Sitting of 3 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Gunpowder, &c; Church Temporalities (Ireland) Acts Amendment; Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland).

MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 10 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19, (Notice of accidents in Mines to be given to Secretary of State).
MR. CROOKsaid, that an accident might be very serious, and yet might not result in death. In Kirkless colliery a sum of £500 a year was stopped out of the wages of the men to provide for accidents, and accidents had occurred there which, though not resulting in death in some cases, had yet entitled some of the men to receive nearly £7. Now he proposed to make it necessary for the inspector to report all accidents of a definite kind. He would, therefore, omit the word "serious," and make it necessary for the inspector to report, whenever a man received such an accident that he did not return to his work before nine o'clock on the following morning.
MR. JACKSONsaid, many accidents that were really of very trifling character might prevent a workman from returning to his work next morning. He saw no good in the clause.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought the effect of the Amendment would be that the most trifling casualties would be reported to the Secretary of State, and the object they all had in view would be defeated, for serious cases would be buried under the heap of unimportant accidents.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it was merely intended to transfer a clause to this Bill which already existed in the Factory Act. He was afraid there was a disposition to think lightly of any accident which did not terminate fatally, or nearly kill the party.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, it seemed to him a very absurd thing that every slight accident should be made the subject of a report to the Secretary of State.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 20 and 21.
Clause 22 (Punishment of workmen violating the rules.)
MR. FREELANDproposed to leave out the following words:—
"Or to be proceeded against and punished according to the Provisions of the Act 4 Geo. IV., c. 34, intituled an Act to enlarge the power of justices in determining complaints between Masters and Servants."
He referred to the Petition of the wives and relations of seven colliers, in the Morning Star, of April 5, 1860, the colliers being at that time in Derby, six of whom were stated to have been convicted by one magistrate on the preceding 15th of March. They had refused to go down into a pit by a rope which, as they alleged, was unsound. A Petition was, as they all knew, an ex parte statement, and he would not therefore discuss the merits of the particular case. On inquiry he found that the law was in accordance with the statement contained in the Petition. He thought it a monstrous thing that, under the provisions of the Act of George the Fourth, which might be put in force under the clause as it stood in the Bill, one magistrate should have the power of issuing his warrant and of hearing the case, though he might be himself a mine-owner, and committing men to prison for three months. He thought that the Act of George the Fourth was an arbitrary Act, conferring powers which could not safely be entrusted to a single magistrate, and he trusted that the Committee would not confirm it by incorporating any part of its provisions in the present Bill. He hoped to see that Act repealed at no very distant day. He believed that no changes were so beneficial as those which produced among the working classes entire confidence in the impartiality with which justice was administered throughout the country.
After a short conversation the Amendment was agreed to.
MR. FREELANDthen moved that the following Clause should be added as a Proviso:—
"No Justice of the Peace being himself the owner of Mines, or the father, son, brother, or agent of any owner of Mines shall, if objected to at the hearing of any complaint in charge, act as a Justice of the Peace for the purposes of conviction in adjudication in any cases of difference or dispute between persons engaged in working mines and their employers, in which Justices of the Peace have jurisdiction."
He quoted as Clauses having a similar object in view the 5 Geo. IV. c. 96, s. 12,—the Truck Act, 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 37, s. 21,—the Proviso in the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 40, s. 25, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 71.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had no objection to the exclusion of the owner of a mine where the dispute might have taken place, but he could not agree that every mine-owner should be excluded at the hearing of complaints. He thought they ought to follow the precedent set forth in the Factory Act, where the parties interested in a factory in which the offence occurred were not allowed to adjudicate on the matter. He should therefore propose to amend the proviso by the insertion of words which would assimilate it to the clause in the Factory Act.
MR. FREELANDsaid, his object was to prevent a person having a class interest from adjudicating when an objection was raised against his acting in the case.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to shut out from the adjudication all the magistrates who understood the question, and to leave such disputes to be decided by persons who knew nothing of the trade. Instead of benefiting the men, he believed the suggestion would do them serious injury.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he was familiar with a district in which cases of dispute were constantly adjudicated on by coal-owners only—a magistrate acting in a case precisely analogous to one in which his own property might be concerned. He knew an instance of a number of men having refused to descend by a rope which they believed to be in a bad condition, being committed to prison for a long period by a magistrate, a mine-owner. It was afterwards discovered that if the men had descended it would have been at the risk of their lives. He thought that the Committee should accept the Amendment.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he still thought that the restriction should apply only to the owner, or relatives of the owner, of such mine as the offence set forth might have occurred in.
MR. FREELANDsaid, that in accordance with what appeared to be the opinion of the Committee, he would reluctantly accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
Clause amended and agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 (Extent of Act).
MR. H. H. VIVIANproposed the insertion of words to make the Act perpetual, instead of for five years, as proposed.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment, which would

1333
not prevent the House reconsidering the whole subject at a future time if that was thought necessary.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he was in favour of continuing the temporary character of the Act, as it afforded an opportunity for renewing and amending the Act at stated periods.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. FREELANDproposed the following clause:—
"The presence of two justices of the peace shall be required for the purposes of conviction or adjudication in all cases of difference or dispute between persons employed in working mines and their employers in which one justice is now by law empowered to convict or to adjudicate; provided always that any person, being a stipendiary magistrate, shall have and exercise all such powers as he would have had and exercised if this Act had not been passed."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the fault he found with this clause was that it did not refer to offences within the Act. It was merely a partial repeal of the provisions of another general Act, and had no special reference to the Bill.
MR. CLIVEsuggested that the clause had better be brought up on the Report, as he believed the object was already effected in the 25th Clause.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANtrusted the clause would be pressed to a division. It was of the greatest consequence to the miners that two justices should be required to preside.
MR. FREELANDsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, and to consider the propriety of bringing it up on the Report.
MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved a clause providing that the payment of wages should in no case be made in or contiguous to public-houses, but at an office to be appointed for the purpose; and further, that every man should be paid the exact amount of his own earnings. In relation to this latter provision, he stated it was not uncommon to give a £5 or a £10 note to a number of men, who were obliged to go to the public-house to get change.
MR. CLIVEsaid, the 5th and 6th Vict. already provided that wages should not be paid within public-houses, and he could see no use in employing the words "contiguous to" any public-house, proposed by the hon. Member.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the words "contiguous to" were most important, as the clause of the 5th and 6th
1334
Victoria was most inefficient. The workmen sustained great loss and injury by the prevalence of the practice referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and it was a source of great disaffection and discontent.
MR. JACKSONsaid, he considered the Amendment necessary. It was essential to the well-being of the men that they should not be paid in or near to a public-house. On this point he could speak from personal experience.
Clause agreed to.
On the Preamble,
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN MR. H. B. SHERIDAN moved that the provisions of the Bill should apply to limestone pits and quarries.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the provisions of the Bill would not apply to limestone pits and quarries, and to insert these words in the Preamble would only make nonsense in the Bill.
Amendment negatived. Preamble agreed to,
House resumed; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

TENURE AND IMPOVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 (Hearing of Case).
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he thought they ought to give a larger compensation in the case of erecting houses than in the case of a common agricultural improvement. He should therefore propose the insertion of words which, in the case of the erection of houses, would establish a perpetual annuity at the rate of 4 per cent per annum for every £100 of expenditure for improvements.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Bill allowed an annuity of £7 2s. for twenty-five years for every £100 laid out, which would repay the tenant his whole capital, and give him 5 per cent in the meantime in the course of the twenty-five years. Any other arrangement would be productive of great inconvenience.
Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 41.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

CADETS AT SANDHURST.—QUESTION.
GENERAL BUCKLEYsaid, he wished to ash the Secretary of State for War, Whether, at the recent examination of Cadets at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, forty having an examination fitting them for Commissions without Purchase, the Commander-in-Chief informed them only twenty could be provided with Commissions without Purchase, in consequence of the Secretary of State for War not putting more than that number at his disposal?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: Sir, the facts of the case are these. A certain number of Commissions are set apart to be competed for at Sandhurst, but that number it is quite evident must very much depend upon the number of Commissions without purchase which may be vacant. On the particular occasion to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question relates, it was announced that none of those young men who had not succeeded in obtaining 3,000 marks would be entitled to receive Commissions, even though they should be among the number of competitors who, under other circumstances, would be so entitled. Twenty Commissions were fixed upon and announced to the Governor of Sandhurst as the number to be competed for, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge stated at the recent examination that only that number could be alloted. The young men at Sandhurst seemed, however, to be under the impression that as it had been announced that those among them who had not succeeded in securing 3,000 marks would not be entitled to receive a Commission, the converse held good, and that all those who had obtained 3,000 marks would be entitled. Now, that expectation could not be realized; but I may state that since the examination eleven vacancies have taken place, and instead of there being only twenty there are now thirty Commissions to be allotted to the Cadets at Sandhurst, which is rather in excess of the number usually set apart for them.

COMMISSIONS IN YEOMANRY, MILITIA, AND VOLUNTEER CORPS.—QUESTION.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is allowable for Officers of Yeomanry Regiments to receive Commissions in Volunteer Corps?
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he also wished to inquire, Whether it is allowable that Militia Officers should receive such Commissions?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, several applications had been addressed to him on the subject, and that the War Office had come to the decision—a decision which had, he believed, been acted upon by some Lords-Lieutenants of Comities—that as the raising of Volunteer Corps in many cases depended upon the exercise of the local influence of some particular individual, though some other person might eventually be placed in command of it when formed—that there would be no objection to allow Officers of Militia and Yeomanry Regiments to accept Commissions in Volunteer Corps, upon the understanding that when their regiments were called out for active service they should resign their Commissions in either the one force or the other.

ARMY (GENERAL OFFICERS.)

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he rose to move—
  "For a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the claims of seven major generals to the pay of general officers, who are now receiving only the half-pay of brevet majors, and who accepted substantive rank upon half-pay upon the terms and engagements contained in the House Guards Memorandum of the 25th day of March, 1826, and General Order of the 25th day of April, 1826."
  He had a short time since called the attention of the House to the subject, in the hope that the Secretary for War would meet his proposal with respect to it half way. Not, however, having obtained a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, he felt the best way of dealing with the question was to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee. Now, in order to give the House a just idea of the origin of the claims of which he was the advocate, he might mention that, so far back as 1824, promotion in the army had been described both by Sir H. Taylor, and in a memorandum of the Horse Guards as being at the time extremely slack in consequence of the great number of officers that were unattached. Some majors, it was found, had served twenty years in that rank, while promotion in the lower ranks of officers had also gone at an extremely slow rate. The consequence had been that it had been found necessary to allow the sale of half-pay Commissions, with the view of relieving the several regiments of old officers; and an order had been issued by the Horse Guards with that object, acting upon which

  1337
  a great number of officers had gone upon half-pay. After a year's experience of the operation of the order, however, it was not found to be beneficial to the service to the full extent desirable, inasmuch as there was a great number of brevet field officers serving in the rank of captain, whom it was expected to get rid of, but to whom no sufficient temptation to retire was held out. In April, 1856, an order issued from the Horse Guards, founded on a memorandum sanctioned by the Secretary at War and the Prime Minister, authorizing officers serving on full pay with brevet rank to go on half pay with substantive rank equal to that in which they were serving with brevet rank. The memorandum which established their position had been laid before the House; it stated that the whole question turned, first, on the convenience of the service, and, secondly, on the propriety of giving these officers some boon. It was, therefore, proposed that officers so circumstanced should have the option conferred without forfeiting their claims on the service, either as regards themselves or their families. This amounted to a pledge on the part of the Government that the officers who accepted half pay under the memorandum and general order would be entitled to put forward their claims under the regulations of the service. A rule was established in 1822 that six years' service as field officer should entitle to the pay of a general officer. But the memorandum was issued in the face of that order for the convenience of the service. There were only seven officers in the position he had described; three of them had been senior captains, and, he would ask, was it consistent with common sense to suppose that, being in the receipt of 13 s. 7d. per day, they would have accepted half pay of 9s. 6d. a day except with the hope, under the conditions of this memorandum, of returning to full pay, when their promotion would have gone on? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said that these officers were eating their cake and trying to keep it, and that when they accepted half pay they did so with all the conditions attached. But the conditions attached were those of the memorandum, and those conditions in their view of the question were, that they were to go back to full pay, if the Commander-in-Chief saw fit so to place them, and that, at all events, they were to be entitled at least to the minimum pay of the rank to which they advanced. The question was a finan-
  1338
  cial one, namely—whether they should continue to receive 9s. 6d. a day or £400 a year, and he moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the claims of these officers; first, because he conceived them to be founded in justice, and in the next place, because two great authorities on the question differed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War under the late Government, when the facts of the case were represented to him, came to the conclusion that the claim of the officers was a just and sound one, and sent it to the Treasury. The Treasury, however, declined to accept their view of the question, and the answer which they gave was based upon the system of unattached pay in general. He was not particular as to the constitution of the Committee. The Secretary of State for War and he might nominate one Member alternately, and the Committee of Selection might name three more. Two days would suffice for the whole inquiry. He hoped the House would accede to the appointment of the Committee.
  COLONEL NORTHseconded the Motion. The right hon. and gallant General the late Secretary for War had admitted that justice was on the side of the officers, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War had owned that there was a doubt upon the subject. Under these circumstances these officers ought to have the benefit of the doubt, or, at all events, their claims should be submitted to the judgment of a Select Committee of that House. A bargain had been made with them, and whether it was a good or a bad one, it ought to be honourably fulfilled. He had himself examined the case, and he thought that it was one of great hardship.
  GENERAL BUCKLEYsaid, he thought the House ought to grant the Committee of Inquiry, as there appeared to be some doubt about the question. It seemed to him rather an unfair thing that these old officers, having taken their promotion at the time they did, should find themselves no better off when they arrived at the rank of general officers than they were as majors.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he fully agreed with what had been laid down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that as far as this was a matter of bargain, the bargain ought to be adhered to, and if justice required that those officers should receive an increase of pay they ought to have it.

  1339
  The claim was not one of very great magnitude, relating as it did to the case of seven officers only, receiving the difference between 9s. and 25 s. a day; but, as he did not think it founded in justice, he could not give it his sanction. These officers went upon half pay at their own option, and whether the arrangement was for the benefit of the service or not was immaterial, as they must be taken to have accepted it for their own advantage. They obtained a step in rank, having been made substantive majors instead of brevet majors. [Colonel LINDSAY: It was not a step.] A similar example had occurred recently. Certain officers who received brevet rank for distinguished services in the Crimea accepted the substantive rank of major in lieu of brevet rank, regarding it as a great boon to themselves, and of course expecting to exchange back upon full pay again, and so realize the benefit. Well, that was what these officers in this case did; and, although the state of the list made it more difficult for them to get back upon full pay, they took that risk upon themselves. They had one advantage which the Crimean officers had not in respect to the provision for their widows; and, although it was said none of them were then married men, they were not so old but that they might have married afterwards. The rule then as now existed, by which no man could rise to the position of a general officer, with certain advantages as to pay, unless he had served six years as a field officer. That regulation was established to insure the efficiency of the service; and it was putting a forced and non-natural construction upon its terms to say that that condition was to be suspended in favour of officers who had never served since 1826. The demands to be admitted to half-pay had been pressing and numerous. It was regarded as a great favour. Some of these officers had succeeded in getting back again upon full-pay; and of course no complaint was heard from them. Others had not been so fortunate; but they were no worse off than many officers in the navy who were anxious to get upon full pay, and could not. It was now proposed however, that, having had the benefit of half-pay, a step in rank, and a prospective provision for their widows, they should be placed upon the higher pay of general officers, as if they had served six years as field officers. That reading could not be fairly put upon the regulation. If he had said that any doubt existed on the point, it was
  1340
  simply because the right hon. and gallant Member opposite took a different view of it. But in his own mind there existed no doubt whatever on the matter, and he had, therefore, felt bound, on the part of the Executive, to decline to accede to the request of these officers. He must frankly say, too, that he did not think a Committee of that House a proper tribunal to decide the question. As long as the right hon. and gallant General opposite was in office no such inquiry as that was moved for; but, when another Secretary of State succeeded him, taking a different view of the subject, then the Committee was asked for. He had given his opinion on the question for the third time. To that opinion he firmly adhered, and he trusted the House would not accede to the Motion.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had no wish to set his opinion in opposition to that of his right hon. Friend. He only claimed to have acted as free from bias in this matter as the right hon. Gentleman. He never heard of the case of any one of these officers until it came before him officially, and he did not act upon his own judgment alone in regard to the subject, but upon the advice that was given to him. He had no doubt in his own mind that these officers were entitled to be placed in the same position as the other officers of a corresponding arm of the service who had been put upon half-pay. They could not have imagined, from the terms offered them, that they would suffer any detriment by accepting the arrangement. There was no question as to the claim of their families, if they had any, at their death. If it could be shown that any of these officers had refused to return to full pay, of course they would not have any claim; but such was not the case. If the case against them was so strong, why should the right hon. Baronet refuse them the satisfaction of a Committee? He himself, when in office, assented to the appointment of a Committee to consider the claims of the Land Transport Corps, although he entertained no doubt upon the matter. He believed that this was a bargain, and although it was a bad one for the country, it ought to be carried out.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it appeared to him that Government had not kept faith with these officers. A good case required only a plain and complete statement, and the very elaborateness of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) showed that his case was a bad

  1341
  one. If the gallant Colonel pressed his Motion he should go into the lobby with him.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was always unwilling to submit military questions to a Committee of the House of Commons; but as the late and present Secretary of State for War were at issue upon the subject, and he could not obtain a military tribunal to decide between them, he should support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the claims of seven Major Generals to the pay of General Officers, who are now receiving only the half-pay of Brevet Majors, and who accepted substantive rank upon half-pay upon the terms and engagements contained in the Horse Guards Memorandum of the 25th day of March 1826 and General Order of the 25th day of April 1826."
  The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 94; Majority 14.

CADETSHIPS (NAVY).

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  CAPTAIN ESMONDEsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the present system of nomination to cadet-ships in the Royal Navy. There was a general impression, that the navy was—especially as regarded the middle classes—a close service, and that there was not sufficient publicity or responsibility attached to the nominations to cadetships. It appeared from a Parliamentary return that during the five years ending in 1859 the entire number of nominations was 1,019. Of these twelve were given to the Colonies, fourteen to the Royal Naval School, and 248 to flag-officers and captains. The remainder (745) were distributed, as stated in the return, by the "Board." He wanted to know what was the meaning of that word "Board," and how the "Board" acted, whether individually or collectively, in the distribution of cadetships. In asking those questions he by no means desired to insinuate or assert that abuses existed. He should be delighted to find the Report of the Committee he wished to see appointed negativing the idea that any abuse existed. But he was entitled to make the remark that if there were no abuse existing, there could be no objection to inquiry, and if it turned out that there were, then the sooner it was remedied the better. He did not expect that the Government would offer any opposition to the appointment of the
  1342
  Committee, because he had a very good precedent for his Motion. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had moved for a Committee to inquire into the present mode of examining candidates for appointments in the civil service. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury opposed the Motion, but said he did so only because the Government did not think the time had arrived when an inquiry of the kind could be fully acted upon. To that it was replied that the object of the Motion was simply to ascertain what the system was, and upon that, the Government withdrew all opposition. He therefore, placed his Motion on the same ground, and he wanted, by the appointment of the Committee, to ascertain the nature of the system under which the cadetships were distributed.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have told the House whether there existed, or he conceived there existed, any real ground of complaint as to the nomination to cadetships. He had heard none himself from any quarter. At the same time, he was aware that the introduction of a system of competitive examination had many things to recommend it; indeed, he had himself brought that question before the House, and he still entertained the belief that it would be advisable to establish a system of limited competition as regarded the entries to cadetships. But the subject was fraught with considerable difficulties. Boys of twelve years of age were eligible for cadetships, and every one knew that a competitive examination among boys of that age would be incomplete and unsatisfactory. It must necessarily be confined to the lower branches of educational subjects, and would afford no criterion of what the future abilities of the competitors might be. The Duke of Somerset had established a system of competitive examination with regard to the marine cadets, who entered the service at a more advanced age than the naval cadets, and if it succeeded the Board would doubtless consider the propriety of extending it to other departments of the service. In the engineering department he had himself introduced a purely competitive examination with respect to the factory boys, who, however, were not examined until they were close upon fourteen years of age. Under a system of competitive examination how would the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to deal with the nominations to Naval

  1343
  Cadetships now given to the Colonies? Were half-a-dozen boys to be brought from North America or Australia for the purpose of being examined in this country? One or two might probably be successful, but the remainder would be sent back again disappointed. The House would see, as he had already said, that the subject was surrounded by difficulties. He was not aware that any fault could be found with the Board of Admiralty for the manner in which they distributed the nominations at their disposal. Naval officers were badly paid, and there were many who depended entirely upon the pittance they received in the shape of half-pay. The only boon held out to them was that of having their sons put into the navy. It would be an act, not only of great injustice, but of great impolicy to subject their sons to a competitive examination. At present a large majority of the whole number of nominations were given to service claims. Considerable intricacy was involved in the question, and he thought the House would do well not to refer it to a Select Committee, but rather to trust to the Board to make improvements when they saw that these could be judiciously introduced.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, his noble and gallant Friend had refused to grant the Committee, but he had not told the House by what principle the Board were guided by their selections. He found from a Return which had been placed in his hand that out of 1,019 nominations between the years 1854–9, only twelve had been bestowed on young men from the Colonies. The argument of the noble Lord on that score did not therefore amount to much. He never made but one application to the Admiralty, and that was on behalf of the son of the late General Niel, who, having been abroad for twenty years fighting the battles of his country, wrote to him to see what he could do for one of his boys. He applied to the Admiralty for a cadetship, basing his request altogether on public grounds, as he believed that the favour would be readily granted to the son of so distinguished an officer, but the application was refused. Afterwards the wife of that distinguished officer came to London; she was a lone woman, living in a country place, knowing nobody. He (Mr. Lindsay) again made application to the Admiralty, and was again refused. That was the first favour he had ever asked of the Admiralty, and it should be the last. It seemed that there were 745 cadetships at the dis-
  1344
  posal of the Admiralty. How were they distributed?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had stated that three-fourths were given to service claims.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that a portion of those were the 240 given to officers. How were the remainder disposed of? Unless he received a more satisfactory explanation as to how these nominations were given, and the principle which guided the Board, he should consider it his duty on public grounds to vote for the Motion.
  MR. TAYLORsaid, an instance had come to his knowledge, in which the ground of relationship to a distinguished officer was not recognized at the Admiralty as affording a claim to a cadetship, but fortunately the applicant possessed private interest, by which he was enabled to obtain it.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he could not conceive what grounds existed for granting the Committee, unless it were charged that these cadetships had been jobbed away. Did the hon. Member believe that boys were improperly admitted, and how did he propose to rectify such a state of things? Would he introduce competition, and was it to be limited or unlimited? Was it proposed to take away altogether from the Admiralty, and to vest in some other Board, the power of nominating to cadetships? The hon. Member had not told the House the grounds on which the cadetship that he applied for had been refused. It might be that he had delayed his application until in fairness to others it could not be complied with.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the names of the candidates for cadetships were put down on a very long list, and the object of the present Motion was to discover the principle on which the Government made their selection from that list. If the system was fair and above-board, there ought to be no objection on the part of the Board of Admiralty to the appointment of the Committee; if there were anything improper in the mode according to which these selections were made, the House, on arriving at the facts, would recommend some better mode of appointment. It was a matter of grave importance.
  MR. BEAMISHremarked that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty when in opposition brought forward Motions for inquiring into the administration of the Admiralty Department, with which he, as a naval officer, must have been acquainted,

  1345
  and the object of which, therefore, could only be to discover abuses if they existed, He could not understand on what ground the Government refused inquiry into the subject; and he should therefore feel it to be his duty to support the Motion of his hon. Friend if he went to a division.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, it would appear now-a-days as if everything were to be made the subject of inquiry. He must, however, confess he did not in the present instance think any good ground for inquiry had been made out, inasmuch as all the information which the supporters of the Motion seemed to require might be obtained by moving for Returns on the subject. Be that, however, as it might, he could from his own experience at the Admiralty undertake to say that officers had frequently, without any interest whatever and merely because of their own services, obtained nominations to cadetships for their sons. He might add that it was impossible to grant every application of the kind, and that he did not think it would be found sound policy to keep the whole of those appointments for the sons of naval and military officers, to the exclnsion of civilians.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present system of nomination to Cadetships in the Royal Navy."
  The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 81; Majority 57.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present,—Committee counted, and forty Members not being present;
  MR. SPEAKERresumed the Chair; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Railway Cheap Trains, &c; Labourers' Cottages (Scotland); Ionian Islands (Marriages).
2a Masters and Operatives; New Zealand; Tithe Commutation; Local Government Supplemental; Tenison's Charity.
3a Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment.
Royal Assent.—Public Improvements; Bank of Ireland; Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction; Petitions of Right; Bankrupt Law (Scotland) Amendment.

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED ELECTION.— HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD (the Earl of ST. GERMANS)reported The QUEEN'S Answer to their Lordships' Address of the 14th of June last, as follows:—
"My LORDS,
I have received the joint Address of the Two Houses of Parliament in reference to the Report made by the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to try a Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed; and I have given Directions accordingly for the Appointment of Commissioners for the Purpose of making the Inquiry prayed for by the Address."

SLAVE TRADE.—CONSULSHIP AT MOZAMBIQUE.—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD (the Earl of ST. GERMANS)reported The QUEEN'S Answer to their Lordships' Address of the 25th of June last, as follows:—
"My LORDS,
I have received your Address, praying that I will appoint a Consul at Mozambique, with a view to promote the Interests of Commerce and the Execution of the Treaties between Great Britain and Portugal upon the Slave Trade.
And you may be assured that the Subject shall be carefully considered."

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.

  COMMITTEE NEGATIVED.
  Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the only result of the delay which had taken place with regard to the Bill was the presentation of a Petition in its favour from a meeting of the United Cabmen, held in Milbank Street. He thought their Lordships ought not to promote petty legislation. The object of the Bill was to require every publican to use an instrument which was the subject of the patent.
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, the patent expired in June last.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, it was clear, then, that the noble Lord was not aware of the fact when he brought in the Bill, for he had actually introduced a clause to annul the letters patent. If the patent had expired, then, what was the object of the Bill? Probably the patent had not been very successful, and the object of the Bill would be to compel the publicans to purchase the machines which were in the hands of the patentee. He moved that their Lordships go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months").
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, the object of the Bill was to do justice between man and man where justice was not now done.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and House to be again in Committee this Day Three Months.

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it was not anticipated that it would directly operate against such a strike as had lately taken place in London. It was hardly possible for any Council of Conciliation to give effect to any proposal when a strike had actually taken place, and when each party, exasperated against the other, looked simply to its own means of carrying its own object. It is not a difference between a master and a workman, but between two classes. It becomse a trial of power simply. The men attack the masters in detail; the masters act together and stop their works. The men then declare it is a masters' lockout. But should this Bill be passed, and Councils of Conciliation be established, it was hoped that the association of masters and operatives in these Councils upon minor disputes, which must arise from time to time, would produce such a good understanding between them as to prevent strikes taking place at all. When their Lordships reflected on the amount of misery and loss of capital that had resulted from strikes in this country, they might well desire to try whether they could not devise some means to prevent their occurrence in future. If they looked back through the last twenty years they would find that the pecuniary loss occasioned by strikes was not to be estimated by hun-

  1315
  dreds or thousands or tens of thousands of pounds, but by millions; while the amount of human suffering—of misery to the operatives and their families—could not be estimated by money. The funds of their benefit societies are misapplied, and the demands of sickness and accident left unprovided for. When a general strike took place it afflicted the working classes by a sort of moral paralysis, which rendered them powerless, so far as their working energies were concerned. Serious differences between masters and their workmen had hitherto in too many instances ended in strikes—how different might it not be if the masters and operatives could be brought together in order that they might come to a satisfactory settlement of the matters in dispute? If the relation between masters and operatives were fairly looked at, it would be seen that the operative was really a limited partner in the concern in which he was employed, but without risk in the capital expended. He drew his share of the money earned, and so partook of the profits, but without liability to make good the losses. It was obvious, therefore, that he had a direct interest in the continuance of the business, and that mutual confidence and regard between the employer and the employed were essential to the interests of both. The late strike arose out of the demand on the part of the men to receive ten hours' pay for nine hours' work, which was refused by the masters. Now, it was not pretended by the men that they could accomplish in nine hours the work that had hitherto been done in ten; but it was acknowledged that the object of the strike was to compel employers to engage a larger number of men to perform in nine hours the work which now occupied ten, the present rate of wages being maintained, and in that way it was supposed a number of men who had hitherto been unemployed would obtain employment and wages. Such a proceeding was a violation of all the laws of political economy, and if successful would remove the question of wages from the natural influences of supply and demand. It was not possible by any law to strike at strikes. It was perfectly lawful for the men to combine, and therefore to strike, but they must not conspire. Many attempts had been made to prevent the evils arising from disputes between masters and workmen, but in vain. In France the attempt had been made with greater
  1316
  success. Belgium has made a feeble effort. In 1806 Napoleon established councils for the adjustment of disputes between masters and their workmen. They were composed both of manufacturers and workmen, but the manufacturers had greatly the preponderance of influence. In this Conseil de Prudhommes the chair, of right, was filled by the manufacturer. There were five manufacturers to four overlookers. The chairman acted gratuitously, and his whole time was unpaid, the workmen were paid. In 1809 the Councils were somewhat differently constituted, the election to the Council was by the whole body of the manufacturers and overlookers in the town, and the president and vice-president were elected from their own body. In this country the overlookers were understood to be the mere agents of the master, but in France they were not altogether regarded in that light. In the revolution of 1848 there was of course a cry for equality. A new law was passed, placing the masters and workmen on the same footing of equality, and they together formed the Council of Conciliation. The constitution of these Councils established a singular system of cross voting. The workmen chose nine of their body, out of whom the masters selected three, who represented the workmen. The masters in turn had to choose nine of their body, of whom the workmen selected three, who represented the masters. The workmen chose a president out of the masters, and the masters a president out of the workmen, who presided for three months alternately. This scheme, under which great numbers of workmen were admitted, did not work well, and the consequence was that in 1853 the law was passed upon which Councils of Conciliation were now established in France. The workmen elected their own representatives in the Councils. The workman before he was entitled to vote must be twenty-five years of age, must have worked five years at his trade, and must have resided three years in the district for which he voted. A workman to be qualified to be elected a member of the Council must be thirty years of age and able to read and write, and be qualified as an elector. The masters were required to be patentés for which they were taxed. These restrictions excluded great numbers of workmen. The President and Vice-President were appointed for a term of three years by the Emperor, but he could not select from the Members of Council.

  1317
  They were removable at pleasure. This power may suit France, but it would not be tolerated in England. In addition to the Councils a Bureau de Conciliation was established, before whom both masters and workmen were brought. It consisted of two persons only, one a master and one a workman, being Members of the Council, and they were required to sit every day from eleven to one o'clock. In every case the matter in dispute must be brought in the first instance before the Bureau. If the Bureau did not succeed in settling the disputes, the parties then went before the Council of Conciliation, which had judicial powers, without appeal, up to 200 francs, so that it could compel the parties to come to an understanding and to enforce its award. Imperfect as this tribunal was it worked a wonderful amount of good in France. A vast number of disputes had been amicably settled in the first instance before the Bureaux and which consequently never came before the Councils at all. These tribunals, however, only operated on past transactions, and never had taken cognizance of the question of wages. The French understood strikes, however, as well as we do. Sir Joseph Paxton had stated, before a Committee of the other House, that he had to construct a work thirty miles out of Paris. There were 200 French masons employed and a number of English masons. The English masons were more expert than the French, and the French, finding that they were not obtaining the same wages, became discontented, although they got the highest wages ever earned by masons in France. Some disagreement arose in consequence; but the question being one of wages, it was not a case for the Councils, and the men without notice left the works, and compelled their employer to agree to their terms. Having called their Lordships' attention to the French law, he would briefly state what was the present state of the English law, in relation to these matters. In our Potteries the masters and workmen have been in the habit of agreeing in meeting to refer disputes. In Macclesfield there was a Council of Conciliation, but it meddled with wages and was broken up. In the reign of George II. an Act was passed by which all disputes between masters and workmen in the cotton trade were referred to justices of the peace. In the reign of George III. an Act was passed, giving the masters and men the power of referring disputes to
  1318
  arbitration, or to a magistrate. This Act, however, was defective in many particulars and never came into practical operation. In 1824 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the whole subject. It sat for thirty-six or thirty-seven days, and examined 122 witnesses. They recommended in their Report the establishment of courts of arbitration extending to all trades. The result of that Report and recommendation was the alteration of the combination law, and the enactment of the 5 Geo. IV., c. 96, which was still the law. It embraced disputes between masters and workmen in any trade or manufacture in Great Britain or Ireland respecting the price to be paid for work done, or in the course of being done. But the justices were not to establish a rate of wages or price of labour or workmanship at which the workman should in fnture be paid unless with the consent of both master and workman: either party may compel an arbitration. If parties so agree, the magistrate is to decide. If they disagree, the justice is to propose not less than four nor more than six persons—half masters, half workmen—each party to choose one out of his own class to decide. If they fail to do so the magistrate is to decide. In either case the decision is final. By section 13 of that Act, masters and operatives might by agreement have recourse to any other mode of arbitration they might choose, and any award made in any arbitration under such agreement could be enforced as legal. This provision he thought was just and proper and he had adopted it in the present Bill. The law, then, as it stood gave masters and workmen the option of going before a magistrate to obtain a decision upon their differences, or they could select referees, or they could adopt any other mode of arbitration they pleased. The section to which he had referred had unfortunately become a dead letter, but the existing law gave all power to adopt by agreement any form of arbitration they chose. [A noble LORD:—Then where is the necessity for this Bill?] The necessity of the Bill was that under the section of the existing Act there must be a fresh nomination of referees to decide upon each particular case. What the masters as well as the operatives desired was a court to which they could have recourse in all cases of dispute, and which should have jurisdiction to decide all points in controversy. The Act was absolutely a dead

  1319
  letter, and even those persons who had been most active in "strikes" were ignorant of the existence of a law which permitted arbitration in cases of disputes. The present Bill had been, recommended by high authorities. The Committee of 1824, which sat thirty-six days and examined 122 witnesses, reported that the practice of settling disputes by arbitration between masters and workmen had been attended with good effects, and that it was desirable that the laws which direct and regulate arbitration should be considered and made applicable to all trades. In 1856 a Committee, which sat sixteen days and examined twenty-eight witnesses, reported as follows:—
  "From the evidence before them, your Committee cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the attention of the Legislature might with advantage be directed to the subject of this inquiry, and are of opinion that the formation of Courts of Conciliation in the country, more particularly in the large commercial and manufacturing and mining districts would be beneficial. Your Committee would suggest that such a measure might be introduced as an Amendment in the present Arbitration Act, by a reconstruction of that Act in the 10th and 13th sections, by which means both masters and operatives would be enabled, each from their own class or calling, to appoint referees, an equal number by each party, having power to elect a chairman, unconnected with either side, having a casting vote. Such a tribunal to be appointed for a certain period, and not for any particular controversy."
  They were further of opinion that it was desirable that the Secretary of State should have authority, on application being made to him, to license courts of this description, and that immediately on the establishment of such courts they should be invested with full powers to decide all questions of existing contracts which might be referred to them. Again, the Select Committee appointed in the present year, which sat eleven days and examined fourteen witnesses, came to—
  "The unanimous opinion that the voluntary formation of equitable Councils of Conciliation would tend to promote a more friendly understanding between the employers and employed, to soften any irritation that might arise, and in most oases to prevent the growth of such a spirit of antagonism as too often leads to a strike."
  And they added,—
  "Your Committee have considered the Bill which has been referred to them by the House, and are unanimously of opinion that if the Bill passes into a law it will promote the welfare of and good understanding between masters and operatives, and be advantageous to the country."
  These three Committees of the other House,
  1320
  after much deliberation, and after hearing many witnesses, had all come to the same conclusion, and their opinions would, he hoped, have due weight with their Lordships. In taking charge of this measure he had considered it neither as a workman's nor a master's Bill. He was actuated by no class prejudices, but regarded this simply as a great social question, and only recommended the Bill because he believed it was calculated to create an amicable feeling between masters and workmen, and to prevent those strikes which were attended with such deplorable results. The Committee who recommended and supported this Bill in the other House included amongst its Members, Sir Joseph Paxton, Sir Morton Peto, Mr. Cubitt, and other capitalists and employers of labour. Much fault had been found with the Bill in its present shape, but if their Lordships allowed it to go into Committee, he would endeavour to frame it so as to obviate all objection in point of form. The Bill would assume this form—the first step would be to go to the Crown for a licence; when the licence was obtained the Court of Conciliation was to have all the powers which now existed under the Act of George IV., with the important qualification that the Court was to have no jurisdiction unless the question in dispute was submitted to it by both parties, so that the Bill would not give any power at all to the Court of Conciliation unless both parties went before it; but after both parties had chosen to submit any question to the Court there would be power to compel them to go on, although one or the other might wish to withdraw. But the power to inforce any award which would be final, would remain with the magistrates. In imitation of the French law, he proposed that the Council should name a Committee of Conciliation before whom, in the first instance, all matters in dispute should be referred. He defied any one to show that there was any difference in principle between the law as it now stood and this Bill, in the shape in which he intended to present it to a Committee, and the House would bear in mind that it was not proposed to repeal the Act of George IV., and he, therefore, trusted their Lordships would allow it to be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, that so great was the respect which he bore for the character, abilities, and great legal attainments of his noble and learned Friend that

  1321
  it was with the greatest hesitation he proposed his Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months; but his noble and learned Friend had failed to remove the grave objections to which the Bill was open. He (Lord Ravensworth) thought their Lordships ought to interfere as little as possible between the masters and operatives. He could hardly think the existing law was so inoperative as the noble and learned Lord represented. The Bill came before their Lordships not recommended, so far as he was aware, by any expression of public opinion, or backed by the authority of acceptance by the other House: it rested simply on the authority of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. But, although the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons was, no doubt, entitled to respect, there might be substantial reasons why their Lordships should hesitate before they gave implicit confidence to the recommendations of such a body. It was quite possible that the Members of the Committee might have been influenced by prejudice, and might have conducted the examination of witnesses so as to support their own views. He was confirmed in these suspicions by the singular unanimity which prevailed in this Committee and among the witnesses, and by the fact that the evidence of the only witness who went counter to the views which they entertained was quickly cut short. Parliament ought to give more consideration to this important subject before any new legislation was attempted with regard to it. He held that the present law might be modified and amended so as to meet the requirements of the case, without bringing forward a measure like the present. The great difficulty was to find a fair and impartial tribunal, and in his opinion there were insurmountable objections to the machinery proposed in the Bill. The Councils would of course, include two antagonistic elements—the representatives of the workmen would uphold one view, those of the masters another. The question was how the Chairman was to be appointed. None of the witnesses examined before the Committee appeared able to solve the problem. One suggested that the President of the Council of Conciliation—which, in his belief, would prove only a council of wrangle—should be selected by lottery. Another proposed that the masters should appoint the Chairman one day and the workmen the next; but the result of that proceeding would be
  1322
  simply to reverse the votes on alternate days. The witnesses generally objected to the more rational proposition of arbitration by the justices. The witnesses objected that to go before the justices would have the appearance of a criminal proceeding; but was not this sad trifling? Was there anything criminal in the existing system under which masters and the servants employed in agricultural husbandry went before a bench of magistrates or the Petty Sessions, and a more impartial tribunal could not be found. He believed that a Court of Petty Sessions would be more likely to give a satisfactory judgment than a Council of Conciliation chosen as proposed by this Bill, and presided over by a Chairman about whose selection possibly great difficulties had arisen. There were much graver objections to the Bill, which the noble and learned Lord seemed to acknowledge when he stated that he should offer some Amendments in Committee. Let their Lordships reflect upon the number of Councils of Conciliation which would be necessary. It was stated that there were not less than 400 separate branches of trade in this country, employing no less than 2,695,000 workmen, to whom the provisions of the Bill might apply. It was clear that if Councils of Conciliation were established there must be one for every separate branch of trade. A Council of Conciliation for bricklayers, for example, could not adjudicate upon the disputes of smiths or carpenters. It was a remarkable fact that the Bill came out of the Select Committee to which it was referred with three grave faults that did not exist in the original Bill. Such a fact was not calculated to create confidence either in the measure itself or in the authority of those by whom it was recommended. By the sixth clause it was proposed that for the purposes of the Act each person, being twenty-one years of age, belonging to the trade having a licence for a Council, and being an inhabitant householder or part occupier of any house, who had resided and been a master or workman in such trade within the limits of the place in which a Council of Conciliation was formed, was entitled to be registered as a voter, and qualified to be elected a member of the Council. Thus the Legislature was asked to constitute a multitude of small Parliaments, elected by the universal suffrage of all those engaged in trade, who had only to show that their names were on the registry in order to have the right

  1323
  to vote. The expense of these proceedings would be considerable; and how were they to be borne? There must be a clerk of registration; and how was he to be paid? The Bill contained no provisions on this point; but the witnesses examined before the Select Committee admitted that the working of the Act must be attended with considerable expense. Something was said about defraying the expense out of the rates, or, if that were objected to, throwing them upon the Consolidated Fund. The latter proposal was not likely to obtain the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; nor would the magistrates in Quarter Sessions feel disposed to meet the expenses out of the county rates. That some alteration and amendment might be made in the present law on this subject he did not deny. Those defects, however, would be in no degree remedied by such a measure as the present, and would be, in his opinion, rather aggravated than cured by Councils of Conciliation chosen under the machinery of the present Bill. For these reasons he trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the second reading of the Bill; and that, in the words of a series of carefully drawn objections to the Bill, they would not pass 'a hastily prepared and ill-digested measure, which would probably be attended by disastrous consequences." The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months").
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he would not enter into a dissertation on the details of the Bill as proposed for a second reading by his noble and learned Friend, but wished to state the reasons for the vote he should be compelled to give. His noble Friend who had just sat down had stated various objections to the machinery and provisions of the Bill, but he had, at the same time, stated that, in his judgment, the existing law, though not so wholly inoperative as represented, at all events required and was capable of, amendment. In a matter of such importance as that of obviating the mischief that arose from misunderstandings between masters and employers he thought their Lordships might be induced to give a favourable consideration to a measure that professed to effect that object, and more especially supported as it was by the high authority of his noble and learned Friend who introduced the Bill; and more especially also when
  1324
  the subject had received long and serious consideration, and the measure had apparently resulted from the almost unanimous recommendations of a Committee of the other House. He did not pretend to say that there were not many points in the Bill which it was necessary should receive most careful consideration in Committee. His noble and learned Friend had pointed out several provisions which he was prepared to amend in Committee; some that had arisen per incuriam, and others that had been injuriously inserted since it was introduced into the other House. Considering that the Bill was one that had gone through the examination of more than one Select Committee, the Bill appeared with a singular infelicity of expression, and therefore if their Lordships consented to give it a second reading, he thought it should be referred to a Select Committee to amend its phraseology and examine its provisions with a view to renderiug it more acceptable as a Legislative Act. Considering the high authority that supported the principle of the measure, the confessed inadequacy of the law, and the strong feeling that the representatives both on the part of masters and workmen entertained on the subject of constructing some machinery that should supply remedies and obviate defects in the existing law, he should regret to see their Lordships summarily reject the second reading of the Bill, and thereby not postpone the measure for maturer and more careful consideration, but, in point of fact, debar themselves from it altogether, and declare, moreover, that they would not deal with a matter that the House of Commons had declared was deserving of consideration, and which their Lordships did not deny. If there were a division he should be prepared to divide in favour of the second reading, but, at the same time, he wished to add his opinion that, not only with regard to minor points, but others of greater magnitude, the Bill in Committee would require the gravest consideration, and he should certainly be sorry in its present state to give it a third reading.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, if the question were put for or against the Bill in its present shape, he should vote with the noble Baron opposite (Lord Ravensworth), because upon the admission of all parties there never was a Bill so imperfectly drawn as that which they were considering. In a Bill relating to such a delicate matter as the relations between masters

  1325
  and workmen the utmost correctness and nicety of expression were particularly necessary; but this Bill was admitted to be so imperfect that it was clear the noble and learned Lord had not examined it very minutely before he introduced it. This was a subject on which the working classes took a deep interest, and he would be sorry that the House should appear to treat it lightly or in a summary manner. If he had been rightly informed, however, this Bill had been before the House in three successive Sessions, but had failed to pass until the present Session, when it was read a third time, the withdrawal of the Reform Bill having given an earlier opportunity than was expected. He did not believe that the Bill could be properly considered in Committee of the Whole House, and therefore he would submit to the noble and learned Lord whether it would not be well to refer it to a Select Committee, in order, if possible, to convert it into a practical measure that would be satisfactory to all parties.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the Bill in its present shape should pass into law he should congratulate himself that he was no longer Lord Chief Justice, for a great part of that functionary's time would be occupied in hearing applications for writs of mandamus, of prohibition, and of certiorari arising out of this Bill. In fact, the Bill would not work at all, and would only make "confusion worse confounded;" but he agreed that it was not desirable to appear to treat the subject lightly, and, in assenting to the second reading, he would urge upon his noble and learned Friend the propriety of referring it to a Select Committee.
  LORD STANLEY OF ADDERLEYsaid, he would not oppose the second reading, or reference to a Select Committee, if it were at all likely to result in the production of an effective measure, and that it would not hold out false expectations that there was a chance of settling differences between men and masters. He did not think the measure was workable, and no provision was made to meet the large expenditure it would involve.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHwas willing to withdraw his Amendment, upon the understanding that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid he was willing to adopt that course.
  Amendment, by leave, of the House, withdrawn. Then the original Motion
  1326
  agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly; and referred to a Select Committee. And on Thursday following the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor

  L. Overstone

  Ld. President

  L. Cranworth

  E. Derby

  L. St. Leonards

  L. Ravensworth

  L. Wensleydale

  L. Brougham and Vaux

  L. Belper

  L. Kingsdown

NEW ZEALAND BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in moving the second reading of the Bill for the better Government of the Native Inhabitants of New Zealand, and for facilitating the purchase of native lands, said, that the measure did not arise out of the unfortunate disturbances that had recently occurred in New Zealand, although it originated from a similar state of things as that which had led to those events. It was intended, and he hoped would have the effect of conciliating the Natives of the country, and creating a better feeling between them and the English settlers. Since the subject of New Zealand was last under the consideration of their Lordships, now some seven years ago, the greatest progress had been made by the colony. Of late years education had made great advances among the Natives, who now had accounts in the savings banks, were engaged in industrial pursuits, and were possessed of vessels in which they carried on a considerable portion of the coasting trade of the colony. He need only appeal to these facts to show the immense progress which they had made in civilization since the passing of the Constitution Act, seven or eight years ago. Concurrently with their progress the Natives manifested a strong opposition to any infraction of their rights, and for some time past they had been impressed by the fear that the settlers sought to extinguish their nationality: they dreaded a complete absorption among the colonists, and, fearing to lose the possessions which they regarded as their birthright, they showed an increasing indisposition to part with their land, even upon fair and equitable terms. They were also dissatisfied with the laws which existed for their own regulation. Comparing them with the laws under which the English settlers lived, they thought that the two

  1327
  ought to be assimilated, and that they were not governed under such favourable conditions as they had a right to look for. This was the feeling of the Natives. On the other hand, the colonists also had a cause of dissatisfaction. They had increased greatly in number and in wealth, and there had consequently been a growing demand for land. They were conscious, of course, of their power as a superior race, and those who had recently arrived in the colony did not evince that tolerance for the habits and feelings of the Natives which generally characterized the older settlers. In this state of things his attention had been drawn several months ago to the state of the colony, and the question arose as to the remedy which should be applied. The question was, in whose hands the power to deal with the land should be placed. New Zealand, as their Lordships knew, like most of the colonies of Great Britain at present, possessed a responsible Government, and the natural and easy plan would have been to place in the hands of that Government such powers as might be thought desirable for the purpose of producing a better state of feeling between the Natives and the settlers. But there were certain questions concerning the Natives in which the Government of New Zealand could not be considered the best medium for communication with them. The present case was an exceptional one. It almost involved a question of good faith as regarded the Natives were they to place this power in the hands of the local Government; because it was not to the English inhabitants of New Zealand, it was to the Crown that these territories had been ceded by the Natives; the Natives had submitted themselves to the good Government of the Crown, and hitherto, though occasions had arisen when they had shown distrust towards the local Government, they had reposed confidence in the Imperial Government—should they succeed in proving to them that that confidence was well placed he hoped they would be able to revive in the Natives that spirit of loyalty which had not in late years distinguished them. There was another reason why the management of the Natives should not be left to the local Government; and that was because, if quarrels arose between them, as was now unfortunately the case, and if these resulted in an outbreak, it was upon the Imperial Government that the whole expense of quelling such an outbreak fell.
  1328
  We had therefore, a strong pecuniary interest in measures the result of which would be to remove the cause for any quarrels. Under these circumstances, after communicating with the Government of New Zealand, it was resolved to institute a local Council, upon whom should devolve the revision of the Native laws, and the arrangements respecting the sale and purchase of Native land. It would be recollected that in the New Zealand Government Bill the management of Native lands was reserved to the Crown. No machinery existed in the Act, however, to carry that provision properly into execution; and it therefore became a dead letter, and there was a constant tendency to allow these questions to be dealt with by the local Government. It might be thought difficult to form a Council for the purpose of carrying out these measures. But there were notoriously many Englishmen living in the colony who possessed jointly the confidence of the Natives and of their brother settlers, and if this Bill passed, he thought the Government would have no difficulty in recommending to the Crown a sufficient number of persons who were independent of the constant changes of Government which occurred under the existing system, who should constitute a permanent Council, and in whose hands, so long as it was necessary, those questions should be placed. In reference to this questions of land, it might be convenient that their Lordships should know that at present the whole of the southern islands was practically in possession of the English settlers. Of the northern, 7,000,000 acres had been purchased by the colonists, and 26,000,000 still remained in the hands of the Natives. Much of this land was, of course, utterly unavailable, and of no sort of value to its possessors; but there was much that the Natives would be glad to dispose of to settlers on terms of advantage to both parties. He proposed that the Council should consist of not less than three, or more than seven persons, to whom the Crown should transfer the powers which it possessed, but which it had never yet been able to exercise. This Council would only continue a certain number of years, as its duties might be expected eventually to die out. He did not know that any further explanation of the Bill was necessary. He repeated that it had not been brought forward in consequence of the disturbances in New Zealand, although he hoped that its effect, if passed

  1329
  into a law, would be to arrest their progress. The Bill was drawn before the news of any outbreak reached this country. It would maintain intact the rights of the settlers, while at the same time the feelings and prejudices of the Natives would be more respected than at present. He had no reason to apprehend the opposition of the colonists to the measure. On the contrary, he believed they would view with satisfaction the formation of an independent body to make such arrangements as they must feel that the local Government, from its constant changes, was not competent adequately to carry out. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that, as some communication must have passed between the Government of New Zealand and the Home Government upon this subject, it was very desirable that the papers should be laid on the table, which would enable their Lordships to judge whether the measure was advisable or not. He was afraid that the effect of the Bill would be to create and keep up a constant feeling of irritation and jealousy between the local Government and the new body which it was proposed to establish—a body which would really form a separate and independent Administration in the colony, having no connection with the local Legislature, and formed by the Imperial Government without consultation with them. He believed some such legislation as that embodied in the present measure to be requisite; but he was not aware that there would be any inconvenience in delay at present, and it made some difference whether the purpose was effected by the local Assembly of New Zealand or by the Imperial authority. One of the main objects of the Bill was to enable the Natives to deal directly with the purchasers of land, and was probably deserving the attention of Parliament. There were several points of detail in the Bill which he would refer to on the Motion for going into Committee.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEexplained that, according to the Constitution Act, nothing but Imperial legislation could carry out the objects of a measure like the present.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter-past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, Half-past Four o'clock.