Sitting of 19 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Militia Ballot; Gunpowder, &c; Volunteer Rifle Corps.
3° Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland).

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Glossary).
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he rose to move that the Chairman do now leave the chair. He did so because the Bill was one entirely for the landlords of Ireland, and not for the advantage of the tenants. They were asked to go into Committee upon the Bill, without receiving any explanation of its provisions. There were a great many statutes on the subject, and it was proposed to consolidate and amend them; but they were not told how much was new, how much was old, how much was consolidation, and how much improvement; but the Bill was simply thrown upon the table, it being left to hon. Gentlemen to make out its provisions for themselves by a laboured study of its contents. The Bill contained 106 sections, and repealed 57 Acts of Parliament. Every section of the Bill was favourable to the landlord and against the tenant—in short, they were a simple confirmation of the Acts passed by landlords in their own favour for the last 400 years—from the reign of Edward IV. The Bill would have the further effect of making the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland essentially different from what it was in England, though they all professed to be in favour of making the law similar in both countries. It also abolished the power of landlord and tenant to make verbal contracts for three years. There was no part of the Empire in which it was so desirable to encourage the farmer to plant trees, and labour to preserve them, as in Ireland; but, by the 31st section, a farmer was liable to a penalty of £5 for each tree or shrub cut down, topped, lopped, or grubbed, without the landlord's consent, even though it might be necessary to do so for the preservation of the tree or the improvement of the farm. Thus he could not lop off a withered branch, crop a hedge, cut a gooseberry bush, or grub up underwood, without asking leave of the landlord. Another
2152
objectionable clause was that by which, wherever in existing leases the mines had been reserved, the landlord might go in and work them in any way he chose. Clause 35, relative to waste, was even more intolerable. By that clause, if the landlord went before a magistrate, and showed that he had reason to believe the tenant was intending to commit any unlawful waste, injury, or destruction, the magistrate might issue his warrant forbidding such act, and if that were not attended to, commit the tenant, his aiders and abettors, to prison for three months. Surely such an arbitrary power was not the law of England, or of Scotland, or of any other country. In fact a tenant might by this clause be sent to gaol for three months for carrying out what he believed to be his right according to the terms of his contract. Again, the power of ejectment by the Quarter Sessions for non-payment of rent was extended by this Bill. As it now stood, where a year's rent was due and the rent was not more than £50, such a proceeding might be adopted, but it would now be extended to cases where the rent was £100; and, moreover, it was now to be provided that such eviction might take place "even before the expiration of the time, if any, limited for the entry of the landlord in any lease or agreement." The provisions as to ejectment for overholding or for desertion of the premises, were equally unjust to the tenant. These were but a few of the grievances created by this Bill, which was called a Consolidation Bill. He thought the other Landlord and Tenant Bill, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) was, upon the whole, a much better one. He asked the House to pause ere they passed such a Bill. It was the same Bill as the Bill of 1853, which was sent up to the House of Lords, together with the Tenant's Compensation Bill, it being looked upon as a counterpoise to the latter Bill, and being consented to on that ground; but when the tenant's Compensation Bill was rejected by the House of Lords while this Bill was passed, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) said that it was not his intention to persevere with it. For these reasons he should move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he should support the Motion. The Bill was founded on a measure which he had himself introduced in the year 1853; but he had since thought proper to amend that measure, and his

2153
amended Bill, which contained sixty-seven additional clauses, stood on the notice paper of the House for committal that day. It was not his intention to go on with that Bill, and when they came to it he would move that the order for the Committee should be discharged, because he felt persuaded that it would be idle to attempt to proceed with it during the present Session. He thought it rather hard that the Government should be pressing forward his defective Bill of 1853, instead of aiding him to carry his improved Bill. Besides, he thought that what was new in the measure should have been pointed out. He believed that portion of the Bill which related to the law of distress was very imperfect. In his own Bill he wished to extend to the other parts of Ireland the practice which prevailed in Ulster, where the incoming tenant settled with the outgoing tenant for the value of improvements which he might have made on the farm. There was no pressing necessity for the measure; and he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to consider the whole question seriously during the recess—to take both Bills together, and select what portions of both he thought best, and, perhaps, in another Session they might be able to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
MR. DEASYmaintained that the Bill had been thoroughly considered on the second reading, and complained of a discussion on the principle of the Bill being now raised in Committee. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. M'Mahon) had criticised the Bill, he did not say unfairly, but he had not done so at the right time. He invited him to repeat his criticisms on the clauses as they came before them in Committee, and he would be ready to adopt such Amendments as were fair and reasonable. If it could be shown that any of the clauses were unjust to the tenant, he would at once consent to expunge them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) complained that his new provisions had not been introduced into the present Bill; but his reply was, that he had never seen the new provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill till they were printed by order of the House, and, therefore, he could not have availed himself of them. He must say, however, that he could not adopt the provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill with regard to the law of distress, or of fixtures, and that he preferred the
2154
clauses of the present Bill. He did not say that the measure was a perfect one, but it would be a material improvement on the existing law, and would be highly beneficial to the tenantry of Ireland. Its object was to make the law more clear and simple, so that both landlord and tenant might be perfectly apprised of their relative rights and liabilities. The law ought not to be left in such a state as to afford the tenant a continual temptation, instead of paying his rent, to spend his money in litigation with his landlord, and to waste among the attorneys those funds which might be better employed in stocking a new farm. With this view, to render the law more plain and the remedies for any infringement of it efficacious and inexpensive, the Bill had been very carefully prepared, and he trusted it would be allowed to go into Committee.
MR. LEFROYsaid, he thought it would be ungracious, after what the Attorney General for Ireland had said, to divide against going on with the Bill in Committee; but, at the same time, he put it to the Attorney General whether, after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) and the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, it would be expedient to proceed with a Bill of such importance at this period of the Session.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he must appeal to those hon. Gentlemen who were anxious for a real settlement of the tenant law of Ireland, not to prolong this preliminary discussion, but proceed to look into the clauses of this Bill, and those of the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), in Committee. The Government were quite ready, in the most candid spirit, to compare the merits of the two Bills; and they had no desire to stand upon any particular feature of their own Bill, but would adopt such provisions as might seem to the House to be best. After the great pains which had been taken, by two successive Governments of late years, to prepare a measure upon the subject, he hoped it would be allowed to proceed. At any rate, he would not be responsible for the delay.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 88: Majority 80.
Clauses 1 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 (Prevention of Waste and Law I of Repairs).
MR. POLLARD-URQUHART MR. POLLARD-URQUHART moved

2155
the omission of the clause. Under the present law the landlord who had reason to apprehend a waste of the property should apply to the Court of Chancery for its prohibition; and that power could not be transferred to a magistrate without disadvantage to the tenant.
MR. DEASYexplained that the object of the clause was to facilitate the prevention of waste, and so to save expense, both to the landlord and the tenant. The tenant could appeal to the Quarter Sessions against the decision of the magistrate, and the only restraint that would be put upon him was that he could not in the meantime injure the property.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 21: Majority 68.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 (Punishment of Disobedience of Precept).
MR. BUTT MR. BUTT moved the omission of the clause. It would introduce the action of the police for the purpose of enforcing regulations between landlords and tenants; and he thought that the police ought not to be allowed to interfere in those cases of private rights.
MR. DEASYsaid, he admitted that there was considerable force in the objection which had been made to the clause, and he would not therefore press it. But he wished to give notice that on the bringing up of the Report he would introduce some other provision for the purpose of securing a compliance with the injunction against waste. He did not mean to give the constabulary any power which they did not now possess.
LORD NAASsaid, he objected to the question being postponed. It would be better to settle the point in Committee.
MR. HENNESSY MR. HENNESSY moved that the Chairman report progress.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PEACE PRESERVATION ACT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will introduce into the Peace Preservation Act Clauses to prevent the exhibition of Flags upon Places of Worship and Public Build-
  2156
  ings in Ireland, and to restrain, under certain circumstances, the beating of drums or playing upon musical instruments on the high roads or places of public resort in that country.
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, it is the opinion of the Government that the law prohibiting the exhibition of these devices, which unfortunately have given occasion to some of those outrages in Ireland which are so much to be regretted, requires amendment, and it is proposed to amend it with the view stated by the hon. Baronet.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. DEASY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Committee will recollect the question before us when this Bill was last under discussion was one of the very greatest importance. It was the question whether any person, be he a trader or non-trader, shall be subject to the uniform system of administering the law of insolvency proposed to be established by this measure. Although this question may have never before been discussed in the House of Commons, it has been the subject of repeated consideration out of this House during a period, I may say, of thirty years, and whether in the Reports of Commissioners, in the discussions in the other House of Parliament, or in the speeches of the most learned Lords and jurists, there has been but one growing opinion, that it is incumbent on the Legislature, upon every consideration, both of justice and expediency, to do away with the distinction between the code of bankruptcy and the law relating to insolvent debtors, and to substitute for them one uniform system. I believe in this country alone there prevails this peculiarity, that the man who is not a trader has no opportunity, as a general rule, of surrendering his estate for the purposes of an equal distribution among his creditors until he has been first committed to prison. The anomaly and injustice of this rule are most apparent. For what object should you imprison the honest debtor who is desirous of making a cessio bonorum for the benefit of his creditors? To what end is it that so many thousand persons are in this country annually committed to prison, only to be discharged

  2157
  again a few weeks afterwards by the operation of the Insolvent Debtors' Act? Some efforts were made for the amelioration of this state of the law through the legislation introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, whose opinion is worthy of the highest respect; but, generally speaking, the rule I have described still obtains, and, accordingly, the debtor is compelled to submit to incarceration before he can do that which justice and expediency require that every man in a condition of insolvency should have every facility allowed to him for doing, namely, to surrender his property for distribution among his creditors. Now, with that view, I have proposed this enactment, which has been drawn up in very wide terms, because while it would, no doubt, have been necessary to surround the provision with proper safeguards, I have felt that it ought to be left open to the discretion of the House. If this discussion had proceeded, it was my intention to have recommended, in the first place, that the enactment should be entirely prospective—that is to say, that no existing debt (no debt contracted before the Bill came into operation) should avail to support an adjudication of bankruptcy against any person who is a non-trader. It was the object of the measure to lay down some simple and unquestionable tests of insolvency which all would admit might have been justly applied to the non-trader. By tests of insolvency I mean those acts which are commonly denominated acts of bankruptcy. The first test of insolvency proposed to be established by the Bill is absconding from the country and remaining abroad with intent to defeat or delay the remedies of the creditors. I think no hon. Gentleman in this House would for a moment contend that an individual guilty of such conduct should not be deprived of his property, and that that property should not be taken by process of law for distribution among his creditors. Another test of insolvency proposed by the Bill is the debtor's causing his property to be taken in execution, or suffering it to be so taken and disposed of, to the prejudice of the general body of his creditors. Now, no man who is possessed either of means or of credit would permit that to be done; and, therefore, I think such an act would be a very satisfactory criterion of his insolvency. Another mode of arriving at the same result is that if a judgment is obtained against a non-trader, and he is, after a certain period, summoned and examined as to his means of
  2158
  paying that judgment, provided he does not dispute its validity, and it is proved that he had not sufficient property to satisfy it, then he should be liable to have his estate taken from him and divided among those who had just claims upon him. There remains another test proposed by the Bill, which has not been generally understood by the House, and which, as it has been the subject of much misrepresentation, the Committee will perhaps permit me for a moment to explain. It is intended by the measure to apply to the case of the non-trader those clauses in the existing Bankruptcy Act which are commonly denominated the debtors' clauses—that is to say, clauses which enable the creditors to summon the debtor before the Court of Bankruptcy, and call upon him either to pay or satisfy the Court that he has the means of doing so. But I have not thought it fair to include them in this Bill in the naked shape in which they exist in the bankruptcy statutes; and accordingly the Committee will observe, if they will turn to the Bill, that no opportunity to make any demand of this kind against a debtor is given to any creditor who is not in a condition to prove to the Court that the debtor is in insolvent circumstances, and is seeking to evade his creditors. I should have had no difficulty, if the Bill proceeded, in confining this provision to the case of traders, and exempting non-traders from its operation. If this result had been attained the measure would have assumed this form, that no person who was not a trader would have been subject to its operation unless he were absconding or remaining away from this country, unless he was a judgment debtor without the means of paying his debts, or unless his property was actually being so disposed of as to defraud his creditors. I have no doubt, therefore, that if the discussion had gone on, the Committee would have been satisfied with the guards and precautions introduced, or proposed to be introduced, by this measure. But, Sir, reflecting on the anxiety manifested by the House, it appeared to be incumbent on me to consider whether, supposing I succeeded in satisfying the Committee, and in inducing it to extend the Bill to the case of the non-trader, still, if the subsequent provisions of the Bill required so much time to be expended in their discussion that I could not carry the measure up to the House of Lords probaby until the beginning of August, it would be consistent with ordi-

  2159
  nary decency at that period of the year to send up a Bill containing such novel and important provisions to the other House, and expect that Assembly then to take them into its consideration. I, therefore, could not avoid arriving at the conclusion that the House of Lords ought not to be placed in that situation. On the other hand, if I were not fortunate enough to carry with me the opinion of the Committee, and these clauses were to be struck out, it would then be necessary to entirely recast the measure; because hon. Members will do me the favour to recollect that I have been encouraged to go on under the conviction that the House was favourable to this extension of the law. For, with the view of raising the question, the second section of the Bill proposed the abolition of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and had the Committee been adverse to that proposition, it might naturally have been supposed that its feeling would have been expressed during the consideration of that clause. I was the more encouraged to hope that this alteration of the law would have met the approval of the House, because the same provision was contained in the Bill introduced by the Earl of Derby's Government, and therefore I expected that it would have been received with the more general concurrence. I cannot, however, complain that the House should have viewed this as a matter demanding the most careful deliberation, and we are therefore in this difficulty, that even if we succeeded with the Bill, we could not hope to finish it in time for it to undergo discussion in the other House. On the other hand, if we failed there would equally be insufficient time for bringing the measure forward in an amended shape. I have, therefore, with the approbation of the Government, come unwillingly to the conclusion that it is necessary to abandon the Bill. I hope, however, when this subject has again to be considered, it will be found that the time and attention already devoted to it has not been thrown away. I have gained considerable experience from our discussions; and I trust if I retain office—and if not, the task will be undertaken by more competent hands—I trust I shall be able in another Session to present this measure in less gigantic and formidable proportions, and embodying all its principles and objects in a more condensed form. I trust it will be introduced, whether by myself or by my successor, at an earlier period of the year, when it can re-
  2160
  ceive the due consideration necessary to enable it to pass, for there is a growing and urgent demand for legislation upon this subject. I have only now to express my regret if, in my earnest anxiety to carry this Bill, I have ever seemed to evince any impatience towards the House. I had naturally hoped that during this Session it would have been possible to make some important advance in the improvement of this branch of our law. Circumstances have, however, prevented it; and I trust I can say that nobody will be able to reproach me with having lost any fair opportunity for bringing this great question to a successful termination. I move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair with the view of proposing, when the House resumes, that the Order of the Day be discharged.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Sir, I have so often ventured to express anxiety with regard to the progresss of this Bill that I am sure the Committee will believe me to be sincere when I say, that I entirely concur in the regrets which have been expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General at the necessity which, under existing circumstances, has arisen for its postponement till another Session. I do not mean to say one word by way of suggestion that the course which has been taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman is not a necessary course, is not the most advisable one which he could have adopted. I am sure that the Committee will respond entirely to the demand which the hon. and learned Attorney General has made upon us, and will join with me in expressing the gratitude which is due to him for the pains and labour which he has bestowed upon this measure. I certainly hope that those pains and that labour have not been thrown away, but that at some future time the Bill will be reintroduced and successfully carried through this House. If I may venture to make a suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman it is this, that, when the subject of the bankruptcy law comes again before the House, great advantage would be gained if the measure first presented was not a Bill for consolidating the entire law of bankruptcy, but was confined to the changes proposed to be made in that law. Such a measure would distinctly raise the question as to the effect and the extent of those changes, and after it had been passed the consolidation of the law would be a matter of very little difficulty. In

  2161
  place of having a Bill of 500 or 600 clauses brought before the House, we should in the first instance have one of some 50 or 100 clauses containing all the changes, and the larger measure would afterwards be treated more as a matter of routine than as one of discussion. As my hon. and learned Friend has referred to the Bill which was brought in by the late Government, I think I may add that that was the course which was taken by the late Government, and I still think, as I thought then, that great advantage would have resulted from its adoption. The course taken was to lay before and pass through the other House a Bill confined to the changes proposed to be made in the law, with the view and upon a statement that when that Bill had passed both Houses of Parliament it should be followed by a general measure repealing all previous statutes and consolidating the law. Of course, I do not now propose to advert to my hon. and learned Friend's proposal as to making non-traders liable to the bankrupt laws. I still think that, if accompanied by efficient safeguards, it may safely be done. What those safeguards are I will not now discuss. I must, before I sit down, say that it will be matter of great regret to every one that the Resolution at which my hon. and learned Friend has arrived has not been earlier communicated to the Members of this House. We are here this evening apparently expecting a discussion upon the Bankruptcy Bill, and I greatly fear that a number of hon. Members who are very much interested in the questions which are to come on upon going into Committee of Supply are not at all prepared for the change which has been made. I cannot help thinking that the resolution which has been come to must have been known to the Government for some time, and it would have been more convenient if it had been earlier announced what business was actually to be proceeded with to-night.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he deeply regretted that circumstances had not enabled his hon. and learned Friend to go on with this very valuable measure. At the same time, he thought that his hon. and learned Friend had exercised a sound discretion in abandoning it for the present. He had stated more than once in the House, as he had communicated to the Attorney General privately, that he was afraid that the time had come when, if he attempted to press the measure through the House, it would
  2162
  be so mutilated, and would he deprived of so many of its most valuable provisions, that it would confer upon the public but little benefit, and upon its author very little lasting reputation—very little, indeed, of that reputation to which the days and nights of labour which he had bestowed upon it entitled him. By the course he had now taken, and by availing himself of the very valuable suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the debate, the Attorney General would have an opportunity, if he introduced the measure early next Session, of passing it in such a form as would be advantageous to the public and most honourable to himself. The suggestion which had been thrown out by his hon. and learned Friend near him (Sir Hugh Cairns) as to the form in which the measure should be re-introduced was a most valuable one, and, in his opinion, the Attorney General would do well to adopt it. If he had the good fortune to be in the House next year, he should do his utmost, as he had done this year, to assist in passing a measure which should embody the great principles which had been enunciated by his hon. and learned Friend. He regretted that the House had not been earlier informed of the change in the business of the evening; but he was sure that if his hon. and learned Friend could have communicated the information earlier, he would have done so.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to thank the hon. and learned Attorney General for the labour he had bestowed upon the measure, and to express a hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not consent to make any further concessions when he again introduced his Bill into Parliament.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I should have been extremely sorry to be wanting in courtesy or attention to the House in this matter. The decision which I have announced was not arrived at until two o'clock to-day, and it was immediately intimated to the Gentleman who is the usual organ of communication with hon. Members opposite.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I do not, of course, object to the withdrawal of this Bill. On the contrary, I do not see how the hon. and learned Gentleman could have acted otherwise under the circumstances. I entirely concur in the great admiration expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) for the ability and labour which the hon.

  2163
  and learned Attorney General has bestowed on the subject, and in the feeling of regret that the extraordinary course of business in the present Session should have rendered necessary the abandonment of so valuable and important a measure. Nor can I help pointing out to the noble Lord at the head of the Government and to the House the extreme inconvenience which must arise from the withdrawal of a public Bill of this importance and magnitude in this sudden and unexpected manner, when the House has assembled with the intention of considering the measure in Committee for several hours. The result must inevitably be to defeat the object for which the order of our business is printed. I observe that the next order on the paper for this evening, is the consideration of the Navy Estimates in Committee of Supply. Upon the Motion for going into Committee, the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark has given notice of his intention to call our attention to the subject of Greenwich Hospital; but my hon. and gallant Friend is not now in his place, and in all probability he has no idea of the sudden change which has taken place. I am bound to accept the statement which, in a tone of so much gravity, the Attorney General has made; but, on the other hand, I must remind him that it was matter of current rumour in this House on Monday and Tuesday that the Government had decided, or very nearly so, to withdraw the Bankruptcy Bill. Under these circumstances I would ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government—who I must say conducts the business of this House generally with great courtesy and fairness—whether it is not desirable that Her Majesty's Ministers should make up their minds upon matters of this importance a little sooner, so that the House should not be exposed to the serious inconvenience which must arise from sudden and unexpected changes in the course of business.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I very much regret the inconvenience, if any, to which the House may be put by the announcement which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has made. At the same time, I think the House would have been put to still greater inconvenience if we had persisted in asking the House to go into Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill after we had resolved to withdraw it for the present Session. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I did not ask you to do that.] I mean, if we had invited the House to
  2164
  give a decision upon a material point of the Bill while we were satisfied in our own minds that the measure could not be carried through. I think one statement which the right hon. Baronet has made in some degree diminishes the ground of his complaint, because he says that, as far back as Monday and Tuesday, it was generally believed in this House that the Bill was to be abandoned for the present-session. If that be so, the announcement which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has made cannot have taken the right hon. Baronet, at least, wholly by surprise.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: But the Bankruptcy Bill is on the paper for this evening.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is. But all I can say is, that we attached so much importance to this measure that we were exceedingly reluctant to give up the hope of being able to carry it through during the present Session. We clung to that hope, perhaps, longer than reason would have justified. There are cases in which hope is said to survive reason; but, be that as it may, we were unwilling to withdraw the Bill until the conviction forced itself upon our minds that there was no reasonable expectation of our being able to pass it in the present Session. We almost came to that opinion yesterday, but our decision was made to depend upon a communication which I was to have with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General this morning. I had that communication; I found that he entirely concurred in the conviction to which we had come; and he has taken the earliest opportunity to state it to the House. Those hon. Members who are interested in the business of the House this evening will naturally have looked at the Orders. They will have seen that Committee of Supply was appointed to follow the Bankruptcy Bill. Suppose that the labours of the Attorney General elsewhere had rendered him unable to go on with the Bill to-day—not at all an unlikely thing to have happened—we should then have proceeded at once to the consideration of the Navy Estimates in Committee of Supply. Hon. Members onght to take such contingencies into account; at any rate, nobody can complain that we should now go on with the next Order of the Day.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he was sure that the withdrawal of the Bankruptcy Bill would be a matter of great regret, not only to the Members of that House,

  2165
  but to many persons out of doors. The hon. and learned Attorney General might console himself with the reflection that his failure was not owing to any want of diligence or zeal on his part. The truth was that the Bill had been smothered by the immense mass of other important business before the House. He certainly thought that it would have been wiser to have divided the scheme into two or three measures, and to have put the controverted matter into only one. He did not think, however, that the time of the House had been wasted in the discussions which had taken place. The Attorney General had seen some of the difficulties which he would have to contend with in another Session, especially in connection with his proposition to include non-traders in the same category as traders—a question for which, though it had been much discussed in professional circles, the country at large did not seem to be prepared. Great changes of that kind could not be made with a rush or a leap; they must be discussed Session after Session, until they were settled; and when at length a conviction of their wisdom and necessity had forced itself upon the public mind, there would be no discontent at their adoption. He hoped that next Session the hon. and learned Gentleman would not only again launch his barque upon its "sea of troubles," but would carry it safe into port with flying colours, and have his name enrolled in the history of the country as the author of one of the most valuable improvements ever made in commercial law.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General, in withdrawing his Bill, had cast some sort of imputation upon those who objected to Clause 152, as if they did not want to pay their debts. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that all men ought to pay their debts; but what he complained of was that Clause 152 would have made solvent men, as well as insolvents, bankrupts. The discussions upon the Bill had hitherto been confined almost exclusively to lawyers. Very few laymen had taken part in it. It was not to be supposed that they could know all the secrets of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws, so as to make their objections to the non-trader point at an earlier period.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped that the Attorney General, before he again introduced a measure of this kind to Parliament, would address himself to the commercial laws of France and other Continental
  2166
  States, for he would find that the law he proposed was utterly at variance with the whole commercial law of Europe. He admitted the House was very much in fault in placing his hon. and learned Friend in his present dilemma, because they ought to have raised and discussed the question at a much earlier period.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman had come to the conclusion to withdraw the Bill, he must say that he thought it a great blessing that the Committee was to be spared the occupation at this period of the Session of discussing the 402 clauses remaining to be considered, exclusive of the schedules. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made some complaint that the objection to the particular portion of the Bill to which reference had been made had not been taken earlier, and therefore he would state the reason why he took the objection at this stage of the Bill, and not before. He quite agreed that, for persons who wanted to go into a Court of law to be wound up, there should be but one form. That was why, when he heard the Insolvent Court was to be done away with, he agreed to that proposition; but though he agreed to that he differed as to the propriety of bringing the Bankruptcy Law to bear upon every man who owed only £20 in the world, and did not wish to be wound up one way or another. If a layman might be permitted to throw out a suggestion, he should say that as the commercial community wanted the Bankruptcy Law amended, and facilities for their arrangements being brought under the superintendence of the Court, and as it was desirable that the Courts of Insolvency and Bankruptcy should be amalgamated, those three subjects would make quite a sufficient handful of work for one time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desired to get through that work he would act wisely in leaving the non-trading part of the matter out of his measure, and take it up at a more leisure period, after the other subjects were completely settled, because it involved a vast change in the law of this country. At the proper time he thought there would be good reasons to show against it; and its omission would afford facilities for the passing of those amendments which the commercial community wanted, while they did not care, he believed, one, farthing about the other matter, If any man could have got through the whole of the 550 clauses of the present Bill he believed

  2167
  the hon. and learned Gentleman was that man. The hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn the clauses of the Bill with such ability and clearness that all persons, whether they liked them or not, could easily see what was intended to be done. Therefore no complaint could be made that any one was taken by surprise; and he was quite sure that if anybody could have got such a Bill through the House the hon. and learned Gentleman was the most likely to have done so; but there were some things so large that no man's power could roll them along. The Bill involved such vast consequences—blessings or curses, as people regarded them—that upon the discussion of the clauses the hon. and learned Gentleman would have found his difficulties increase. He would further observe that the word "debt" applied, no doubt, to traders and non-traders, but it meant two essentially different things in the two cases. When a trader contracted a debt, he agreed for the article, the price, and the specific time of payment, which last was the essence of the bargain; but the case was different with the non-trader. The latter bought goods without a specific time of payment being part of the bargain except in sales for ready money. When it was again attempted to adjust the differences existing in these two states of things—not a very easy task—he hoped the Attorney General would not run the risk of inflicting the hardship of applying the Bankruptcy Law to persons in no wise insolvent, though from no fault of their own they might have debts and so forth on their estates, for the sake of a smaller number of persons who might want a stringent law.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he trusted that when the Bill was reintroduced they would hear no more of the amalgamation of bankruptcy and insolvency, which were founded on totally different principles, and he also hoped they would hear no more of the extension of the Bankruptcy Law to non-traders. The two systems were founded on very different principles. The Insolvency Law was intended to be a pendent to the abolition of imprisonment, while the Bankruptcy Law, on the contrary, was a law in the interest of the creditor and to provide for the proper distribution of assets.
  House resumed. [No Report.]

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of inquiring of the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he intended to proceed with the Fortifications Bill to-morrow, and when he would lay on the table the Resolutions on the Paper Duties, which he had been expecting some time. If the noble Lord would answer these questions, he thought that it would tend greatly to the convenience of the House in the conduct of the public business.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—I shall postpone the statement upon Fortifications until Monday, and I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lay the Resolutions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred on the table to-morrow.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARasked whether, as the "massacre of the innocents" was shortly about to take place, it was consistent with the intention to withdraw Bills that two new Bills should be introduced to-night, the 19th of July? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had given notice of his intention to introduce an India Service Bill, confirming certain appointments in India. That was all very well, and the measure might be advisable, but why was it not brought in at an earlier period of the Session? The Bill also contemplated the amendment of the law concerning the Civil Service in India. He thought those words most ominous. Then there was the Bill for amalgamating the two armies in India remaining to be discussed. True, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India said that Gentlemen on his (Sir Minto Farquhar's) side of the House had been the occasion of the delays which had taken place; but that, however, was not true, because the right hon. Gentleman had himself been the cause of the delay, by refusing to lay papers on the table until he was very hardly pressed upon the matter. There had been a constant call for papers; but he had refused to place them in the hands of hon. Members until the last moment, the consequence of which was that the Army Bill was necessarily put off. He understood that on the question which had been raised the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hors-man) had moved only yesterday for papers of the most important character, and without the production of which it was impos-

  2169
  sible to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had lately also introduced a Bill in reference to the transfer of Indian Stock. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) supposed that at two o'clock in the morning they would be asked by him to listen to a statement which was to affect the whole Civil Service of India. It was only the other day that they were asked at half-past two o'clock in the morning to discuss the question of Volunteer Corps- for Ireland. Upon that occasion he (Sir Minto Farquhar) had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to introduce his Bill relating to the Indian Civil Service, and the reply was that he certainly did, and that the statement he had to make would not occupy more than two or three minutes. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) never was more astonished in his life than at such an avowal, because he happened to know that on that question, as on others, the right hon. Gentleman was at issue with his Council. All that he could say was, that he should do everything in his power to resist the progress of the measure. It was of the utmost importance that the Civil Service of India should not be interfered with. It was only in 1858 that the Bill for the better government of India was passed, which Bill introduced the principle of the competitive system, and now they were called on again to amend the law.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that on the question now before the House the hon. Member must not enter into the details of the Bill.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARappealed to the noble Lord not to allow the introduction of such a measure at this late period of the Session.
  In answer to Sir MINTO FARQUHAR,
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he believed that it was the intention of his right hon. Friend to make these two Motions that evening, but the House would probably think it better not to discuss them until they were actually submitted.
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I am not quite sure if I heard the noble Lord distinctly—I hope I did not hear him distinctly; but I understood him to say that the Bill for the Reorganization of the Indian Army would be taken the first thing to-morrow. Surely it is impossible for the noble Lord, under the circumstances, to persist in that intention. I am sure he knows that papers have been moved for and ordered, which are now in the printer's hands, which were
  2170
  withheld for a long time by the Secretary of State, but which are essential for the consideration of the Bill. Let me recal to the House the position in which it stands with regard to Indian legislation. There was much discussion the other day about the rights of a minority in this House. It is very seldom that hon. Gentlemen wish to enforce those rights to the utmost, and it is long since I joined a minority in such successive divisions as took place on this question the other night. But the right hon. Gentleman forced us to do so. We said he had papers which were absolutely essential to a right consideration of this question. The right hon. Gentleman said he had not got those papers; and upon a question of veracity between him and the House—I do not mean to attribute intentional want of veracity—but on a question of fact between them he kept us dividing to a late hour in the morning. During those divisions he reiterated over and over again that these papers were not in his possession; that he had seen nothing of them for three months; that they were in the printers' hands; and that the fault lay with the printing department. Upon his authority the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War also repeated the statement that the Printing Committee were responsible.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The right hon. Gentleman will state what I did say. I had no knowledge whatever of the special case, and did not pretend to speak with any knowledge. What I spoke to was the general duties of the printing Committee.
  MR. HORSMAN: That is precisely what I said. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the authority of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India, he himself knowing nothing of the facts. We were placed in not a very agreeable position, labouring, as we did, under the imputation of acting factiously in order to obstruct this Bill, and throwing the blame on the right hon. Gentleman, when, in fact, it rested with the Printing Committee. Well, what really turned out to be the fact? Why, that those papers had been for weeks in the office of the Secretary of State for India; that three days before, according to his own admission in this House, when they were asked for by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. H. Seymour), the printer made the application known to the Indian Department; it was then made known to the Secretary of State and his

  2171
  Under-Secretary; they found that those papers were in the hands of the Military Secretary; they went to him desiring him to return them; and they did this within three days of these divisions, during which divisions we were told that the right hon. Gentleman had seen or heard nothing of them for three months. Yet he had kept us in the House insisting that he knew nothing of these papers, and that we were entirely in the wrong in insisting upon their production.
  What occurred, again, with respect to other papers? There were certain papers which we also thought most essential for the discussion of this question. In 1858 a correspondence took place between the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary for War, and the Secretary for India. As soon as the Act of 1858 was passed, the Commander-in-Chief wrote to the War Secretary, who forwarded his letter to the Secretary for India, claiming that the Indian army should be put under the Horse Guards. A notice for the production of that correspondence was placed on the paper by me on the 28th of June. The right hon. Gentleman told me it did not exist. I told him I knew it did exist, and that it was in his own office, and I begged I might have that correspondence. The right hon. Gentleman still insisted that there was no such correspondence; declaring that he had referred to the War Secretary, who had no such letters in his department. I told him that the correspondence was in his own office. He insisted that it was not. I was placed in some difficulty, when at last I got the dates of the correspondence; and the day before yesterday I showed them to the War Secretary. There was a letter from the War Secretary, General Peel, written on the 10th of August, 1858, enclosing a letter from the Duke of Cambridge to Lord Stanley, then President of the Board of Control, dated "Horse Guards, August 2." There is a reply from Lord Stanley of the 17th of August, and another letter from General Peel of the 23rd of August. Lord Stanley's letter was considered unsatisfactory, and General Peel sent a rejoinder; and then Lord Stanley submitted the whole question to the law officers of the Crown, and that was laid regularly before the Council for India. I showed this to the Secretary of State for War. I am very sorry to speak of these things; but when we have to deal with the Secretary of State for India, we are not met
  2172
  with, I will not say that courtesy, but not even with that fairness and plain dealing, which we have a right to expect either from a gentleman, or a Minister of the Crown. I am only repeating now what I have stated before. It was absolutely essential in this matter that we should get our information in an indirect manner on purpose to correct the misinformation we receive from the Secretary of State. Nothing can be more characteristic than some correspondence which I will read to the House, which I happen to have in my pocket, although I certainly did not expect that I should have to read it to-night. As I said before, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India has withheld information, he has misled us, and at the same time he has endeavoured to press on these Bills at a time when we were not only imperfectly informed, but actually misinformed, upon the facts. Now, here is a correspondence which I think is very characteristic. The day before yesterday I showed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War the list of papers, and asked if there was any objection to my having them, stating that I would place a notice on the paper on Tuesday. He said, "Of course, you will put it in the Votes," and I said, "I will, and move tomorrow." Accordingly, yesterday I moved, but the right hon. Secretary of State for War, it appears, informed his right hon. Colleague of what I had shown him, and yesterday I got this letter:—
  "Sir C. Wood presents his compliments to Mr. Horsman, and begs to inform him that he has found in his own office the correspondence between the Secretary of State for the War Department and the Secretary of State for India in 1858,"—the fact is I found it and communicated it the day before yesterday to the Secretary for War,—"a Motion for the production of which Mr. Horsman gave notice of. Mr. Horsman will recollect that on his asking Sir C. Wood if he had any objection to give them, Sir C. Wood said that he had only just seen the notice, but that he understood from Mr. Herbert that there was no such correspondence in existence. Sir C. Wood only became aware of the existence of these papers yesterday, and loses no time in apprising Mr. Horsman. He has no objection to their being produced if Mr. Horsman wishes to move for them as an unopposed return."
  I must express my great obligations to the right hon. Gentleman for informing me that lie had found them. I had told him three weeks before that they were there, and the day after my giving the precise dates of the letters which enabled him to make a search that resulted in their being found, he is kind enough to communicate

  2173
  the fact to me, as a piece of good news for which I should be grateful to him. I must say that, considering the right hon. Gentleman received his information from myself, and that this is the second time we have been placed in this very unfair position, and not forgetting that he compelled us to go on dividing at two o'clock, apparently putting us in the wrong by saying we were asking for papers which were not at that time in his office,—remembering all these things, that letter rather surprised me. I wrote this letter in reply:—
  "July 18,1860.
  "Mr. Horsman presents his compliments to Sir C. Wood. He has already, at twelve o'clock to-day, moved for the return set down in his name. He did so by Mr. Sidney Herbert's permission, to whom he yesterday showed the exact dates of the letters he asked for, thus proving the existence of what was so strangely unknown to Sir C. Wood. Mr. Horsman protests most strongly against the very careless and inconsiderate manner in which Sir C. Wood deals with Members of the House of Commons in regard to papers that are absolutely essential to a fair consideration of the questions he submits to them. If this return had been granted when it first appeared on the notice-paper, and on the day when Sir C. Wood informed Mr. Horsman the correspondence did not exist, it would ere this have been in the hands of Members. The correspondence (in no sense confidential) was a matter of notoriety—the most casual inquiry in his office must have made it known to Sir C. Wood, and the complaint would have been obviated of his having a second time placed the House at a disadvantage by his strange inability to account for indispensable papers that were in his own possession. It is obvious that if Sir C. Wood presses his India Bills at this late period of the Session very grave questions will be raised, not merely on the merits of the Bills on which he is at issue with the India Council, but also on his relations with the Council, whom he appears to have reduced to an insignificance not contemplated by the Act of 1858, and also on his relations to the House of Commons, which he has not allowed to be possessed of the information it has a right to. The further progress of the Bills must in such circumstances be very strongly and resolutely opposed, and there is every reason for at once including them among those which Lord Palmerston is expected to-morrow to announce his intention of dropping for this Session."
  The Cabinet was sitting when I received the right hon. Gentleman's letter, and as I sent my answer at once and by hand, I hope it was submitted to the noble Lord. I then received a second note from the right hon. Gentleman, as follows:—
  "Sir Charles Wood presents his compliments to Mr. Horsman, and wishes simply to correct a mistake into which he has fallen as to a matter of fact. Sir C, Wood certainly relied on the information which he received from Mr. Herbert, that the correspondence on the subject of placing the Indian armies under the Horse Guards in 1858, between the Departments of War and India,
  2174
  did not exist. It is impossible, however, that Mr. Herbert could have assented yesterday morning to the production of papers of the existence of which he was then unaware, and only learned from Sir C. Wood this morning. Sir C. Wood understands from Mr. Herbert that what passed between him and Mr. Horsman was not that Mr. Herbert assented to any papers being produced, but that he promised to give an answer to Mr. Horsman in the evening, which he had not an opportunity of doing.
  "Downing Street, July 18, 1860."
  A verbal inaccuracy is not much, but I showed the paper containing the dates of the correspondence on Tuesday to the right hon. Secretary of State for War, and therefore it was from me that the right hon. Gentleman received his information, and not from his right hon. Colleague. Now, I must press on the noble Lord and the House whether, having asked on the 28th of June for these papers which are essential, having been put off in this manner from day to day by the right hon. Gentleman, having at last succeeded in showing the existence of the papers, and having, with his permission, moved for them only yesterday, I would urge the noble Lord to consider whether he is justified in asking us to-morrow to go on with this Bill.
  I heard just now two hon. Gentlemen express their determination to enforce to the utmost the rights of a minority upon this occasion. I would appeal to the House whether there was ever an occasion upon which it was more justifiable to enforce those rights than the present. It is not a question as to the merits of the Bill, but it is a question whether, if only two hon. Members of this House want to give a fair consideration to the Bill, they are not entitled to have an opportunity of receiving information in order to discuss the matter properly. But what else is the right hon. Gentleman doing? We are now arrived at the 19th of July, and the Government are dropping those Orders of the Day for Bills which they feel at this period of the Session are too important to be passed through without discussion. I believe the earliest period at which the House can possibly rise is very late in August, but at the very time that the Government are dropping these important Bills they are introducing others, and upon the notice-book for tonight there stands at least one measure much more important than any which are not to be proceeded with. The whole administration of the Indian army is to be transferred to the Horse Guards, but what is now going to be done with the Indian Civil Service? The Government proposes

  2175
  to appropriate the whole administration of that civil service.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I did the hon. Member for Hertford, that when a measure is on the table of this House it is not competent to discuss its merits until the order comes on in due course.
  MR. HORSMAN: I am speaking, Sir, of a Bill which is not upon the table, but which the Government have given notice they intend to introduce. I think, when we are taking counsel with the Government as to what measures shall be proceeded with and what shall be withdrawn, it is open to me to remonstrate with the Government when they seek to introduce new matters of debate, and I say that, if we now enter upon a discussion of a measure to put an end to the competitive system in the Indian civil service—that system which has been built up with so much difficulty by Parliament, as the best safeguard against inefficiency and jobbery—if we are to enter upon a discussion of the question on the 19th of July, it is a mockery for Government to drop other Bills because there is not time to discuss them. It shows what is the present system in the Indian Department. Bills are introduced late in the Session, without previous notice, without information, without papers being furnished, and they are to be hurried and smuggled through the House, these most important measures, because the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is only a very small section of the House who take an interest in Indian questions and understand them, and he is able to come down with a majority to overpower the minority, and to pass just what he pleases. There is another thing. It was a very important point which was just raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Elphinstone) which it behoves the House to consider well—whether it is not in itself a reason for proceeding carefully with legislation on a subject when it is known that the Secretary of State is at issue with the whole Council upon it. I believe the House would not have agreed to transfer the government of India to the Crown unless they had believed that the Council would have been a security that Indian affairs would be administered by those who knew something of India. Yet, for the first time, we now hear that the members of this Council are turned into clerks, smothered with papers, and reduced into a position of mere insignificance, as if
  2176
  they were at the beck and nod of the right hon. Gentleman, and held office at his pleasure. When, therefore certain measures have been withdrawn, and other Bills with regard to India, of a very large and important character, are announced to be proceeded with, and upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India is at variance with the Indian Council, I would earnestly press on the Government the propriety and policy of postponing them to another Session. I must say, expressing an opinion I have heard uttered by many other Gentlemen in this House, that instead of allowing one Secretary of State to overbear the opinions and outweigh the authority of fifteen members of the Council, if the House were polled they would allow the opinions of one member of Council to outweigh those of fifteen Secretaries of State even of the calibre of the right hon. Gentleman, who by some extraordinary piece of fortune, which nobody understands, fills that high office. I beg to repeat that I should be extremely sorry to join in the opposition threatened by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am ready to appeal to the House and the country, and I say that, however a small section of the House that takes an interest in this question and has studied it might, in other circumstances, yield to a majority which feels these measures should pass, they ought not, in this instance, to give way, seeing the manner in which the Government has chosen to overbear us in this House, both as to measures and papers—by a treatment, I must say, very different from what we had a right to expect.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I cannot help expressing the surprise and regret I feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud should have taken the present opportunity, without any notice, of making the attack he has done on my right hon. Friend in his absence. The right hon. Gentleman came down here with documents which it was clearly his intention to read to the House, making, not a fair criticism on the public conduct of my right hon. Friend, but an attack on his private character and honour, which I am only the less surprised to hear, because we have been in the habit of hearing attacks from the right hon. Gentleman of a character different from those of any other Gentleman in this House. With regard to the first subject of attack, my right hon. Friend himself made an explanation to the House. He took the earliest opportunity, after as-

  2177
  certaining the facts, of stating them to the House, with regard to the papers the production of which was called for on the second reading of the Bill; and I believe my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied the House upon the subject. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman, after that statement, which was, I believe, entirely satisfactory to the House—should have thought it necessary to repeat charges against my right hon. Friend in his absence—coming down to the House armed with correspondence and documents by which he endeavoured—but I am sure I may appeal to the House to confirm me when I say vainly endeavoured—to depreciate the honour of my right hon. Friend, and establish against him a charge of fraud, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself will regret when he comes calmly to reflect on his conduct. I say nothing more on that point, but I feel, from the long experience I have had in this House, that what I have said must meet with the general concurrence of hon. Members.
  With regard to the question which has been raised as to the progress of certain Bills, I must say, if we are to do any business at all, it will be better to confine our attention to what is before us, and not anticipate discussions on Bills placed on the Paper either for this evening or to-morrow. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hertford (Sir Minto Farquhar) objects to two Notices on the Paper to-night. I have not the advantage which it seems the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud possesses of knowing the precise contents of the Bill of which notice has been given. I very much doubt whether his statement of the contents will be found to be correct. I do not profess to know what the contents may be; but, admitting fully that it would be inexpedient now to introduce Bills which are not indispensably necessary, it is premature to anticipate the discussion which will arise when the subject comes regularly before us. My right hon. Friend will state what are the general objects and purport of these Bills, and why he considers it desirable that they should be introduced now. [Several hon. MEMBERS: At what hour?] I do not know at what hour as that must depend on the progress of other business. When he makes that statement he will give his reasons why they ought to be passed this Session, and when the measures are introduced, even if they are not proceeded with, it maybe of advantage to the public to know what the proposals are. When
  2178
  they have been introduced will be the proper time to raise the objection, and the House may, if so disposed, decline to proceed with them. So with regard to the Indian Army Amalgamation Bill, if it is brought forward to-morrow, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks there are papers which it is essential the House should have in its possession before that Bill be proceeded with in Committee, he may state the reasons which have led him to that opinion, and the House has it in its own power then to prevent the Bill from being proceeded with; but it is too much for the right hon. Gentleman to say "I hold it essential that these papers should be produced, and I insist now that that Bill shall not proceed to-morrow." If it be on the Paper tomorrow, and if my right hon. Friend move that it be proceeded with, then will be the time for the right hon. Gentleman to object, and state his reasons for thinking it should not be proceeded with. I do hope the House will not allow the regular course of business to be interfered with by irrelevant discussions as to the relative position and power of the Secretary of State and the Indian Council. I believe, when the subject comes to be discussed, it will be found that my right bon. Friend has acted in strict conformity with the law on this subject. I am only sorry that my right hon. Friend bad no notice of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to read the documents which he has read, and to bring his charges against him in the manner he has done.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he had not seen the Bills, but he spoke of the India Civil Service Bill as a matter of notoriety, and he stated only what he did because he was surprised to learn from the noble Lord that the Indian Army Bill was to be proceeded with the first thing to-morrow night.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he had not seen the Bill, but he understood that there was a clause in it which would affect the civil service in India.
  MR. T. G. BARING: I can assure hon. Members there is not the slightest wish to withhold papers connected with the Indian army question, but, on the contrary, every information has been given which it is in the power of the Secretary of State for India to produce. In fact, those who have looked at the papers must admit that they have been produced, I may almost say ad nauseam. So far from withholding information, even confidential papers have been produced which it was unusual to give

  2179
  in similar cases. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud has misstated the explanation given by my right hon. Friend as to the papers relating to the discharge of men last year. The papers were not in the possession of my right hon. Friend at all.
  MR. HORSMAN: I said they were in the possession of the Military Secretary, in the Secretary of State's office.
  MR. T. G. BARING: As the right hon. Gentleman says they were not in my right hon. Friend's possession, I am satisfied with that explanation. The truth is, a large mass of papers were ordered to be printed, and some delay arose in the correction of the proofs in the India Office, which was brought to my notice two or three days before the debate came on, when it was at once put an end to. On my own authority, I can say that my right hon. Friend had no knowledge whatever of those papers. They were entirely in the hands of the Military Secretary, Colonel Baker, and I myself had no knowledge of the proofs being corrected at the India Office until within a few days of the debate. With regard to the other papers alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as my right hon. Friend ascertained that they existed he communicated the fact to the right hon. Gentleman, and stated that if he would move for them they would be given as an unopposed return. It should, however, be remembered that the correspondence did not take place with the present Secretary of State for India, and, being a correspondence between departments, the matter was naturally referred to the Secretary of State for War. I think the right hon. Gentleman should be careful how he brings such charges against my right hon. Friend, without the slightest ground of any sort or description. As the right hon. Gentleman assumes—and it is an entire assumption on his part—that these papers are so essential, I may take on myself the responsibility of stating that the Indian Army Bill will not be proceeded with tomorrow night. The production of these papers, however, could have no effect on the decision already arrived at by a large majority of the House on this important question.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I wish to say, Sir, that a previous conversation which I had with the right hon. Member for Stroud amply bore out what he has now stated. I had intended to place on the
  2180
  Paper a notice for to-morrow on the subject of the Indian Army Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman told me that the Bill could not come on to-morrow because he could not believe the Government would press it forward without first presenting the papers which wore at the India House. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the correspondence he has just read, and said it was his intention to show these letters to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, as he thought that would be more courteous than to read them to the House. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has said no more than he actually felt, and that it was only in consequence of the unexpected statement which has been made on the part of the Government that he road the documents which he has done to-night. After the answer given by the noble Lord to the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor for the Duchy had a right to administer the reproof which he gave to the right hon. Member for Stroud. The noble Lord, when objection was raised to Supply being taken on the ground that many hon. Gentlemen did not expect it to be brought on, replied that hon. Members ought to be in their places. Considering that the Secretary of State for India must have known, although the House could not, that the Bankruptcy Bill was to be withdrawn, ho must have supposed that, if important legislation with respect to India were to be pressed forward, the House would give to that legislation some discussion. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Stroud has not been proved to have taken any unfair advantage of the absence of the Secretary of State for India.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I cannot but think that there is a further portion of this correspondence which the right hon. Gentleman has not read. There must be another letter to this effect:—Mr. Horsman presents his compliments to Sir Charles Wood, and begs to give him notice that it is his intention to make a personal attack upon him in the House to-night. And another still to this effect:—Mr. Horsman presents his compliments to Mr. Sidney Herbert, and begs to give him notice that ho moans to refer to-night in the House of Commons to a private conversation he has had with him. It is much to be lamented that the right hon. Gentleman has not read those letters, because they would

  2181
  have placed his conduct in a clear light before the House. But it is so constantly done in such cases that it is impossible the right hon. Gentleman can have omitted what is so necessary and, at the same time, so usual a practice among gentlemen. There is another point on which, though I wish to avoid all discussion on it at the present moment, I feel that the reproaches directed against my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India are wholly undeserved. It is said that my right hon. Friend does not attend to the advice of his Indian Council. But I must remind the House that it is the business of my right hon. Friend on grave questions of policy to consider, not the opinion of his council, nor even his own opinion, but the opinion of Her Majesty's confidential advisers, who must ultimately decide all questions of policy, whether they regard the interests of India or the general interests of the empire. With regard to this particular question, we heard lately a very fair and candid statement from the right hon. and gallant General the Member for Huntingdon, who stated that among the witnesses who came to give evidence before the Indian Army Commission, one thing was plain, that every man who held a military position in India, or a civil position there, was of opinion that there ought to be a local army in India, and, on the other hand, every man who held a position in the military service of this country was of opinion that there ought to be no local army. That was a question, therefore, which my right hon. Friend had to decide, not on his own authority, but according to the advice of others; and the question really comes to this, whether it is right that my right hon. Friend should consult first the Members of the Cabinet individually, and then place the question for decision before the whole Cabinet, or whether he should in the first instance lay the matter before the Indian Council and consult them, and then turn round and say, I have got the opinion of the Indian Council and I shall act upon it, no matter what may be the opinion of the other Cabinet Ministers and advisers of the Crown. That was the alternative before my right hon. Friend, and I leave it to the House which it was his duty to adopt.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNES: I trust, Sir, this great question will not be embarrassed by personal considerations. After much doubt and difficulty in the course of the discussion on the Bill for the better
  2182
  Government of India, we decided that the Members of the Indian Council should not be eligible for seats in this House. I regretted that decision at the time, and I regret it now, because if gentlemen of such weight and dignity as those who composed that Council were here, I am sure these discussions would be conducted in a far better manner than they now possibly can be, when we are compelled to trust so much to rumour and private information, and can understand the relations between the Minister for India and his Council only by those indirect means which necessarily carry with them great personal inconvenience. Much excuse might, therefore, be made for the hon. Member for Stroud, who could by these indirect means alone inform himself thoroughly of what I believe to be the main point in this question—namely, the difference between the Minister for India and the Council given him to advise him. If one isolated measure had been submitted to the House it might have stood on its own merits, and required no collateral discussion; but when we see the Government compelled by necessity to give up a Bill in which I believe the interests of this House are as much concerned as in any Bill ever laid before Parliament, and find that new Bills are to be introduced at the eleventh hour of the Session, which require for their discussion much time and all the information which can be brought to bear upon them, I say I am impressed with the conviction that there must be some intention which we do not entirely understand in the adoption of such a policy by the Indian Minister. It is impossible to avoid feeling that the object of the Government and of the Indian Minister in bringing forward a series of measures upon which he is known to differ from his Council, is to depreciate that Council in public estimation, and to enable the right hon. Gentleman to assume the position of Monarch of India, which I am certain this House never intended he should hold,
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I wish to explain. I saw both the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War in this House shortly before I rose to addressit. I believed they were both here.
  MR. DISRAELI: I agree with the noble Lord—indeed, it is unquestionable—that it is most agreeable to every Gentleman's feelings, when he has a personal charge to make, that he should make it in the presence of the persons concerned. But at the same time am bound to express my own im-

  2183
  pression as regards the conduct of the right hon. Member for Stroud, that he certainly did not come forward this evening to make a charge of a personal character with any notion that the Minister whom it affected would be absent. The noble Lord commenced our debates this evening by laying it down as the duty of a Member of Parliament always to be in his place. I agree with the noble Lord that that is a position which ought as much as possible to be enforced, because there would be no end to the postponements of public business if the presence or absence of hon. Members interested in it were to be accepted as a sufficient excuse. Allegations of that kind are, I think, much too frequently heard. But as regards numbers of Members in a popular Chamber, the noble Lord's doctrine that they ought always to be present must, to some extent be only a theory, whereas Ministers of the Crown ought, generally speaking, to be always here in practice. It must have been a secret to everybody but the Members of the Government that the Bankruptcy Bill would be to-night withdrawn. The next order on the Paper is Supply, and during its consideration every Minister ought to be in his place, because it is impossible to tell what questions may not then be brought forward affecting the general policy of the country. The two right hon. Gentlemen who have been alluded to were not in this House when the right hon. Member for Stroud made his statement, although it seems they were here shortly before. Had that right hon. Member postponed his statement till to-morrow I feel bound to say, I think that if his great object was to secure the adjournment of the measure on the Indian army, that statement would have been made with much less effect than when made to-day. Because, when the House had met and the Government had announced their first measure to be that relating to the Indian army, whatever might have been the statement made, and however much time might have been lost in personal recriminations, I doubt whether the Government would have felt it consistent with their dignity to withdraw a measure of which they had given notice. They have now had an opportunity, of which I think they have wisely availed themselves, to announce to the House that they will not press on that measure to-morrow; but will allow us to have those papers, on the production of which it is but fair that we should insist.
  2184
  I would make one observation on the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that, in consequence of the declaration of the noble Lord, and feeling the responsibility of his own position in regard to this measure, it was very difficult for the right hon. Member for Stroud not to make the personal statement which he has done to-night, although we must certainly all regret that the Ministers who are concerned were not present. For my own part—and I believe I only express the feeling of every hon. Member—I shall form no opinion unfavourable to those Ministers until they have bad an opportunity of being heard. I cannot help, however, stating my impression, which I believe is shared by many, that the relations of the Indian I Administration with this House are not in so satisfactory a state as they might be. After the passing of the Act of 1858 it was quite clear that the relations between the House of Commons and the Government; of India assumed a different character from that of the preceding period, when the East India Company ruled with the prescription of long years, exercised with I weight and authority, and resting on a system of administration which had been approved by experience. It is quite clear that after the change the responsibility of Parliament generally in the administration of India was much increased. Therefore it became the duty of the Government to take care that any measures which required the sanction of Parliament should be introduced at a period when they could be amply and sufficiently discussed, and should be preceded by ample and sufficient information. No doubt, the unfortunate circumstances which have influenced this Session with respect to business generally have had their effect upon these measures for the administration of India, but, although I am not disposed to attribute to the Government the Machiavelian design which has been imputed to them by the hon. Member who has just spoken, still the fact remains that at the end of the Session the House is called upon to discuss most serious and most important measures. That is a state of affairs which is very much to be regretted, and therefore the Government ought not to be surprised if there is some impatience—even some jealousy among those hon. Members who are peculiarly interested in the affairs of India when they find that there is a chance of the House being hurried into a decision upon those measures in a

  2185
  manner which can hardly be satisfactory even to those who approve them. Under these circumstances I highly approve the decision of the Government not to force on the discussion of the first of those measures tomorrow. No doubt, before that debate comes on papers will be produced, and we shall approach the question with advantages which we do not now possess. In the meantime I shall express my hope and my belief that when the right hon. Gentlemen whose conduct has been referred to, and whose absence we regret, appear in their places, we shall receive from them a perfectly satisfactory account of the circumstances which have been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud. We all know from our own experience that great misconceptions may arise between Gentlemen, which may easily be removed by personal explanation, but which correspondence, even if as complete as the noble Lord has suggested that it ought to be, sometimes only increases. I trust and believe that when an opportunity arises explanations will be given which will be quite satisfactory, and I am sure that the House generally will approve the course which has been adopted by the Government with regard to the European Forces (India) Bill.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that I stated broadly that it is the duty of every Member of the House to be present upon every occasion. I did not mean to impose such a tax upon the time and endurance of hon. Members. What I said was that those who intended to take part in the discussion of any measure which stood upon the Paper for the evening ought to come down, because they could not be sure that the Orders which preceded it might not go off, either on account of the unavoidable absence of those who had charge of them, or from some other cause.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to ask whether it was intended by the Government to propose a loan for India this year. Looking to the finances, he thought such a measure would be necessary, and, if so, the House ought to have early notice. With regard to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Stroud, he was sure it had been made through an earnest anxiety to show the necessity for delaying the consideration of the measure to abolish the Indian army. There was a question that had never yet received the attention of the House,
  2186
  though he could hardly conceive a more important one: ho meant the effect which the addition of 100,000 men to the control and patronage of the Horse Guards would have both on the Indian Empire and on our own Government; and anything which tended to show what were the opinions of the Commander-in-Chief or of other persons in this country on that subject was of the highest importance. Some observations had fallen from the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs with regard to the Indian Council. That noble Lord two years ago voted in a strong minority against the proposition that the Members of the Indian Council should not have seats in this House. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] He thought the House had reason enough to regret the decision to which they then came, because they were suffering the disadvantage of discussing the composition of the Indian army without having the opinions of that Council, many of whom were men of great eminence. For his part he could not see that either the Cabinet or the House would have been at all the worse if they had taken the opinions of those distinguished men before they came to any decision on the subject.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: If the hon. Baronet will put his question with regard to the loan to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India to-night, or will give notice of it for another evening, he will, no doubt, receive a proper answer. I will only venture to say a few words to the House with reference to the powers of the Council of India. Under the former Act it was in the power of the President of the Board of Control completely to overrule the Court of Directors, and to order them to write any despatch that he thought fit; therefore it is quite a mistake to suppose that the Secretary of State for India possesses power which was not enjoyed by the President of the Board of Control. One consideration which has been overlooked is that the Council of India is merely a council for advising the Secretary of State upon matters relating to the administration of the affairs of India, those matters which are within the operation of the Act, and upon which the Secretary of State has to take some positive measure. With regard to any legislation, any Bill which be has to bring into this House that is not an administrative act, is not an act which he does in his capacity of Secretary of State for India, but in his capacity

  2187
  of a Member of this House. Of course, he is bound to consult his colleagues in the Cabinet, but it is not a matter which he can in any way regularly bring under the view of the Council. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the words of the Act they will see that it is not competent to the Secretary of State for India to consult his Council as to whether he shall propose a Bill for introduction into this House; nor could they, under the words of the Act, record their dissent from the course which he proposed to adopt. All he can do is, when they are assembled, to inform them, if he thinks fit, of his intention, and to profit by their advice. What I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India is, that he was in private conversation apprised of the opinions of the Members of his Council upon this question of the army before he brought in the Bill. He knew that they were unfavourable to his proposition, but it was not competent to him within the terms of the Act to propose to the Council that he should bring a Bill into Parliament and enable them to record their dissent from that course. Therefore, in discussing this question the House should distinctly bear in mind the difference between the legislative proposals which the Secretary of State introduces into this House as a Member of the House, such as the Bills he seeks to introduce to-night, and the orders which he sends to the Governor General, or the other Governors in India, or any other act which he does in this country in his administrative capacity as Secretary of State for India.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he must deprecate, without any reference to the right hon. Gentleman at present Secretary of State for India, the manner in which measures relating to India were dealt with. Not only were they introduced at a late period, but the information which was necessary for their proper consideration was delayed till it was almost useless. The House had been entrapped into a hasty decision upon the second reading of the European Forces Bill. It was only on the morning of the division that important papers relating to what was so strangely called the mutiny of the European troops were placed in the hands of Members. They ought, he thought, to give a fair consideration to the views of hon. Gentlemen founded on papers recently presented to the House, and which were very much at variance with statements that had been
  2188
  hitherto made, and threw an entirely new light upon the question. The other papers had such a direct bearing upon the matter to be discussed that they certainly ought to be placed in the hands of Members before any further discussion took place. There was also no doubt that if the opinion of the Council had been favourable to his policy the right hon. Baronet would have been the first to have come down to the House and to have made it a great point.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that it appeared to him that the remarks of the Home Secretary would give occasion to hon. Members to sharpen their wits by the very subtle distinctions he had laid down in the construction to be placed on the Act of Parliament. He told the House that the President of the Board of Control could compel the Directors to send out what orders he liked to India, and therefore the Secretary of State had no more power now than the President had before. No one doubted that, but it was not the point. He also laid it down that the duty of the Council was to advise the Secretary of State for India in matters of administration in India, but that when it came to matters of legislation, then he did not propose measures as Secretary of State for India, but as a Member of Parliament, Now, that was an uncommonly subtle distinction. Was the House, then, to understand that this Bill was brought in by the Secretary of State for India, or by the Member for Halifax? That was the first question. And then, where was the distinction between matters of administration in India and matters of legislation, if the former required the help of legislation to carry them out? Suppose that some question of dealing with the religious prejudices of the Natives of India arose, upon which the legislative authority of that House was required. It was most unlikely that any such authority would be given; but was that the sort of question upon which the Council was or was not to be consulted? The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman seemed so far to narrow the ground that it was very difficult to say on what questions the Council were to be consulted.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to explain that when he alluded to legislative power he spoke of legislation in that House of Parliament, and not of legislation in India; and he had referred to the measures which his right hon. Friend (Sir

  2189
  Charles Wood) had introduced, not simply as Secretary of State, but as a Member of that House [Mr. HENLEY: Hear!]—such measures as he would be unable to introduce if he were merely Secretary of State for India, and not a Member of that House.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER, in rising to move that the Report of the Committee on Greenwich Hospital be carried into effect, said that the Report reflected great credit upon its authors. Greenwich Hospital was founded by William III. at the request of his Queen. Certain rules were laid down, describing the object and management of the hospital, from which it was evident that Greenwich Hospital was founded for the benefit of disabled and wounded seamen, to provide for the orphans of those who were killed and wounded, and also for the wives, widows, and children of disabled seamen. These children were to be received, educated, and taught to maintain themselves. Subsequent provisions were made that the children of merchant seamen who had been killed in action or drowned should be received in the hospital, and it was also clear that the advantages of the hospital were not to be obtained by any naval persons above the degree of master's mate. In 1705, 100 seamen were entered in Greenwich Hospital under the regulation then made; in 1706 another 100 were entered, and so on until in the year 1814, 2,710 had been entered. The number had been since fixed at 2,642. In 1814 the Government granted pensions to seamen for length of service amounting to 9d. a day for fifteen years' service, and 1s. a day for twenty years' service, and those pensions were given on precisely the same grounds as the half pay to officers after a war. From 1814 to 1829, no less than £2,000,000 of Greenwich Hospital money had been paid as pensions to seamen for length of service by the Government. It was then found out that the pensions were illegally paid out of these funds, and an Act of Parliament was passed exculpating the Government, which had since paid the pensions out of the usual Estimates. The number of vacancies in Greenwich Hospital had gone on increasing from only eleven vacancies in 1848 to 1,124 vacancies in 1860. Would any one believe that if the funds of Greenwich Hospital had been properly administered, there would now be
  2190
  1,124 vacancies? The seamen of the most valuable class, according to the Commissioners, were unwilling to enter Greenwich Hospital under the existing regulations, and hence the diminution in the number of inmates. It was plain, however, that 9d. or even Is. a clay was not sufficient to maintain men in the same comfort as they would have in Greenwich Hospital if the rules were properly administered. He was not going to find fault with the present or the late Board of Admiralty, but he found fault with all the Boards of Admiralty for the last sixty or seventy years, because they had not paid to Greenwich Hospital the attention which it deserved. But that was always to be expected whenever any Board had too much to do. Those Governments had not even taken the pains to inform seamen scattered throughout the country of their right of admission to the hospital. A poor wounded sailor living in the north of Scotland or at the Land's End knew no more of Greenwich Hospital than the Man in the Moon. Even if seamen did know and wished to enter, they were usually obliged to beg their way up to town, and that was a thing which the defenders of their country ought not to be reduced to. In the hospital all distinctions of rank were effaced, and badges of good conduct carried with them neither emolument nor practical distinction. Was that the way in which the seamen of England—men who had served for twenty or thirty years in all parts of the world—ought to be treated? Another grievance was that when a pensioner obtained leave of absence to visit his relatives his rations were stopped, and he was allowed no payment in lieu of them. The consequence was that he was obliged to beg his way back to the hospital. He thought that seamen and the public were under a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Gateshead and his colleagues on the Commission for their Report, and the way in which they had laid bare the iniquitous system which had been going on in the hospital for seventy or eighty years. Until he (Sir Charles Napier) brought the subject forward last year, nothing was comparatively known of that system, and even then the Government asked him very hard for a reprieve. Nothing could be more irksome than the lives of these poor people, shut up as they were in a state of idleness in the hospital. It was not very astonishing then to find them flocking to the public-houses when they got out, because after their mere material wants had

  2191
  been cared for in the hospital, they had no kind of amusement or employment to while away the time. Indeed, the Admiralty seemed to take a delight in depriving these poor men of everything which could make life bearable, for it was not, many years ago that some little employment in supplying small articles to the navy was taken away from them, although they were only paid half what the article cost when it was supplied by others. Then with regard to the wives and widows of the seamen, for whose benefit also the hospital had been designed, the Report of the Commissioners stated that the wives were wholly ignored, that they received nothing but the broken food and offal of the hospital. And even when they washed their husband's linen they received no portion of the money, which was thereby saved to the hospital. He admitted that when an out pensioner went into Greenwich Hospital, he should give up his pension to the hospital in return for the subsistence and comforts he obtained there; but if a seaman had been wounded, and had lost, perhaps, a limb, he maintained that the pension given to the seamen on that account should not be taken from him on his entering Greenwich Hospital. These pensions were given to the seamen in the same way as to officers, and it was extraordinary, if the latter retained the pensions, that the former were not allowed to do so. The Commissioners stated that the officers had no business in Greenwich Hospital as pensioners. By Act of Parliament no persons above the rank of a master's mate had any right there as pensioners or on the foundation, though they might be in the hospital to do the necessary duties of supervision as governor or captain. If the whole of the funds of Greenwich Hospital were laid hold of and divided among the men, they would receive a much larger allowance, and would be made more comfortable, than at present. But in a national point of view he admitted that it was proper, by maintaining the hospital, to show the world how well England took care of her seamen. The Commissioners said that unless their suggestions were adopted it would be better to turn the place into an infirmary for sick seamen. But he was far from wishing to see that done, for at present it stood as a noble monument, and as the ships passed up and down the river the sailors might point to it and say, "There is a place for me to go when I am worn out in the service of my country." In
  2192
  that way men were induced to enter the navy, as the best profession they could adopt. With regard to the salaries of the officers attached to the hospital, the large sum which went in this way crippled the funds of the hospital altogether. There were then the Civil Commissioners, who had been, in his opinion, the cause of much of the mismangement existing at Greenwich. They were supposed to meet once a week, or oftener if necessary; and, in point of fact, they met every Thursday, and passed a couple of hours or so in transacting the business which devolved upon them. Two of these Commissioners resided in London, and could know nothing of what went on at Greenwich. Then as to the schools, the Commissioners reported that now the female school was abolished the female children of pensioners were left uncared for, and in many instances became additions to the unfortunate creatures who frequented the streets of Greenwich. Such a state of things was most discreditable, and ought to be instantly remedied. Then as to the boys' schools he would confine the lower school to the sons of sailors, who would receive a plain education to fit them for the profession of sailors; but if any boy exhibited especial talent he should be removed to the upper school. Upon the question of expense, the Commissioners showed that if the reforms they proposed were carried out, a smaller number of officers would suffice at a greatly diminished cost. Upon one point he did not agree with the Commissioners. He thought the Governor, although he was not the working head, ought to be allowed a house in which he could befittingly receive Royalty whenever the hospital was honoured by its presence. He quite approved the suggestion that the superintendent with the rank of Rear-Admiral, and two captains, should be appointed only for the space of five years, as that would insure active and efficient officers. It was high time something was done to fill up the ranks of the navy, for at present all oar attempts to create a reserve had failed. The new reserve scheme had only produced 1,300 men instead of 30,000 men, and in this great maritime country it was disgraceful to find such a lack of volunteers to man our ships. The disgrace, however, chiefly attached to those who ruled the country, and if the noble Lord would only announce that Greenwich Hospital—the seamen's palace, and the provision of a grateful country for honest services—should be placed upon a proper

  2193
  footing, such a declaration would obviate much of the difficulty now experienced in obtaining men for the navy.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "it is the opinion of this House that the Report of the Commission on Greenwich Hospital should be carried into effect."
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT, in seconding the Motion said, the Commissioners had in his opinion discharged with great ability and fidelity the duties which they had been appointed to perform. From the evidence which was adduced before them there could be no doubt that Greenwich Hospital had long been neglected, and it was, he thought, to be regretted that our seamen should be compelled to come to that House for that redress and encouragement which ought to have been afforded them by the Board of Admiralty, which might, of its own authority, have carried into effect the essential recommendations of the Commissioners. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Charles Napier) had gone so fully into the details of the bad working of the present system in the Hospital, that he need not enter at any length into the subject. One fact, however, he might be permitted to state, and that was, in those cases in which an allowance of 10 d. a day was made to the seamen having families living out of the Hospital for the purpose of maintaining themselves, they preferred almost dying of illness to going into the Infirmary, because when they did so the allowance of 10 d a day was stopped, and their ability to support their wives and children at an end whilst continuing in the Infirmary. He thanked his gallant Friend (Sir Charles Napier) for having brought similar cases of hardship under the notice of the House, particularly in regard to the schools. He wished, before he sat down, to remind him that he had on a previous occasion mentioned an instance in which he said a seaman who had lost a limb had received a pension of a shilling a day only for a year. Now, when his gallant Friend had made that statement he doubted its accuracy, and on subsequent inquiry he ascertained that when men were so disabled, a pension varying from 1s. to 2s. was granted to each in the first instance only for a year,
  2194
  but then at the end of that time the pensioner was re-surveyed with the view of discovering the extent of his disability, and a permanent pension of 1s., 1s. 6d., or 2s. was conferred upon him, the amount depending upon the extent of power which his injury left him to assist himself. He indulged the hope that all sensible modifications in the conduct, discipline, and management of the Hospital for its better efficiency and the comfort of the Pensioners, would at once be carried out by the Board of Admiralty in the event the Motion of his gallant Friend might not be acceeded to by the House.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that he had spoken upon the authority of a certificate given to one of the men.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was very much obliged to his gallant Friend who had just spoken for having removed the impression which the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark on a former evening were calculated to convey with respect to the conduct of the Admiralty in granting pensions. He had unfortunately spoken before the gallant Admiral on that occasion, as he was generally compelled to do before the Admirals addressed the House, and, therefore, he had not had an opportunity of contradicting his statement, that a poor man who had lost a limb had received a pension only for a year—a statement which he was surprised an officer of his experience in the service did not at once perceive must be incorrect. Now, the fact was, that when a sailor lost a limb a provisional pension was granted him, with a view of affording a given time to ascertain whether the injury done him was or was not so severe as to prevent him from doing anything to earn his own livelihood, by the result of which injury the permanent amount of his pension was regulated. In taking that course the Admiralty were actuated by the most humane feeling, and certainly did not deserve to be stigmatized as having committed an act so unworthy of the department as that to which the hon. and gallant Admiral had referred. Passing, however, from that point, he must express his regret that his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Admiral Walcott) appeared, to some extent, to find fault with the Admiralty for not having taken upon themselves the reform of Greenwich Hospital. If his hon. and gallant Friend, however, supposed they would have time to enter into an investigation

  2195
  of all the details connected with the working of that old and extensive institution, tie could hardly have formed an adequate idea of the various other duties which they had to perform. For his own part, he thought his noble Friend the Duke of Somerset, and his colleagues at the Admiralty, had taken a wiser course—being aware that there were many matters connected with the Hospital which required revision—in appointing a Commission to inquire into the subject, composed of able men who could give due time to its full investigation, and arrive at correct conclusions with respect to the requirements of the case. To that Commission he could not allude without offering his thanks, and those of the Government, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) and his colleagues, who had devoted much time and attention to the objects of the inquiry, and the result of whose labours was a most valuable and interesting Report.
  He now came to the Motion before the House, to which he could not assent in the shape in which it stood. Indeed, the pro-poser of that Motion had himself furnished abundant grounds for not agreeing to it, inasmuch, while asking that the Report of the Commissioners should be carried into effect, he had found fault with several of the recommendations which that Report contained. Her Majesty's Government—he would not say had actually decided—but were prepared immediately to give their attention to a plan for effecting improvements in the schools, a subject which formed one of the most important branches of the Report; and if the gallant Admiral would alter the terms of his Motion to those in which it stood on the Paper a few days ago, he should offer no opposition on the part of the Government to its adoption. Action could be taken in reference to the schools without there being a necessity for any Act of Parliament, and the matter was one that was really pressing and important. In very much of what the gallant Admiral had said as to the defects of those schools he entirely concurred, and he hoped that in a short time the plan which was at present before the Board might be carried into effect. It could not be denied that there was one point in which the Commissioners gave a very favourable, perhaps, too favourable a view—namely, as to the revenues of the Hospital. One of their proposals was that the seamen entering Greenwich Hospital should retain their pensions, but that these should be ap-
  2196
  plied in support of that establishment. On the propriety of this system he would not offer any opinion, but it was evident that it amounted, in other words, to a proposal for doubling the yearly subsidy to the Hospital, the probable increase being calculated at something like £20,000. The Commissioners, in recommending that very large expenses should be incurred in increasing the accommodation of the building, were clearly calculating on an excess of income, which he could not think Her Majesty's Government would be justified in contemplating without an express grant on the part of the House of Commons. A point demanding the serious attention of the Board of Admiralty, which would be given to it the moment they had time at their disposal during the recess, was the question of providing accommodation for the wives and children of the pensioners. Various proposals had been made by the Commissioners, one being that part of the hospital should he appropriated towards the residence of married pensioners and their families; another that model lodging-houses should be built; and a third, that certain houses in the town of Greenwich, forming part of the property of the hospital, should be allotted to the wives of pensioners. These were all valuable suggestions; but there was one point in the Report with which he was unable to agree. There seemed to be throughout a feeling on the part of the Commissioners that because the hospital was capable of containing 2,700 persons it was necessary that it should be always filled with that number. It ought to be borne in mind that the institution was one not calculated exclusively for time of peace, but mainly for seasons of war, when, after great battles, enormous numbers of wounded sailors, maimed and crippled in every way, came to Greenwich to find a home. It therefore seemed advisable to him that the hospital should not be filled all at once, but that regard should be had to its purposes of ultimate utility in the event of war. Recommendations with respect to the constitution of the establishment and the redistribution or diminution of the officers were embodied in the Report, but in the opinion of the Admiralty it was very doubtful whether these arrangements could be carried out till an Act of Parliament had been obtained for the purpose. They could scarcely be charged with neglect of duty in not having carried out all the suggestions contained in a Report which had

  2197
  only been two months in their possession, and which it was only due to the officers of the hospital to submit in the first instance for their consideration. As ho had already mentioned, the Admiralty had prepared a plan for the improvement of the schools, which lie hoped before long would be carried into effect, and during the recess the questions of the model lodging-houses and other matters for the comfort of the pensioners would be taken up; and when Parliament met again the Board would be prepared to state the course they would adopt in reference to this Report.
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, that he shared the feeling of regret expressed by the Commissioners in their Report that a noble institution like Greenwich Hospital had fallen so far short of the intentions of its founder. He found that in 1805 the charge for salaries and maintenance of the institution amounted to £21,800; it supported 2,460 pensioners, the expenses in connection with them being £69,700. In 1859 the amount of salaries and maintenance had increased to £55,700; only 1,600 pensioners were sheltered by the hospital, the cost of whom had fallen to £44,000. The upper school too was far too predominant in numbers, and he thought that patronage had much to do with the increase. He had the greatest pleasure, therefore, in supporting the Motion of his gallant Friend.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, that although he had not the honour of belonging to the profession of the navy he wished to say that he thought the thanks of the House were due to the gallant Admiral who had brought this subject under their notice, and also to the Commissioners who had investigated it with so much ability. Their Report ought to be studied by every person who took an interest in the welfare of the navy. As to the answer of the noble Lord, he could not receive it with entire satisfaction. He was glad to hear that the Government intended to consider the subject of the schools and model lodging-houses; but the most important question was the proper application of the funds of the hospital. He was sure that no one who had read the Report of the Commission could come to any other conclusion than that there had been a scandalous misapplication of the funds of Greenwich Hospital, and that great injustice had been done to the seamen of the country. He believed that there was no necessity for an Act of Parliament, and that the Board of Ad-
  2198
  miralty had full powers to carry out the main recommendations of the Commission, which was all that the gallant Admiral required. He wished that the Government had promised that the funds, amounting to £156,000 a year, should in future be applied faithfully to the benefit of our sailors and of their widows and children. There could he no excuse of want of money, because there was a surplus of £28,000 a year, and the expenditure of that surplus in mining operations was, to say the least of it, very doubtful. There was little difference between the Resolution to which the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty was ready to assent and the Resolution of the gallant Admiral. If pressed to a division, he should give the Motion his cordial support.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not think that his hon. Friend (Mr. Briscoe) exactly understood how this question had arisen. His hon. Friend seemed to imagine that this Report had somehow fallen from the skies, and that the Admiralty felt great unwillingness to carry it into effect. But the facts were that the Board of Admiralty themselves deemed the subject fit for inquiry, that they appointed the Commission, that the Commission had only just reported, and that it was the intention of the Admiralty to consider that Report. No one said that every recommendation of the Commission ought to be literally carried into effect, and the only pledge therefore which the Government could properly give was, that they would consider the Report with a view to carrying it into effect in a manner most conducive to the public service. There were two questions of great importance to be considered. One was whether an Act of Parliament was necessary. His hon. Friend said that no Act was necessary; but, with great submission to him, he thought that if the Admiralty had any doubt they would do better to consult the Law Officers of the Crown rather than trust entirely to the opinion of his hon. Friend or of any one not learned in the state of the law upon the' subject. The other question was, whether the House should be asked to vote a considerable sum of money in addition to the' revenue of the hospital. Those points certainly required consideration. They were not to be decided at once without a moment's thought, and therefore his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty said, that having appointed the Commission themselves, having just received their Report, and being perfectly ready to consider

  2199
  it with a view to carry its recommendations into effect, the Board of Admiralty ought to have time to do so, and that the House ought not to pledge itself by a vote that every recommendation should he carried into effect without regard to the amount of money required or whether an Act of Parliament was necessary or not. He thought that reply perfectly reasonable, and that to adopt the Resolution was not a practical mode to attain the end which the gallant Admiral had in view.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, the proposition of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty was a very reasonable one, as they had come to the discussion unprepared, and really expected a discussion of a very different nature. As to the schools, the funds might be appropriated in respect to them with much greater advantage to the public service. There were some parts within the hospital which were capable of improvement, and with regard to which it was in the power of the Board of Admiralty to take immediate action. Of this kind was the case of petty officers who were compelled to mess with those who had been common sailors in the same ship. Then there was a mixing up of sailors and marines, and as they never agreed very well when on board ship, it was a matter of no surprise that they did not agree in the hospital. The means of admission might be facilitated, and many minor restrictions might be removed which operated as a hardship on the sailors. It certainly was too much, however, to force the Report on the Government before the Board of Admiralty had a full opportunity of considering its details.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he believed that the hon. and gallant Admiral had done no more than his duty in directing the attention of the House to the important and interesting Report on Greenwich Hospital. He trusted, however, that after the statement of the noble Lord opposite the gallant Admiral would not press his Motion to a division. It had been said that the Motion must not be construed literally; but they could only look to the words of the Motion as it stood, the fair and reasonable interpretation of which was that all the essential and important recommendations of the Commission were forthwith to be carried into effect. He for one was not prepared to go that length. The impression on his mind when at the Admiralty was that the state of the hospital was not satisfactory, and that an inquiry should be
  2200
  instituted. The present Board of Admiralty, adopting the same view, appointed a Commission, and he concurred most cordially in the tribute of admiration that had been paid to the full and able Report which they had prepared. They had now before them a full aad able Report, and they had heard from the noble Lord opposite what were the intentions of the Government. Still that Report had not been in the hands of the Government more than two months, and therefore he thought that the noble Lord had met the Motion in a perfectly fair spirit, when he pledged the Board of Admiralty to take the Report into consideration, and at the commencement of next Session to state how far they were prepared to carry its more important recommendations into effect. They could hardly expect the Admiralty to say more than that, nor was he prepared to pledge himself absolutely to support all the recommendations of the Commissioners. He would, however, strongly press on the Admiralty the question of the pensions and the destitute condition of the wives of our seamen. Nothing had created a stronger feeling of indignation in his mind than to find that numbers of the wives of seamen in Greenwich Hospital were actually receiving parish pay, and that applications were frequent to the hospital to discharge the husbands, in order that their wives might be discharged from the unions. There were various other portions of the Report which he thought well deserving their attention, and he sincerely hoped that steps would be taken to place this fine institution on a satisfactory footing.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he thought there ought to be a material change, which should be carried into effect as soon as possible, but he did not think it right to bind the Government down to details by Resolution. However able the Report was ho could not agree in all its provisions, and he would propose that a change should be made in the terms of the Resolution to the effect that the Report should be taken into consideration with a view to carrying the recommendations into effect in such a manner as might be most conducive to the public interest.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, an Amendment could not be moved to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Admiral.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he offered the Amendment as a suggestion to his hon. and gallant Friend with a view of preventing a division.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the Report of the Committee disclosed a very extraordinary state of things. No one could peruse it without being satisfied that unless some interference had taken place the whole proceeds of that noble establishment would have been swallowed up by people for whom it was never intended. The misapplication of the funds, the enormous expenditure of the establishment, the unfavourable contrast which it presented to similar institutions on the other side of the water, were all set forth in the Report; and, with these facts before them, the Government could have no difficulty in determining what course to pursue. He thought it should be left entirely to the discretion of the Government to devise a remedy, and that they ought not to be tied down to any particular plan. When the noble Lord expressed his fear that the Report gave too sanguine a view of the revenue of the hospital, he was sorry no hint was given that the pruning knife would be vigorously applied to the establishment, which had a tendency to expand in a very rapid manner. The question was full of interest, and from the Report of the Committee on Greenwich Hospital on the one hand, and the Report of the Manning Commission on the other, it was not difficult to understand why seamen were disinclined to enter the Royal Navy. The present state of things was one which, to say the least of it, left ample room for amendment. He hoped the gallant Admiral would amend his Resolution, or, better still, withdraw it, leaving the whole matter to the responsibility of the Admiralty. If they did act, then would be the time for the House to express their opinion on the Report and the conduct of the Government.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I think what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is really the good sense of the matter. I should hope the House will concur with him; that this discussion may now be considered closed; that you, Sir, may now leave the chair, and that we may go into Committee of Supply. If this were a case in which an important recommendation had been made by a Committee or Commission to which Government had paid no attention; if there were good grounds to suppose that it was not the intention of the Government to pay any attention to it, and the Report had been lying a long time on the table, there might be good reason or opportunity for hon. Members to interfere and press
  2202
  by Resolution on Government the necessity for action. But this is not a case of that kind. There is a Report of a Commission appointed by the present Board of Admiralty; the Report, as stated by my noble Friend, has only been in the hands of the Admiralty a couple of months, if so long, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty has declared that it is the intention of the Admiralty at the earliest opportunity to take the Report into consideration, with a view to acting upon it. Well, now, that seems a state of things in which the House need not interpose between the Government and their responsibility, and at the close of the Session dictate to Her Majesty's Government the manner in which they are to act upon the Report. I hope the House will adopt the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman, and, having received from the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty an intimation of their intention to act upon the Report, they will leave the matter to the responsibility of the Government.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he quite concurred with what had fallen from the noble Lord. He should be very sorry, in such a case, to tie the hands of the Admiralty; but he would remind the House that whatever they did by way of pensions for those serving in the navy, they must do the same for the sister service.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBErecommended the gallant Admiral to withdraw the Motion, or adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty. He could not support it in its present form. The erection of model lodging-houses for the families of the pensioners was a step in the right direction, but he hoped they would be, in the first instance, adopted only to a limited extent, till it was seen whether they gave satisfaction.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEinquired whether the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty would lay on the table the opinions of the officers of Greenwich Hospital with regard to the Report of the Commission. He understood that Sir James Gordon had written a very able statement on the subject, which it was most desirable should be produced.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had no objection to the production of that Report if it were moved for.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he would now move his Resolution with the suggested alterations.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the Report of the Commission on Greenwich Hospital should be taken into the immediate consideration of the Government, with the view of carrying into effect the recommendations contained in the Report in such manner as may be most conducive to the public interests.'"
  —instead thereof.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the gallant Admiral would not press the Motion to a division after the declarations of the Government.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the gallant Admiral's Motion merely expressed what the Government had already undertaken to do, and he saw no necessity for pressing it.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,"
  Put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and greed to.

  SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £12,000, Retirement to Officers of the Navy.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he saw no necessity for retirement in the higher lists of naval officers. It was impossible for him to consent to the noble Lord's plan, which was very incomplete and full of inconsistencies. Captains, when they arrived at the head of the list, were to be placed on the list of retired officers at 20 s. a day; at present those officers received 25 s. a day, and the noble Lord was about to take off 5s. Now, that was not fair, nor was it satisfactory to the service, not a man of which had, to his knowledge, spoken favourably of it. The scheme would place at the disposal of the Admiralty a great many vacancies, and enable it, by a system of favouritism, to fill them up with young and inexperienced officers, to the prejudice of old and deserving officers of many times their length of service. If the period should come again when it was difficult to get an admiral under sixty years of age it might be advisable to establish a fresh retirement; but when there were plenty of qualified officers in their prime who could be appointed to the rank of admiral, he saw no reason for asking the House to vote £15,000 or £20,000 a year to carry out such a useless object. He
  2204
  trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would not persevere with his scheme.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he was opposed to this proposal on three grounds—first, because it would cut off mates' time; secondly, because it did not allow the time an officer served in the Coastguard to count in his favour; and thirdly, because of the manner in which it dealt with commanders on the reserved list. There was no more reason why the time for which an officer served as mate—when he probably discharged very important duties—should be cut off, than there was for cutting off the time of a lieutenant or adjutant in the array from his period of service. A captain in the navy informed him that he had acted as first lieutenant of the commodore's ship on the coast of Africa while he was a mate; that another mate commanded a 20-gun corvette; and that another mate did the duty of first lieutenant of the same corvette. Thus these three officers on the coast of Africa at that period were mates, and yet not one hour of that service was to be allowed to count. Again, why should they strike off the time during which an officer was employed in the Coastguard—perhaps as irksome a service as any that an officer could have to perform, and one in which they were exposed to many casualties? He could name officers who had been maimed and wounded on those stations called the fighting stations, in which there had been skirmishes nearly as formidable as little actions. If they took the actual work a Coastguard officer was called upon to perform, it was fully as hard as that discharged by officers serving either in the Mediterranean or on board the guardships at the home ports. The officers on the reserved list derived their position from an actual bargain with the Admiralty. One of them wrote to tell him that in July, 1856, the Admiralty refused to allow him to command a merchant steamer on the ground that "officers of high rank are not supposed to accept civil engagements." The Admiralty now proposed to reduce this officer to the rank of commander. Some of these officers had served at Trafalgar and the Nile. The whole increase of pay they demanded would be but small, and yet, while the Admiralty were wasting millions of money in the malconstruction of ships and in building useless vessels, they refused these officers the miserable and paltry sum to which they were entitled by the express and deliberate bargain that the Admiralty had entered

  2205
  into with them. He had submitted the order in Council of 1851 to the eminent lawyer, Mr. Lush, Q.C., for his opinion. Mr. Lush stated, in answer, that the question was not one of legal cognizance, but that if the order in Council had been embodied in an Act of Parliament, or was in the nature of a contract that could be enforced in a court of law, he should have no difficulty in advising that the claims of the captains upon the reserved list were well founded. That opinion was in a remarkable manner confirmed by the hon. and learned Attorney General the other day in regard to compensation to persons whose offices were abolished, they themselves being ready still to discharge their duty. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich that this question ought to be referred to a Commission, and investigated as a whole. Great dissatisfaction existed among the officers in the navy. The naval service was in fact an underpaid service, and officers were called upon to contribute to it from their private means. Complaints had now reached a height that was prejudicial to the discipline of the navy, and the question ought to be examined by a Commission, consisting not only of professional men, but also of those who understood what a fair day's wages for a fair day's work really was.
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, he could not help thinking that the proposal of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty fell far short of the measure that was needed for the settlement of a question that was becoming quite alarming. All classes of naval officers had a more or less reasonable claim for consideration at the hands of the noble Lord. His plan had one condition, that of age, which must be of an arbitrary and in some respects unjust character in regard to the officers affected by it. Take the case, too, of mates. In the Commission on the various services that sat twenty years ago, presided over by the late Duke of Wellington, it was agreed that mates in the navy were as fully entitled to be regarded as officers as were ensigns in the army. It was very hard that officers who had commanded gunboats in the French war as mates and acting lieutenants were not allowed to count their service as mates. He knew one instance where an officer commanded a gunboat as mate from 1809 until 1814, and he justly complained that the whole of this time was taken no notice of in his favour. A lieu-
  2206
  tenant must serve nine years as mate to entitle him to a certain amount of half-pay; and there was one case where a gentleman had served within a few weeks of that time, but he had been for a long time a mate. Again, as to captains' half-pay, a good deal of hardship would be imposed. Half-pay was in many cases, not a retaining fee, but a final pension, and it deserved consideration whether officers who had not served much should be entitled to rise in the amount of their half-pay. If the principle of retirement on account of age was to be introduced, it ought to be applied with impartiality to all ranks. He could not support the scheme before the Committee, and he should be glad to see a Commission or a Committee appointed to consider the whole subject of pay, pensions, and retirements.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I am very much disappointed at the course which the Board of Admiralty has taken with regard to this retirement plan. The question has been before the House upon a previous occasion, and I never heard any question discussed in a fairer spirit, and with less approach to anything like party feeling on one side of the House or the other, the only object in view being the good of the naval service. But from neither side of the House did I hear a single speech in favour of the Government scheme. After that discussion I received innumerable letters from officers of all ranks, from flag officers down to lieutenants of long standing, thanking me for my opposition to the measure, and deprecating it as unworthy of the Admiralty and most unacceptable to the service, and I had hoped that, considering the opposition to the plan which was manifested in this House, the Government would not have persevered with it. At the head of this retirement scheme the noble Lord has placed these remarks:—
  "There are three requisites for an efficient navy,—first, that the principal ranks should be supplied with a sufficient number of officers in the prime of life; secondly, that officers who are desirous and fit to serve should find employment; and, thirdly, that encouragement should be offered either by promotion or otherwise, to induce officers to serve willingly as long as they are efficient."
  I defy my noble Friend to prove that this scheme will fulfil any one of these conditions. The first is the most important; but what will this scheme do to effect that object? I know that my noble Friend will tell me that he has adopted the principle

  2207
  of compulsory retirement by age to a certain point, and that, therefore, so far as that goes he has followed the plan which I ventured to propose. I do not think that my noble Friend is justified in using that argument, because I entirely agree with what has just fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend, that to justify the application to the navy of the principle of compulsory retirement, which is a strong one to adopt, it ought to be applied fairly throughout the service. I contend that if you are to adopt the principle of retirement by age you must, in order to make it fair and acceptable, combine it with some other plan, which will give to officers the encouragement and the benefit of a regular flow of promotion. This plan does not do that. You tell the junior ranks of officers that at a certain age they are to be compelled to retire, but you admit that you are afraid to apply this principle to the senior ranks. The result will be that there will be no flow of promotion. The captains and flag officers will not get out of the way, and the retirement by age will be enforced upon the junior ranks without any compensation. Another objection to the plan has been adverted to already—namely, that you do not allow officers in counting their service to reckon the time served as mate, I think that that is a great injustice. I do entreat the Admiralty, if they are disposed to deal with this subject at all, to do so upon wide and comprehensive principles, and upon a plan which shall not only be beneficial but acceptable to the naval service. The service repudiate this plan; they dislike it. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET dissented.] My noble Friend thinks not. Perhaps he can give me authorities for that opinion. I can only say that I have received a great many letters from officers of rank, saying that the plan is not acceptable to them, that, on the contrary, they dislike and repudiate it. The case is one of extreme hardship. I cannot forget what Admiral Hope, an admirable man as well as an excellent officer, told me last year—perhaps as it was a private conversation I ought not to mention it, but I state it to his honour—that when visiting the north of England on the Harbour of Refuge Commission, he met at Newcastle one officer who had served with him when they were midshipmen together, but who was still a lieutenant in the navy. Perhaps such cases must happen in the service, but they are severely felt, and we ought to do all we can to make them less frequent. Again,
  2208
  I have had letters from officers who served as mates doing the duty, but not having the rank of lieutenants. It is very hard that such men should not be allowed to count the time during which they so served as mates. These are the things which make the proposed plan so unacceptable to the navy, and I deeply regret that the present Board of Admiralty, in their desire to force an objectionable system upon the service, should refuse a proposal which I intend to bring forward in good faith, and with no party feeling,—namely, that a well constituted Commission should be appointed to inquire into the whole subject. On Tuesday evening next I shall make that Motion, and I implore the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who must wish to do what is right by the navy, before that day comes, to consider whether we ought not to follow in the present case an example which has more than once been offered by the army, and refer to a well-constituted Commission the consideration of these difficult and complicated questions. Meanwhile I regret the course which the Government are taking. I think they are making a great mistake. Their plan is not one that ought to be adopted. I know it to be unpalatable and unacceptable to the navy, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has taken the lead in opposition to this Vote asks the Committee to divide I shall certainly deem it my duty to vote with him.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET:—To a naval officer in the position which I have the honour to hold, there cannot, I think, he a more painful duty than that of bringing forward a scheme for the benefit of his profession. Nothing is more easy than to state plausible objections to any plan that may be proposed for bettering the situation of officers in the Navy. It is quite impossible to deal with a great service, including a variety of conflicting interests, so as to prevent the occurrence of cases of hardship. I suppose that is the reason why the right hon. Baronet opposite, who was at the head of the Admiralty a year and a half, never brought before us any scheme for improving the position of the officers of the navy. He saw a thousand difficulties in his way; and found that under any plan he might adopt cases of hardship must occur. Nevertheless, considering how poignantly he feels the present lamentable state of the navy, and what he has told us respecting the general discontent which prevails in the service, I am

  2209
  surprised that he remained so long at the head of the Admiralty without bringing some comprehensive scheme for all ranks before us. The plan which he left behind him at the Admiralty, which he did not submit to Parliament, but which has, at his desire, been laid on the table, would have been at once more expensive and, I believe, less advantageous to the navy than the one which I have laid before the House. We propose to limit our exertions to those ranks in which there is no flow of promotion. During the past year promotion has been almost at a standstill with respect both to commanders and to lieutenants, and we propose to apply relief where the shoe really pinches. I admit that in the event of war, when you require a large number afloat, that admirals above a certain age should retire for the benefit of the service; but that is not necessary at the present moment, and any scheme for the compulsory retirement of old admirals, such as that recommended by the right hon. Baronet opposite, would only break the hearts of distinguished officers who served us in all our great wars. Men like Lord Dundonald would certainly object very strongly to be placed upon a retired list; they would feel it to be a stigma upon them, and they would not be far wrong. But the right hon. Baronet does not propose to create a flow of promotion; he simply wants to reduce the flag list by striking off a number of old admirals. I admit that the flag list is too large; but nature will clear it, and there is no necessity for wounding the feelings of distinguished officers on the brink of the grave. Our scheme, therefore, does not touch the flag officers. The other objections which have been stated to our scheme are—first, that reserved captains are not to be put in the same position as captains on the active list; secondly, that mates' time is not to be counted; and thirdly, that Coastguard time is not to be reckoned as of the same value as sea time. I shall deal with the last objection first. Surely nobody will say that the duties, perils, and responsibilities of a Coastguard officer, especially in time of war, are to be compared for a moment with those of a seagoing officer. To give a Coastguard officer the same claim as a sea-going officer, would be to put the same value upon service performed at home, and service performed in foreign and unhealthy climates. It would interfere to a serious extent with the promotion of sea-going officers, and would cer-
  2210
  tainly not tend to the good of the navy. With respect to mates' time, it is all very well to say that we should allow mates' time to be counted; but how would such a system operate in practice? How would this affect the navy of the present day? I am quite aware that in old times mates were left in that position for many years; but we are not legislating for the past but for the future. The officers of the present day have served scarcely above two years as mates; so that by increasing the period of service, including mates' time, to entitle them to increased pay, which you must do if mates' time is to be held to be of the same value as lieutenants' time, you would by so much damage their position. That was what the Admiralty, dealing for the present and the future, could not, with all respect for the old officers, propose to do; and now with respect to the officers on the reserved list. I am perfectly willing to admit that the case pointed out by my gallant Friend is a hard case; but it must not be supposed that the Admiralty are cutting down any person's pay, for not a single officer will be put in a worse position than before. All that we say is, that if an officer arrives at sixty years of age, and has not served his country above a certain number of years, that officer should retire on his present pay; but that if he has served above a certain number of years, he should then have increased pay; so that all who have faithfully served their country would be benefited by the scheme. There is this distinction between the present scheme and that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—that this is principally for the benefit of the junior ranks of the navy, those who have no friends and no influence. I cannot admit that his has sufficiently kept them in view. There was one great oversight in the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman left at the Admiralty on quitting office, and that had reference to the half-pay of lieutenants on the active service list. This is one of the most expensive parts of our scheme. We propose with regard to the lieutenants on the active list—the young men of the present day—that, according to their service afloat, their half-pay should increase from 4s. to 8s. 6d. a day. These are the principal features of the scheme I have had the honour to submit to the House—the full details of which are on the table. I must deny the existence of the general discontent that has been spoken of, for I have

  2211
  received a great number of letters approving the scheme. These letters, however, state that the scheme does not go far enough; and I am willing to admit that; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be persuaded to give us double the sum I will produce a better scheme. The Government, however, must deal with the question not only in reference to the officers of the navy, but in comparison with the officers in the army. I nave always been told that my gallant brethren in the navy are the worst enemies of the service in this respect—that when any measure is brought forward for the benefit of the service, they throw difficulties in its way by bringing forward individual cases of hardship. I do trust that any such remarks may not mar the success of this scheme. I do not say that hereafter it may not be enlarged upon; but I maintain that it is in the right direction, and a very great boon to the junior branches of the service, and I, therefore, earnestly hope that the House will consent to the Estimate which is under discussion.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONexplained, that in what he said just now he did not refer to his own scheme, but whenever the proper time arrived he should be prepared to defend it. What he had said was, that the scheme of the present Admiralty was bad and defective, and the noble Lord threw the responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would not, the noble Lord said, consent to the expense of a good scheme. But it was the duty of the Admiralty to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would not be induced by him to propose a bad scheme. The noble Lord then taunted him by observing that while at the Admiralty he had not proposed to deal with these questions, but it should be remembered that during the greater part of that time he devoted his attention to supply those deficiencies which he found existing in the number of ships. Nevertheless, the late Board did pay attention to this subject and produced the scheme which had been laid on the table, and which, he believed, was acceptable to the navy. It had been his intention to deal with every one of the questions alluded to by the noble Lord. He dealt with the medical officers, and was going on to deal with other rank in the service; and why was it that that intention was not carried into effect? The noble Lord forgot the pressing demand which was said to exist last year on the part of the country for a
  2212
  good Reform Bill, and for the sake of which the late Administration were turned out of office before he had been able to deal with that and a great many other questions which he was prepared to entertain.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in thinking he had stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to allow a larger sum, and therefore a better scheme could not be produced. What he had said was, that the Government were bound to consider the question of pounds shillings and pence, and that no doubt, with a larger sum of money, a very comprehensive scheme might be produced.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGobserved, that though it was said that nobody approved the noble Lord's scheme, there was, he believed, a great deal to be approved in it. He thought the increase of the half-pay according to the sea service of the officers a very good arrangement. The scheme applied a remedy where the shoe pinched. The case was so difficult a one that it was almost impossible to suggest a plan which should work equally in war or peace, still more in a time of transition from war to peace. He was not very fond of the limit of age, but in this instance, as he understood it, the limit was not one of age only, but of age combined with service. With regard to captains, the object of removing all captains above 60 from the active list was to reduce them to 350, in order that the course of promotion might be clear. But they were at that number already, and this being all that was wanted, he thought they might leave the list alone until some pressing inconvenience arose. With regard to the Coastguard it ought not to be made, as it were, a degraded service. The principle ought to be, that every branch of the service should be treated as if it were a part of the whole, and that all classes of employés should be dealt with alike. Generally speaking, however, he thought the scheme a good one, though it was not difficult to pick holes in it.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, the noble Lord had given no sufficient reason why the mate's time should not count in the same way as a commander was allowed to count his lieutenant's time.
  MR. WARREasked, why the memorial of the captains on the reserved list had not received the assent of the Admiralty?
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he thought

  2213
  that true economy was to do justice to the service; and he was of opinion that, considering the onerous duties which devolved upon the Coast-guard officers, scant justice was done to them in the new arrangement.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the reserved captains had never served in that rank, but had been promoted at once from commander to captain. They were allowed to claim their time equally with other captains.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEobserved that in the Civil Service every day of a man's service counted, and he could not see why the same rule should not prevail in the naval service.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £33,000, Naval Operations in China.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERcomplained that upon the last Vote he and others had cried "No," but nevertheless the Chairman had passed on to the next item.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had put the Question twice, and upon the second occasion no cry of "No" was raised, and therefore he declared the Vote agreed to.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsuggested to the hon. Gentleman that he might make any remarks he might wish to address to the House on the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEcomplained that the sum proposed to be voted was not an adequate reward for the services performed, for it would amount to only about £2 to each man, though they had been engaged two years in this service. He understood that a distinct understanding would be come to with the troops about to be engaged in the coming operations in China. He hoped the navy would be put on an equal footing with the army in any such arrangement.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had stated to the House the other night that the army on service in China received certain advantages over the army serving in other parts of the world. The troops serving in China had a better allowance of provisions, and they also had less "stoppages" than their colleagues elsewhere. He believed the advantages enjoyed by men so engaged were equivalent to a money value of 2d. per day, and he proposed to give the seamen and Marines on that service a similar sum for one year, irrespective of the Canton booty.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he wish-
  2214
  ed to give notice that in consequence of an unfair advantage having, as he considered, been taken when the last Vote was put, he should divide the House on the bringing up of the Report.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not think that there was the least intention of unfairness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, but the hon. and gallant Admiral, and several other Members, had distinctly said "No," when the question was put a first time, however it might have been when the question was put a second time. That raised the point why the Question should be put a second time—a matter which should be put beyond the possibility of dispute. He thought that when the Question was put a second time it ought to have been put more distinctly.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think in all such matters it is desirable the rules of the House should be strictly adhered to. It is not sufficient for hon. Gentlemen to cry "No "to call for a division; but, unless those who differ from the Speaker's or the Chairman's decision declare that the "Ayes" or the "Noes" have it, a division is not called for. Although this may not be a distinction that would strike everybody it is a distinction established by the rules of the House, and ought to be observed. My hon. and gallant Friend, I recollect perfectly, did not say, "The Noes have it," and it is not enough to say "No," to challenge a division.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The practice, as far as my experience goes, is frequent. The Speaker constantly puts the Question twice and even thrice. If he has any doubt as to the sense of the House, he puts the Question a second time, and if he is still doubtful as to whether it is the desire of that House to take a division, he puts the Question a third time; and if it does not receive a distinct challenge from any one Gentleman, the practice is to declare that "the Ayes" or the "Noes" have it. Following that example, as is my duty, I consider that I have consulted the pleasure of the Committee by putting the Question a second time; because the only hon. Member who challenged, when I put the Question the first time, was the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: When the Report is brought up I shall take very good care to comply with the practice of the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

LONDON CORPORATION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I beg to move that the Order for the Adjourned Debate on this Bill be discharged.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Committee [24th April] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Medical Act (1858) Amendment; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Highway Rates Act Continuance; Oxford University (No. 2).
2a Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (1846) Amendment; Registration of Births, &c, (Scotland); Court of Queen's Bench Act Amendment; Census (England); Census (Ireland); Inclosure (No. 2).

LABOURERS' COTTAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
THR EARL OF AIRLIE, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, which had received the unanimous sanction of the other House of Parliament, said that the condition of many of the cottages in Scotland evinced the necessity for a measure of this description. In numerous instances, from want of the necessary accommodation, labourers, married and single, were huddled together. The increased prosperity of the country and the reclamation of lands, which had taken place on a large scale of late years, added to the importance of legislating on this question. He hoped their Lordships would pass without delay a measure of so much value to the best interests of Scotland. Provisions had been introduced to guard against the creation of permanent charges on the estate, where the objects to be attained were not likely to prove permanently beneficial.
Moved, That this House do resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he would not oppose the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill, but thought it would require some important Amendments, similar to those which had been made in the Erection of Labourers' Cottages in Ireland Bill, which provided for the payment of the charge on estates by instalments within

2127
the period of twenty-five years; whereas under the present Bill three-fourths of the amount borrowed was to be charged on the estate. The effect of making a permanent charge on estates for the purpose of erecting cottages would, he was afraid, be a very bad one, and they might hereafter find heirs succeeding to estates, the whole value of which had been swallowed up in mortgages imposed for the purpose of raising money to build cottages.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that when the Bill went into Committee he should move the insertion of a clause providing for the repayment of the money advanced, such repayment to be made by instalments, and the whole amount of the money to be refunded within twenty-five years.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsupported the Bill. The cottages in Scotland were, he said, in many cases of a very inferior description, and there was often only one sleeping place for a single family. This was the source of very great demoralization; and he could not conceive any object of greater national importance than to give facilities to landlords to improve the cottages on their estates. He might add, that there was a great desire on the part of the country population for those improvements, and farmers were becoming very loath to take farms where the cottages for the labourers were inadequate.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHalso hoped the Bill would be committed. If noble Lords imagined that the cottages in Scotland were of the same description with those in Wiltshire, they were very much mistaken. From the immense tracts of land that of late years had been taken into cultivation in Scotland there were large districts where there were very few cottages at all, and many of those that did exist were of a very dilapidated description. Having had some experience of this matter himself, he could assure their Lordships that the facilities provided by this Bill were much needed in Scotland, and he did not think it would tempt any one to speculate in cottage building.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT (1845) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, ex-
  2128
  plained that the 5th clause would give the Secretary of State for War power to take lands by the well-known machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which he had already the power to take under the Defences Act.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had no objection to the Bill as it was originally drawn; but their Lordships would observe that as it stood now there was a great difference between the 4th and 5th Clauses. By the 4th Clause cities and corporations were empowered to obtain land by agreement, but the 5th Clause gave the Admiralty and the Ordnance power to obtain land compulsorily. This was a very dangerous power to entrust even to the Government; in point of fact, it would give the Ordnance the right to compel a sale of Mount Edgecumbe for the defence of Plymouth.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETexplained that the power given to the Admiralty was inserted in the Bill at the request of a Member of the late Board, and not at the instance of the present Board. When it was referred to him he understood that it was merely giving the Admiralty the facilities of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, when they had obtained lands by agreement, and he was informed that that was the correct intrepretation of the clause; but as it seemed to him that under the clause, as it now stood, the Admiralty might take any lands, whether adjoining the sea or belonging to private persons in an inland county, he should have no objection in Committee to limit the right to taking lands by agreement. The Bill did not give any new power to the Ordnance or War Department beyond the powers they already possessed under the Defences Act. It only gave them new machinery.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, there could be no doubt that, as far as the Admiralty was concerned, a new and very formidable power would be given by the clause as it now stood; but the assurance of the noble Duke that the Admiralty should merely have power to take lands by agreement was perfectly satisfactory.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobjected to additional power being given to the Board of Ordnance in a direction where it was so liable to abuse.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONexplained that, while this Bill conferred on the Board of Admiralty the power which it did not at present possess of acquiring land compulsorily, it did not confer additional

  2129
  power on the War Department. That Department already had it in its power to take land under the Defences Act, subject to a certificate signed by the Lord Lieutenant or by two Deputy Lieutenants of the county. As the Defences Act was passed in 1842, when there was no excitement or immediate apprehension of war, it was not likely to contain any provisions which were not necessary for the defence of the country; and it had been occasionally enforced down to the present time. Looking to the necessity of increasing our national defences at the present moment, it was possible that they might require to call the Act into more frequent operation than formerly, and the object of the Amendment was not to give them additional power, but to enable them to drop a machinery which had been found defective and inconvenient.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, we have now arrived at the third week of July, a period when it is generally hoped that the Session is drawing to a close. On former occasions the review of the Session has often been made the subject of an exciting political controversy, and I am far from saying that the present Session is so far an exception to the general rule as not to afford ample material for debate. But on the present occasion it is my desire not to seek, but sedulously to avoid, anything approaching to a party discussion. I wish solely to draw your Lordships' attention, as a matter of dry detail, to a state of things which is a matter of great importance not only to the country, as affecting the character of the legislation of both Houses, but also to the interests of any and every Government which happens to be charged with the responsibility of office. I trust, therefore, we may approach the consideration of the question without the slightest reference to party feeling, and merely as a subject in which we all have a great and common interest. The state of things is this:—We have now been sitting for the space of twenty-six weeks, and at the expiration of that time I find that thirty-four Acts of Parliament have received the Royal Assent, and that there are thirteen other Bills which, as they have passed both
  2130
  Houses, and only await the Royal Assent, may be supposed to be already added to the legislation of the Session. On examination, however, the great proportion of these Bills prove to be measures of the most absolute and complete routine. There is hardly a single measure among them that can claim the dignity of being Legislative measures of even second-rate importance. This is not a circumstance which is new or peculiar to the present Session, for I find that during this Session nearly as many Bills will have been passed up to the expiration of July as in any of the last ton or twelve years. The number is somewhat smaller, but the difference is not material. What I wish to bring before your Lordships is that almost by the necessity of the case the same thing must be found in nearly every Session of Parliament. I wish to direct your attention to the manner in which Parliamentary business is conducted in the two Houses, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the mode of proceeding may not be altered so as to avoid the difficulty I have pointed out. I begin by acknowledging that the great proportion of Bills, 9 out of 10, or even 19 out of every 20, require to be originated in the other House of Parliament. This does not arise merely because there are a number of Bills which, owing to the privileges of the House of Commons, we are precluded from originating in this House. I will frankly confess that, as a general rule, the House of Commons is better adapted for originating and discussing measures of legislation in the first instance, and that your Lordships are better employed in revising and correcting the rough work, if I may say so, of the other House of Parliament. I do not mean to cast any discredit on your Lordships' House when I say that the proceedings here do not bear any comparison with those of the other House in regard to the minute examination of measures, especially if they are of any length. There is, comparatively speaking, so small a number of your Lordships who are disposed very carefully to consider the provisions of measures which may be introduced, or who are interested in calling attention to matters of detail, and there is so great a readiness to allow measures to be sent from this for consideration by the other House, that I suspect, unless a Bill happens to excite general attention, there is a risk of its being sent down without receiving that attention and consideration which would probably

  2131
  have been bestowed on it had it been sent up to your Lordships to be passed into a law. But assuming that in the great proportion of cases Bills should be introduced first in the other House of Parliament, we are led to consider what is the course of proceeding which is taken in regard to Bills in that House, and what is the prospect that those which originate there will come before your Lordships in a reasonable time in order to give you the opportunity of deliberately considering them. There is one point of difference between the proceedings of the House of Commons and those of your Lordships' House. I need not say that by the courtesy of this House any noble Lord has the privilege of placing a Bill on the table and obtaining for it a first reading, without the necessity of first obtaining consent to its introduction. In the House of Commons Members have no such power. It is necessary for them first to give notice on a preceding day that leave will be asked to introduce a Bill, and then upon that leave being asked considerable discussion may arise. Practically, therefore, Bills have one more stage to go through in the House of Commons than in your Lordships' House; and in cases where it is necessary to originate the Bill by the Resolution of a Committee of the Whole House there is added another stage, making two stages upon the introduction of certain measures more than are necessary in your Lordships' House. But, then, what are the facilities which the House of Commons affords, especially to the Government, for the introduction of Bills and the progress of public business? By the rules of the House of Commons two days are set apart for Motions by individual or independent Members of the House, and a third day, Wednesday, is set aside for the consideration of Bills without any preference in favour of Government measures over those of private Members, the Bills being taken in the order in which they stand on the notice paper. At the commencement of the Session the Government, by giving notice of all the measures they have prepared, and sometimes also, I fear, of measures that they have not prepared, during the recess, occupy the ground, and have an opportunity of introducing some Bills. But, except for the first week or fortnight of the Session, the Government have no precedence over private Members, and they are often placed in circumstances of great difficulty with regard even to the preliminary step of the intro-
  2132
  duction of their measures. When Bills are introduced the Government have nominally two days in the week for their consideration. We should, however, recollect the position in which the Government stand at the beginning of each Session with regard to the two days in the week allotted to them. It is necessary, in consequence of the expiration of the Mutiny Act, that a very early opportunity should be taken of laying before Parliament the number of men and the amount proposed to be demanded for the military and naval service of the country. The first object, therefore, is to go into Committee of Supply. The Mutiny Act cannot be passed before the Votes for men and money have been taken, and it is therefore necessary before Easter that these Votes should be considered in Supply. But, although the Government are nominally in possession of two days out of five for the transaction of Government business in the House of Commons, that statement, without further explanation, would lead to an erroneous idea in regard to the time actually at their disposal; because on every occasion of going into Committee of Supply it is open to any hon. Member to move any Amendment, and a discussion may be taken upon any subject whatever, on the ground that the consideration of grievances ought to precede the granting of Supply. It therefore often happens that a whole evening, and sometimes more than a whole evening, is occupied by discussing some question that has nothing to do with Committee of Supply. With regard to other Bills, a satisfactory rule has recently been made, that when the House has once gone into Committee on a Bill, and the Committee has reported progress, it is not competent for any hon. Member, when the Bill again comes before the House, to move an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. But formerly that was not the case, and this was one of the modes that has been adopted by the House of Commons for the purpose of curtailing the forms of the House and saving time. I believe that this alteration was made under the presidency of my noble Friend (Viscount Eversley), whom I do not now see in his place, who presided with so much dignity and public utility over the deliberations of that House, and that was one of the many valuable improvements he introduced into the Parliamentary practice of the House of Commons. It has been found necessary, of late years, indeed, to

  2133
  carry these restrictions to an extent that can hardly be justified. Your Lordships all know that on the presentation of petitions in this Souse the whole subject of those petitions may be entered upon and discussed; but it has been found necessary to put so absolute a restriction upon this right in the House of Commons that Members are not allowed to state anything except the substance of the petition, the parties from whom it proceeds, and their prayer. With regard to Committee of Supply, it is not only necessary that a Motion should be made whenever the Speaker leaves the chair; but upon every occasion when the House goes into Committee, afterwards, although no vote may have been taken on the previous occasion, a new Motion must be made and a new Amendment may be moved. And that may take place on every occasion when the Government seek to go into Committee of Supply. During these two days in the week, when devoted to the business of Supply, the Government may thus be indefinitely embarrassed and the public business indefinitely postponed by Amendment after Amendment. But, as I have said, it is necessary that a portion of Supply should be taken, otherwise it is impossible to pass the Mutiny Act. But that is not all; for every Friday, which is one of the two days at the disposal of the Government, a Motion is made "that this House at its rising adjourn to Monday." That Motion affords weekly an opportunity not indeed of moving a specific Amendment, but of discussing every description of subject, introduced without the slightest order or regularity, or without the possibility of any Minister speaking more than once in answer to numerous interpellations which may be addressed to each of them. Recently Thursday has been taken as a Government day instead of Friday, and the discussions upon the Motion for adjournment on Friday are not now taken out of the time allotted to Government business. So far as the promotion of public business is concerned, that is a very considerable improvement. But in the early part of the Session the Government are limited to two days in the week, and for public business of the character of legislation there is little or no time before Easter, from the necessity of obtaining Supply, and the difficulty of entering upon the consideration of Supply. I hope it will not be supposed that in alluding to the practice of the House of Commons I conceive myself entitled, or that
  2134
  your Lordships are entitled, to pass an opinion upon the mode in which the House of Commons transact their own business, or that such an opinion would carry any weight with it. Undoubtedly it is the function of the House of Commons to carry on their own business in their own way. What I want to show is that this is a state of things which the House of Commons have made many attempts to amend. It is to be regarded not as an exceptional state of things, but as one that does and may affect every Session of Parliament. I do not mean to say that there may not have been some additional delay in the present Session, owing to the introduction, at an unusually early period, of a Budget of an ambitious and complicated character, simultaneously with the introduction of a Commercial Treaty which led to much discussion and difference of opinion, and simultaneously also with the introduction of a Reform Bill, which occupied a great deal of the time of the House—upon which, however, I am not going to say a single word. The House of Commons, then, having one stage more for every Bill than your Lordships, and originating a greater number of Bills, the Government having only two days for the conduct of the Government business, those two days being greatly occupied by Motions in Supply, and those Motions being liable to interruption and great delay from the introduction of other subjects, the time for legislation at their disposal may be regarded as almost nil, and the result is that the number of Bills which received the Royal Assent before the end of July is comparatively small. From the year 1848 to 1860, but not including this year, the average number of Bills that received the Royal Assent up to the end of July for each year was 61, while the average number that received the Royal Assent from the end of July up to the end of August was also 61. That is to say, the number of Bills passed in a month when there is a very small number of Members of either House in attendance is equal on an average of years to the number that received the Royal Assent in all the five preceding months of the Session. My Lords, I have before me a precise state of the business of the House as it was this morning. Your Lordships have gone through some measures this evening, and so far it will not be correct at the present moment; but this morning there were 5 Bills standing for a third reading, 8 for Committee, (2 of

  2135
  which are referred to a Select Committee), 9 for a second reading the day for which is fixed, and 16 are waiting for a second reading for which no day is fixed—including 3 Bills which originated here, and appear likely also to terminate their existence in this House. The total number of Bills now on the table of your Lordships' House is 43; but even with regard to these 43 Bills, 15 or 16 of which came up on Monday, and 5 or 6 to-day, there are comparatively few which are of great importance. Now, there is, as I said before, a large number of Bills which your Lordships have not the power of originating. So far, however, as your power in that respect extends, you have not neglected the public business in the course of the present Session; for I find that you have sent down to the House of Commons 22 or 23 Bills, many of which are very important, including 7 relating to the Consolidation of the Criminal Law, which received your assent at an early period of the Session, and to whose consideration much industry and professional knowledge was applied. In addition to these, you passed a Bill for the regulation of the Divorce Court, the Indictable Offences Bill, the Companies Bill, a Bill for the Union of Benefices, another on the subject of Church Temporalities, the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries Bill, the Bill relating to Endowed Charities, and a great number of other important measures. It must, however, be admitted, when we come to take notice of the progress which these measures have made in the House of Commons, that the position which they occupy on its Votes is not such as to encourage us to originate Bills in this House; for having examined the Votes of the House of Commons, I find that not one of the Bills which you have sent thither—the course of three of them, I may observe, I have been unable to trace—has yet passed through Committee. Ten of them are awaiting that stage, having passed a second reading, while there are nine which have not been successful in making even so rapid a progress, and have not passed the preliminary stage of the second reading. Consequently, under these circumstances, I am very much afraid that the time which your Lordships have given to the consideration of these Bills will have been, so far as the present Session is concerned, absolutely thrown away. I now come to deal with the state of business generally as it stands in the House of Commons, and that, I find, presents by no
  2136
  means a satisfactory aspect. There were in that House this morning only three Bills awaiting a third reading; eight awaited consideration, having been amended in Committee; while there were no less than 41 set down for Committee, including 10 which were sent down from this House; 25, including nine others sent down by your Lordships, stand for second reading; and, over and above this mass of business, there are, on the Votes of the other House, no less than six notices of Motion for leave to bring in Bills, which have yet to go through all their stages. Among these are the Militia Ballot Expenses Bill, the Medical Relief Bill, the Volunteers (Ireland) Bill, the India Civil Service Appointments Bill, and the East India Judicature Bill, some of which are Government measures. But more than this, there are financial proposals, in respect of which it will be necessary that the House of Commons should go into Committee and pass Resolutions to form the groundwork of Bills, which Bills will then have to pass through their several stages in the House of Commons, and go through your Lordships' House, before the Appropriation Bill can be introduced. This, I think you will agree with me, is no small amount of work to have to accomplish; especially when I tell you that this morning that huge impediment, the Bankruptcy Bill, consisting of 500 and odd clauses, stood at the head of the List—a Bill which the Attorney General, like another Sisyphus, is endeavouring to roll up the Parliamentary hill, but which no sooner reaches the top than it comes down again with far greater rapidity than it ascended. I said this Bill stood at the head of the list in the House of Commons this morning; but I believe it does so no more, for, if I am not misinformed, among the other painful sacrifices which Her Majesty's Ministers have been obliged to make, is the abandonment of the Bankruptcy Bill, with its 500 and odd clauses. It remains for the unfortunate Sisyphus to recommence rolling the Bill up-hill next Session. But there yet remain the Highways Bill, the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, which is an important measure and must receive considerable discussion, and the European Forces in India Bill—one of the most important and difficult measures with which the Government is called upon to deal—besides the Poor-Law Board Continuance Bill, the Bills relating to the tenure of land in Ireland, the London Corporation Bill—which, to

  2137
  my certain knowledge, has been for some years on the Votes of the House of Commons—the Roman Catholic Charities Bill, another very important Bill which Parliament is all but pledged to pass this year—making, together with several other measures which I need not more particularly mention, but many of which are of considerable importance, 77 Bills in the other House of Parliament, in various stages, from which if I deduct the 19 Bills to which I have already alluded as having passed your Lordships' House, there will be left 58, none of which, or very few of which have yet gone through Committee—and all are awaiting the remaining stages in the House of Commons previous to coming up to your Lordships' House—and this at the end of the month of July! I have, however, in the observations which I have made given your Lordships but a very feeble picture of the embarrassment of the Government in regard to the business of the country. I say this, because I have been informed by a right hon. Gentleman who is likely to know, that according to the best calculation that can be made eight or nine nights more will be required to get through the Votes in Supply which still remain to be passed. Now, when you take into account the fact that the Government have only two, or at the utmost, three nights in each week at their disposal, I ask you what prospect there is at this period of the Session that the 58 Bills which I have mentioned will receive that consideration to which they are entitled, and without receiving which it would reflect no credit on Parliament that they should be allowed to pass into a law. And what, let me ask, is likely to be the result of this state of things? Why that, with perhaps a few insignificant exceptions, measures on the expediency of which the opinion of the country has been clearly pronounced, the main principles of which met with almost universal approval, and which it is most important should be settled, will fall to the ground, a sacrifice to that general massacre which usually takes place about this time of the year, and which this year will, I have no doubt, be as extensive as any former anniversary. So that legislation will have been absolutely brought to a standstill, and but little or nothing will have been accomplished in that direction during a Session which has already lasted six months, and which will not, in all probability, terminate for a month or six weeks to come. Now this, my Lords, is a sub-
  2138
  ject which, in my opinion, will press itself upon your attention more and more, year after year, and if for the evils which it involves no remedy can be provided, the result must be that Parliament will be placed in a position neither creditable to itself nor useful to the nation. Surrounding circumstances have in the present Session been favourable to legislation. The Thames has this summer been more inoffensive than has of late been its wont. The temperature has been such as to enable the Members of the House of Commons to go through their senatorial labours without the feeling of absolute exhaustion. But, with all these incentives to work, it is too much to suppose that a large number of the independent Members of that House could go through six additional weeks of slavery, sitting from ten to fourteen hours a-day. And, if men could be found to accomplish so great a task, I feel certain that the physical prostration consequent on the exertion is not the means by which they would be best fitted to give due consideration to details of the measures brought under their notice; which, under such circumstances, there would be a tendency to slur over, so as to get rid of measures themselves, with the view of sending them up as speedily as possible to your Lordships' House. Such, my Lords, being the evils with which we have to contend, where are we to find for them a palliation or a remedy? Great benefit, it must be admitted, has been conferred by the operation of the Resolution of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, in accordance with which your Lordships will not, after a certain day, undertake the responsibility of dealing with a measure which it is impossible for you—owing to the time at which it is laid before you—to consider satisfactorily. In former years, Bills which were postponed until a late period of the Session were frequently passed with extravagant haste, and without the least consideration. I find that in one year—Parliament having been prorogued on the 5th of September—37 Bills received the Royal Assent in that month, and 61 in the August immediately preceding, while only 27 received the Royal Assent before the end of July of the same year. That perhaps was an extreme case. I also find that in 1853 only 40 Bills received the Royal Assent before the end of July, while in the following August 97 were added to the legislation of the country. It is impossible that these measures could have received

  2139
  the attention due to every Bill which passes your Lordships' House. The consequence of such a system is, that year after year we are called on to pass Acts for the purpose of amending mistakes, whether of this or of the other House, which have been committed from the great haste and necessary carelessness with which these Bills have been passed. Some twelve years ago I called your Lordships' attention to this subject, and I at that time proposed a measure to which I had the satisfaction of obtaining your Lordships' concurrence, for enabling the House of Lords, and, vice versâ, the House of Commons, to take up at the commencement of the next Session, under the particular circumstances, the Bills which should make their appearance as remanets from the Session before. I am perfectly satisfied that in one mode or other, if we desire to obviate the evils of the present system, we must come to some understanding by which the principle embodied in that Bill shall be adopted. The measure received very general concurrence on the part of your Lordships. I am afraid I must make one illustrious exception in the person of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, who opposed alike its principle and details. The noble Lord on the woolsack, I recollect, was favourable to the plan proposed in the Bill, but objected to its being introduced into an Act of Parliament, and suggested that the same object might be effected by Resolutions of the two Houses. Now, I am not on the present occasion about to make any distinct proposition to your Lordships. I have desired to call your Lordships' attention to the state of public business at the present moment, and to the absolute necessity there will be of sacrificing a great portion of the Bills now standing on the paper, and thereby rendering useless the labours of this and of the other House of Parliament. And more especially I would say that it is a matter for the sincerest regret that those measures for the consolidation of the criminal law which were sent down from this House, as to which all parties were agreed, have been left, I know not why, except from the great press of other business, to so late a period of the Session that there is little probability of their passing the House of Commons, notwithstanding that but slight or no opposition is made to them. But if an illustration be needed of the importance of our being able to carry on legislation from one Session to another, I
  2140
  cannot have a better example than is afforded by the Bankruptcy Bill. That was a measure with regard to which probably a much larger number of Members in proportion to those who attend in your Lordships' House than in the House of Commons were fully informed and competent to decide. The 550 clauses of that Bill ought to have been elaborately discussed in both Houses; but after two or three nights in Committee, and before half its provisions have been gone through in the House of Commons, it is found absolutely necessary, I understand, to abandon the Bill, and all the labour bestowed upon it has been consequently lost. But, supposing that Bill had come up to us in the month of August, what would have been the alternative placed before us? We should have been called on to abandon and throw over altogether this very material alteration, and I hope very great amendment, in the commercial law and practice of this country; or else to pass on credit, and without due consideration, a Bill of 500 clauses, on a subject as to which a very large number of those in your Lordships' House are peculiarly qualified to judge and to give sound opinions. I take that as an example of the position in which we should have been placed if this Bill, which unfortunately has not received the sanction of the House of Commons, had been sent up to your Lordships. I ask what can be a course more prudent than that a Bill which has been passed by the Lower House, and the principle of which has received the sanction of your Lordships, should he left over for the consideration of its details to the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, when we know that a general complaint is made at the commencement of every Session that we have little or no business before us, and that in the interval Bills which have passed the House of Commons will be submitted to examination and criticism by the public generally, so that your Lordships in approaching the consideration of these measures will have the opportunity of knowing not only the opinions put forward in the other House, but the view taken by the public of their principles and details. The House of Commons might then receive the Bill as an amended one from this House. That appears to me the plain and obvious solution of the difficulty. Of course, such a plan could only be carried out with the sanction and concurrence of the House of Commons, in such cases as they were

  2141
  satisfied in the next Session to accept the decision of the House of Lords as Amendments to their Bill, instead of beginning over again from the beginning and carrying it through all the different stages, by which so much time was previously lost. An arrangement of this nature would afford the two Houses the amplest means of deliberation, while the public would obtain the benefit of well-considered instead of hasty and ill-considered legislation. Of course it would be perfectly competent to the other or to either House of Parliament to decline taking those amendments into consideration, and to drop the Bill if they thought fit to do so; but I am quite sure the business of the House would be much facilitated and the interests of the country greatly advanced by any agreement come to between the two Houses for the purpose of carrying into effect the principle, at all events, which I have stated to your Lordships, and to which I endeavoured twelve years ago to obtain the sanction of Parliament. It is said the effect of this will be to encourage attempts at legislation—that persons will bring forward Bills hoping, though they may not pass in one Session, that ultimately they may become law. For my part, I cannot help thinking that, although it might afford encouragement to the introduction of measures, it would at the same time afford the best means of giving to those measures, when they were introduced, the fullest and most impartial consideration. Moreover, there is at present great temptation in the House of Commons to the promoters of Bills to hurry them forward, in order that they may be brought under the consideration of this House within the time limited by your Lordships' Resolution. On the other hand, there is equal temptation to the opponents of Bills, however valuable and important they may be, to interpose unnecessary obstructions by way of delay, and delay only, with the security that if they can only postpone the passing of the Bill till after the period fixed by your Lordships' Resolution it will be altogether lost. Now, I do not consider in ordinary cases that such is a fair mode of opposition to measures in the other House of Parliament; and I am quite sure a great motive for that kind of resistance would be taken away if the persons resorting to it were aware that even if they succeeded in protracting the passing of a Bill beyond a particular time it would not have the effect of destroying it altogether and of rendering
  2142
  it necessary to begin next year all over again, but would only cause the postponement of its consideration to another Session, when the other House would be able to deal with it as it thought fit. I do not pretend to point out to your Lordships the mode in which the object to which I have directed attention is best to be attained, but I think you will be satisfied that the present state of legislation is not satisfactory to this House, to the other House, nor to the country; that many and very valuable measures which well deserve to pass are lost, that much valuable time is sacrificed in either House, and that with regard to the legislation which does take place, a great portion of it is of necessity so hasty and inconsiderate as to require very early and frequent amendment. My Lords, all these things are of constant annual recurrence; and according to the mode in which business is conducted, I see no hope that they will not continue to be of annual recurrence. I know no possible mode of counteracting the evil effect of this waste of the greater part of the Session, save by enabling measures to be postponed from July to February, as they may now be postponed from February to July, and as they are sometimes deferred by a prorogation or even by a dissolution of Parliament. I think I am not mistaken when I say that after the dissolution of 1859, this House, at all events, passed a Resolution declaring that private Bills which had reached a certain stage should be allowed, when the new Parliament assembled, to be resumed at the point at which they had been left at the dissolution. I do not propose that the arrangement I have suggested should apply to the case of a dissolution; because a dissolution alters the constitution of the House of Commons which agreed to the Bill, and consequently the subsequent House may refuse to receive as mere amendments alterations in the measure passed by their predecessors. But with regard to prorogation, I cannot see any reasonable ground why the same power should not exist of postponing a Bill over a prorogation that may be applied indefinitely to the adjournment of Parliament, even although that adjournment may be from February to July. There are various modes in which this object may be effected. The mode adopted in 1848, which received the general concurrence of your Lordships, was the framing of an Act enabling both Houses to take the course which I have described. It

  2143
  was not thought expedient, however, in the House of Commons, to press the consideration of that Act, which accordingly fell to the ground, and the question has not since been renewed. Another mode has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—namely, that the two Houses should simultaneously appoint Committees which might be placed in communication with each other, and on their separate Reports, corresponding with each other, Resolutions might be founded which would accomplish the desired object. I do not know whether any advantage would be derived in this case from a conference between the two Houses; the instances, at all events, are very rare in which a question has been referred to a joint Committee; but in some one of these modes I do think it most important that the opinion of both Houses should be taken, and that means should be discovered of remedying what everybody admits to be a great grievance and a great inconvenience. I do not undertake to suggest to your Lordships which of these modes would be the preferable course. On the contrary, I think it is a matter which had much better be left to the Government; and on consultation with their colleagues in the other House, they will propose such a measure as they on their responsibility shall think fit. I do not therefore intend to trespass further on your Lordships' indulgence than to lay before you the statement which I have made as to the state of bublic business, and the nature of the only remedy which I believe can be successful. If it be convenient to the House, for the sake of regularity, I shall move that a Committee be appointed to consider this question, of course without the slightest intention of pressing that Motion. I hope my noble Friend the President of the Council, who I presume will follow me, will not satisfy himself with saying in his usual courteous manner, that he is sure the House and the Government are much indebted to the noble Earl opposite for the pains which he has taken in making himself master of this subject, and for the very clear exposition which he has given of the difficulties of the case; and that he could assure the noble Earl that he concurs with him in thinking the subject one of very deep importance, and that it shall receive the very best consideration of the Government. Of course, I do not expect any specific plan from my noble Friend to-night, but I hope to obtain
  2144
  from him something more definite than the courteous answer which I have heard from him on more than one occasion. I hope he will give us some intimation of the view which the Government take of this question, and that he will be able to say whether or not his colleagues are of opinion that any legislation or any Resolution, or any other course by which an agreement might be come to by both Houses, is likely to meet with acceptance, or would in their opinion be a mode of diminishing if not altogether doing away with the inconvenience which both Houses, and your Lordships' House in particular, must feel in being called on either to reject Bills passed by the other House and thus to render it necessary to begin again with them next Session de novo, with probably as little chance of success, or else to pass them without giving them that consideration which it is due to your character and the interest of the country you should give before affixing your sanction to any legislative measure. The noble Earl then concluded with his Motion.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and consider the best mode of carrying on the Parliamentary Business.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Notwithstanding the pleasant sally of the noble Earl, I must say that I think your Lordships, and indeed, both Houses of Parliament, are much indebted to him for having brought the subject under our notice, and further, notwithstanding his protest, that I think he has made a most clear statement of the evils which exist. The House will agree with me, too, that the noble Earl has amply redeemed the pledge which he gave the other night that he intended to treat the question entirely as one of public importance and divested of any party spirit. I am free to admit that there are circumstances this year, though as far as the Government is concerned a satisfactory explanation of them might be given, which a leader of the Opposition might be tempted to make use of in a party spirit. There is no doubt as to the existence of the evil, though I think there is something to be said on the other side. The noble Earl has said that somewhere about 150 Bills had been, or would be, brought under the consideration of Parliament this Session. I am not altogether clear whether it is desirable that that number of Bills should be passed every Session; but, on the other hand, there is no doubt that the present difficulties of legislation do prevent useful

  2145
  measures being passed, for no other reason but the accumulation of business in the other House of Parliament. This is not a new evil. The noble Earl himself says he called attention to it twelve years ago for the purpose of remedying it; and I remember hearing both Lord Aberdeen and Lord Lansdowne say that they had heard similar complaints, more or less loud, during the whole of their official existence of nearly fifty years. At the same time it must be admitted that the evil is rather on the increase than the decrease, and this year it has been so great as to be a hindrance to the passing of useful and necessary measures through the other House. But when after considering the evil they came to consider the remedy, the matter became more difficult. The noble Earl has alluded to one remedy which we have attempted to apply as one means of mitigating the evil—namely the Resolution which we pass annually, fixing a certain day after which we will not read a Bill a second time. I may remark that that Resolution has been pointed to elsewhere as a hindrance to legislation, and I have often thought that it was a Resolution which might fairly be questioned. It was agreed to by your Lordships, however, for your own defence, and as far as I can form an opinion, if acted upon with a certain elasticity, it works usefully, and has not a disadvantageous effect on the legislation of the other House. With regard to the other remedy proposed by the noble Earl—the suspending of Bills at a certain stage, so as to make it possible to take them up in another Session—it is a most important question, and one to which, so far as your Lordships are concerned, you have given your assent by passing the Bill of the noble Earl some years ago. Constitutional objections may be urged to it, I believe; but, not having perhaps thoroughly considered the subject, I cannot see the force of them. With regard to private Bills, where both Houses act more as courts of justice than legislative bodies, it is an immense hardship on parties, when they have gone to a considerable expense in promoting a Bill, and have got to a certain stage, their further progress is stopped, by some public object, all the money they have spent is sacrificed, and they are obliged to commence again in another Session. A question was raised as to the principle here involved in the case of the impeachment of Warren Hastings. If I remember rightly the lawyers raised an objection that the im-
  2146
  peachment had abated in consequence of a dissolution. I do not know that they were not right, but they were laughed out of it by Burke, who said that "though they might be competent to understand the gestation of a mouse they were not competent to understand the gestation of an elephant." This shows, however, that a constitutional objection might be raised. At the same time, there is no doubt that any general change in the principle of our legislation is one which requires the greatest possible care. The noble Earl said, he hoped he should receive not a vague but a clear and definite answer. Well, I am ready to inform him that I have communicated with my Colleagues in the other House several times on the subject, but in the present pressure of business the Government have not found it possible to bestow that attention to the subject which it is necessary to give before committing themselves to any definite plan. During the recess the subject shall receive full consideration, and if it appears likely that any satisfactory result would be obtained I think it would be most desirable that some inquiry should be instituted in order to arrive unanimously, if possible, at some plan which would be of assistance to the progress of legislation. With regard to the mode of doing it, the noble Earl has suggested a Joint Committee. I believe there has not been a Joint Committee of both Houses for 200 years, but it is quite competent to both Houses to appoint a Joint Committee. I believe the objection which led to their ceasing came from your Lordships. You objected that the House of Commons would not take off their hats, as at a conference, and you also objected to their claim to have a double number of Members. If a Joint Committee were not appointed, the other plan of the noble Earl might be adopted—two separate Committees to consider the question, authorized to communicate with each other. These, however, are matters of detail, which may be considered during the recess. I do not propose to take any action this year. Among other reasons, besides the lateness of the Session, it is quite clear that it is not the best moment to choose to propose a joint action on any subject of this kind, when questions have arisen between the two Houses with regard to which a certain number of Members of the other House feel a soreness at an unusual proceeding of your Lordships. It is obvious that, whatever measure is adopted, it should be as nearly

  2147
  as possible unanimously adopted by both Houses.
  LORD BROUGHAMconcurred with the Lord President in thanking the noble Earl for the clear, useful, and (to coin a new word to describe a novelty) "unparty" statement which he had made on this subject. It was the duty of Parliament, without more delay than was absolutely necessary, to endeavour to apply a remedy to this evil; but circumstances had recently occurred which rendered it expedient that immediate action should not be taken. The course which he would recommend would be a Joint Committee, and in whatever way that Committee was composed—whether or not the Commons had an equal number—he trusted that they would act in the impartial spirit of jurymen, and that they would not be found to give their votes in two divisions, one of the Lords and the other of the Commons, so as to bring matters to a standstill, but that the important subject committed to them should be fairly and calmly discussed, with a view of arriving at some practical and useful result, as their Lordships were aware it had been proclaimed that Parliamentary Government was on its trial, and never, till the present Session, in the opinion of foreign countries, had it shown itself so incompetent for the discharge of its functions. People elsewhere thought that only one mode of free Government was tolerable, and it was one which we deemed intolerable—namely, universal suffrage. Universal suffrage meant Government by the mob, armed and unarmed, and a dictator presiding over that multitude. That was the form which was supposed elsewhere to be the perfection of free Government, and which was set up in contrast to Parliamentary Government. His belief was that our Parliamentary Government, with all its faults, was infinitely preferable to anything of that description. Universal suffrage was unlimited despotism—Parliamentary Government was free and inferred the capacity of improvement. He believed that either by Standing Orders of both Houses, or by Act of Parliament, or by some other measure resulting from the action of a Joint Committee, the greater part of the mischief could be greatly mi Li-gated, if not wholly remedied. The Motion on Fridays in the other House, that upon its rising it adjourn to Monday, gave rise to endless debates, to the exclusion of every other subject, and to the postponement and defeat of most important measures. It was a most mischievous practice,
  2148
  which had been introduced only in recent times, and could be remedied at once by a Standing Order. He would not enter further into the proceedings of the other House, for which he entertained the greatest possible respect, and for that particular proceeding he entertained all the respect which was possible. He believed that much might be done without any Act of Parliament, by Orders and Resolutions of the two Houses, backed by that without which all Orders and Resolutions would prove of no avail—namely, a firm determination on the part of the leaders in Parliament to carry the Resolutions which had been framed into effect.
  LORD REDESDALEagreed with the noble Earl, the President of the Council, that they should be very cautious in altering their proceedings, as they had been found, upon the whole, to work well; and they were not sure they could make them work better. The question could not be fairly judged by particular cases. The noble Earl had instanced that of the Bankruptcy Bill, which was of enormous length, and was entirely unconnected with party, as affording a strong support to his argument. But let them take, on the other hand, the Reform Bill. It was necessary for the promoters of it to per severe to a certain degree, on account of its importance, although it did not meet with general approbation; and the conviction that it could not get through both Houses in the Session, afforded a just and useful excuse for its withdrawal. But if the Government could have carried it through the House of Commons, and then passed it up to this House for discussion in the ensuing Session, would not a great deal more pressure have been put upon the Government not to drop it; and would that not have led to a greater consumption of time than had already taken place upon it, to the exclusion of other business? And, he would ask, could anything be more mischievous than to hang up a Bill of that character during the recess, or could a stronger proof be afforded that such a practice would lead to the ultimate adoption of bad measures, and especially on matters of the greatest importance on which there was much difference of opinion? He was not one who thought that they legislated too little. He thought that, upon the whole, there was as much legislation as was desirable for the country, and in some years a great deal too much. He thought it an advantage that this Bankruptcy Bill of 500

  2149
  clauses should stand over for another year, and be considered in the interval in all its bearings, and divided into two Bills. In some Sessions a great deal of business was done, because the measures had been previously considered. That was the case in 1845. Perhaps no public measure caused much greater excitement than the Maynooth Act. It was introduced early, and occupied a great deal of time; but while it was under discussion both Houses passed the Companies Clauses Act, of 165 clauses, and a Scotch Act equally as long; the Lands Clauses Act, of 153 clauses, and a Scotch Act of about as many; and the Railway Clauses Act, of 165 clauses, at an early period of the Session. Most of these measures were the result of previous experience; and on account of that experience, and the conviction that some general legislation was desirable, they were passed with due attention and great expedition, notwithstanding their minuteness of detail, their extreme length, and the manner in which they affected the interests of private individuals. In the same Session they passed the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, with 92 clauses, a new system of Customs regulations, embodied in a Bill of 163 clauses, a Bill for the registration of British vessels, and other measures; and in the same Session the Enclosure Commission Bill was introduced, which contained 169 clauses. It showed that there was great power of legislation in Parliament, if there was a disposition to use it; and he believed the failure of Bills was, in a great degree, owing to doubts arising as to their soundness, and to the unwillingness, therefore, of Parliament to entertain them. But, supposing any remedy were desirable, this was not the House in which a change was necessary. With regard to any amount of business which they were called upon to do, they were always ready to do it; and, if the other House were to adopt a little more the practice of this House in the manner of conducting its proceedings, he believed that the business would be carried on in a much more rapid and satisfactory manner. He did not say that he wished the other House should in the present Session enter upon a discussion of the subject, because it would only occupy one or more of those nights, which were already too few for the measures which must pass. If what had been proposed by the noble Earl was the proper remedy, it could be effected in the other House by an
  2150
  Order. For example, supposing the Bankruptcy Bill had passed the House of Commons, they could, if they chose, send it up to this House next Session, without commencing de novo. It was not for their Lordships to inquire whether it had been read a first, second, or third time; or whether two or more of these stages had been omitted, or even if, after a single debate, it had been sent up in the same shape in which it passed in the Session preceding. Such a mode of treating measures was not necessary in their Lordships' House, because they could find enough time to consider every measure; but if such a remedy in the other House were necessary, that course might be adopted, and perhaps limited to Bills of great length, and of a particular character. With regard to legislation generally, he was of opinion that there was often an advantage in a Bill being lost for want of time, and that the proper control of Parliament would be perilled, if the Government had the power to suspend Bills, and take them up again in the next Session. He trusted that great reluctance would be shown to depart from that principle upon which the legislation of the country had been so long and satisfactorily conducted by both Houses of Parliament.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that, although he took a great interest in this subject, and had devoted a considerable degree of attention to it, he would content himself with thanking the noble Earl for calling attention to the subject and for the manner in which he had brought it under the notice of their Lordships. He did not agree with his noble Friend who had just spoken in thinking that no improvement could be effected in the present mode of transacting the business of Parliament. He believed that their mode of legislation was capable of amendment; but he refrained from going into any details at that moment. He would be happy to use his best exertions to bring forward a measure on the subject, with the assistance of his colleagues, and he hoped with the support of the noble Earl, than whom no one was more capable of giving advice on the subject.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half past Ten o'clock.