout, hut he believed the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) was doing the very worst thing he could in moving the adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate ho now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 104: Majority 92.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 27: Majority 60.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

PARTY EMBLEMS (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read,
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, which had been introduced into the other House and passed with the concurrence of both parties there. The circumstances which led to the introduction of the Bill were so well known that it would be wholly needless to refer to them, even if it were not advisable to refrain from reviving feelings of animosity by a lengthened reference to them. The object of the Bill was to amend the existing law by prohibiting demonstrations calculated to provoke animosities between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The existing statute law prohibited processions; but it did not prohibit certain other public displays and manifestations, such as exhibiting flags of a party character, using emblems and symbols of a party character, playing music, singing songs, ringing bells to tunes of a party character. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Recent experience made it impossible to deny that even the ringing of bells might be made as effective for party purposes as any other display. The object of the Bill, then, was to put down all such manifestations having a tendency to provoke hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would oppose that penal measure for the same reason that he had opposed the penal measure which the House had just disposed of. It was said that the main object of the Bill was to repress Orange demonstrations. He was no Orangeman, and had no connection with Orangemen; hut he opposed the Bill because, according to the opinion of the Irish Judges, the law was already strong enough to put down party processions. Mr. O'Connell had no connection with Orange-
  1154
  men, and yet he opposed the very Processions Act which it was the object of the Bill to amend. The House ought to proceed very cautiously when asked to put down party emblems. The Bill would make penal even the singing of party songs. The most despotic monarch in Europe would he deemed insane if he proposed a penal law to prevent the singing of party songs. Bid the right lion. Gentleman think that he would be able to put down the playing of "St. Patrick's Day?" He should conclude by moving that the Bill he read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  MR.LONGFIELDseconded the Amendment. He disclaimed all sympathy with the ridiculous displays of religious feeling which had led to the recent disturbances in Ireland, but he did not think that penal legislation ought to be resorted to against the persons who were guilty of them. The Bill was offensive to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and there was no use of going into Committee on it, for it could not be amended. Public opinion would be more effectual than penal laws in putting down party demonstrations and insults. Party spirit was, he rejoiced to say, dying out in Ireland, but so far from tending to allay that spirit, the Bill would foment irritation, and increase party animosity. It might be made a disgraceful instrument by which each party would annoy the other; it might be applied to temperance bands, and to the prevention of much innocent amusement; and he hoped it would be rejected by an overwhelming majority.
  MR. DEASYsaid, the Government had been appealed to from both sides of the House to bring in some Bill for the purpose of extending the provisions of the Party Processions Act, in order to meet a state of things which had developed itself in the North of Ireland to an extent which called loudly for legislative interference. The measure had come down from the Lords, where it had met with general assent, and he hoped the House would at least agree to the second reading; The Party Processions Act, which was made perpetual in 1850, though it. had had a useful effect, was not found sufficient. From the 1st to

  1155
  the 12th of July Orange flags were hoisted and kept flying from all the large churches in the Orange districts in the North of Ireland. This display caused the greatest excitement, and was regarded as an insult by the Roman Catholic population. Many of the clergymen disapproved those displays, hut were powerless to prevent them, when sanctioned by the churchwardens. Nothing certainly could be more derogatory to the Church than such exhibitions, which were discountenanced by all right-thinking people. There was no wish, whatever, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do anything calculated to annoy the Protestant population. All they wished to do was to arm the authorities with power to prevent displays of an offensive character, which endangered the public peace, and were discreditable to the country.
  SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman had confined the terms of his Bill to the prevention of party displays by hoisting flags on churches, beating drums in places of public resort, and similar practices, he should, at the request of influential gentlemen in the part of the country which he represented, have given it his support; hut matter which he believed to be not only objectionable, but improper, having been introduced, he felt bound to vote against the measure. Several gentlemen with whom he usually acted and himself waited upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and endeavoured to induce him to withdraw those portions of the Bill to which they objected; but, as he had refused to do so, they were at perfect liberty to take any course they thought proper.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would not press such a Bill as the one before the House. Had the question been one merely relating to the internal economy or social improvement of Ireland, he, as an English Member, should not have intruded himself in the debate; but when the House was asked to sanction a Bill which appeared to violate every principle of liberty, and placed such extravagant powers in the hands of magistrates and common constables, he felt bound to protest against a species of legislation for Ireland which Her Majesty's Government would not dare to propose either for England or Scotland. He wished to know who was responsible for a measure which suggested to any one who read it over that it had been drawn by an attorney's clerk. It not merely prohibited the
  1156
  singing of certain songs, but persons were not even to sing "in a manner calculated to give offence." So that a person might be singing the most loyal song—"God save the Queen," or "Rule Britannia," for instance—and yet a constable might come up and object to the manner of the vocalist, and say, "You have been singing that through your nose," or, "You gave a curl of your lip, and I shall therefore seize you and your music too." As the Bill had been drawn by a lawyer, there ought to have been at the end a schedule of prohibited songs, and some kind of suggestion as to "the manner" with which those otherwise harmless might be sung. In this year of grace, 1860, any Government should blush to propose such a measure, and after the expression of feeling on the part of the House, it ought to be withdrawn.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he most heartily coincided in the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down. He should feel degraded as an Englishman if such a law were passed for this portion of the United Kingdom, and he hoped Irish Members with a like feeling of indignation would reject the Bill. Power was to be given to the police to enter "any place," whether a man's private house or not, where a party flag or emblem was exhibited, and any opposition to its removal was to be a misdemeanour. In fact, the whole Bill was absurd. It came down from "another place," hut no one would own its parentage, and, as it was opposed to all sense of justice, he hoped it would not be pressed further.
  MR. COGANsaid, he thought the Bill was very important, and should be fully discussed; but out of consideration to the Speaker, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate he now adjourned."
  LORD NAASsaid, that it was inexpedient to postpone the discussion of this question; and though he thought this Bill went a great deal too far, yet he considered that after the discussion which had that evening taken place upon it, they could not have a better opportunity of coming to a vote upon the question than they had now.
  LORD FERMOYobserved that the Bill was worse and more mischievous than the Rill which went before it. He admitted that the display of banners on churches were breaches of good taste, but they were not illegal; and he thought it unfortunate

  1157
  that Chief Justice Monaghan should, in his address to the Grand Jury at Fermanagh, have meddled with matters that were not illegal, and with which, therefore, he, as a Judge, had no concern. He held that the Bill would check that good feeling which it was admitted on all hands was growing up in the North of Ireland.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he feared that this was only one of many proofs of the inconsistency of the House. It was hut the other day that there was a universal call upon his right lion. Friend the Secretary for Ireland to introduce some legislative enactment to prevent the party demonstrations that had produced such a lamentable result. His right lion. Friend did not volunteer in the matter, hut it was in compliance with a call on both sides of the House that this Bill was proposed to Parliament. Now, the House, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, seemed indisposed to entertain it, and perhaps the best course would be to adjourn the debate. The matter, however, was one of great importance. Any one who read the newspapers must he aware that these party demonstrations were producing great local disorders in Ireland. The Bill might be susceptible of improvement in Committee, and his right lion. Friend was ready to consider any suggestions with a view to its improvement. If, however, the Bill was to be debated, they might go on till eight o'clock. He could not agree with the noble Lord (Lord Naas) that there would he no other opportunity of considering the Bill, for, as it seemed to be the intention of the House to sit far away into October, there would be ample time to give it full consideration. He trusted the House would agree to the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the Bill was a bad Bill, and would produce twenty times the confusion and animosity it was intended to put down. They were told the Bill came down from the House of Lords. Now, he respected the House of Lords when ho agreed with the House of Lords. But lie trusted that by rejecting this Bill they would not be doing the least disrespect to the other House.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the Bill aimed at putting down the mischief that prevailed in the North of Ireland from party demonstrations and the use of party banners, such as took place on the 12th of July at Derry. It was for the purpose of checking this evil in the bud that the Go-
  1158
  vernment had responded to the appeal of both, sides of the House by bringing in this Bill. He was astonished after what had passed in the House at the opposition which was offered to the Bill. As to "singing songs in a manner calculated to excite animosity," words on which lion, and learned Gentlemen made so merry—"Nobody but an attorney's cleric," said one hon. and learned Gentleman, "could have introduced such ridiculous words into a Bill"—-the identical words were in the Party Processions Act. On those who, after appealing to the Government to bring in a Bill; now joined together to oppose it, would rest the responsibility of any consequences which would ensue from its rejection.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should support the Government on the general principle of the Bill, having been one of those who originally called on the Government to interfere. He had certainly expected to hear Protestant Members from the North of Ireland get up and promise that they would use their moral influence to put an end to these offensive demonstrations. In that case the Catholic Members would have said at once "Away with the Bill." At the same time he should support any attempt to make the Bill as little objectionable as possible.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he was not one of those who had asked the Government to bring in this Bill, hut he strongly felt its I necessity; and he was surprised that any Roman Catholic Member should oppose it.
  MR. M'MAHONalso insisted on the necessity of the Bill to Roman Catholics in the North of Ireland.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, the Orange commemorations which had been so much sneered at were supported till lately by the Government. He should oppose the Bill. He had no doubt that if the Orangemen of the North of Ireland thought the display of Orange flags from churches was universally offensive they would, to a great extent, desist from such displays.
  MR. BRADYcharged some lion. Members on the Opposition side of the House who now opposed the Bill with having only a few hours before expressed their intention to allow it to pass without discussion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsuggested that as the debate had been continued on the general question, and not on the Motion for adjournment, that Motion had better be withdrawn, so that the House might divide at once on the second reading.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he and some other

  1159
  hon. Members would have willingly supported the Bill on the condition that certain alterations should be made in it, and he regretted that the Government had not consented to those alterations.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERcharacterized the Bill as a Coercion Bill for the North of Ireland. He wished to see the peace preserved, but he did not wish the Protestants to be coerced in the North any more than the Catholics in the South of Ireland. He thought that the common law was sufficient to prevent any action tending immediately to a breach of the peace, and that the Bill required more consideration.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he objected to all Coercion Bills. He did not believe that the passing of the Bill would induce people in authority to enforce the law, and that the rejection of the Bill would be more likely to have that effect.
  MR. COGANsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD NAASsaid, if the Government consented to withdraw from the Bill those sections which imposed penalties for hoisting flags on public places of worship and party drumming, he thought the House might safely agree to the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. CARDWELLrepeated that he was ready and willing when the Bill was in Committee to consider any amendments which might be proposed by hon. Members.
  Question put, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 29: Majority 33.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter-after Three o'clock, to Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC "BILLS.—1a Industrial Schools Act (1857) Amendment.
2a Poor Relief, &c. (Ireland); Chancery Evidence Commission; European Forces (India); Poor Law Board Continuance; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2); East India Stock Transfer, &c.
3a Militia Ballot: Tramways (Ireland).

POOR RELIEF, &c. (IRELAND), BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  LORD WODEHOUSEin moving the Resolution permitting the Bill to be now read the second time, said it had been asked on a previous evening why this Bill had not been brought forward so as to give their Lordships an opportunity of more maturely considering its provisions. The fact was that at an Early period of the Session the Secretary for Ireland introduced a general measure on the subject of the Irish Poor Law; but the pressure of other business obliged him to give up that Bill and bring in another for continuing the administration of the existing law for one year. The present Bill, therefore, contained continuing clauses, and also a provision for economizing the establishment in the employment of medical inspectors. Two other clauses had been added—one for the regulation of the law by which persons in the occupation of a quarter of an acre of land are not allowed to receive out-door relief introduced at the instance of Mr. Hennessy; and the other enabling boards of guardians to place out in families infants under twelve years of age, which was adopted from the Bill of Lord Naas, the only alteration being the insertion of twelve instead of ten years. the former of these clauses he did not mean now to press as not being urgent; but as under the present system it appeared that there had been a considerable mortality, he trusted their Lordships would consent that the other clause should be maintained.
  Moved to Resolve,
  "That as regards the said Bill, inasmuch as the Poor Law Commission in Ireland will, if not renewed, expire at the close of the present Session of Parliament, the Circumstances which require Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid lie considered the clause relating to the placing out of children open to most serious objection. It was not to provide relief for children out of the workhouse under the care of their parents, but to place them with other persons. Anything more objectionable he could not conceive. He considered it a bounty upon the desertion of children. He recommended that the clause should be omitted from the present Bill, and let a Committee be appointed next year, and if upon examination it was found necessary for the purposes of humanity and for the better care of the children, he should not object to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that if there was not a proper system of workhouse accommodation it was the fault of the Poor Law Commissioners. He submitted to their Lordships that it would be well for the Commissioners to take steps to provide proper arrangements in the workhouses for these children rather than to send them out in the way proposed.
  LORD REDESDALEcontended that it was expedient a Continuance Bill should be simply that which it professed to be, and that clauses foreign to its immediate object should not be introduced into it as was in the present instance the case. So strongly did he feel upon the point that he should next Session take occasion to move a Standing Order on the subject. What they had to consider on the present Motion was what was urgent and what was not. The first and second clauses he was prepared to admit were of such urgency as to render it desirable that they should before Parliament broke up be passed into law; but then the third and fourth, he maintained, required detailed consideration, more especially the former, which made no provision whatsoever with respect to the religious principles in which the children to whom it related should be brought up. By the fourth clause, also, an important alteration of the law was proposed; and he felt it, under those circumstances, to be his duty to move an Amendment—a course which was not without precedent, for a similar Amendment had received the assent of their Lordships in 1857
  1032
  —to the effect that, while it was desirable the first and second clauses should be proceeded with, it was not advisable to pass the third or fourth.
  Amendment moved,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the End of the Motion, and insert 'as the Powers of the Poor Law Commissioners will expire and those of other Officers be rendered inoperative unless the same be continued as provided for in the Manner proposed by the First and Second Clauses of the said Bill, the Circumstances which render Legislation on the Subject Matter of the said Clauses expedient are of such Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary, and that the said Bill should be read a Second Time for the Purpose of passing the said Clauses only."
  LORD TAUNTONthought it would not be well to accede to the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) inasmuch as it might furnish a dangerous precedent in the case of other Bills which might come under their Lordships' consideration. At the same time, taking into account the late period of the Session, he would appeal to the Government whether it would not be better to withdraw the third clause also.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas also of opinion that there were strong objections to the adoption of the course proposed by the noble Lord opposite,—that it went far beyond the occasion, and that it was not fair to put such a construction upon the Resolution against the second reading of Bills after the 27th of July as to say that all the clauses in those Bills which were of urgency might he proceeded with, while those which were deemed to be not of such character should be postponed. The Government were, however, in the hands of the House in the matter, and if good reasons against the passing of Clause 3 on its own merits were urged — which had not yet been done,—and if a largo majority of their Lordships should appear to be opposed to it, he should not, while entertaining his own views with respect to it, press it against the sense of the House.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was disposed to support the Resolution of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale), inasmuch as it enunciated an intelligible principle, and for which, moreover, a precedent was set in 1857. He was strongly of opinion that in the case in which a measure came up to their Lordships' House under the plea of being a Continuance Bill, and they were asked by the Government to read it a second time on the ground of its urgency, it was not expedient that they should be called upon to deal with new clauses and

  1033
  provisions which could not be said to be of an urgent nature at all. That the Irish Poor Law Board should not he allowed to expire was, he admitted, a matter of urgency, and furnished a sufficient reason for suspending a Standing Order of the House to prevent the occurrence of such an event; hut the case was entirely different when it was sought to take a similar course with reference to provisions which were foreign to the professed object of the Bill, and which were introduced into it under no pressure. As he was informed, it had been determined to appoint a Commission next year to inquire into the working of the Irish Poor Law Commission, and to suggest remedies for those defects which might be apparent. If that was so, or any general measure for the amendment of the Irish Poor Law was intended, that was an additional reason for adhering to the spirit of the Resolution which the House had agreed to, of throwing no obstacles in the way of the Government with reference to what was urgent, and for refusing to discuss that which, whether right or wrong in itself, could not be held to be matter of urgency, so as to escape the operation of the general rule. He could not agree that the House was not to discuss the details of a Bill on a Motion like this for immediate consideration; for he wished to know how it was possible to ascertain whether or not a Bill was of an urgent character except by discussing the details. If it were agreed that all details should be excluded, and that the measure should be merely a Continuance Bill, the difficulty vanished at once; but if the Government insisted on introducing a number of new clauses, those on the opposite benches were bound to show that these new clauses were matter of urgency. Apart altogether from the merits of the case, he thought it very inexpedient that a discussion should be introduced at present on the 3rd and 4th Clauses of the Bill. And in supporting the Amendment of his noble Friend, he must fairly state that he did so with the object of assisting to lay down, as far as was in his power, a principle by which their Lordships would be guided in their future action in regard to Bills of this description, and to add another precedent to those which already existed for the conduct of public business.
  THE EARL OF DESARTalso protested against any new clauses being introduced into a Continuance Bill, which it was proposed to pass on the ground of urgency,
  1034
  and that such a Bill should be pressed upon the attention of a jaded House with a view to smuggling it through.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished to obtain from the noble Lord the President of the Council an assurance as to the course which the Government would pursue with reference to the objectionable clauses.
  EARL GRANVILLEreplied that, as all those who had spoken on the Ministerial side of the House had expressed objection to the clauses, and as none of those by whom the clauses had last year been originated had now said a word in their favour, it was quite clear that the sense of the House was opposed to them. He should, therefore, suggest to his noble Friend to give up the third and fourth clauses when the House got into Committee: but at the same time he hoped their Lordships would feel that the Resolution as it stood was a very proper one to be adopted.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion,
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 30; Not-Contents 34: Majority 4.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Then the said Motion, as amended, was agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CHANCERY EVIDENCE COMMISSION BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved to Resolve—
  "That as regards Two Reports of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Mode of taking Evidence in Chancery and its Effects, Doubts being entertained whether Effect can be given to the Recommendations contained in such Reports by General Orders of the Court without the Authority of Parliament; and such Doubts not having been suggested or foreseen until the Commencement of this Month; and it being of the greatest importance that such Doubts should be removed, and that Rules and Orders should forthwith be made for the Purpose of carrying the Recommendations contained in the said Reports, or some of them, into effect; the Circumstances which require Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MILITIA BALLOT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON,in moving the third reading of this Bill, said the noble EARL (the EARL of Derby) had suggested on a former evening that the age fixed in the Bill should be lowered from 18 to 16. He had consulted his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on the subject, and, after full consideration, it appeared that there were reasons which rendered it unadvisable at present. The Government had also determined to persevere in their intention of reducing the limit at the other end from 35 to 30. The schedule would therefore remain as it stood at present in the Bill, and the liability to the ballot would be from 18 to 30 years of age.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he had objected to the reduction of the age from 35 to 30, because many men would be able to render good service in the Militia at the latter age, when they would not be available for the regular army, while at the same time it would extend the area of liability. In the same way, lads of from 16 to 18 years of age, though they might not be fit for service in the field, would be very competent for service in the Militia; and at the end of the period of service namely, five, years, they would be 21, when such as felt inclined to enlist, would form a most valuable addition to the army. So long as they did not go beyond the physical capacity of the men, he thought the greater the extension of the age at which persons were liable to the ballot the better; while at the same time, by increasing the number of the persons liable to the ballot they would render the ballot less oppressive to the people. From 18 to 35 were the ages lie should prefer; but if 30 were taken for the one limit, ho thought the other should be lowered to 16. However, as her Majesty's Government had expressed their opinion on the matter, and had avowed a determination not to alter the clause, he would not put them to the trouble of dividing the House on the question.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBORQUGHsaid, he was not aware that an English boy of 16 was less strong, hardy, or brave than an Italian boy of the same age; yet it was well known that by far the larger proportion of the army under Garibaldi was composed of youths between 16 and 20.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that Von Archenholz, the historian of the Seven Years'
  1036
  War, when 14, was engaged in actual service in the field, and he thought it would be a very good plan to extend the limits of liability to the ballot from the ago of 14 to the age of 33.
  Bill read 3a.
  On Question that the Bill do pass,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexpressed his opinion that the extension at least to the age of 33 would be a great improvement in the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEpointed out that it would only be in cases of urgent necessity that the ballot would be put in force, and the recruits which would be obtained by reducing the age so low as 16 would not be of much use for service in the field. He said that even in the regular army in time of peace the age of recruits was from 18 to 20, and in time of war it was only reduced to 16.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that in time of war, when there was a great demand for recruits for the army, and it was found necessary to extend the age at which men could enter it, it was always found that the militia ballot formed a serious impediment to recruiting, simply because a much larger amount could be obtained by a substitute for the Militia than the bounty given for entering the army; and if they fixed the period at the precise age at which men entered the army, they very much interfered with its recruiting, the substitutes being for the most part drawn from the very class from which the army was recruited. To remedy that inconvenience he wished to include in the liability to the ballot a class of men not so liable to become recruits—those who never could serve in the army might do so in the Militia.
  LORD REDESDALEsuggested that 17 should be fixed as the limit.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that any one who would go to Eaton would see 400 young gentlemen, every one of them under 17, going through their exercises in a very excellent manner.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the reason why the Government did not think such extension advisable was that to a certain extent the militia ballot was contrary to our general usages, being the substitution of compulsory for voluntary service; and they thought by confining it within reasonable limits, as respected the age of persons liable to the ballot it would lose much of that unpopularity which would otherwise inevitably attach to it. The lower the scale the larger the number of persons who

  1037
  would be found unfit for the military service, and the greater the chance of being compelled to have resort to the second Ballot. The question of the extension, both upwards and downwards, bad been very carefully considered at the War Office, and on the whole, Her Majesty's Ministers thought it would be better to pass the Bill in its present form.
  Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL,

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid: *During the last few years questions of great importance in reference to the affairs of India have been brought with more than usual frequency under the attention of Parliament; and on almost all of those questions more or less difference of opinion has prevailed. But I think I may say with truth that on no subject has the difference of opinion been so great or so keenly contested as on the question which this Bill is intended to decide. In truth, my Lords, I believe that the amalgamation of the European forces of the late East India Company's service with the forces of the Line was long considered one of the main difficulties in the way of the transference of the Government of India from the Company to the Crown. I well recollect that in the discussions in 1853, during the Administration of Lord Aberdeen, on the "renewal of the charter," when various alternatives were before us, it was considered that the difficulties in the way of an amalgamation of the two armies were among the most serious of those which precluded any proposal being at that time made for the transference of the Government from the Company to the Crown. Nevertheless, after a few short years, the occurrence of intervening events and the progress of discussion, 1ms brought about such a change that a Bill has come up to effect that object, carried by an overwhelming majority in the other House—a majority not of a party nature, but, on the contrary, consisting of all the political parties into which that House is divided, and I should be guilty of affectation if I pretended to expect any serious probability of its being rejected by your Lordships. Yet I am sure that it is the opinion of the House that this is not a Motion which ought to be made as a mere matter of course. It affects too nearly the interests of the Indian Govern-
  1038
  ment; and, although I hope it does not affect the interests of any individuals, yet it affects too nearly the long-cherished convictions of a body of men of whom I may say with truth that England has every reason to he proud, to entitle the Government to deal with it in any stage without proving, as far as they can, that it has received due attention, and that every view of the subject has been carefully considered.
  Although, therefore, I trust that it is an unopposed measure by the great majority of your Lordships, I think I am justified in laying before the House, in some detail, the grounds upon which the Government has proceeded. And inasmuch as many arguments urged against the amalgamation of the European local army with the army of the Line are derived not so much from the specific provisions of the Bill as from certain indirect consequences which it is assumed will follow it; let me direct attention to what the Bill is, and to what it is not—to what it does, and to what it does not do.
  In the first place, then, although many arguments would lead us to suppose that it is so, this is not a Bill for the abolition of the local army of India. After its provisions have come into full operation there will still be a large local army, composed of the Natives of various tribes, who are trained to our military service; and although I do not deny that many changes will be the natural consequence of this measure, yet, if on other grounds it were considered advisable, you might continue the present system of management, and, to a large extent, the present system of officering the local army without the smallest interference as far as regards the provisions of this Bill. In the next place, it is not, properly speaking, a Bill for the abolition even of the European local army. The whole of the regiments of the late East India Company which have any historical recollections will preserve their identity, although the terms of service will be altered. They will retain their ancient names and banners, and the recollections of all their great achievements. The direct consequence of this Bill is simply this, that it will be out of the power of the Secretary of State for India to enlist for the future any European soldiers exclusively for the local service of that country; and thus, after a few years, oil the corps which are now local will become corps for the genera! service of the empire, liable in their turn

  1039
  to all the exigencies and requirements connected with the defence of Her Majesty's dominions.
  Now, my Lords, I do not at all mean to depreciate the importance of the change which I have thus attempted to describe. At the same time I am prepared to argue that the importance and scope of that change has been very much exaggerated. A paper has been laid on your Lordships' table of great importance—no less than the protest of Sir James Outram, who lately occupied the position of President of the Council of India. That distinguished Officer describes the change in these words:—"It is an organic change in that military system under which India has been won and kept." I venture to say, in spite of the assent of my noble Friend opposite to this assertion (the EARL of Ellenborough) that, so far as concerns either the provisions of this measure, or its necessary consequences, such language is chargeable with very great exaggeration. One would suppose from this language that India had been won and had been kept, if not entirely, at least in a main degree, by the European army of the East India Company. I venture to dispute that assertion altogether; and as it is a matter of some importance, I trust the House will allow me to direct attention for a few moments to some of the facts connected with the past history of the European force in India. Before doing so, allow me to say that whatever is the amount of change which this Bill effects, it is a change infinitely less organic than that which was the only other alternative presented for the adoption of the Government. I beg the House to recollect that the maintenance of the status quo is not in question. None of the officers of the local army, and none of the public men who have espoused their views, contend for the maintenance of a small European local army. The question is, not whether we should retain the army which existed, but whether we should create a new army very much increased in numbers and in many respects very differently composed. I think I shall be able to prove, having regard to the past history of India; that the institution of a great and powerful European force separated from the army of the Line would be a far greater change than that which we propose—namely, that the comparatively small army which has hitherto existed shall be amalgamated with the Line.
  In the first charter of the East India
  1040
  Company, in the time of William III., no limitation was placed on the powers of the Company as to the number of European troops which they might raise. They were enabled to raise as many recruits as were found necessary for the "defence of their forts and possessions." At that time I need hardly say, it was not foreseen that the East India Company, which was then a mere trading association, would one day become a great territorial power, and but little importance was consequently attached to their military proceedings; but the moment it was seen that they were likely to be that which they afterwards became, the natural jealousy of the English Parliament and Government was aroused, and statutory limitations were soon placed upon the power of raising European troops. And even long before this precaution was considered necessary, another step practically even more important had been taken, which tended to the same effect. Very Early in the history of India—in 1754, that is only four years after the famous defence of Arcot by Clive, the Crown resolved to send troops; of the Line to that country, and a detachment of the 39th Regiment, which still bears upon its colours the motto "Primus in Indis," formed no inconsiderable portion of the small European force which fought at Plassy. In the year 1773, when the Company assumed avowed authority over the province of Lower Bengal, their European troops amounted in number to 11,468, which, so far as I have been able to ascertain, was the maximum which had been reached until the other day. In considering however the importance of this levy, we must look not only to quantity but also to quality. Now there is abundant evidence, that the East India Company and the Government of India attached but comparatively small importance to their European forces. The truth is, that, with the exception of the Artillery corps, respecting which peculiar care was taken from the very earliest time, the European army was very ill organized, and in so inferior a state of discipline that the officers of the Company placed almost their entire reliance upon the Sepoy troops, under European command, and upon the regiments of the Line. In 1773 Clive declared that our existence in India depended upon the Sepoys commanded by English officers, and that the defence of the country might be intrusted to them alone, supported by a corps of Artillery, similarly commanded. In 1786 Lord Cornwallis

  1041
  gives this account of the European troops of the Company:—
  "The Kings' British regiments must not be parted with. We have in reality nothing else, except the corps of artillery, that deserves the name of an European force.
  Again, he says, in the same year,
  The intense heat and unhealthiness of the climate are against all military discipline, yet I was astonished at the good appearance of the King's troops. The Company's artillery are very fine, but their European infantry, on whom the defence of these possessions may one day depend, are in a most wretched state."
  I leave your Lordships therefore to judge whether, as far as concerns the Earlier contests conducted by Warren Hastings and Lord Clive, it is not clearly proved that at least the conquest of India was mainly effected by the power which was exhibited by the officers of the Company in the organization of Native troops, and by the regiments of the Line which were sent from England to reinforce and support them.
  Your Lordships will remember that the Board of Control was established by Mr. Pitt in the year 1784. One of its first acts was to insist upon a great reduction of the Company's forces in India. But the view which was taken on this subject, and the importance which was attached to it, is strikingly illustrated by a celebrated debate which took place in Parliament, a few years later. In the year 1788, when there was an alarm of a renewed contest with the French in that country and in Europe, and when it was determined to reinforce the garrison in India by a considerable force of European troops, the question arose whether that reinforcement should consist of regiments of the Line or of an addition to the local force. Thus the very question which we are now debating, was discussed for many days in both Houses of Parliament more than seventy years ago, and in that discussion Mr. Pitt laid it down as a principle, that ultimately the amalgamation of that army with the Line must be attempted, and said that he would not consent to the adoption of any measure which would render the attainment of that object more difficult. His words were:—
  "Such a consolidation was undoubtedly to be wished for, and sooner or later it must be attempted. Of this he would shortly say more, and therefore in this place he would only suggest that Ministers, having this very object in view, had thought it more advisable to raise Royal regiments to serve in India than Company's regiments; because, if they had preferred the latter, they must have made the consolidation of the two armies, by so much, a work of more difficulty."
  1042
  The Declaratory Act which Mr. Pit then introduced, giving power to the Board of Control to send four new regiments of the Line to India, and to charge them on the revenues of the Company, was very keenly contested, and was carried with great reluctance and dislike on the part of a considerable portion of the House of Commons. It is recorded in the journals of that day that it was carried by a majority of only sixty-seven—a majority which, however small it might he considered in the first triumphant Parliament of Mr. Pitt, is one which any Ministry would now accept with very tolerable satisfaction. In consequence of the decision then come to four King's regiments, instead of four Company's, were sent to India, and from that time the number of the Company's European troops steadily diminished, having never, until quite the other day, reached the limit fixed by the Act of 1788—namely, 12,000 men. In 1796 that army was reduced to two regiments of infantry, or, as those regiments consisted of only five companies, in point of fact, to one regiment, in each Presidency; the formal change to that number in 1829 being only a matter of arrangement. That was the state of things down to the Affghan war. But I need go no further than the Minute of the Governor General, which has recently been laid upon your Lordships' table, to show that in the conquest and subsequent protection of India the European regiments of the Company have always been considered as playing a comparatively subordinate part. I do not mean to say that they have not always behaved with distinguished gallantry; that they have done; but I am showing the exaggeration of the language used by Indian officers, especially by Sir James Outran). Lord Canning says:—
  "It appears as if these troops, forming as they did a very small portion of the Indian army, had been until lately almost overlooked by their successive commanders-in-chief."
  That does not look as if they had been the main instruments "by which India had been won and kept." I need hardly remind your Lordships that in accordance with the declared opinion of the Government of Mr. Pitt, Lord Cornwallis, at the desire of Mr. Dundas, drew up in 1794 a detailed scheme for the amalgamation of the two armies. Owing to difficulties of detail it was not carried into effect, hut both Mr. Pitt and Lord Cornwallis expressed the strongest opinions as to the

  1043
  expediency of the measure and the necessity for its ultimate adoption. I venture to maintain, therefore, that as there was no alternative for the Government except to adopt this measure which had so long been recommended, or to raise for the first time a large English army to he exclusively confined to India, the step which they have taken involves a change far less great, and far less formidable than the other.
  In order to show your Lordships how great would have been the change produced by the adoption of the other course, I need only remind the House of the nature of the demand made by those who represent the views of the local force. I presume I may take the opinion of the Military Committee of the Council of India as fairly representing those views. Well, their demand is, that the whole of the artillery, three-fourths of the cavalry, and two-thirds of the infantry should be exclusively local. It is true that this opinion has been modified by various individual authorities, but the Governor General says that the Native force ought to be two-thirds of the whole army, and earnestly urges that on no consideration should it be less than one-half. Then, my Lords, I say that a Local European Army of such proportions would be entirely new. It is not the system under which our dominion in India was acquired, or has been maintained.
  Why, then, should we adopt such a proposal? There are great mechanical difficulties, if I may call them so, in the way of carrying such a plan into effect. I cannot mention the name of the late Lord Elphinstone without expressing, what I am sure is the general feeling of the House, our deep and heartfelt sorrow at his loss. We had looked forward to having his counsel and his advice upon this subject; and I believe that we are all deeply convinced that among the distinguished men who exerted themselves during that terrible Indian mutiny, none better deserved the vote of thanks, which was moved in such eloquent terms by the noble EARL opposite, than did Lord Elphinstone. What does Lord Elphinstone say as to the mere mechanical difficulty of raising a great European army for India? He says:—
  "If we are to have a local European army, we must, in fact, begin almost afresh. Is it' worth while to do this? "What reasonable prospect is there of a local force, under any circumstances, being equal to the regiments of the Line? Above all, what possible chance is there of such a result
  1044
  being obtained with the officers of the late Bengal army?"
  The opinion of Lord Elphinstone clearly was, that the officers of the late Bengal army, in reference to whose interests, in a great measure, that plan has been urged, were not capable of organizing and maintaining the discipline of a European force. And what, upon this point, is the opinion of Lord Canning, who supports the project of a large local army? His evidence, contained in a Minute on our table, is even more specific than that of Lord Elphinstone. He says: "Speedily to raise a European army for India, and to officer it efficiently from our present body of officers, is impossible." Now, look at the project which Lord Canning lays down for the purpose of raising this force, and see the objections which present themselves against it. In the first place, with reference to the late Indian mutiny, and the insufficient garrisoning of that country, it has been necessary to increase the troops of the Line there. Something like from 25 to 30 battalions were raised in order to meet that exigency. You have these 25 battalions of the Line in the highest state of organization and discipline. They add to the effective force of the empire, and are available for any other service they may he called on to perform. You would have to commence by disbanding these regiments of the Line. Is not that a very great and serious objection? And how are you to raise and officer the new regiments? Lord Canning says it cannot be done by the old Indian officers whose interests have been so much urged. For this purpose, therefore, you are to borrow the services of officers of the Line; and when they have succeeded in raising regiments something equal to those which you have already got, but which you must now disband, these new regiments are to be sent out to India, and placed under the control and guidance of those Sepoy officers who are declared to be unfit for such duties. Is not that a roundabout scheme, and one open to grave objections in point of Imperial policy? Again, there is one argument has been stated against the maintenance of a local force in India, to which, I own, I have never attached much importance,—namely, that a large local force would enter into injurious competition with the Line in the recruiting market of this country. It had always appeared to me, if you are to have 80,000 Europeans in India, that it would be the same thing as regards the demand

  1045
  made upon the field of recruitment in Englend, whether the 80,000 were divided between a local and a Line force, or whether they all composed one army. But the objections taken on this ground have gained I strength in my mind since I have seen the I demand of Sir James Outran) on this subject. Sir James Outram fully admits that a change of measures in regard to recruiting will be necessary, if there is to be a large local army in India; and lie has sent home an appendix to his Minute, in which he proposes that arrangements should be made to attract to the local force the picked men of the whole recruiting field in England. It surely cannot tend to promote the general interests of the empire, that the very best men who can be induced to enter the military profession, should have special inducements to limit themselves to an exclusively local service. Surely this would be a needless embarrassment in the main object you have had in all those improvements in the condition of the soldier, and in the recruiting system, which have lately occupied so much attention.
  I think, my Lords, I have now sufficiently proved—first, that the maintenance of such an army would be entirely new; secondly, that it would be very difficult; and I now venture to add, that it would be in the highest degree dangerous.
  It is often said that too much stress has been laid on the late strike or mutiny in the local European force in India; and in some respects I am not sure that this may not be true. But be it observed that the argument derived from the danger of mutiny has not been confined to those who object to a local European force. On the contrary, one of the arguments over and over again repeated in the papers on our table by the officers of the East India Company, is that it would be advisable to divide the army into two portions, and that the Queen's troops would keep in order the local force, and the local force in turn would keep in order the Queen's troops. The danger of mutiny is therefore an argument common to both parties; and the only question is—which system is least likely to expose us to the danger of serious insubordination and mutiny,—a large local force or an amalgamated army of the Line? The answer to that question must depend very much on the evidence we possess in regard to the discipline of the East India Company's former local army. I think it is clear that if the one force be inferior to the other in discipline, the danger of in-
  1046
  subordination must be greater in the case of that one, than in the case of the other. I know that in speaking of the discipline of the European regiments of the late East India Company I am touching on extremely delicate ground, and I beg to draw a distinction between discipline in one sense and discipline in another. I believe it is the universal testimony of all Line officers who have served in India that, as far as regards the discipline and the gallantry necessary in the field, no regiments in the world could exceed, as none have exceeded, the services of the Company's regiments. There is ample evidence to the same effect in the papers now on our table. But I must say there is a general concurrence of opinion that, as regards discipline in a different sense, and with reference to the relations between the men and the officers, the regiments of the local force are decidedly inferior to the regiments of the Line. I have already adduced some evidence on this point from the EARL ier history of the East India Company. I now turn to a more recent period. In 1828 the Duke of Wellington gave evidence before a Committee upon public expenditure. It was proposed to him that, in order to save the heavy expense of frequent reliefs in regard to colonial service, a number of corps should be put on the footing of a local colonial force, in the same manner as the European regiments of the East India Company. What was the Duke of Wellington's reply to that suggestion? He says:—
  "The difference in the state of the King's troops in the East Indies from that in which the Company's European infantry is known to ha is conclusively against it—the colonial system of corps—in my opinion."
  The Duke goes on to say,—
  "It is very extraordinary, and I can only attribute it to their being confined there for their lives, that it is so, but it is very extraordinary that the same description of officers, who form the Sepoys into remarkably good troops, cannot form the European infantry to be at all equal to the other troops."
  Evidence to the same effect as regards the condition of affairs at the present time, might be adduced in abundance. But I need not go further than the last Minute of the Governor-General. If it had been possible to maintain a contrary opinion, everything in the argument urged by Lord Canning would have induced him to adopt it. But his admission is emphatic—that "in this respect (namely, perfection of

  1047
  military discipline) they were much below the troops of the Line."
  It is also admitted by Sir James Outram, in his protest against the proposed measure, that the discipline of the local force is inferior to that of the Line. He gives reasons, indeed, for it. It has arisen, he says, from causes over which the officers themselves have had no control—namely, from mistakes on the part of the Government, alterations in the rules of discipline, in respect to the power exercised by commanding officers over the men, and especially from the system of Staff employment. I am not now inquiring into the causes of this inferiority in discipline, but merely into the fact of its existence, and I believe it to be proved by the concurrent testimony of all who have written on the subject. I regret to observe a disposition on the part of the East India Company's officers to treat with some degree of depreciation what is called the more perfect discipline of the Queen's Army. They say it is the mere discipline of parade; that it does not in any way touch the efficiency of the force in the field, and is of no serious consequence. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me when I say, that we ought to watch with the greatest care and jealousy the operation of any cause which tends to affect, however slightly, the perfection of military discipline—any cause which tends to affect, even in the smallest degree, that sense of subordination and that principle of obedience which is the first duty of a soldier. After all, my Lords, what are we arguing about? Not about the efficiency of the local army in the field, but the danger of insubordination in the times of quiet and peace, when troops suffer the lassitude and inaction of long cantonment, and are not under the excitement of active service. The admission, then, of Lord Canning—the admissions of the late Company's officers themselves,—and the concurrent testimony of all former years, in respect to the high comparative perfection of military discipline in the Queen's Army is, in my mind, conclusive against a large and almost predominant local force. Some of the causes of their inferiority which have been assigned by Sir James Outram might probably be removed; but I do not believe they could be removed altogether. Look to the reason given by Lord Cornwallis for the inferiority of the Company's troops in discipline. He refers to the nature of the climate. Lord Canning also thinks this inferiority might, to a
  1048
  certain extent, be removed, but ho says emphatieally that "probably it would not have been possible to keep them up to the mark of their brother soldiers trained in England." It is clear that Lord Canning does not expect the local force ever to reach or equal the perfect discipline of the army of the Line. Well, but surely as regards the garrisoning of India, this is a matter of primary importance. Perfect military discipline is of primary importance even here, where civil authority is paramount, and where every time the soldier quits his barracks he is reminded that he is nothing but a citizen of the State. But in India all is different. There he sees and feels that the authority of the civil Government rests to a great extent on his sword; everything around him reminds him of his importance and his power; when he quits his barracks ho sees a subject population for although, I trust, we rule the people of India for their own good, it must be admitted, I fear, that we have hitherto kept India by the power of the sword. Therefore, I say, that a large local army feeling that the civil Government entirely depends on them, and in a state of comparatively inferior discipline, would be a source of perpetual anxiety; and I feel sure that the institution of such a force would be an experiment which no English Government would venture to attempt.
  Indeed, my Lords, with regard to this question of discipline, it appears to me that the very arguments used in favour of forming this great local army are a sufficient indication of the circumstances of strong temptation in which they would be placed. It is argued that they, as the local force, are to be the permanent garrison of India the army of the Line being avariable, and comparitively accidental element. They are to be thus taught to believe, as, so to speak, one of the traditions of their birth, that India in an especial sense belongs to them, and that its Government rests on their courage and fidelity. Again, they are to understand that they are constituted with a special jealousy of the Horse Guards, which I hold with reference to this subject is but another name for the authority of the Crown. They are therefore to watch with jealousy any interference of the Imperial Government. Again, I find it argued that special relations ought to exist between the local Europeans and the Native army. And last, not least, for this is perhaps the most dangerous of all-it is one of the conditions OD which much stress

  1049
  is laid, that they are to have what is called a fail share of the good things of India. But who are to judge of what is the fair share? Can a great body of armed men, with habits and feelings specially localized, be placed in a more dangerous predicament? Can a Government be placed in a more embarrassing position? I know this view may appear rather overstrained to some; but I have good reason to believe and know that within the last few months—within the course of last year—and I appeal to my noble and gallant Friend, late Commander-in-Chief in India, (Lord Clive), whose accession to this House we are all proud of—I would appeal to my noble and gallant Friend whether, on some very recent occasions, it has not been found a source of serious embarrassment to him and the Government of India that there existed a necessity for dividing the number of commands in certain proportions, not with reference to the free' choice of the Government of the fittest men, but with reference to the necessity of consulting the feeling of a divided army.
  Then, why should we run all these risks? That there is some risk every noble Lord must admit. Why should we incur the risk of insubordination and of jealous feeling between two great European forces in India? The main argument, which I know carries peculiar force with some, is that without it we shall lose the school of officers hitherto so invaluable in India. Now, I do not deny that certain changes in regard to the officering of the army in India, and in regard to Staff employments in India, will be the natural though not the necessary consequences of this Bill. But what I venture to maintain is this, that these changes, and no other, are precisely the changes which have long been considered absolutely necessary by the confession and complaints of Indian officers themselves.
  What does Sir James Outram say is the special value of this school of officers? He says it is "a school of officers intimately conversant with the workings of the Native mind." Now, my Lords, I do not wish to make any undue use of the great mutiny of 1857. I sincerely think that state of things arose out of many causes, and the mismanagement, perhaps, of many preceding Governments, and it would be most unjust and ungenerous to lay the blame of that event on the European officers who commanded the Sepoy regiments. They unfortunately trusted their men with such
  1050
  perfect confidence, that a very large number of them were massacred without a chance of escape; and those who did escape should be the objects of our perpetual honour, because they showed a degree of firmcess of mind and heroism which casts upon them immortal honour as British soldiers. But surely it is neither unjust nor ungenerous to say that they were not a school of officers who proved that they were intimately conversant with the workings of the Indian mind. The real truth is this, and it has been confessed over and over again—I heard it alluded to in very eloquent terms by the noble EARL (the EARL of Ell en borough) opposite several years before the mutiny took place—that for many years there had been a growing change in the relations which once subsisted, between the European officers and the Sepoy army; and I venture to appeal to him whether the events which took place in 1857 would have been possible in the EARL ier and better days of the army of the East India Company. The mutual confidence which then existed between the Sepoy soldier and his officer had for many years been broken down, along with the personal intercourse on which that confidence was founded. I am sorry to see that my noble Friend (Lord Ellen-borough) intimates dissent. But I have evidence on this point, the authority of which, I think, even he will be disposed to admit. I take one of the Company's most distingaished officers, who himself fell a victim to the mutiny, for he fell in the siege of Lucknow—I mean Sir Henry Lawrence. What does he say on the relations which had come to exist between the European officers and the men of the Sepoy regiments? Sir Henry Lawrence, like many officers in India, was in the habit of contributing to the periodical literature of the day, and ho communicated to the Calcutta Review a series of articles, since published in a separate volume, avowedly by him. Among these there are two most interesting articles on the reform of the Indian army, written in 1855ߝ56, before the mutiny, and before his mind could be influenced by any considerations arising out of that event. Referring to various changes in the organization of the Sepoy troops, he says:—
  "By removing Native officers from corps professedly commanded and officered by Europeans, though too often really managed by havildar majors, opportunity would be given to the European officer to look into the interior economy of his re-

  1051
  giment or company. Seldom is anything of the kind done at present. So long as all is smooth and quiet on the surface, few inquiries are made. All may be rotten below; the jogtrot is followed, A mine may be ready to he sprung for all that nine-tenths of the officers would know. Many do not know the very names of the men of their own company."
  Surely these are remarkable words, considering the date at which they were written. But I have further evidence. I would now quote the testimony of another I distinguished Company's officer, who is happily still alive, and who occupies a distinguished position in India at the present moment. I mean Sir Patrick Grant. I find him saying, in one of the papers before Parliament:—
  "Further, the officers are discontented, only looking forward to leave their regiment for some more pleasant employment, so that they perform, and unwillingly, the bare outline of their duty, and never, as a general rule, mix or converse with their men; but, on the contrary, too often refuse to listen to their complaints, at the best telling them to go to the adjutant, and, not unfrequently, Go to— don't bother me.…The consequence of this craving is utter indifference, not to say positive dislike, towards the men; and the engendering of a restless, discontented disposition, which is, I doubt not, communicated to the soldier."
  I ask your Lordships, 'do not these extracts from the testimony of such men substantiate what I said, that for some time there had been going on a deterioration in the relations that subsisted at an EARL ier period between the European officers and their men in India?
  Now, what has been the remedy proposed, and loudly called for by many of the most distinguished officers of the Indian army? I have admitted that some changes will naturally follow this Bill; but it will be found that they are precisely such as would follow without it—namely, the formation of a separate Staff corps, the abolition of the system which kept men on the strength of their regiments when in reality they were employed elsewhere, and other changes of a similar nature. Again, look at this matter in a somewhat different point of view. Is the present system of officering the local army, and the present system of appointment or of promotion in India, so very perfect, that the necessity of making some change in that system should fill us with alarm? Indian officers, when opposing this measure, would appear to think so; but I observe that when they they have been writing or speaking without reference to this con-
  1052
  tested question, they always tell a very different story. Sir John Lawrence is a great opponent of this measure. A higher authority, I admit, can hardly exist; or one more distinguished in every way. Indeed, so far as my own opinion is concerned, I differ from him almost with greater doubt and hesitation, than from any man in regard to this question. Sir John Lawrence, in expressing his dread of the consequences of this measure, says—
  "Were the civil and military appointments in India filled up from a general Staff corps, its officers would, no doubt, obtain the ordinary and subordinate posts of the service; bat such men would have little chance of high commands. They would never he brought forward, as has been the ease under the old system, with all its faults."
  Well, but what do I find his own equally distinguished brother, Sir Henry Lawrence, saying in reference to the state of things which, previous to the mutiny, prevailed in India:—
  "Let no officer obtain the command even of a company until ho has proved his qualification. The present tests are altogether insufficient.…They should oblige each officer to evince moderate ability and moderate application. All men are not intended by nature to be soldiers. The sooner incapables find out the mistake of their parents in having put them into the wrong line the better for themselves and for the service. In no army are higher qualifications required. Is it good that one single individual officer should be a laughingstock to his men? They are nearly fifty to one of us."
  Such is the opinion of Sir Henry Lawrence in reference to the pre-existing state of the Indian army. And what, let me ask again, is the remedy proposed? "There must be a Staff corps," says Sir Henry Lawrence in the same paper; "whatever may be its inconveniences they will be less than those which now obtain." Lord Canning expresses a strong opinion not only that the Staff employments of India—that is to say, the military, political, and quasi-civil appointments, which are so largely filled in that country by military men, should be open to the Line, but he further urges that officers of the one service should be free to exchange info the other. Long before any question of the amalgamation of the two armies arose, it was suggested, as duo to the officers of the Line, that the Staff appointments in India should be open to them, and upon that point my noble Friend opposite (the EARL of Ellenborough), among others, gave very strong evidence. In answer to questions which were put to him he said:—

  1053
  "The Queen's officers will, equally with the local officers (not to the same number probably), be entitled to command the irregular Native corps."
  Then the noble Earl was asked—
  "Would you throw it open?—Certainly; supposing them to be competent, from a knowledge of the language. I think that everything should be equal with regard to appointments between the two forces. I think it would be very unjust to the Queen's army not to make it so."
  He was then asked whether the officers of the Line and those of the local army should be entitled to an equal share of those appointments. That reply was—
  "No, not an equal share in proportion to numbers; that would put an end altogether to my principle. My principle is, that the Governor General should be at liberty to take the ablest men he could find anywhere; that they should be eligible, but have no rights.
  "Lord Stanley: You do not admit, in short, the right on the part of any set of men to say, 'Here is a certain proportion of these appointments to be set aside for us?'—No, it is contrary to reason."
  Now, I venture to suggest that if Staff appointments in India were to he open to officers of the Line as well as of the local army, without the formation of a Staff corps, all the Members of which should be equally eligible, you would have constant difficulty in considering the respective claims of those two bodies of men, and the Indian Government would be compelled to govern its appointments not solely with reference to individual qualifications, but in a large degree by the necessity of considering the jealousy of rival armies. Sir James Outran), I may add, is a strong supporter of the establishment of a Staff corps, to which officers of both armies should be eligible. This measure, then, which certainly is one natural consequence of the proposed amalgamation, is also, as I have now shown, a measure the adoption of which was recommended by some of the most distinguished officers of the late Company, long before the present question had arisen.
  I now come to what I regard to be the main question in the discussion of the present Bill—will you find officers of the Line willing to qualify themselves for Indian service, and devote themselves to an Indian career, as Company's officers have hitherto done? This is a question which to some extent may be matter of speculation, but on which there are not wanting both facts and arguments sufficient to lead us to a very
  1054
  safe conclusion. The noble EARL opposite (the EARL of Ellenborough), in reply to a question which was put to him on the subject, said—
  "When a regiment is sent there certainly for ten years, or perhaps for a longer period, if an officer felt that by making himself acquainted with the Native languages he would have an opportunity of obtaining some civil or political employment, I think it is contrary to reason that those officers should not in a very great number of cases qualify themselves, because there is no very great difficulty in it."
  I find, moreover, that Lord Elphinstone expresses the strongest opinion that there would not be the smallest difficulty in procuring officers of the Line to undergo that peculiar education which would fit them to hold Staff employments in India. On this point I think my noble and gallant Friend on the cross benches may be induced to give us the benefit of his long experience, and may be able to inform us whether it is not the fact that numbers of officers of the Line would have been glad, even under the old system, if they had been able to enter the Company's service. Indeed, as the noble EARL opposite has truly said, it is "contrary to reason" to suppose that it should be otherwise, for there are few advantages in the military service at home at all equal to those conferred by the appointments in India, which is now to be open to any officer who chooses to qualify himself to hold them. The Indian career holds out the hopes of high emoluments and of opportunities of distinction such as are afforded to few officers of the Line in time of peace, either in this country or in the Colonies. Why is it, then, I would ask, that we should not expect officers of the Line to qualify themselves in sufficient numbers for service in India? The fact I believe to be that there are at the present moment upwards of 150 of those officers employed in the discharge of duties which under the old system were almost exclusively confined to officers of the local force. I am moreover given to understand that in anticipation of the passing of this measure a very large number of young men belonging to the Queen's regiments are actually undergoing the process of an Indian education to qualify themselves for Staff appointments in that country. The fears upon this score which some persons entertain, I therefore conceive to be unfounded, or at least very much exaggerated.
  I now come to an objection to the Bill on which great stress has been laid by

  1055
  many officers of the Company's service, and that is, the fear of what is called the interference of the Horse Guards. In the presence of the illustrious Duke on the cross benches, this is a point to which I address myself with some embarrassment; the more so, as having frequently endeavoured to form a distinct conception of the idea which the "Horse Guards" presents to the mind of an Indian officer, I have always come to the conclusion that it is one pretty nearly synonymous with the origin of all evil. But be that as it may, there is nothing in this Bill which increases by one jot the authority that has hitherto been exercised by the Commander-in-Chief over that portion of the army located in India. In support of this opinion I again appeal to the views to which expression has been given by my noble Friend opposite (the EARL of Ellenborough), who says, in reply to the following question:—
  "Q. What do you suppose that the power exercised by the Commander-in-chief here over that portion of the army which has been located in India has been hitherto?—Nothing whatever. I am not aware of any sort of communication between them. I believe I had occasionally the opportunity of sending to the Horse Guards information with respect to Queen's regiments with which they were not already provided."
  The illustrious Duke on the cross benches will also, I believe, be able to hear his testimony to the fact that he neither intends nor wishes that his authority, so far as relates to the troops in India, should be in any respect altered by the passing of the present measure. The Governor General of India will, as hitherto, possess supreme military, as well as civil and political power in India, and will he enabled, in conjunction with his own Commander-in-Chief, to confer any employments and commands which he may please on those officers of the Line, who then, as now, may be sent out to that country. This is a subject on which Mr. Willoughby has expressed a very sensible opinion. He says:—
  "Because it is scarcely to be expected that the Horse Guards, overwhelmed with the business of superintending and controlling the Queen's army stationed at home and in the Colonies, can, in addition thereto, undertake the administration, in all its branches, of the military forces of an empire so remote and of such magnitude as India."
  Certainly not; it is neither to he expected, nor is it to he desired, nor is it intended, nor is it rendered possible by the provisions of this measure. In future, exactly as heretofore, the Horse Guards will
  1056
  send to India such general officers as the Government is desirous of employing in connection with the European army of the Line; but the disposal of commands, as well as the disposition of the troops will rest also, as heretofore, with the local Commander-in-Chief and the Government of India.
  I have now only, my Lords, before sitting down, to enter my protest against the criticisms which have been passed on the conduct of the Government, both in Parliament and out of doors, in connection with the course which they have taken upon this Bill. It has been said, that we have introduced this measure against the opinion and advice of all who could be considered authorities on the subject; and at so late a period of the Session, that it has been impossible for Parliament to pay to its consideration adequate attention. I regret that the measure was brought so late before Parliament, but I trust that fact will be received as evidence of the sincere desire of Her Majesty's Government to examine into the subject with the utmost care. I do not deny that the measure has been considered, not only with care, but with some anxiety by the Government. It was impossible to read declarations from such men as Sir John Lawrence, Sir James Outram and others, that this measure would make an organic change in the system by which India has been won, and by which alone it can he kept, without feeling that it was absolutely necessary to sift the question thoroughly—to look at it in every possible point of view, and to see whether this amalgamation of the two European armies, is really fraught with the danger attributed to it. But I deny that the authorities, great as these undoubtedly are, have been altogether on one side; and I contend that we are entitled to exercise our own judgment, and to bring to the test of reason and of argument, the somewhat rhetorical terms in which Indian officers are accustomed to express themselves on the subject. And when they speak of the "system under which India has been won," I cannot forget that the main features of that system have had very little to do with the small European army of the Company, and will remain wholly in changed when that army is united to the Line. One main feature of the "system by which India has been won," has been in no way connected either with the Company or its army—namely, the employment of very eminent English statesmen in the

  1057
  Government of India. I can confidently affirm that there is nothing in this measure to diminish the inducements which have led the English Government from time to time to send out to India—there to spend and too often to exhaust their powers—some of the best and wisest of our public men. Neither is there anything which can tend to limit, but on the contrary, much which will tend to enlarge the field from which young men of enterprise and ambition have been hitherto drawn to the service of India. There is nothing, in short, my Lords, in this measure, so far as we can see, which tends in the remotest degree to withdraw from India any portion of those powers of rule which, in connection with the Government of that country, notwithstanding many errors, and I am afraid we must confess some crimes, have cast on our national character a lustre of an imperishable renown.
  Moved to Resolve,
  "That as regards the said Bill, inasmuch as prolonged Uncertainty in respect to the System on which the European Army in India is to be constituted would be injurious to the Service and a serious Embarrassment to the Government of that Country, it is the Opinion of this House that the Circumstances which require Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I approach the discussion of this question with very great pain. I am under the deepest obligations to both armies—as much to the local army as to that of the Crown—for the generous confidence with which they received me on my arrival in India, and which they continued to place in me during the whole period of my government, when I was deprived of other support to which I had an equal claim. The Government of which I was a Member was deeply indebted to them—equally to both armies—for the enterprise, the self-devotion, and perseverance, with which, standing shoulder to shoulder, they marched from victory to victory in Affghanistan, in China, in Seinde, and in Gwalior, terminating with success four wars in two years, and reestablishing everywhere in pristine vigour and strength the impaired prestige of the British arms. I never can cease to feel grateful to those armies for what they did—I have an equal gratitude to both. I saw no distinction between them; I knew no difference between a Company's officer
  1058
  and an officer of the Queen; they both served their country equally well. It is since my time that these jealousies and misunderstandings have grown up between these great and glorious services, which are the real foundation of this unfortunate measure. The noble Duke has done me the favour to notice several statement of mine when examined before the Royal Commission. I see nothing to alter in them. I adhere to them all. I am not answerable for the exaggerated demands which have so much prejudiced the question, and turned public feeling against the Indian army. I have always asked for equality between the two armies—equality, not of European troops, but equality in real strength, in which the command of the Native troops held by local officers would properly be taken into consideration. To that opinion I adhere. The noble Duke has spoken of this measure as a measure of amalgamation. It is no such thing. It does not proceed one step towards amalgamation; it is a measure for the extinction of the local army of India, and for the substitution in the command of the Native force, and in the performance of civil, military, and political services, of officers drawn from Her Majesty's regiments instead of officers provided by the local service. It is naturally felt by the Indian army that this proceeds from a feeling of distrust; it is an injury accompanied by dishonour. Nothing contained in this Bill authorizes the Crown hereafter to have a local service. Unless those officers and men who are now in the local service think fit, on the passing of this Bill, to volunteer for general service under the Crown, not one officer and not one man of that local service can be so amalgamated with the Queen's army as to be moved from the territories under the direction of the Governor General into this country or any other part of the dominions of the Crown. There has been, no doubt, some amalgamation, but it was the amalgamation of the bad. The 3,000 bad men who deserted, as I consider, from the Indian army last year, have been amalgamated with the Queen's service, into which they were permitted to enlist, and into which I would not have admitted one of them, to contaminate it by his presence. This is amalgamation, but this is the only amalgamation that has taken place. The errors of these men were thus condoned, and they have been placed by the side of honourable soldiers; while punishment has been inflicted vicariously on the

  1059
  men who remained faithful and who did not desert their colours, because they had the misfortune to have such bad men as their fellow-soldiers. My Lords, I consider that to be a case of extreme hardship. There can be no doubt that this measure has originated in the differences between the two services—how occasioned I know not—and from the strike, or exodus, as I have heard it termed, of the 10,000 men last year. But the latest measure of Her Majesty's present Government last year was to add 20,000 men to the very army which they now say ought no longer to exist! Let us understand how the question stands. The European local army, and the regiments of Native troops to which the local establishment supplied officers, were one army, and not two distinct forces. This Bill, in destroying the whole local European force, thereby puts an end to the system according to which young men are sent out from this country to command Native troops, and to remain locally in India. Whatever future services of this nature may be performed will be discharged by men who have gone through Her Majesty's army. What is the justification for this? The exodus which took place last year. I must say I think it very hard to condemn one body of men on account of the misconduct, not of themselves, but of others. I shall not defend, as some have done, the conduct of those 10,000 men last year; but I think it right to explain under what circumstances they acted. The great original misfortune was the declaration of Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons, that if these men disliked being transferred to the Crown, it was but just that they should have an opportunity of obtaining their discharge. That was, in fact, the origin of the whole difficulty. Now, I must acquit Lord Palmerston of having deliberately made that statement. I am under the impression that it was an answer given by him to a question put in the midst of his speech. I am sure no Minister would have ventured deliberately to make that statement to the House. I do not think Lord Palmerston ever seriously entertained that opinion; and the provisions of the Act which now transfers this army to the Crown contain nothing in the slightest degree sanctioning the notion that any portion of these troops were entitled to be released from their engagements. The clause in the Bill proposed by Her Majesty's Government deals with the trans-
  1060
  fer of these men as if no doubt could exist of the right of the Crown to their services. Not one word was said, either in this House or the other, on the subject, and no man could have supposed last year that these fatal consequences would have ensued. And, although I expressed when in India, now seventeen years ago, my conviction that the country ought to be governed in the name of the Queen, I should have refrained from advising that measure had I believed that it would have led to the destruction of the local army. There was not only that unfortunate declaration of Lord Palmerston, but there was the conduct of the Government of India. I recollect having read, not long ago, in the recently published Despatches of the Duke of Wellington, an account of the course which he pursued in Ireland in 1808 under somewhat similar circumstances. There had been some loose expressions introduced into an Act of Parliament, in consequence of which some 10,000 militiamen claimed their discharge. Nothing could be more inconvenient at the moment, and yet there appeared to be a primá facie case in their favour. The question was referred to the law officers of the Crown, and the Duke communicated, confidentially to the officers commanding these different regiments all the arguments used by the law officers, in order that they might use them in reasoning with their men. The result was that the difficulty passed away and the men remained in the discharge of their duty. But in this case the only declaration that was made to the soldiers was that their claim was inadmissible. It is not enough to be just to the soldier, you must condescend to prove to him that you are just. That attempt never was made until at last, compelled apparently by circumstances, the Government of India offered these men their discharge, and then, and then only, when it was too late, Lord Canning condescended to give reasons to the men why he considered they had no claim, and why they were not entitled to their discharge. I never could understand the reasoning of some officers in connection with this subject, founded on the right which soldiers have to volunteer only, and not to be transferred from one regiment to another. There is a real difference when a man is transferred from one regiment to another. He leaves the officers who know him; he leaves his friends, he may be proud of the regiment with which he has

  1061
  served, and, more than that, the conditions of his service may he altogether altered. He may desire to remain in India, and the regiment to which he is transferred may be going home; he may desire to go home, and the regiment may be coming out. These are real differences, and it is but just that a man should be allowed to exercise his own choice. But in the recent case there was positively no difference at all. No man could discover that the name of the Queen had been substituted for that of the Company by any difference in his treatment. It was no more than if the number of the regiment had been altered, and surely that cannot be considered a sufficient ground for mutiny. It is the case of a principal who dismisses his agent and chooses to carry on his own affairs; all the agreements made with that agent on behalf of the principal remain binding on both parties. The reason of the thing was altogether against the men, but the reason never was given to them at the proper time, and the result was the loss of 10,000 men of the local army, and this Bill, which endangers our relations with India. In this country, and in other countries in which, in constitutional times, a great jealousy has been entertained of a standing army, you have always had a great, intelligent, and determined people to back the Government, and to support it against any dangerous measure which might be taken by that army. In India, there is no people, or, if there be, that people is either indifferent or hostile. It does not give its support to the Government. In that country, in which the Government is so denuded of all support but that which is derived from the army, it is necessary to take security in the composition of that army against the dangers which may arise from it. Such securities always have been taken. We have three Native armies; if we had had but one, considering especially the composition of one of them—the Bombay army—the probability is that the insurrection would have spread from one to the other, and we should have had to contend with all three Native armies, instead of being able to use one against the other. More than that, in each Presidency there is in the division of Queen's troops, local Europeans and Native army, another balance which gives security to the Government. I recollect the Duke of Wellington stating in this House that it was always held in India that the greater the number of religions
  1062
  you had in a regiment the safer you were—not that the greater number of religions gave you greater strength in presence of the enemy, but that it did not present any one bond of union of which those who wished to divest themselves of the authority of the Government could take advantage. This is just the principle which pervades the whole Indian system. On board ship you have seamen and Marines—the Marines have other duties to perform than those of hauling ropes and running round I with the capstan. To them we look in a great I degree as a security for the maintenance of order. I have more than once expressed my conviction that we must build our vessels in compartments, in order that we may not lose all by one accident, and I am confident that if you are determined to effect the purpose of the Government contained: in this Bill you will destroy the greatest security which you have for the preservation of India. The great danger in India is the danger of a mutiny. There is no other danger. I recollect very well, when I approached Madras on my way to Calcutta, at the end of February, not having received any news from India since October, I asked if we were near enough to communicate with the shore. I was told we were, and I desired them to inquire whether there was any news. I took the telegraph-book in my hand to take down the answer myself. It came, "Yes—very distressing from the north-west'—the army—destroyed."That was the first intimation I had on my arrival of the actual state of things then existing. I can assure your Lordships that that word "destroyed" was a relief to my mind. I feared a mutiny much more than the destruction of an army. I have remained firm in that opinion. I am not at all ignorant of the gravity of the circumstances which took place last year. It is on that account that I would desire your Lordships to lose no means of guarding against a recurrence of the same danger. May I be permitted to go back to Early history—to the time of the first great European conqueror in the East—Alexander? What example did he set us? He was compelled by the same desire to revisit home on the part of his men—which was the real cause—not money—of the misfortunes which occurred last year—to retrace his steps, and to proceed on his return to Europe. But what was his conduct? Did he omit to take precautions against the recurrence of that danger? No; he balanced the strength of his old legions from Macedonia

  1063
  and Greece by forming other legions of fresh recruits under different officers, and altogether under a distinct command, and, not satisfied with that, he formed a body of 30,000 Native guards under other officers, that there might be a triple security against a recurrence of the danger. He did that which you have done during the 100 years you have been fighting for supremacy in India—that which the Government now propose to abandon. I think I ought here to interrupt myself for a short time, and show your Lordships, if I can, the practical operation of this measure as I understand it. I will take the year 1856, before any great alterations were made by the mutiny. In that year there were 185 corps in the Indian army, of which 176 were Native and nine European. The Native corps had a number of officers, equal to half the number of officers in Her Majesty's regiments; the European regiments had an equal number to the Queen's regiments, if not superior. Therefore, these various corps were in point of fact equal in the number of officers to ninety-seven of Her Majesty's regiments. But Her Majesty will not have 97 corps in India; she will have a smaller number; and yet, with the greater number of officers possessed by the East India Company, observe how inconvenient was the demand for officers to command irregular regiments and fill other offices. It has been computed at six officers from each regiment. If this measure passes, and gradually effects the extinction of the local force, the demand upon the Queen's regiments for officers will be much greater than it has hitherto been upon the local army. There were ninety irregular regiments, each requiring three officers; in addition to that demand there was the staff. Now, it is proposed to make all Native regiments irregular, and more officers will have to be found. Besides that, it is stated by Lord Canning, and very possibly many may agree with him, that the number of these officers usually attached to an irregular corps is too small, especially where there is much detached duty. In addition, there is a large body of military police—a measure which was begun by myself. That police will have much detached duty, and for the purpose of preserving peace and seeing that the powers of the police are not abused there ought now to be one officer for every 100 men. If the Native army altogether is to be reduced to 80,000, that is to a number
  1064
  equal to that of the European troops, and if the police are not augmented beyond 40,000, yet still I think for officering that Native army and officering the police 950 officers would be required from the Queen's troops. I can assure your Lordships that if that number is taken in addition to all the other officers, for civil and political purposes, which if you mean to govern the country well must be taken, the demand will be such that there will be no regiment in India which must not, at least, part with twelve officers. I know it is intended that the troops shall be relieved every ten years. That was always the intention, but the intention has never been carried out. The larger the number of European troops the greater will be not only the expense, but the difficulty of carrying it out: and in time of war to send a tenth of your force out to India, and to bring a tenth of your force home, besides the ordinary reliefs and recruits, will be actually impossible. You will be obliged to violate your promise to the troops if you promise that they shall only serve in India ten years; and, having destroyed the local European army, you will have nothing to fall back upon. While you have that army you are safe to a certain degree, although you may not have all the force you desire. Another matter is well worthy of consideration. In the local regiments, as they have existed till now, the Governor General was quite certain that he should command the service of any officer at any time. He therefore had a complete power of selection from the whole force. It will not be so now, even if every officer should be as fit to take a detached appointment as officers of the Company's service were. It will not be so, because the demand will be so much greater that if every officer is willing to take the appointment there will be greater difficulty of selection. If all are willing to go, as they are now, there will be precisely the same complaint as there is now—that the able men are taken from the regiments and the refuse is left. But all will not be willing to go. Although I think a great many will qualify themselves, it is contrary to reason to suppose that all will do so, because men of mature age or of connections in this country will be so wedded to their habits or this country that it will be impossible for them to adopt the life of an officer in India. Observe the position of the Governor General. If the number is small he will have

  1065
  no selection, instead of having, as he has now, the selection from the whole body of officers. If they do not all care for such service the Governor General will be deprived of the power of selecting the best men. He therefore cannot carry on the Government as he does now. Give me leave to ask what is this Staff corps to be? Is it to be a permanent corps like the corps of civilians, in which every man who is once appointed has a right to an office? I protest, in the name of the Government of India, against the establishment of such a corps. Now, if an officer is unfit for civil or political situations, or even for the command of irregular troops, it is no disgrace to him. He may be a good officer in his own regiment; and if the Governor General finds him unfit he sends him back to his regiment, and places him at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief. But what will be the state of things if there be a Staff corps, in which every man has a right to remain, and a right to be provided for, as in the Civil Service? Observe that those officers who are sent back to their regiments now, go back to that which they undertook when they arrived; they are no worse off than before. They have been better off when employed on the Staff, but they are not worse off when they go back to their regiments. There is, therefore, no difficulty in sending a man back who is unfit. But the Governor General will reflect before lie displaces a man who is unfit, when he will know that to displace him is to ruin him. Ho will have nothing to fall back upon. Therefore, I say I feel confident that, although the patronage of the Governor General will be left exactly where it was, he will not be able to exercise that patronage so satisfactorily hereafter as he can now, and that he will not be able, under the new system, to obtain the same body of able men for the public service. Although some gentlemen, and I hope many gentlemen in the Queen's army, going out as some must very young, will learn the language and make India the peculiar theatre of their occupations in life, it is impossible to conceal from ourselves that that will not be the ordinary state of things. The officers in Her Majesty's army are to a considerable extent in a different position and of a different class—I do not think of a superior class for the public service—but of a different class to officers of the East India Government. I
  1066
  do not think that it will be consistent with their tastes and habits to devote themselves in the same way to the public service in India. But more than that, it is most essential to maintaining kind feelings for the Natives that they should undertake these situations at a very Early period of life. It is impossible that a man of thirty, though perhaps he may be able to acquire the language sufficiently to speak it with facility, should accommodate himself in the same way to the habits and customs of the Natives. Allow me to impress upon your Lordships the immense importance of facility in speaking the language to every man who has any relations with the Natives, and that cannot be acquired at a late period of life. I recollect in conversation with the late Sir Charles Napier, I asked him whether he did not feel very great regret that he was not able to speak the Native language. I told him that I, as Governor General, estimated that a knowledge of the Native language would to me have been worth 10,000 men. He said, "that is exactly the value which I put upon it. I would rather in Seinde have been able to speak to the troops and the people, than have had an addition of 10,000 men." There is a great risk of having a body of officers placed over the Natives, who, though speaking the language scientifically, cannot speak colloquially to them, if they do not go out at a very Early age. And now allow me for a moment to ask your Lordships to consider how we stand at the present time with respect to the people of India, and whether it is desirable to make another great change? There can be no doubt that, however great a measure—and a great measure it was—the Proclamation of Her Majesty on her accession to the Government of India—however well that Proclamation was received, the expectations which it created have not been realized. The Government has not been conducted generally in the spirit of that Proclamation, and the result is great disappointment and discontent. There has grown up throughout the country, I regret to say, between the Europeans and Natives a very strong antagonism of race. Things are entirely changed in the few years which have elapsed since I was in that country. I looked upon every Native as a friend, and treated him as such, because I knew I might entirely rely upon him. They are now, I regret to say, regarded as enemies, and the feeling engen-

  1067
  dered in consequence is one of mutual hostility. I have said already that the only foundation either for the financial security or the general safety of the Government of India is to be found in a thorough reconciliation between the Government and the people. To the Natives we give education, and we especially endeavour to give them a knowledge of European literature and a power of reading and speaking English. They take advantage of our unwise permission. They do learn English, and by reading books published in England acquire feelings which are incompatible with our Government. And when they road newspapers in India which are published in English, I am ashamed to think of the disgraceful attacks which they witness not only on every tenet of their religion, but on all their domestic habits and customs. The English press in India is revolutionary in the attempts which it makes to turn the feelings of the Natives against us. What is going on at the present moment? We are endeavouring to introduce a now system of taxation. There is a tax which approximates to a graduated poll-tax on all artisans. There is to be a very much increased tax on that necessary of life with them—tobacco. There is, in addition to that, an income tax, and with regard to its imposition on land I must consider it a tax of most questionable justice. But of this I am quite sure, that it is impossible to make an accurate and just assessment of that tax, and equally impossible to establish a reliable tribunal to decide between the Government and the taxpayers. At present it is received joyfully, by the Europeans, because it presses hard on the Natives, and they are content to be pressed also if they see that the Natives are compelled to pay it. All these things are working towards the same end—and while this is going on, while this danger is inherent in your position, you determine upon a change which will disgust and alienate 5,000 officers commanding 200,000 men, and which will also be considered by the people as a breaking up of the securities which you have maintained for the Government of India, and as entailing upon them a Government, through a number of Queen's officers, not well conversant with their language, antagonistic to them in feeling on account of their religion and even on account of their colour, and not entertaining for them that consideration which has always been shown by the offi-
  1068
  cers of the local army. These things will inevitably alienate the affections of the people. I will not speak in terms which appear to me exaggerated, but I do assure your Lordships that I do not think things can go on long unless a great alteration is made. In this measure I see the beginning of the end. We have no real security in India but in adhering to the principles by which we have raised that empire. You are now asked to throw off all your traditional policy, and whereas in substituting the power of the Crown for that of the Company it was unnecessary to make any other change, that is considered a convenient opportunity for making every change, and this in a country in which everything ought to be stable, and in which nothing disturbs men's minds so much as the apprehension of alteration. My Lords, attached as I am to the army and to the people of India, to the advancement of whoso interests I have devoted now very nearly thirty-two years of my public life, I cannot regard without the deepest apprehension this great and dangerous change. I have endeavoured, as was my duty, to place before your Lordships as well as I could the reasons why you ought not to adopt the measure of the Government. I cannot hope that I shall have succeeded in altering your preconceived opinions; but under any circumstances it will be to me a great consolation that on this, perhaps, the last opportunity that I may possess, I have expressed my sympathy with the people of India, and have at the same time offered the assurance—the heartfelt assurance—of my undiminished respect and continued gratitude to the Indian army.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that after the eloquent speech their Lordships had just heard, it was necessary that he should pray their Lordships' kind indulgence when he ventured to address them on a subject of this nature. He should not pretend to speak on his own authority, which was as nothing on this question, but should be able to quote on his side of the question authorities as high and weighty as that of the noble EARL himself. The noble EARL was undoubtedly actuated by a desire to promote the welfare of India; but he could assure the noble EARL that he had no monopoly in that respect, but that Her Majesty's Government in framing this measure were as desirous as he could be himself of increasing

  1069
  the welfare and prosperity of all classes in that portion of Her Majesty's dominions. The noble EARL said that he always considered that the greatest danger to the permanence of our Indian Empire was mutiny; and he was right. A mutiny had occurred in our Native army which had swept the Bengal army from the face of the earth; and still more recently a disturbance, if it did not reach to the magnitude of a mutiny, took place in our local European army in India, which affected 10,000 men. He must remind the noble EARL that both those events had taken place since he (the EARL of Ellenborough) was in India; and therefore he ought not to forget that these events had themselves rendered necessary many changes. The noble EARL had urged two main practical objections against this measure;—the first, that it was intended to have in future only one European army in India; and the second that according to that plan it would be impossible to supply the Indian Government with qualified officers to carry on the civil and military administration of the country. With regard to the first objection, he had heard the language of the noble EARL, if not with surprise, certainly with pain. The noble EARL said that we ought to build our Indian army in compartments. That was a sound opinion as applied to Native troops; but was the same system necessary with regard to an army drawn from this country? The noble EARL said that you must have in India two European armies, one composed of Queen's, and the other of local troops, because, if there was only one army, dangerous combinations might arise which might threaten the safety of your empire. If that was a true principle, it ought to be carried further, and not only in India, but in all our Colonies and at home we ought to have this system of double armies. If we could not trust to the loyalty and the discipline of the British army in India, why were we to trust to them anywhere else? The result of adopting such a system would be, that we must have our army everywhere drawn from different sources, so that the various portions of it might be arrayed against each other. The danger of a local army arose from the fact that the troops could not be removed. If dissatisfaction occurred in a regiment of the Line, it would be at once removed from India and the danger would be over. He would oppose to the authority of the noble EARL that of an Indian officer of great experience, who was himself a member of
  1070
  the Indian army, and was deeply attached to it. Sir John Malcolm said:—
  "Some have whispered that there was safety to the State in such differences, but such persons have forgotten that the very alarming events which form the ground of their dread have been almost in every place the result of these jealousies and divisions. They are ignorant, also, that it is much more easy to create and maintain a bad spirit among a limited body of men who are affected by some local circumstances than it is to spread such a spirit through more extended numbers and a wider sphere."
  These words, spoken so long ago, might almost be imagined to have been written for the very purposes of this discussion. They distinctly pointed out that the danger of disaffection arose from the existence of a local army never refreshed by a return to England, and constantly maintained within the comparatively narrow limit of that portion of the empire. He did not think that their Lordships would be inclined to imply by their votes that evening that any danger would arise from the maintenance in India of an army of 70,000 or 80,000 troops of the Line. Whatever necessity there might be for maintaining distinctions between the different portions of the Native army, he contended that no such necessity existed in the case of Her Majesty's forces. The opponents of the proposed amalgamation said that the local force should be the largest; but in the past history of India the local European army had been extremely small. Their Lordships had to decide therefore between the scheme of the Government and the scheme of the opponents of amalgamation, the latter scheme involving at least an equal amount of change with the former. The noble EARL himself agreed that if we maintained a local force in India at all, it must be one of considerable magnitude, otherwise it would sink into a subordinate position, incompatible with the status of officers of high character and ability. The noble EARL said there was a necessity for a greater number of officers, and that under a system of irregular instead of regular Native troops they would not have an adequate number of officers available for Staff employment in India. The question as between regular and irregular Native troops was, however, irrelevant to the subject before the House, and if any change should be adopted in that respect, it would not be adopted as the result of this Bill. But even if one-half of the European army in India consisted of local troops and the other half of troops of the Line, the number of officers

  1071
  available for the Staff would he the same A greater number could not be drawn from a local force than from a Queen's force. It had been argued in "another place" that Queen's officers would not be fit for these appointments, or, if fit, would not be willing to accept them. If they were favoured with the opinion that night of his noble and gallant Friend the late Commander-in-Chief of India (Lord Clyde), the House would doubtless be told that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a sufficient supply of Staff officers from the Royal army. But were the case otherwise, it would surely be easy to increase the Staff corps from other sources.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwas understood to remark that that could not be done under this Bill.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON: That was a point on which he was not prepared to give an opinion. The noble EARL said the Governor General would not have power to choose officers from the Line and attach them to the Staff corps. His fears on that point were entirely groundless. A man might be a very good regimental officer, and yet be perfectly unfit for Staff employment or to take the command of a Native regiment. In such a case the Governor General would be able to dismiss him from the Staff at once, and he would become an officer on half-pay, in the same way as any other officer of the Queen's army under similar circumstances. It was intended that the Governor General's power to appoint or dismiss the officers of the Staff should be entirely unfettered. If, as the noble EARL said, the great danger in India was the danger of mutiny, nobody would deny that its best preventive was the maintenance of a strict discipline. It was therefore our duty, more especially under the present circumstances of India, to take care that those European troops who were to be the exemplars to all the other military forces in that country should he disciplined in the best manner, and be under the most perfect control. Now, no one who read the papers could fail to perceive that the regimental discipline of the local army was inferior to that of the Line. Sir James Outram, the late General Jacob, and other eminent authorities, although opposed to the amalgamation scheme, recommended that every officer before being appointed to a Native regiment should pass through a European regiment, in order that he might learn discipline. When regiments remained long, still more if they remained per-
  1072
  manently in India, the climate tended to enervate them, and was inimical to that perfect discipline which, however it might provoke the sneers of some, was nevertheless the only satisfactory basis of a sound military system; and this measure was the result of a determination on the part of the Government to institute a sound system of discipline in India. Ho earnestly trusted that the unhappy estrangement between the Natives, and the Europeans, in India would soon die away. That feeling could not be laid to the charge of any Governor General or any Secretary of State:—it was one of the results of the terrible crisis through which that country had lately passed. He knew that Queen's officers had been accused of treating the Natives with contumely and contempt; but he did hot believe in the truth of those accusations. He was confident that those distinguished men who had from time to time held high commands in India, with the presence of one of whom they were honoured on that occasion, and whose services in the field had won, built up, and now recovered our wondrous empire in the East, had ever used their utmost endeavours to secure the best possible treatment of the Natives of that country. It would be the duty of every Commander-in-Chief in India, whether this Bill passed or not. to see that the same course was pursued by the officers of the Queen's army. He did not think it was fair to suppose that the men who go out in Line regiments are more likely in this respect to forget their duty than young cadets sent from this country to join Native regiments in India under the existing system. He would not detain their Lordships longer. The question was not whether they could continue things as they were; they must make a change in one direction or another; and after the events of last year; after the mutiny of the local European troops in India, which the noble EARL himself had condemned in the strongest terms, it was impossible, mutiny being the great danger of that empire, to overlook that event, and maintain a local European force in India. If any Member of the Government thought the adoption of this measure would operate with injustice to the officers of the late East India Company's army, or increase the antagonism of race and produce injury to the Natives, it never would have been proposed; but it had been brought forward after deep consideration of all the difficulties of the question, after much doubt and hesitation, and

  1073
  he earnestly hoped and believed that, if adopted, it would not lead to the unhappy results prophesied by the noble EARL, but place the foundations of our Indian Empire on a more sure and stable basis.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, before this discussion closes, I feel bound, occupying the high military position I do in the country, to make some few observations on the Bill now before jour Lordships. And I do so with great doubt and hesitation; for I feel that after the eloquent speech of the noble EARL (the EARL of Ellenborough) any observations of mine must appear weak and inefficient. I listened with great attention to the speech of the noble EARL, but I regret to say his conclusions were altogether different from those at which I have arrived. My Lords, with reference to what has lately taken place in India, I have had opportunities of hearing this important military and political question discussed from a variety of points of view; and, after giving the subject the fullest and most anxious consideration—after taking the opinion of military men especially, in whom I place the most implicit reliance—and of none more than my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Clyde), who sits behind me—I have certainly come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when this great question must be dealt with. The noble EARL in the last portion of his speech, referring to the various difficulties that had presented themselves in India, and the changes which resulted from the recent misfortunes that had occurred in that country, expressed his regret that this great additional change was now to be introduced into our Indian Empire. But he entirely forgets that it is impossible that Parliament can postpone its decision on the changes which must result from those events. My Lords, if there be one point upon which I have never heard a difference of opinion it is this—that this great question must be settled immediately. Upon that point all military men, whether officers of the Line or of the Native army in India, are entirely agreed. This is a question it is impossible to postpone; it is a question which it would be most dangerous, were it possible, to postpone—one which, if postponed, would lead to more unfortunate jealousies, heart-burnings, and feelings of discord, than even now exist. Militarily speaking, I cannot understand how it is possible to defend the maintenance of two separate and independent European armies in India under the
  1074
  present system of governing that country. I can understand how two armies could coexist when the Government of India was conducted through the medium of the Court of Directors; but, when that divided authority ceased, and the direct authority of the Crown took supremacy in India, as in every other part of Her Majesty's dominions, I cannot comprehend how two European armies of different constitutions can owe a divided fealty and allegiance to one undivided Sovereignty. Even supposing that these local troops were of a more local description than is now proposed, I do not see how they could be maintained without reference to the authority of the Crown; for I must declare my entire concurrence in what fell from the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), that when you hear of the Horse Guards the phrase really means the authority of the Crown; in fact, this is virtually what is wished for by those who are opposed to the amalgamation of the armies—that a certain proportion of European troops of the Queen's army should be placed in such a position in India that the Queen's authority can really not be exercised over them; for the Queen's authority over European troops must rest with the Commander-in-Chief, and that authority is to be put on one side altogether. I hope, however, that it will not be supposed for a moment that I mean to afford any grounds for an observation which I regret to hear sometimes made—that the Commander-in-Chief in England wishes personally to exercise any authority over the troops in India greater than that disciplinary authority which your Lordships would wish to see resting with that officer. The Commander-in-Chief at home never has interfered in the slightest degree with the Line troops of the army serving in India; and the same system exactly which I has hitherto existed it is intended shall continue. There is nothing in this Bill to I lead your Lordships or any one else to suppose that any change is intended in that respect. I for one am very free to admit that any Statesman placed in the position of the Governor General of India must be invested with unbounded authority in every respect, both military and civil, as long as he holds that high and important position. But the question of the jealousies and heart-burnings between two different bodies of European troops is one of a very different character; and the sooner you get rid of such feelings the better it will be for the public service—the State must be

  1075
  better served when all join heartily together in undivided allegiance. I have the greatest confidence in the loyal intentions of the officers of the Indian army. I believe them individually and collectively a high-minded, a high-principled, a noble race—men who would do their duty by the State, whether as local troops or not: hut I think it is more than human nature to expect that they should not be jealous of the troops of the Line; while, on the other hand, the troops of the Line were naturally jealous of the local force when they saw them getting all the good things for themselves. Now, if this measure be passed, the Governor General will be still able to dispose of the troops in India in any manner he may think fit. The noble EARL says that the Bill will very much curtail the Governor General's power of selection for the various appointments, civil and military. But I beg to assure my noble Friend that there is nothing in the measure which will in any way change the power of the Governor General. Suppose he wishes to take any man he may think qualified from a regiment of the Line, and put him in the Staff corps, or to hold any position of trust in India, he will have entire power to select him, only then another officer will be appointed to the regiment from which he has been taken. Hitherto when officers have been elected to fill appointments in India their places in their regiments have not been filled up, and the consequence has been that the efficiency of those regiments became impaired. In future, when selections are made, the officers upon whom those appointments are to be conferred will be transferred to the Staff corps, and the vacancies thus created in their regiments will be at once filled up. Again, I have heard doubts frequently expressed as to whether a sufficient number of officers of the Line, willing to devote themselves to an Indian career, can be found; but, for my own part, I must confess that my experience on this point—and it has been considerable—has led me to form the conclusion that there will be no dearth of officers of that description. In support of this view I may observe that nearly three out of every four young men who apply for commissions in the army specially solicit appointment to regiments serving in India in preference to those located at home or in the Colonies. I believe that to be a sufficient reason for supposing that we shall have no lack of officers of the Line anxious to go to India. And there is a very simple
  1076
  and natural cause why that should be so, inasmuch as an officer going to India and not possessed of large means—as is the case with so many who enter the army—finds himself, the moment he lands in that country, an independent man, his means being so increased that he is no longer obliged to look to his family for assistance,—with a career open to him which would not present itself to him in the same degree in any other part of the world in time of peace. So much for that objection. But it is also contended that a deteriorated class of officers would, under the new system, enter the service. Now, all I would say in answer to that argument is that you will find an officer of the Line has, almost in every instance, a brother, a cousin, or some other connection in the Indian service; and how, under those circumstances, it can be maintained that an inferior class of men will enter the army under the operation of this Bill I am at a loss to understand. For my own part, the point is one on which I entertain no apprehension. It has also been repeatedly asserted that officers of the Line will not qualify themselves for local service in India. And what, let me ask, is the reason advanced for making that assertion? Simply that officers of the Line have not hitherto been in the habit of so qualifying themselves. Those who rely upon that fact, however, must bear in mind that hitherto appointments in India have to officers of the Line been hermetically sealed, those appointments having been reserved for officers of the local force. My noble Friend who spoke second in the debate (the EARL of Ellenborough) it is true, taking a high-minded view of the subject, has long argued that appointments in India ought not to be confined exclusively to the local troops; and I admit that of recent years they have, in some degree, been placed within the grasp of officers of the Line; but then the appointments which the latter received were of a character inferior to those which were conferred on the former. I have, under these circumstances, the strongest conviction that when appointments in India are freely thrown open to officers of the Line they will render themselves as capable of filling them as the officers of the local force have hitherto done. My noble Friend in the course of his speech alluded to the irregular Native service in India, and expressed a doubt whether European officers of the Line would arrive in India sufficiently young to be able to

  1077
  qualify themselves sufficiently to be made available for duty in that service. Now, if I were of opinion that they would not, I should, I confess, hesitate as to the expediency of passing the Bill before the House. My belief is, however, that as there will be a large number of regiments of the Line employed in India, in which there will be a considerable number of young ensigns, cornets, and lieutenants; and, inasmuch as there will be no restrictions placed on those young officers qualifying themselves for transfer to the Staff corps, there will be no difficulty experienced in finding men ready to learn the Native languages, and that not superficially, but thoroughly and colloquially. I come now to the question of discipline, which is one extremely grave and important; but in dealing with it I know I shall have the sympathies of my noble Friend (the EARL of Ellenborough), who is too much a soldier not to feel that those troops which are best disciplined must also be the most efficient. The question is, nevertheless, a very delicate one to handle; but, while I experience some difficulty in speaking upon it, I feel assured the sentiments to which I may give expression will not be misunderstood by the officers of the Indian army, for the whole of whom I entertain the highest respect and esteem, and that they will not suppose I desire to class them in point of efficiency below officers of the Line. I distinctly disclaim all intention to do anything of the kind; but, if any difference in the degree of the discipline of the two forces exists, I should be disposed to attribute it to the deteriorating effects of the Indian climate, which invariably—I can speak of my own knowledge—so acts upon regiments of the Line which have passed any long time in that country that they become so deteriorated as to render it necessary that they should be reformed and reorganized on their return home, before they can be considered fit to take the field. It is to the effects of the Indian climate therefore, and not to any want of zeal or energy on their part, that any falling off in discipline in the case of the European army in India is, in my opinion, to be attributed. Be that, however, as it may, the question of discipline cannot be got over, and we must not shut our eyes to the fact that almost every eminent authority on the subject distinctly and unreservedly declares it to be his conviction that the discipline of the local European regiments in India is not equal to that of regiments of the Line. I mean such discipline as it
  1078
  is expedient to keep up in a time of peace as contrasted with one of war, when every Englishman knows how to bear himself with gallantry and honour. I am speaking, in short, of that regimental condition which it is necessary to maintain in time of peace even more than in time of war, when the excitement of the contest rouses men to more than the ordinary degree of energy. To uphold such discipline is, I contend, of the last importance, and I for one can never share in the contrary view, which I regret to find is maintained in some quarters. The fact that the discipline of the Line is superior to that of the local European force in India, ought, I think, to have the greatest weight in the consideration of this question. My noble Friend has stated that it would be desirable to have one army to act as a check upon the other in India; but I am somewhat astonished that he should advocate the adoption of a course which would necessitate the keeping up of a larger army in India than, as experience has proved, would otherwise be required, and that, too, simply with the object of one force watching the other. There is another matter which has been largely referred to, and upon which great stress is laid. I allude to the unfortunate bugbear of "the Horse Guards," which seems to cause so much unpleasant feeling in various quarters. I do not know what the Horse Guards may have been in former days, but, as the present representative of that establishment, I am quite ready to invite the public generally to enter our walls and to cross-examine me as to every act and deed of mine since the day I became Commander-in-Chief. A great many charges are constantly brought against the Horse Guards. I am perfectly ready to meet them if I could only know what they are. It is hinted that the Horse Guards have an immense amount of patronage at their disposal, which is always badly exercised—and, in short, that it is only distributed with a view of showering favours on certain individuals. I hope it is unnecessary for me to assure your Lordships that the fact is otherwise; but I wish to take this opportunity of stating in this House, and through this House to the country, that as far as I individually, and the officers acting with me, are concerned, the only object we have at heart is the welfare of the State and the welfare of the army, and that any mistake which may be committed is due to an error of judgment, and not to any wilful error of intention. Such is

  1079
  my opinion of the officers of the Indian army, that I can assure those who suppose I think otherwise, that I consider that among the advantages arising from the present Bill, not the least will be that a large body of valuable and efficient officers will be added to the general military service, and will become available for employment in conjunction with the officers of the army, in operations in any part of the world which the requirements of the State may hereafter necessitate. At the time of the Crimean war not one officer belonging to the Indian army was in a position to serve there; and it was not till after various regulations had been made for draughting them into Turkish and Irregular corps that we were enabled to avail ourselves of their services during that great contest. That is a state of things which I regard as highly unsatisfactory—quite as much so as if the officers of the Line could not be employed in any portion of Her Majesty's Indian dominions which was thought desirable by the Governor General. I make these observations with the desire of expressing my views upon the question of amalgamation, which my noble Friend seems to differ from, and I think this Bill will carry out the objects in view. I most conscientiously believe that its details, when carried out, will produce an entire amalgamation; but, whether that object be successfully attained or not, I repeat that my sentiments, and those of the authorities at home towards Indian officers are of the most cordial and friendly nature; and while we think it of the utmost importance that the two armies should be united, we are careful to avoid expressing any sentiments which can be construed to be unfavourable either to the military or personal character of the officers of the Indian army. I appeal to my gallant Friend behind me (Lord Clyde) whether there has been any instance in which they, or I, have refused to put forward all the recommendations which he sent home in reference to officers of the Indian army during the late emergency. If an examination were made into the relative proportions of honours and distinctions awarded to the two services, it would be found that those awarded to officers of the Line were but few in number as compared with those of the local army. I do not complain of that: I do not mention it as matter for regret; but I feel it right to do so, because it is said that the moment the amalgamation takes place these officers
  1080
  will be entirely put on one side. There are a great many other military matters connected with the amalgamation on which I should desire to touch, but as the subject has been so fully debated I will not enter into them. I will say—and say most earnestly—that my sincere belief is that if this valuable measure be postponed, very serious mischief will follow to our military position in India; but, if it be adopted, nothing, I think, will more tend to restore harmonious action in that great territory. The subject of reliefs is the only one which remains for me to allude to. The noble EARL (the EARL of Ellenborongh) seemed to doubt the possibility of our furnishing reliefs.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: In time of war.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: I think the noble EARL will admit that in time of war the system of reliefs, like every other military department, must exhibit considerable irregularity. But I maintain that it would be as easy to send out reliefs in time of war as to furnish the draughts which would be required for a local force; and that young recruits would much sooner dwindle away than a complete regiment, which has vitality in itself, and can therefore be moved about with less risk. I admit the difficulties are great, but I do not believe they would be greater than in the reinforcement of a local army, and, with every respect for the opinion of the noble EARL, I cannot therefore assent to it. As far as my acquaintance with this Bill extends, there is nothing in it which in the smallest degree trenches on the undivided power of the Governor General, supported as he will be in military matters by his own Commander-in-Chief. There is no intention whatever on the part of the home authorities to interfere directly or indirectly with the power to be exercised by the Governor General over the army in India, and I believe Her Majesty's Government are fully impressed with the belief that to attempt any such interference would be one of the most dangerous steps that could be adopted. For these reasons I am of opinion that the measure may be passed without incurring that risk of which my noble Friend is apprehensive.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I feel that it may appear presumptuous in me to offer even a very few observations to your Lordships after the high authorities to which we have this evening listened. But at the same time, as my noble Friend

  1081
  has expressed his intention of dividing—though I may say, in passing, I hope under present circumstances he will abstain from doing so—I should he sorry that a vote were taken on this question, which has been one to me of great care, great anxiety, and great attention, without saying a few words in explanation of the course that I am about to take. I wish I could entertain the same confidence as to the results of this measure which has been expressed by the noble Duke on the part of Her Majesty's Government and by the illustrious Duke on the cross benches who has just sat down; and I wish I did not to any extent share the apprehensions expressed by my noble Friend beside me (the EARL of Ellenborough); but I confess that I do look forward to the effects of this measure—or, rather, to the measures which will result from it, with considerable anxiety and apprehension, which are by no means diminished by the prospect before us being so extremely vague and by the very imperfect explanation of the intentions of the Government. The noble Duke stated that the Bill about to pass would not produce certain important consequences—that is to say, that those consequences are not involved in it; but the noble Duke at the same time was compelled to admit that in this Bill was contemplated the introduction of ulterior measures, which will flow as natural consequences from it. What those consequences are and how those difficulties are to be mot Her Majesty's Government have not stated to the House. The great objection which I feel to the measure arises from the conflict of the opinions which have been given by the highest authorities respecting the propriety of the amalgamation of the Indian army, in whichever of the various senses of that phrase we are to understand it. It unfortunately happens—I do not say it is without exception—that almost all of those who have been most intimately connected with the Indian service are for maintaining the existing system, while all those who are connected with the Line have given their opinion in favour of a general amalgamation. Before I proceed I wish to say a word as to what I mean by amalgamation. I do not for a moment dispute—on the contrary, I admit, and I contend for the necessity of concentrating as far as possible in one hand the authority over all Her Majesty's forces in India. With regard to the discipline of the troops, it is necessary that a superintending power should be
  1082
  exercised with that discretion which I am sure will always characterize the administration of the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty in this country. But with regard to the service itself, and to all employments, whether civil or military, I concur with the opinions which have been expressed by nearly every one who has spoken, and by no one more emphatically than by the illustrious Duke, that the undivided authority and responsibility should rest with the Governor General in the first instance, and in a subordinate and concurrent way with the Commander-in-Chief in India, and not in this country. I repudiate also altogether, as an argument which should enter into the consideration of this question, jealousy of the Horse Guards and the patronage which it is supposed will be vested in that department. I am perfectly certain that all those who have been connected in any way with the illustrious Duke at the head of the army, must know that there is no man less desirous of absorbing patronage into his own hands, or so little capable of abusing it; but in point of fact, I do not believe that this Bill for the amalgamation of the Indian army as a consequence will, in the slightest degree—especially after all the restrictions recently imposed on the patronage of the Horse Guards—increase the amount of that patronage or afford the slightest legitimate ground for jealousy on account of any supposed transfer of power. But there are two senses in which we may speak of the word amalgamation of the armies, and which has been alluded to by the noble Duke who introduced this subject in a speech of singular ability and clearness. There are two views of the question—one involving the consideration of a single army equally applicable to the service in all parts of the empire; and the other, an overwhelming local army in India, assisted by a subsidiary force from the Queen's troops; and if, on the one hand, the alternative proposed were to absorb, in the hands of the local army, the whole of the military power in India, or, on the other hand, so completely to effect an amalgamation as that not a single soldier in India but should be in the general service—if that were to be the alternative, then I should undoubtedly prefer the entire amalgamation to placing the whole military power in the hands of a local force. But that is not what I understand by the question as between the amalgamation and the status quo. The noble Duke has told us that the continuance of the static quo

  1083
  is impossible, but be has not furnished us with any reason why it is so. There are very considerable advantages in having in India a certain portion of the army consisting of local forces only enlisted for local services only. I do not deny to the illustrious Duke that the discipline of a regiment permanently attached to one particular service, more especially in time of peace and in a climate like India, and when the men are permanently attached to one particular service, is liable to be deteriorated and relaxed, as compared with the discipline of a regiment fresh from homo or colonial service. For that reason, as the illustrious Duke knows, for the subject has frequently been discussed by us, I have always thought it desirable constantly to infuse into that local force fresh blood from British regiments, and, both with regard to soldiers and officers, to incorporate them in such a manner as to make them all amenable to the same discipline and the same authority, equally framed for time of peace and of war. But the only question which I think is a legitimate subject of discussion is whether it is expedient, or whether it is not, that a certain portion of the forces of India should be specially devoted to local service and confined to India as at present. The objection which I have to this measure is that it solves that question, or at least calls upon Parliament to decide upon it in favour of amalgamation, and against the existence of a local force, without furnishing us with any information as to the scheme by which the Government think they can overcome the obvious difficulties which surround the carrying into effect their proposal. The Bill before us, as my noble Friend has remarked, is simply for the gradual extinction of the present local force. It is not for the amalgamation but for the gradual but certain extinction of the local army; and there is this extreme inconvenience affecting it, that by the engagements entered into that extinction must be a process extremely gradual and slow. You cannot carry it into effect so long as there is a single officer or soldier enlisted under the terms of service prescribed by the Indian regulations. There are many points on which we are left entirely in the dark, with regard to which it would have been very desirable that some information should have been furnished to us. There is the question of the establishment of a Staff corps. We ought to know what is to be the nature of
  1084
  that corps, how far it is to have a monopoly of Staff employment, how far it will be attached to the Indian Government, and how far the officers are to be brought hack to the permanent strength of their regiments, if they do not efficiently perform their duties. All these are circumstances that affect the practical working of the measure, and I think that, before we come to a decision on the question that we should absolutely do away with the local army, we ought to have a comprehensive scheme from her Majesty's Government of what they propose to substitute for it, and how they mean to meet the difficulties of the case. The question of reliefs has been adverted to by my noble Friend near me and by the illustrious Duke, and we were told by the illustrious Duke that there was no difficulty in ordinary times of carrying on a system of reliefs for that portion of the army which is in India. But there is this difficulty to be considered:—if instead of having 20,000 British troops in India you permanently have 30,000, it is necessary that, in order to supply reliefs to the extra 60,000, you should also have an addition of 30,000 to the regular army, in order to carry out the reliefs at five and ten years for that increased number of 60,000, which, though not at present, you will have to relieve. I do not mean to say that under the present system you are not obliged to send out continual recruits for a very large body of men; but that is quite different from periodical reliefs of regiments; and if instead of having 20,000 men in India you have permanently 80,000, you must have an addition to the regular army to make good the relief required by these extra 60,000. This is a question of serious importance, but overlooked in the Government statement. Then there is the consideration whether after you have made this change you will have the same facilities for a permanent supply of officers qualified to fill important appointments. It is quite true that many officers will go from this country in the prospect of Staff employment and other advantages in India, and qualify themselves by learning the languages and for holding other appointments, yet undoubtedly there will be a diminished number of officers who will go out, as far as young men are concerned, with the determination of attaching themselves to the country, of making it the country of their future career, and the scene of their future fortunes; and there will be a still smaller number of persons who will go

  1085
  out with the intention of making India a permanent residence, and of studying the habits, education, feeling, and character of the Natives. You cannot expect that when a man goes out with his regiment to serve ten years in India, with the prospect of quitting India with his regiment, that he will pay the same attention to, and take the same interest in, the well-being of India and the welfare of its Natives, as those who go out as young men knowing that their whole future career is identified with and bound up in the well-being of India. Then there are very considerable difficulties in the way of amalgamation arising from the different character of the different services, and I presume it is the intention of her Majesty's Government as the operation of this Bill altogether does away with the local force, that the Indian system of promotion shall be done away with also, and that the system by purchase is to be introduced into the Indian as well as into the home service. That, again, is a large and important question, and one of considerable difficulty, and on which we have no explanation on the part of the Government. Another question about which the Government has not given the slightest intimation as to how they propose to deal with it, was the question of officering the Native regiments. So far as they are concerned, you must have two separate armies—of Native and British troops—and it is not to be supposed that they are to be put on the same footing. By the existing system there is a constant provision for young men being sent out to he educated specially in the Indian service, and attached to the Native regiments, and formed for their command and management. I will not say whether in all cases they have fully performed the duties expected of them; but at present you have a body of men who understand the Natives; but what provision is made now that the local force is abolished, to bring up a body of men for the special service of officering the Native regiments? I have heard no explanation from the Government on this very important point. I cannot help thinking that although there may be many officers willing to enter the Indian service, and even, as the illustrious Duke on the cross benches says, this service is rather preferred by the great majority of officers who enter the army, I cannot help thinking that when you are going to multiply the British force in India—say to the extent of one-third of the British army being in
  1086
  India—there will be great disinclination to enter a service in which, in all probability, one-third of their military career will be passed in India. It may be true that to some officers it is a great inducement—it would be a great inducement—to have a career in India; but that is rather an argument in favour of the establishment of a local force, than for the introduction of a general system by which every man who enters the army will have, in all probability, to spend a considerable portion of his time in India. I am very unwilling, at this time of night, to detain your Lordships with observations which will fall with little weight from me; but I wish to express my opinion that we are adopting a course without sufficient knowledge, and without sufficient consideration. We cannot foresee the result of what we are doing, and we are pledging Parliament to a measure so far from perfect that there will be no possibility of retreating from the position which we have taken up, while no provision is made for meeting the difficulties and dangers by which the question is surrounded. On the other hand, I agree with what has, been stated by the illustrious Duke—that I it is very desirable an Early agreement I should be come to. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact, that this measure has received the sanction of a very large majority in the other House; and I should consider it a misfortune, which I do not think likely to occur, I if, after that strong expression of opinion, if, after the determination of Her Majesty's I Government, and after the expression of opinion by the illustrious Duke, it should be made a matter of uncertainty what course will be pursued. Although I wish Her Majesty's Government had more carefully considered the consequences, and more clearly proved what may be contemplated from this measure, before they called on Parliament to pledge themselves to it, yet, on a balance of evils, and in a choice of difficulties, I shrink from taking on myself the responsibility of advising your Lordships to again throw the matter into a state of uncertainty. I prefer to leave to the Government, who, I presume, have more mature schemes than they have already disclosed, the responsibility of the great and dangerous work which they have taken in hand, and I shall certainly be sorry if I am called upon to give my vote upon the second reading.
  LORD CLYDE,who was almost inaudible, was understood to say that his experience in India had entirely convinced

  1087
  him of the absolute necessity of having only one European army, moveable as one force, maintained at one point of discipline, and acting, as it were, with one soul. On his arrival on one occasion at a station, a night's journey from Simla, the Adjutant General of Artillery, a most distinguished officer, addressed the Chief of the Staff, and asked what the General was going to do. He said the General was going to speak to the men. The officer said they were past that. This anecdote showed what was the discipline of a European local force. He had never before seen troops in such a state that they would not listen to their officers; but to avoid the great evil of employing other European troops against them, he was obliged to form a commission, before whom the men appeared and stated their grievances. There were many other circumstances which came to his knowledge and made him arrive at the conclusion that for the character and honour of the country it was necessary that there should be but one army and one discipline. He entirely concurred in all the opinions which the illustrious Duke had expressed, and it was almost painful to him to disagree with the noble EARL, of whose extreme kindness he was deeply sensible (the EARL of Ellenborough), when the noble EARL said that this measure ought to be postponed. The business must be settled at once. To remove the jealousies and suspicions which he must admit existed, it was very desirable that some decision should be arrived at, and that the opinion of their Lordships and of the Government should be no longer left in doubt.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am sorry to have to say anything which may weaken the effect of what has fallen from the noble and gallant Lord who has addressed you for the first time to-night, and whom we all consider to be so valuable an accession to our number; but there are one or two words which at the close of the debate it is my duty to say referring to some things that have been said in the course of it. The noble Duke who introduced the Bill on behalf of the Government referred to the difficulty which arose, from the existence of two European armies, to the transfer of the Government of India from the Company to the Crown when Lord Aberdeen was in power; and for many years past I have understood that one of the great advantages of the abolition of the East India Company would be the removal of that anomaly which, as the noble
  1088
  and gallant Lord has clearly pointed out, must end in jealousy and inefficiency. I have listened with great interest to this debate, and that which fell from the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) with regard to the history of the Indian army was new to me, and, I dare say, was new to many of your Lordships, and I was anxious to hear what arguments would be used on the other side. Two speeches only have been adverse to the Bill; but the speeches of those two noble EARL s differ very much in the amount of their opposition. But I confess I do not find in the speech of the noble EARL (the EARL of Ellenborough) any answer to the statements made by my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll). The noble EARL assumes that the ground upon which we recommend this Bill is solely what took place with respect to the mutiny of European troops last year; but the noble Duke, in bringing this subject before your Lordships, dwelt as lightly as possible upon that event, and adduced a whole string of arguments in support of the measure to which the noble EARL never alluded. The noble EARL said that our European army in India ought to be "in compartments," so as to insure that one part would, if necessary, act against another. That phrase about a division into compartments was employed by Lord Elphinstone in one of his papers, but was applied, and applied more justly, to the necessity of a certain division of races and districts from which you could recruit your Native army. In the case of an European army dealing with a Native population there is already a sufficient division into compartments, and it is erroneous to suppose that anything more is required for the security of the empire. He also dwelt upon the unwillingness which, he said, exists on the part of the officers of the Royal army to devote themselves to Indian life; but upon this point he was conclusively answered by the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge), whose experience up to the present day must have much more weight than that of the noble EARL, who acquired it many years ago, and who can have no knowledge with regard to the feeling of young officers of regiments of the Line now. I also think that the objection as to relief was answered by the illustrious Duke, who showed that in time of war, when, and when only, any difficulty could arise, it would be quite as easy to send the necessary relief's to regiments of the Line as to send the necessary recruits to the local army. The noble

  1089
  Earl then went into a variety of topics, such as the state of Indian finance and of the feelings of the Native population, which, although of the deepest importance in themselves, are entirely foreign to the question how we shall organize the European army which we are to have in that country. The noble EARL opposite (the EARL of Derby), in a very fair and candid speech, in which he deprecated any opposition to this measure, complained that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal had dealt with only two alternatives, an entirely local army or an entirely Royal army, in which case he should have preferred the latter; but he had entirely overlooked a third alternative, which was embraced in a scheme of his own—that of having a small local army connected with a Royal army. That suggestion entirely upsets the argument of the noble EARL below the gangway (the EARL of Ellenborough), who thought that the great advantage of the local army would he to overawe any disposition to mutiny which might arise in the Royal army—because for such a purpose a small local army would be of no use. With regard to the want of discipline in the local army, the noble EARL appealed to the illustrious Duke whether it had not always been his intention as much as possible to introduce fresh blood into that army by means of officers from the Royal army; but that also is entirely contrary to the views of the other noble EARL, who attached importance to the officers of the local army being brought up without any introduction of foreign blood, and with the feelings naturally engendered in a local army. The noble EARL then complained that the Government had introduced this Bill in this simple form and without communicating to Parliament a full and detailed scheme, including all the arrangements which they proposed to adopt. That matter was very fully considered by the Government, and I believe that we came to a right decision upon it. One advantage which will result from the course which we have adopted is, that when the general principle has once been decided by Parliament we shall receive from the Members of the Indian Council, who are opposed to our decision, the honourable help which they are sure to give and are even now giving in arranging the details of the measure in the most satisfactory manner possible. I believe that Her Majesty's Government have got a scheme which, upon the whole, they are prepared to carry
  1090
  out; but as in working it out some of the details will probably require alteration, it would, in my opinion, have been most unwise to stereotype them in an Act of Parliament. I do not think it necessary to go into a full discussion of all the details which have been referred to in the course of this debate, but I wish to relieve the Government from the charge of having brought forward this measure with precipitancy or without sufficient consideration. We had the advantage of seeing and considering the plan which was prepared by the late Government, and of hearing from all parts of India what were the opinions entertained of that plan; and I must say that, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the other two schemes, that smaller plan which was prepared by the noble EARL by no means satisfied the wishes or expectations of those who were most anxious for the maintenance of a local army. I Bay, therefore, that instead of acting with precipitancy, we have proceeded with the greatest consideration, and at the same time entirely in accordance with the necessity which exists for an immediate settlement of this question, and which, as my noble and gallant Friend has said, is so great that it would be better to decide it wrongly than not to decide it all. With one observation which was made by the noble EARL opposite I entirely concur—namely, that in which he appealed to the noble EARL below the gangway not to divide the House upon this question. I am not afraid that if he did so, the Government would be placed in a minority; but I think it most important that, after the protest of the noble EARL has been delivered, as much unanimity as possible should be exhibited with regard to this measure.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a objected to; and, on Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

TRANSPORT OF TROOPS AND STORES TO CHINA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I wish now to ask the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset), Whether he has received any information as to the probable expense of transporting troops and stores to China? I yesterday saw an extraordinary statement, in which it is said that there are

1091
at Hong Kong or in the Chinese seas 90,000 tons of shipping, in addition to 15 merchant steamers of great size, and 14 belonging to the Crown, the total expense of which was said to amount to the enormous sum of £170,000 per month; that all this tonnage has been engaged for between two and three months. If this be so, all the money which has already been voted will have been expended upon tonnage alone before the troops move to the north. In addition, it is stated that a vessel was chartered to bring on hay at 40 rupees, or £4 per ton measurement, when a cargo of that article might have been procured at San Francisco and taken to China for four dollars a ton. It is also said that a vessel was chartered at 22 s. per ton per month, filled up with firewood at Whampoa, and despatched to the north, where the wood could have been obtained at one-fifth of the sum paid for freight. I am sorry that I have not by me the paper preceding the one from which I have been quoting, in which also there are some strange statements as to how matters are going on. Among other things, it is stated that the expedition was sent out without a provision of coin or bullion, and that the draughts which have been issued have pressed very heavily upon the commercial rate of exchange. It is also said that it had been omitted to order a sufficient quantity of coal for the steamships, and, unless certain speculators had sent up a huge quantity of that article of very good quality to Hong Kong, it would have been impossible for the steam-vessels of the expedition to move. It was stated, in the first instance, that various officers of what used to be called the East India Company's local army were sent out to superintend the Commissariat, and it appears that certain of those officers were sent back. Now, whatever may be the demerits of the local army of India in general, its commissaries have obtained the confidence and applause of every successive General who has held command in that country. These are the statements which I have to mention to the noble Duke opposite, and I shall be glad to have his answer.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: As I understand the noble EARL 's question, it is whether any Estimate has been received of the cost of transport for the force to be employed in China. He is probably aware that the amount taken in the Estimates for the expense of transport was £1,816,000. As far as information has as yet reached
1092
us, the cost of hire of transports taken up in England will be £15,932 per month; the cost of transports taken up in India £09,582 per month; and the cost of transports taken up in China £32,049 per month. Over the transports taken up in India and China the Government here can have no control. The noble EARL must see that the largest portion of the cost is for the transports so taken up in India and China; and that the total hire of transports, in-eluding those taken up in England, comes to £117,513 per month. Then I have a calculation as to the cost of coal for 22 steamers of 5,230 horse power for 30 days, say steaming twelve hours a day, and consuming 5 tons of coal per 100-horso power. The expense of this is £27,457. Then the item for mess, victualling, forage, bedding, &c, is about £20,000. I therefore reckon the entire expense in China since the 1st of June last to have been going on at the rate of £164,970 per month, or nearly £2,000,000 a year.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: Just within £6,000 per month of the amount I stated.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: This is the result, as far as I am able to make it out from our data. I think the noble EARL is mistaken with regard to the want of coal at Hong Kong and Singapore. Very large quantities were sent out to those places, and although we have received letters thence, we have not heard of any deficiency of coal either at Hong Kong or Singapore. We know also that coal has been obtained of very good quality from Japan, and has been supplied, I believe, for the force in Northern China.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: The noble Duke has made a very full and fair statement very much corresponding to that which I have given from the newspapers; and I shall now pay more respect than I have done before to the information so circulated. I cannot help feeling great surprise that this expense should be so enormous. I had myself to frame an estimate in India of the cost of an expedition to China, and from a reference to the official papers published the other day, I find that my calculation was not more than £30,000 at fault. That was pretty well in regard to an entire estimate of £1,200,000. I think it doubtful whether it is expedient to send out Civil Commissaries from England.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c, 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 BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that great difficulty had arisen from the intimation contained in the printed papers of an Amendment which was about to be moved to this measure. That Amendment was very complicated, and in his (the Bishop of London's) opinion, if persisted in, would make it most undesirable to go on with the Bill. He begged their Lordships not to proceed with the Committee until they had considered the effect of the proposed Amendment on the whole character of the Bill. The Amendment required all recommendations of schemes for altering salaries—
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORErose to order. It was irregular to discuss an Amendment of which notice had been given by anticipation.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he would confine himself to the question before the House, namely, whether or no they should go into Committee. The proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission were greatly dependent on Orders in Council, which would have to be issued from time to time to regulate salaries where the dignitaries of the Church were affected by this Bill. These Orders in Council were of various kinds. First, there were Orders in Council which had to do with the salaries of the Deans, and these had to be regulated in many instances when a vacancy took place. There were only three Deans, so far as he knew, whose salaries were settled by Act of Parliament—namely, the Dean of Durham, the Dean of Westminster, and the Dean of St. Paul's. All the other deaneries were left undetermined, and with respect to many of them it was necessary to have an Order in Council to settle, when a deanery became vacant, what salary was to be received. If the income was below £1,000, Parliament had empowered the Ecclesiastical Commission to raise it to £1,000; if above £2,000, Parliament had empowered the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to reduce it to £2,000. In many instances it was necessary that they should use their discretion to settle what was to be the limit between £1,000, the lowest, and £2,000 the highest sum allowed. This was a complicated and difficult matter, scarcely understood by any
  1094
  of their Lordships; ho was not sure he distinctly understood it himself, and he had even very grave doubts whether it was understood by the noble EARL (the EARL of Chichester) who represented the Ecclesiastical Commission in that House. It depended on the construction of various Acts of Parliament, one of them being an Act enabling the Commissioners to lease mines. If Parliament was to be asked every time a deanery became vacant what should be the salary assigned, and if, also, as now proposed, Parliament were called on in every instance when a bishopric became vacant to revise the arrangements as to income, the whole character of the Bill would be changed and rendered most objectionable. Unless, therefore, the Bill were retained in its original shape, it would not be keeping faith with his right rev. Brethren who had gone to their dioceses for the performance of their important duties on the understanding that this Bill should be proceeded with in exactly the same spirit in which it had been laid on the table. Therefore, it was that ho (the Bishop of London) maintained that if the proposed Amendment was to be persisted in, the House ought not to go into Committee. Moreover, if he might be allowed for one moment to allude distinctly to this Amendment, he would warn the noble Lord who represented the Ecclesiastical Commission (Lord Chichester) that the proposal now made would be fatal to all those voluntary arrangements which he hoped to effect under this Bill. Certainly no Dean and Chapter, and probably no Bishop would voluntarily commute their interest in their estates, if, as was now proposed, the whole financial arrangement in every case was to be discussed in Parliament. They would naturally prefer remaining in quiet possession of their estates. Recent debates were not likely to encourage ecclesiastics voluntarily to bring their affairs under discussion in the other House of Parliament; and, therefore, the proposal now made would render all that portion of the Bill which referred to voluntary arrangements quite nugatory. No doubt a great misapprehension existed with reference to these Orders in Council. He was not a little startled last night to hear the noble EARL (the EARL of Derby) state with such clearness as almost to convince the most unwilling, what in his view had been the deliberate judgment; of Parliament against fixing the income of one Deanery by Order in Council at the rate at which

  1095
  it was now fixed. But he would venture to submit to the noble Earl that the best way to judge of the intentions of Parliament was to look at the Act. Recollections as to what occurred while a Bill was passing into an Act might be vague—in this case they were contradictory. It certainly was proposed in the other House some years ago that the salaries of Deans should be limited to £1,000, but by the deliberate voice of Parliament that clause, he believed, was struck out of the Bill into which it had been introduced. If it were argued from words used in debate, or Amendments made on former occasions, that Parliament wished thus to limit Deans' incomes, similar arguments might prove that it had no such intention. The only safe course was to judge by the words of the Act. He put it, then, to the noble Earl whether it would be wise to give the sanction of his great support to an Amendment which broke faith with those who had given their consent to the Bill in its present form, and would introduce complications the end of which it was impossible to foresee.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the statement which he had made the evening before, and to which the right rev. Prelate had just alluded, was based on what had previously fallen from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Chichester).
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Trustees empowered to sell Estates held under Lease).
  LORD CHELMSFORDmoved the addition of words enabling trustees, with the sanction of the Court of Chancery, to invest money which they had received from the sale of leaseholds in the purchase of other leasehold estates, instead of in the funds.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Compensation to Officers of Ecclesiastical Corporations).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONcalled attention to the case of parochial clergymen who had been deprived of the burial fees forming part of their endowments by the Act which prohibited intramural interments, and justified their claim to compensation by a reference to former instances in which it had been granted by the State.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped that the Amendment would not be pressed at the present moment.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the case of these gentlemen was a very hard one. It was their misfortune to be clergymen; if they had been lawyers they would have received very good compensation.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved the addition of a clause requiring all recommendations of schemes whereby the salaries of any ecclesiastical dignitaries may be altered or increased to be laid before Parliament six weeks before they receive the sanction of the Order in Council. At present the law in this respect was in such a state that no one could exactly say what it was, and it was very desirable, therefore, that no act should be done without Parliament having cognizance of it, and having the opportunity of addressing the Crown upon the subject, if it thought necessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not support the clause. Parliament in its wisdom had assigned certain functions to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it was scarcely reasonable to require that it should be consulted on every exercise of those functions.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKobjected to the inconvenience of a clause which invited the House of Commons to discuss every increase of salary to a dignitary which was recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commission. The result would be to turn Parliament into the Executive body of the Ecclesiastical Commission.
  THE EARL OF DERBYagreed that there would be difficulty in adopting such a clause as that proposed, especially as it was admitted that the matter was for the discretion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and beyond this it was said that a check to any improper augmentation was to be found in the Orders in Council; but ho understood that in point of fact the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were virtually irresponsible. He thought that it would be well if the Government, acting through the President of the Council, were responsible. If the noble Earl would say that there should be an Order in Council in every case of augmentation, he should be perfectly satisfied.
  EARL GRANVILLEcould not take upon himself to say what should be the precise mode in which the matter should be undertaken; but he thought that the Commissioners should bring under the consideration of the Government any case which required their consideration.
  THE EARL OF DERBYonly wished that there should be a real responsibility cast upon Her Majesty's Ministers.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that if he could find any one to divide with him, he should certainly divide the Committee; but if those from whom he expected support refused to give it, he should not, of course, go into the lobby by himself. He should be satisfied if the Council, not only considered the legality, but the expediency of these augmentations.
  EARL GRANVILLEpromised to provide what security he could for these Orders in Council being considered, though he could not pledge the Government to any particular decision upon them.
  LORD CRANWORTHhoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment, as he thought everything he sought had been obtained by the discussion.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that with deference to their Lordships, they understood very little about the matter.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhoped that next Session a Bill would be introduced to define the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Amendment negatived.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Monday next.

POOR-LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  EARL GRANVILLE moved to Resolve—
  "That, inasmuch, as the Poor Law Commission Will expire at the close of the present Session of Parliament if not continued by the said Bill, the Circumstances which require Legislation on the Subject Matter of the said Bill are of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 2) BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  LORD WODEHOUSE moved to Resolve,
  "That, inasmuch, as the said Bill only confirms, as required by Statute, certain Provisional Orders of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Provisions of the Local Government Supplemental Act, 1858, relating to certain Places named in the said Bill, from none of which Petitions have been received by this House pray-
  1098
  ing to be heard against the same, and as all the Improvements to be effected under the said Orders will be suspended for a long Time unless the said Bill be passed in the present Session, the Circumstances which require Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

EAST INDIA STOCK TRANSFER &c. BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  EARL GRANVILLE moved to Resolve,
  "That, inasmuch, as unless the Arrangements proposed in this Bill for obtaining the Assistance of the Bank of England in the Management of the Debts and Obligations of the Government of India are carried into effect serious Inconvenience may arise, the Circumstances which require Legislation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Eleven o'clock.