Sitting of 24 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Senior Member of Council (India); Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment; Admiralty Jurisdiction (India); Infants' Marriage Act Amendment.
2° Votes at Elections.
3° Turnpike Acts Continuance; Maynooth College; Weights and Measures (Ireland); Bank of Ireland (No. 2); Police and Towns Improvement (Scotland) Act Amendment; Stipendiary Magistrates.

POOR LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (The Poor Law Board to be continued for Five Years).
MR. BAZLEYmoved that the powers

89
of the Board be continued for one year only instead of five. In doing so, he bore his testimony to the benefits which the Board had conferred on the country, but he did not consider it right that the Board should possess powers which properly should only belong to that House. The power of issuing regulations and orders which had the force of law, no matter how respectable the gentleman who exercised it, was to his mind most objectionable, and he protested against the delegation of such powers to any body whatever. A short time since the Board was renewed for two years, and he thought that a renewal for one year was all that could now be fairly asked. The Poor Law Board at present exercised a very vexatious interference with local boards throughout the country, the latter being unable to employ or dismiss a servant, to grant fees or expenses, or do many other things of that kind without the sanction of the central Board, and in consequence gentlemen with sensitive feelings shrunk from accepting seats at them. At a time when so much was done to centralize, it would be well to do something to foster and sustain local authority. He only asked for a delay of one year in order that time might be given for the introduction of a wise and comprehensive measure on the subject of Poor Law administration in general. He did not wish to see the Poor Law Board abolished, but only its powers properly regulated. There were various matters which might be very well left at the discretion of the local boards in respect of out-door relief. There was also a great grievance, which he hoped to see redressed in a future measure, namely, the removal of the unfortunate Irish poor. They came over and rendered most valuable services here, and, nevertheless, after having given the best proof of having done their duty faithfully, they were often treated in the most cruel and unfeeling manner. He would also wish to see power given to the Boards of Guardians to borrow money on the security of the rates for one or two years. He submitted that the duty of the Poor Law Board should be one of supervision, and not of coercion, and that it should strengthen rather than weaken the hands of the local boards. For these reasons he should move that the word "one" should be substituted for "five" in the first clause.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the object of the Poor Law Act was to regulate
90
the local management of the relief of the poor, to prevent misappropriation of funds, and, as far as possible, to produce uniformity. The feelings of Boards of Guardians to which the hon. Gentleman referred existed, he believed, only in certain localities, and he did not think there was any general desire to do away with the central management of the Poor Law Board. The object of the hon. Gentleman was, he said, to secure for this question at some future period the full consideration of Parliament, with a view to providing remedies for the evils complained of. He had no doubt that the House would be ready to inquire into the question, and give it its full consideration; but it was not necessary to restrict the Bill to one year only in order to procure for the subject the serious consideration of Parliament. The existence of the Board did not prevent the law from being altered. The effect of continuing the Bill for one year only would be to aggravate any disagreements that might have arisen between the Poor Law Board and local Boards; and it would be better to put an end to the Poor Law Board at once than to adopt such a proposition. The old system which prevailed before 1834 was, as they all knew, full of practical abuses, and the system which had been established in lieu of it had become absolutely necessary not only as a protection to the poor, but to the ratepayers. The hon. Gentleman complained of the regulations which directed the outlay of the Boards of Guardians; but it was absolutely necessary to lay down rules for the management of the money of the ratepayers. If, for example, a Board of Guardians were allowed to give 5s. in the way of charity, just as a private gentleman might do, how would it be possible to provide a check upon such expenditure? If they attempted to administer the funds for the relief of the poor in the same way as a private gentleman might exercise Christian charity, he was afraid that they would fall back to the miserable state of things that existed prior to 1834. There were many points to which he should wish to see the attention of the House directed—such as the question of the dismissal of officers, the arrangements of the poor-houses, the separation of the good and the bad, the treatment of persons belonging to different religious denominations, &c. These and other matters ought to be subjected to special investigation; and what he would recommend was—not that they should pass a clause that would paralyze the officials—

91
that at the commencement of next Ses ion a Committee of the House should be appointed to make the necessary inquiries regarding them. He felt so strongly on the subject that, if the Government or some private Member of the House did not move upon the question, he would himself next Session propose the appointment of a Committee. He was in favour of a permanent Central "Board for the management of the affairs of the poor, but he had no doubt that improvements were called for, and he would be prepared to adopt such as were shown on inquiry to be necessary.
MR. PIGOTTsaid, he was not inclined to support the Amendment, but he thought there were many points in the administration of the Poor Law which required amendment. "With regard to medical relief especially did this observation apply. The grievances of the medical officers had been acknowledged by several successive Commissioners, but nothing had been done to improve the condition of those officers, except that their appointments were made permanent. He thought that the time had come when an inquiry should be made into the working of the Board, and he hoped the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that a Select Committee should be appointed next year, would be adopted.
MR. DEEDESthought that to pass the Bill only for one year would unsettle matters so much as to be productive of evil, and would prevent any ultimate good being done. On the other hand, he was not prepared to assent to the proposition for continuing the Board for five years. Five years was too long, especially if it was to be coupled with the intention of considering the question with a view to its ultimate settlement. If the Bill were passed for five years all inquiry would be shelved, and he would therefore suggest that the intermediate period of three years should be selected, on the understanding that a full inquiry was to take place.
LORD FERMOYwould be disposed to recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Bazley) to withdraw his Amendment were it not that the professions of hon. Gentlemen in the House were so very different from their conduct out of it. Therefore, unless they received a distinct pledge from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) that a Select Committee of Inquiry should be appointed next Session, he should support his hon. Friend, and would recommend him to go to a division. There was great
92
dissatisfaction with the working of the Poor Law Board throughout the country.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, it was worthy of observation that no attack had been made on the central authority of the Poor Law Board. The right hon. Member for North Wilts (Mr. S. Estcourt) pointed out certain modifications that he thought should be taken into consideration, and he urged the appointment of a Committee; but he brought no accusation against the central authority. Some Members talked as if the House were ignorant of the working of the Poor Law Board. But in 1854 the Commissioners of the Treasury made inquiry, and gave in a most elaborate Report on the constitution, the organization, and working of the Poor Law Board; and if they wanted other information they would find it in a huge blue-book, which gave the fullest details of the working of the Poor Law since 1834. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone talked of the Poor Law Board being disapproved by the country; but how stood the fact? Out of 644 unions only 100 had petitioned against the Poor Law Board, and 40 of these only prayed for modifications such as those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts. He believed that many of the petitions had been got up in London entirely on a sectarian ground, having reference to the admission of Roman Catholic Chaplains to the workhouses. The effect of carrying the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester would be to strike a blow at the central authority. The Boards of Guardians were represented as opposed to all supervision; but it was, nevertheless, an undoubted fact that the Act of 1834, which introduced the system of supervision by a central authority, had saved the property of this country, and redounded to the credit of the Administration that carried it. Yet it was wished rashly to put down that central authority. He hoped his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board would not consent to limit the Bill to three years, as the effect would be to cut the throat of his own Board, the administration of which, under all Governments, had been excellent. Comparing the expenditure for the relief of the poor in the twenty years preceding the Act of 1834 with that for the twenty years subsequent a saving of £33,000,000 had been effected to the property of the country, and the Saving in law expenses alone had been upwards of £150,000 a year.
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, the arguments of the hon. Member for Liskeard, ought to lead him to propose that the Bill should be permanent; for, if the working of the Poor Law system was so perfect, why limit the Bill to five years r The hon. Member said the petitions got up in London against the Board were based chiefly on sectarian grounds; but he (Mr. Duncombe) had presented petitions from the large parishes of Islington, Clerkenwell, and St. Luke's, none of which were grounded on sectarian principles, but were all in favour of the continuance of the Bill for one year only. They wished this because they were in favour of inquiry into the manner in which the Poor Law had worked, and they knew that if the Bill was continued for live years no inquiry would take place. There had been no inquiry into the general working of the Poor Law since 1834. All the inquiries that had taken place referred only incidentally to the system, being directed to mere questions of detail. He, therefore, thought the time had arrived when a general inquiry should take place.
MR. DODSONthought the effect of continuing the Bill only for one year would be greatly to impair the influence of the Poor Law Board. The supervision of the Central Board had been beneficial to the ratepayers as well as to the poor; and if it were destroyed, what would take its place? If they were not to have the present Poor Law Board, were they to go back to the state of things that existed prior to 1834? The hon. Member for Manchester was unfortunate in the time he had selected for his Motion. A Committee of that House had been appointed to inquire into the law affecting the irremovable poor; and no doubt the Central Board would have to carry out any changes which that Committee might recommend. But his Amendment would interfere with such a course; for if it were carried, the Poor Law Board would stand virtually condemned. He supported the limitation of the clause as it stood; but he trusted they should have from the President of the Poor Law Board a pledge that next Session a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he did not sec how any hon. Gentleman who wished for inquiry, could oppose the Amendment. It seemed to him totally inconsistent, while a system was on trial, to propose a Five Tears' Continuance Bill. The question really at issue was, whether they were to
94
have an inquiry or not. Those who thought there should be no inquiry, because they were convinced the system now worked well, ought to propose to make the Bill perpetual; and those who thought the system worked ill, ought to propose its abolition. To give a long term of continuance to the Bill, would be practically to say that there was to be no inquiry. For himself, he thought inquiry was necessary: and therefore he was in favour of a shorter period than that proposed by the Government.
SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he could not support the proposition of the hon. Member for Manchester; and if the Government would grant an inquiry, he would give his vote for their proposition. The time had come when they should have a full, and not a partial inquiry only, into the operation of the Poor Law, in order to the correction of what might be found amiss. He believed that if local authority was substituted for the central power, the former would for a time be found the cheaper of the two; but in the course of five or six years the old abuses would creep in, and in time the state of things would become as bad as they were before 1834. He held, therefore, that they never could do away with the Central Board.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the object of the Amendment that had been proposed was, without doubt, to discredit and weaken the authority of the Central Board, though it had been introduced, as he was aware, with a profession of goodwill to that authority. He had not addressed the Committee before, from desiring to learn the precise grounds on which this attack on the Poor Law Board was made. The renewal of the Act for the continuance of the Board had been hitherto nearly a matter of form, and nothing had been said yet to justify the departure from that course upon this occasion. Nothing had been alleged to prove any mal-administration by the Board, and no abuses had been proved to have arisen from its existence in the country; and even the Member for Manchester himself, in making his attack, said he was not hostile to the principle of a Central Board. It was idle, moreover, to say that the continuance of the Board offered any obstacle to inquiry concerning the law, or, indeed, the Board itself. There had been constant inquiries into the operation of the law generally, and of every branch of it; there had hardly been any two years without inquiry of some kind in connection with it—inquiries, moreover, that had

95
never been opposed by the Board or the Government. There was an inquiry in 1837, three years after the system had come into operation; again in 1844, 1845 and 1846, twice in 1854; in 1858 and 1859; and even the Board had been reconstituted in consequence of one of those inquiries. In the absence of any practical objection to the Board the House must see that the real issue placed before them was the policy of any central supervision; looking to its origin and the language of some of the petitions, that was really, as he believed, what this movement was intended really to raise. The question was not started, as formerly, by those who represented the poor, or by those whose properties were taxed for their relief; but it was considered in the words of the Member for Manchester, as an obnoxious authority by some of these local administrators of the law who were impatient of the control of the Central Board, and who wanted to return to the old system of local and uncontrolled management, the effects of which in former times, however, were recorded in many volumes in that House, and which, as many Members knew, terminated in a kind of servile insurrection, and which forced upon the Government the great reform that was effected in 1834. The House, then, he was sure would require to be satisfied that if the authority of the Board was to be weakened as it was proposed, that many of the same evils would not recur which existed before. The old argument in favour of local self-government was adduced on these occasions against the Central Board. There was no one more friendly to that system than he was, or would promote it more; but it was easy to draw the line between things that were properly the subject of local government and those that belonged to the State, and he ventured to say that the morals, well-being, and independence of the poor were properly matters of national concern, and that the State had properly interposed its authority to avert the misery, vice, and mischief that followed from what was called the management by every parish of its own poor, which consisted in every parish resorting to every scheme it could devise to keep down the rates, with little regard for either the character or the welfare of the poor; and, though it was popular to hold this language still against the interference of the Board, he trusted the State would never again abandon its duties and rights with regard to the poor; and for this reason be must contend against their
96
being again placed exclusively in the hands of uncertain and irresponsible persons. He proposed the continuance of the national and central authority for a period of five years, because that was the time for which it was at first established, and that this was the period for which it was continued on the last occasion. But one instance had occurred of its being moved for a shorter period—namely, for two years, and that had no reference to the feeling against the Board, but to the peculiar state of the Government then in power; but no inquiry was instituted during those two years, and his lamented predecessor, Mr. Baines, at the expiration of that time moved it again for five years, without a breath of opposition being offered to it. He was now asked if he would resist the appointment of any Committee of Inquiry if the proposed renewal should be agreed to. He had no hesitation in saying that he should oppose no inquiry of the kind; he should, on the contrary, readily support any inquiry into the working of the Board, and he should do so, in perfect confidence that the more the subject was investigated the more it would appear that the central authority was the soul of the whole system, and that its power of control, with the sanction of the whole country, would be confirmed. At the same time he was of opinion that the appointment of such a Committee would throw discredit on the Board, if they should now wantonly and unreasonably refuse the renewal of the Act for the usual period. He believed that there never was less feeling against the Board since it was established. The agitation now was not spontaneous. It had been stimulated in many parts of the country by a certain malcontent union in London, and until after the 2nd of June there was hardly a petition against the Board, and then the one that was sent from London was merely adopted as a matter of form, and at this moment there were hardly 70 unions out of 660 that had petitioned. Though all had received copies of the petition from London, many had openly repudiated that petition, though an urgent request was made to all to adopt it, and in some places where it had been adopted, the Chairman of the Board had resigned in consequence. He believed, as he said before, that the Board never acted so harmoniously with the great majority of the unions as it did at present; and there never was a time when the press, which usually reflected the feeling of the country, was so entirely silent in urging anything against it, or

97
was so favourably disposed to it. He, therefore, with perfect confidence, recommended the continuance of the Bill now, and should cheerfully consent to any inquiry into any practical grievance which could be alleged against it, or required to be reformed next Session.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he had not heard a single attack made on the central Board. The whole extent of the argument in reference to the Board was that in the Administration of Poor Law affairs certain abuses had arisen which required correction. This debate presented an extraordinary phenomenon. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) said the Board was a model of excellence; but it nevertheless had the misfortune to be accused of maladministration by almost every Member who had spoken but himself. Every county Member who had spoken had complained of maladministration, and of the necessity of some alteration taking place in reference to the discharge of officers and the like. The Board was in the habit of issuing edicts, which had the force of Acts of Parliament, and, in some instances, they even went the length of removing the chairman appointed by the local Board. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, he begged to observe, had given no pledge that the Government would of themselves institute an inquiry next Session.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Committee had been reminded of the state of things that existed prior to 1884, when in many parts of the country there had been almost a servile insurrection, and when the effect of the system in operation was, that the poor were degraded, corrupted, and tyrannized over. This was no exaggerated picture of the then state of things, and the consequence was that an almost universal agreement existed in favour of some legislative remedy. In the change which then took place, Parliament very wisely abstained from attempting to lay down detailed rules for the administration of the relief of the poor either in or out of the workhouse. Their object was to give such an elastic power as would gradually produce a change of system, and it merely created a central authority, subject to the control of that House, to make regulations for the guidance of Boards of Guardians, a new representative local body also created by the Act. The consequence was that a struggle occurred wherever the old system was interfered with, vested inter-
98
ests were assailed, and a great revulsion necessarily took place against the change of system, especially in regard to the matter of outdoor relief. By inquiries conducted by a Committee of that House, and also by the prudent attention which the Poor Law Commissioners paid to the state of public opinion, the new system came to be better understood, and was at length fully introduced. Since that time a regular Administration of relief by the Boards of Guardians had been established, and the relief of the able-bodied had been done away with, though there were still large exceptions. Whenever there was sickness in a family, or other exceptional circumstances, the Boards of Guardians had power to give out-door relief, but otherwise no able-bodied man was relieved out of the workhouse. This change had been productive of the greatest advantage to the working classes. The question, however, had now assumed a different aspect. The resistance to the Poor Law Board now did not come from the poor or from those who called themselves the friends of the poor, and were the advocates of what they considered to be a humane system of relief. It was the resistance of local officers, medical officers and others, and Boards of Guardians, who objected to the regulations of the central Board with respect to their administrative proceedings. This was, therefore, an entirely new question. If the Boards of Guardians had power to make regulations in these matters, there would be a different set of rules in every Union, and the machinery of the Poor Law would be thrown into confusion. There was also a question raised respecting medical relief. What the medical authorities desired was that there should be a system of giving medical relief out of the poor rates to persons who were not paupers. What they, in fact wished to do was to set up a kind of medical Established Church, to have a medical endowment diffused over the whole country, of which any person might take advantage. He was ready to admit that the question of power was not always easily settled, and, therefore, it was a fit subject for inquiry before such a Committee as the right hon. Gentleman had recommended. He did not see that any ground had been laid for shortening the continuance of the Bill, as there was no connection between the inquiries of a Committee and the time for which the Bill might be passed No Gentleman had said that it was desirable altogether to

99
abolish the central authority, and if it was to be continued, it was convenient that the term of its continuance should be stated in the Bill to be for a reasonable time.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he intended to support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes). Seeing that an inquiry was to take place, he thought that a very thorough investigation might be completed in that time.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he did not understand that any one impugned the administration of the Poor Law Board, though some changes were considered necessary. A great improvement had, no doubt, taken place in the condition of the labouring classes; but that was more owing to free trade and other measures than to the operation of the Poor Law. Such, in his opinion, was the experience of boards of guardians throughout the country, that little control over them was now necessary, and be gave it as his opinion that the Staff of the Poor-Law Board was unnecessarily large. There was certainly no necessity for two secretaries. He was in favour of the Bill being continued for three years.
MR. DEEDES,assuming that there would be no objection to an inquiry in a future Session, said he would move as an Amendment upon the clause, that "three" years should be substituted for "five" years.
MR. BRIGHTasked his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester whether he would think it necessary to divide. His right hon. Friend the President of the Poor-Law Board rather misstated the object of his hon. Friend's Amendment. He (Mr. Bright) did not think that his hon. Friend had any intention by a side blow to inflict a stab upon the central authority. He did not think that such a course was in accordance with the opinion of his hon. Friend, or with the opinions of those whose views he intended to represent. The only point he (Mr. Bright) had heard discussed was whether there were not some things in which the central authority might be made to work in a more satisfactory manner. It was desirable that it should be made to work in a manner that would enable them to obtain the service of independent men in the unions to carry out the business of a public Department, whose operations affected so minutely the feelings and comforts of so large a number of individuals in the country.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could
100
not accede to either of the Amendments. He thought that if they were to have a central authority—and all seemed to agree upon that—nothing could be worse than for Parliament to strike a blow at the respect which was due to it; and if, when the Bill had been proposed for a period of five years, the House were to reduce that period to one or three years, it would be considered by the country at large as a virtual condemnation of that central authority. It was wholly unnecessary, in order to investigate the subject before a Committee, that the duration of the Bill should be restricted to three years. He would assume, for argument's sake, that the result of the Committee's inquiry would be to show that alterations should be made as to the powers of the local Boards. Would Parliament be the less able to carry such alterations into effect because by the Bill before the House the Poor Law Board was continued for five years, and not for three? They would be just as able to deal with the question in the one case as in the other. If they wanted to abolish the Board, then he saw good reason for passing the Bill only for one year; but nobody seemed to think of the abolition of the Board. All that was contemplated was the introduction of certain things that would provide against collisions between the local authorities and the central authority. The Government were prepared to propose a Committee to inquire into these matters themselves, and will not leave it to be done by a private Member. This should be done at the earliest period of the next Session, so that ample time would be given for inquiry, and, if strong grounds were shown for making alterations relative to the power of the Board, there would be as great facilities for making those changes with a Bill continued for five years as with one restricted to three years, while they would escape the evil of doing anything to diminish the respect due to the Board. The hon. Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) said the diminution of pauperism was owing to free trade and other measures, and not to the operation of the Poor Law. No doubt free trade had done much to improve the condition of the labouring classes, but a great deal was also owing to the manner in which the relief of the poor was now administered. It was unnecessary for him to remind the Committee of the enormous abuses that formerly prevailed in the management of the poor, and of the vast improvement that had

101
now taken place. He should deprecate any measure that would strike a blow at the Central Board, by which the improved system was guided, and he hoped, therefore, that the period of five years would be adhered to.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the Government ought to pledge themselves to bring in a Bill to carry out any recommendations that the Committee to be appointed might make.
MR. BAZLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Proposition made by the hon. Member for Kent.
MR. DEEDESsaid, the argument of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) only confirmed him the more in the opinion he had formed, that the Bill should be for three years. Their object in appointing a Committee was that something might be done; and, if something was to be done, was it not advisable that it should be done as soon as possible after the inquiry? If the Bill were for five years that object would not be gained. He now moved that the Bill should be for three years instead of five, and that the words "and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament" be omitted.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words "five, and thenceforth until the end of the next Session of Parliament," in order to insert the word "three."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhad not said that if the Committee next year recommended changes in the law, those changes were to be postponed till the end of five years. On the contrary his argument was, that it was as possible to make the changes immediately after the Report of the Committee was made with the Bill continued for five years as for three. He meant to say that the recommendations of the Committee could be immediately carried out.
MR. HENLEYwould vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kent, because, if the Bill were fixed for three years, the House would feel itself compelled to proceed to legislate as soon as the Inquiry took place.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 147: Majority 55.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHmoved the following clause:—
"That on the next avoidance of the office of the one secretary rendered capable of sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of
102
Parliament by the 9th Clause of the above recited Act, this office shall be abolished, and the said Commissioners shall only appoint one instead of two secretaries, as provided by the said Act."
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the business of the office was so extensive as to fully employ two secretaries. The greatest objection to the Board was that guardians could not get answers.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the business had greatly increased of late, and questions were constantly arising which called for immediate answers, and demanded the close attention of the secretaries. The nature of the business required that one of the secretaries should be entitled to a seat in the House, as in the case of other public departments.
Motion negatived.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MAIL PACKETS—POSTAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, prior to the granting of any future subsidy to any contractor for Ocean Postal Service, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to demand an undertaking that distinctions of race or colour shall not be made by the servants of such contractors as regards the treatment of passengers upon vessels performing such services?
  MR. LAINGsaid, he believed that no principle was more settled than that any subsidy given for the performance of the Postal Service should be confined exclusively to the object of the conveyance of the mails. With regard to the passenger or merchandise traffic carried on in the mail packets, the Government had no more responsibility in connection with it than in the case of any other class of vessels. He had no reason to think it likely that the established principle in this matter would be departed from.

COASTGUARD SUPERANNUATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PERRY WATLINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the case of the Civilian Chief Officers in the Coast Guard Service, appointed prior to the 4tli of August, 1829, has been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and whether it is

  103
  intended to grant any additional retiring allowance to these Officers?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the civilian chief officers in the Coast Guard Service had superannuations granted to them in accordance with the Civil Service Superannuation Act. He believed their grievance was that they were not put upon the same footing as to pay and superannuation as those Officers belonging to the Navy who were liable to be called to active service at any moment. It was not the intention of the Admiralty to propose any such additional retiring allowance as that referred to in the hon. Member's Question.

NAVY (PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT).

  ADBBESS MOVED.
  SIR.JOHN PAKINGTON,in rising to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of naval officers, said, Sir, it is not in any party spirit, but solely and exclusively in the belief that I may thereby improve the position of Her Majesty's naval service that I make this Motion, In fact, the spirit in which I propose it is very much that of national defence in which the noble Lord the First Minister yesterday made his very able statement with reference to fortifications, because it is certainly an element in our national defence that the officers of one of our great services should not be discontented, and should not be under the impression that their country treats them with anything like injustice. I shall not have to detain the House at any considerable length, because my proposal turns very much upon arguments which have already been advanced by myself and others in the course of the debates upon the plan of naval retirement which has been proposed by my noble Friend opposite. The first ground upon which I make this Motion is that an improved system of promotion, and retirement has become necessary to the welfare of the naval service, and that the plan lately brought forward by the Admiralty is not satisfactory. I shall not trouble the House with my own views, because I am fortified by the authority of my; noble Friend opposite (Lord C. Paget) himself. The first result of my experience at the Admiralty was that the service had reached a state of absolute stagnation of promotion which was depressing to the spirit of officers and injurious to the wel-
  104
  fare of the service. That has been stated by my noble Friend as broadly and as distinctly as I could state it. I have frequently asserted that I was convinced that the plan of the Board of Admiralty for promotion and retirement would not be satisfactory to the service. On Thursday evening, in the last speech which he made upon this subject, my noble Friend expressly stated that his proposal ought to go further, and that, as it stood, it could only be considered as a step in what he called the right direction. It only remains for me to guard the House against being carried away by the fact that this plan is introduced to it by one who is himself an Admiral of high and just distinction, and that, being so, it must be taken to be one not prejudical to the service. Now, my noble Friend has proposed this plan, not as an Admiral, but as Secretary to the Admiralty. I think that no one can have heard his statement upon the subject without clearly seeing that in bringing it forward he was only doing the bidding of the Board of Admiralty with which he acts, and the only fault which I am disposed to find with his conduct in this respect is that he consented to act for the Board of Admiralty in this matter, of which it is easy to see that his own judgment does not approve. I think that my noble Friend ought to have said to the Board, "It is true that I am your Secretary, but I am also a British Admiral, and have the feelings of a British sailor, and I cannot consent to be the medium of proposing to Parliament a plan which will be regarded by the great majority of the service as doing them great injustice." I will now ask the House to consider the position in which this retirement plan of the Board of Admiralty stands. It is true that it has been proposed by my noble Friend opposite, who is himself a distinguished sailor, but it has been condemned not only by two gallant Admirals who are generally in the habit of opposing the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but by two experienced and distinguished Admirals who are in the habit of supporting that policy, the hon. Members for Devonport and Southwark, nor has any man of naval rank or naval experience, who has taken part in our discussions, supported it. That is the state of feeling within these walls. What is the feeling out of doors r I mentioned to the House on Thursday evening that I had received numbers of letters from officers of all

  105
  ranks thanking me for my opposition to I this proposal, and entreating me to continue it. Since then almost every post has brought me similar letters, and within the last hour I have received three or four. They come from men who are entirely unknown to me, from officers of all ranks, from those who are now serving on board Her Majesty's ships, as well as from those who have long been retired, and they all lament that my noble Friend has been led by his official position to propose a plan which, upon his own showing, is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and which is condemned by naval officers as doing them great injustice and treating them with great harshness. One of the writers states that he was an officer in the navy before my noble Friend opposite was born, but did not obtain his commission sa lieutenant until my noble friend had been two years in the service. Another informs me that he served nineteen years as midshipman and mate before he obtained his lieutenant's commission. But all these services are to be disregarded by the plan of my noble Friend. Surely that is a great and manifest hardship. I think that there is also great hardship in the arrangement as to the Coastguard. I cannot approve the decision of the Government that three years' Coastguard service shall count as only one year of sea service. I am not perhaps prepared to contend that Coastguard and sea service should be put upon the same footing, but I think that the difference between three years and two would be as much as justice requires. One of my correspondents, whose name I shall be happy to give to the noble Lord in private, states that the circumstances of his case are so peculiar, that under this new system of retirement, thirty-four years' service would only count as seven years and a half. I need not multiply these proofs that the plan which has been brought forward by the Government is not only admitted by them to be partial and incomplete, but is condemned by the naval service. The Admiralty have not, in my opinion, acted wisely in pressing forward such a plan in opposition to the sense of the profession and of this House, the only man who has said a word in its favour, except the noble Lord himself, being the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring). I will only refer to the plan which I framed as the result of my experience at the Admiralty, to say that I have every reason to believe
  106
  that it was acceptable to the naval service, and to submit to my noble Friend and the Government, that as there are two opposite plans for the settlement of this great and important question, and as no one can deny that it ought to be settled upon some grounds of general fairness and justice and, above all, upon some comprehensive principle, so that we may reasonably expect it to be a permanent adjustment of the difficulties of the question, there is abundant reason why the whole subject should be referred to a Royal Commission. That is obviously the most prudent course to adopt. We have already two plans before us. The result of a competent Commission may be to devise some third plan combining the advantages, while getting rid of the difficulties, of both. I am fortified in this view by the fact that I am only asking the Government to grant now in the case of the navy what has once before been granted for the navy, and what has upon several occasions been granted for the army. In 1840 the Duke of Wellington was the honoured President of a Commission which sat to investigate this very question of promotion and retirement with respect to both services. I shall presently advert further to the results of that Commission, but let me also remind the House that in 1854 a Commission was appointed to consider the subject of promotion and retirement in the army. The form of that Commission, "to inquire into the several modes of promotion and retirement now authorized in our forces, and reporting whatever changes may be desirable therein," are very nearly the words in which I have framed my present Motion, and show how very closely analogous are the two cases: the grounds for an inquiry are precisely the same. But I do not rest my Motion upon this question of promotion and retirement. I wish, likewise, to repeat to the House what I stated on a former occasion, that at the present moment there is scarcely one class of officers in the Royal Navy who are not more or less in a state of discontent with their position. In the Report of the Wellington Commission of 1840 I find the following passage:—
  "Carefully weighing the urgent reasons that exist for a rigidly economical administration of the public revenues on the one hand, and on the other the no less imperative necessity of keeping the limited naval establishment employed in time of peace, energetic and therefore useful, contented and therefore efficient, we have no hesitation in

  107
  earnestly addressing our unanimous recommendation to your Majesty, that there should be a considerable increase in the rates of sea pay allowed to navy lieutenants."
  That Commission also took into consideration the pay and position of captains, and I find in the Report a statement which I ventured to make the other day, that the position of captains with respect to pay is eminently unsatisfactory and unjust to that most important class of officers. The Report further alludes, as I did on a former evening, to the great charges which fall upon captains from the duties of hospitality which devolve upon them in the command of their ships, and it recommends that certain articles of outfit which captains had been compelled to provide for themselves should be provided at the public cost, the officers paying a percentage on the value. That recommendation was adopted, and hence the system which has since prevailed in this respect; but with regard to the pay of captains, and with regard likewise to many other particulars connected with the navy, the state of the profession twenty years ago was very different from what it is now. At that time the pay of captains was on a footing which, in my opinion, was far more just and rational than at the present moment. Captains were then divided into three classes as regarded half-pay, in the same way as they are now divided into three classes as regards full-pay, according to seniority; but their full-pay, which now turns upon seniority, then turned upon the rate of the ships which they commanded, and therefore upon the expenses which they were obliged to incur. There were then six classes of ships. A captain in command of a sixth rate received £300 a year, while a captain in command of a first rate received as much as £800. The whole of that is now changed, and the pay of a captain no longer hears any relation to the class of his ship, and, therefore, to the expenses which he is obliged to incur. I consider this question of the pay of captains to be one of the branches of this subject which most imperatively requires attention. In a former debate I mentioned the fact that while I was at the Admiralty, in two instances, officers of great ability refused commands because they could not afford to accept them. I am sure the House will concur with mo in thinking that it is a great injury to Her Majesty's Service that such a state of things should exist. Perhaps the House will permit me to read brief ex-
  108
  tracts from letters which I have received, in consequence of what I then stated, from officers of high distinction, and now on full pay on board Her Majesty's ships. I shall not mention the names of the writers, but shall be happy to give them to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, or to any other hon. Member who may express a wish to have them. The first letter comes from an officer who is now an Admiral and on full pay. He entirely concurs in my view of the retirement question, and, alluding to what I stated on a former occasion about the insufficiency of a captain's pay, he states that between his attaining the rank of commander and his attaining his flag he had no less than seven commands. He says:—
  "I question if £4,000 would repay me for what all my ships cost me from the day I was made a commander until I got my flag, and I had seven different fresh commands."
  The writer of this letter would be regarded by the officers of the navy generally as a fortunate man; and, without reference to his interest or his position, I doubt whether the profession would not say he is one the most brilliant and best officers we have. He had what is usually called the good luck to obtain seven commands between his commander's rank and his flag. How little do the profession suppose that these advantages, as they are termed, have been gained at a cost to his own pocket of £4,000! The next letter comes from an officer also of high distinction, now commanding one of our blockships. He writes in these terms:—
  "I have dipped heavily Into my small private means to arrive at and keep up my position, and unless there were a naval war, when I would live on bare ship's allowance rather than not serve, I could not afford to take a more active command than that I at present hold, from the feeling that I should be unable to support my position as it ought to be maintained in the service afloat, and at the same time do justice to my children; and I know of many officers who are similarly circumstanced."
  I shall now read a letter from an officer who is not at present on full pay, but who was so a very short time ago, because I myself appointed him to a ship. He writes:—
  "In the first place, as you clearly pointed out, on a captain commissioning a ship he cannot prepare himself for sea to proceed to a foreign station under a sum varying from £300 to £400, depending on the class of ship he is appointed to and the station he is ordered to; and how is an officer dependant on the service to obtain this sum except by borrowing, and what prospect has he of repay-

  109
  ing it with interest at the end of his commission, when his full pay is barely sufficient to provide common necessaries for himself, to say nothing of having to entertain his officers occasionally at his table? An officer placed in such circumstances is prevented from being as courteous as he is enjoined to be by policy, and even by the rules of the service, to foreign officers whom he is constantly meeting; he cannot even return the civilities which they show him. This distressing and undignified position I have personally experienced in the ship you gave me a commission to. … At this time an American commodore and other foreign ships were at anchor in the bay, when, of course, the usual civilities of calling, &c, were exchanged, and I was frequently invited to dine on board one or other of these ships, when I was at once placed in the painful and perplexing position of accepting these invitations without the means of returning them, or refusing them, and feeling ashamed to state the plain reason that my country did not pay me sufficiently to enable me to return their hospitality. … This is the position every captain or commander commanding a. ship is more or less subject to on receiving an appointment—a position which I feel confident the House of Commons will never permit the captains of the English navy to be placed in when it is fairly pointed out to them—and is a complete corroboration of your statement in the House."
  Let me read one more letter from an officer who a year ago was on full pay as a commander. He writes:—
  "I can speak from experience as to the pay of a commander and a lieutenant in command, having served four years and a half in the former and nearly two years in the latter rank: and I am quite sure, unless an officer has some private income, a command is a source of expense, and not of emolument."
  I referred on a former evening to the difference between the French service and ours in this respect. France does not allow her officers to be exposed to these painful difficulties and trials. In the same letter I have a brief statement of the rates of pay in the two services. A French lieutenant in command receives 15 f. a day as table money, which is equal to 12 s. 6d., and his daily pay is 7s.; total, 19 s. 6d. An English lieutenant in command receives, daily pay, 11 s.; light money, 1s.; value of rations, 10 d.; total 12 s. 10 d., as against 19 s. 6d. A capitaine de frigate receives, daily pay, 9s. 5d.; table money, 16 s.; total, £1 5s. 5d. An English commander receives daily, 16 s. 6d.; light money and rations 1s. 10 d.; total, 18 s. 4d., as against £1 5s. 5d. I state these facts in confirmation of what I have already mentioned, and to show the great difference which prevails between the two services, and the great hardship inflicted on the English commanders or lieutenants in command, who are called on to discharge
  110
  their duties to their country at a positive loss to themselves. I will next advert to the case of the masters. I remember that last year my noble Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, soon after assuming his present office, made a charge against me on the ground that I had not dealt with the masters; and the other night, again, he asked me why I had not done this and other things. Well, my answer is that my noble Friend was one of those who prevented me from doing them by turning me out of office. I was prevented from going on with what I had begun, and, therefore, I think it very hard that my noble Friend, who as it were stepped into my shoes, should recriminate upon me. But let me tell my noble Friend that I presume to think that if I had not been turned out of office I should have dealt with the masters rather better than he has done. I do not charge the present Board of Admiralty with doing nothing in regard to the masters, because it has dealt with them, but in such an unsatisfactory way that the complaints are not removed. Now, if I had dealt with the case of the masters at all, I think I should have dealt with it in a manner to quiet their complaints. I have here a letter from a well-known master in one of our line-of-battle ships, and he states:—
  "One ill-effect which the late circular must produce is the desire to avoid the regular line of service in men of war, and get into small tenders, storeships, &c.,—appointments which are much more permanent and better paid. These large ships—especially flagships—are to be avoided in a pecuniary point of view. Could I exchange into the smallest possible vessel bearing a master, and having charge of stores, my pay would be greatly increased."
  I have another letter from an officer of the same rank, but I will not trouble the House with extracts from it. The substance of the statement is that the changes made by the Board of Admiralty with respect to the masters are not only unsatisfactory to the masters themselves, but are very prejudicial to Her Majesty's service in this respect, that in consequence of these changes there is an increased inducement to enter the service as masters' assistants, but there is no proportionate inducement to remain in the service. Thus you have a number of young men entering as masters' assistants, taking the benefit of the education and training in the navy, and then leaving for the merchant service, where they get on better than if they had

  111
  remained in the ill-requited service of the Queen. Another branch of the profession with which the Admiralty dealt was that of the paymasters; but the Board did not deal with them in a way to satisfy them. With respect to all these cases, I must beg it to be understood that I do not commit myself to the expression of any opinion as to whether these complaints are well or ill-founded. I only say that, if they are not well-founded, let them, after investigation, be exposed and disregarded; but if they are well-founded, then let not a feeling of just discontent be cherished in the Queen's service. With respect to the paymasters, I know very well that the higher classes are in receipt of considerable pay as compared with some other officers in the navy; but the complaint they make has reference to their half-pay, and I own it appears to have some foundation. I have a statement showing the full-pay and half-pay of masters, chaplains, surgeons, and paymasters. Taking the mean between the full-pay and half-pay, the difference in regard to masters is 5s., in regard to chaplains 5s. 1d., in regard to surgeons and engineers 5s. 2d., but the moan difference with regard to paymasters is 13 s. 11 d. Consequently there appears a great discrepancy between the treatment of the paymasters, and that of the other branches of the service to which I have alluded. Believing I have laid a foundation for the Motion I have to submit to the House, I will not go into details with respect to the complaints advanced by other classes—engineers, naval instructors, &c. They are all more or loss discontented with their position. The argument I draw from these statements is, that such complaints ought to be investigated; for it cannot be to the interest of the service that discontent should continue. I entreat the House to bear in mind that brief, but most expressive sentence, in the Report of the Wellington Commission—"contented, and therefore efficient." If you want efficiency, you ought to have contentment, and you will have contentment if you do justice. Do not, however, refuse to entertain complaints when they are made. We are at present considering the subject of our national defences. One element of national defence is, that your officers, who are your instruments for defence, should be satisfied with their position; and if your officers are contented, you are much more likely to have contented crews. Why should the Government refuse the Commission I
  112
  ask for? If there exist difficulties in the service, why should they not be investigated in the way in which the difficulties in the sister service were investigated? I confess that I have only heard one objection to a Commission, and that was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, who said that a Commission would be appointed by the Admiralty, and therefore he would not trust it. I do not share in any such feeling. I do not believe that the Admiralty would deal otherwise than fairly on such a question; and, if a Commission is granted, I am confident that the Admiralty will see that it is properly and honourably constituted. Indeed, there is a considerable guarantee that such would be the case, in the circumstance that the appointment of the Commission by the Admiralty, would be an important public act, performed under serious responsibility, and before the eyes of the public and the profession. As I believe, on the one hand, that the Admiralty would not for a moment be inclined to constitute such a Commission unfairly, so I believe on the other, that, whatever might be their inclinations, they would not dare to attempt any unfair proceeding. I ask the House, then, in the name of the navy, and of the country, to accede to my Motion; and if the noble Lord should not assent to it, I shall feel it to be my duty to take the sense of the House upon my proposition, which I think essential to the welfare of the naval service. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of Naval Officers, and to report what changes therein are desirable, with a view to the increased efficiency of Her Majesty's Naval Service."
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, that the measure which was proposed was calculated to allay the dissatisfaction which undoubtedly had grown up in the minds of all classes of persons in the navy. These inquiries had been instituted with great advantage to the service from the earliest periods of our history, and he trusted that this inquiry would not be refused now. On those grounds he had great pleasure in seconding the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. With regard to the retirement scheme of the present Board of Admiralty there was much obscurity in his mind, and

  113
  he was unable to discover its advantages. There was no doubt that it it held out advantages to the junior members of the service, and to them would prove beneficial; but as it had no reference to the officers of the old war, he must enter his protest against it. He entered the service at a period when masters' mates came in as volunteers from the merchant service, and whenever there was hard work to be done these masters' mates, by their gallantry, were most conspicuous; many of them still remained on the list of lieutenants, and he regretted that in the scheme of the noble Lord the services of these officers as mates would not count for increased half-pay and other allowances. He believed that the scheme would bear singularly hard upon those who had not sufficient influence or good fortune to get to sea. Then, as to their condition in respect to seniority, that should be properly and fairly considered. Again, in respect to the reserved commanders having the rank of captains, the scheme would have the effect of upsetting those commanders, and deprive them of those privileges which by existing arrangements they were now entitled to. He considered that no good reason could be shown why the proposal of the right hon. Baronet should not be agreed to. Again, the question of the half-pay required to be adjusted and considered, and he (Sir Michael Seymour) knew of no other mode of doing so than that which was now proposed. Reference had been made to the Royal Commission—and a most important one it was—which was appointed in 1840, and the object of that was to ascertain the relative situation of each rank, and whether it might be practicable and expedient to make any changes, and if so, what, in the present system. That was no party question, and he should be sorry to stand up in that House as a naval officer as a party man in any matter which he believed deeply interested the public service. It would not be necessary for him to enter into details, as that had been ably done by the right hon. Baronet, and with whom he (Sir Michael Seymour) entirely agreed. He had received similar letters to those alluded to by the right hon. Baronet from all quarters, impressing upon him the necessity of the appointment of a Commission like that which the right hon. Baronet asked for, and he trusted the Government would consent to it, as one deeply affecting the efficiency of the service.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTwished to bear his
  114
  testimony to the feeling existing in the service that such an inquiry was wanted. There was a belief that justice was not done to all classes, and that a strict investigation was necessary. He was not prepared to attack the scheme of the noble Lord, but, at the same time, he thought it did not go far enough. He trusted that the Government would be prepared to appoint a Commission, the necessity of which had been fully substantiated by the right hon. Baronet.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, I am far from complaining of the tone and manner in which the right hon. Baronet has alluded to the claims and has set forth the grievances of the various officers in the navy respecting pay, promotion, and retirement. The only thing that surprises me is that the right hon. Gentleman, feeling these grievances so poignantly, did not while he was at the Admiralty redress them. He was in office longer than the present Board have been, and all these questions must have been just as patent to him then as they are now. Why, then, did he not take steps during the time in which he held his high position to carry into effect all these schemes for the benefit of the officers of the navy? [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I did.] The right hon. Gentleman certainly did deal with the question, but in a very partial spirit, except with regard to one class of officers—namely, the surgeons, towards whom he acted very generously. The surgeons have very properly shown great gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman, and only the other day an application was made to the Admiralty to allow the right hon. Gentleman's bust to be placed in the museum at Haslar. But why, when he was dealing with the surgeons, did the right hon. Gentleman overlook the claims of other officers? Why were not the claims of the masters, paymasters, engineers, and the chaplains considered? The right hon. Gentleman professed a great and no doubt a sincere desire to improve the position of the chaplains, and he produced a scheme which was such an utter failure that the chaplains declined to avail themselves of it, and preferred to remain under the old system of pay. That is a proof that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his earnest desire to serve the navy, can fail as well as his neighbours. I admit that the proposal which the House has had before it within the last few days would admit of enlargement. I never denied that if we could

  115
  deal with those excellent old officers to whom the hon. and gallant Admiral has referred in a more generous spirit it would be very desirable, and would be very agreeable to the Board of Admiralty. But oar duty is not confined to getting as much money as we can, but we have to consider what is best for the profession, and I say again, after a careful consideration and comparison with the respective offices in the sister service, that the scheme proposed by the Board of Admiralty is a fail-one. It is a curious fact that my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded this Motion admits that this scheme does offer advantages to the junior branches of the service. Why, it was exactly in favour of the junior branches of the service that this scheme was proposed. No doubt, there are men who were mates before I entered the service, and remain still in the junior branches of the navy. Those are things of other days, and I wish to say as little about them as I can. I admit that we who—as my hon. and gallant Friend expressed it the other night—have been born with silver spoons in our mouths have had great advantages over many gallant and meritorious officers; but there are cases of comparison between very fortunate individuals on the one hand, and very unfortunate individuals on the other hand, which hardly bear upon the question before the House. The object of the Government is to produce such a scheme as at the least cost will insure a proper flow of promotion in the navy. That is the principle on which the scheme is formed, and as far as regards the retirement of officers, I believe it will fulfil its object. With regard to mates, it is not now for the first time I have to consider the claims of these officers. All I can say is that the Board of Admiralty has at this moment under consideration the question of mates and their time. There is no doubt that any additional consideration that can be given to that subject will be of advantage, and, if anything can be done which will not involve any very large addition to the public expenditure, the Board will at least take it into their serious consideration. My impression is that it would not be any very great increase of expense if some small allowance for mates' sea-time were granted to those officers who have served many years. These, however, are points of detail which can be better dealt with by the Board of Admiralty than by any Royal Commission. There can be no doubt that a Commission appointed as
  116
  my right hon. Friend suggests would propose an increase of pay and improvement in the position of officers; but when I show how the cases of all these officers have been dealt with in former times, how their positions have been improved by successive Boards of Admiralty, I think it will be seen that it would be much better that the Department under which these officers serve should be charged from time to time with the duty of making the requisite improvements in their position, and of making such proposals as may gradually conduce to the advantage of the service, rather than to unsettle the whole navy by appointing a Commission which cannot fail to excite hopes that must be infallibly blighted. If you appoint a Royal Commission, it will be taken throughout the navy that you are going to adopt a grand scheme to improve the position and increase the pay of every class of officers in the service. I hold that that would be an unwholesome proceeding. I maintain that, upon a comparison of the navy with the army, as a general rule, officers in the navy are as fairly paid as officers in the sister service. I will just refer to the case which my right hon. Friend has brought before the House, by which he sought to show that the pay of captains in the navy is not commensurate with their position, and that they are compelled to incur great expenses in showing hospitality as incidents of their position. But, supposing that the right hon. Gentleman has this strong feeling for captains, any one would believe that when such cases came before him when he was in office he would immediately have taken up the matter and have adopted steps to remedy those grievances. When he alluded to this case the other night I went back to the Admiralty, expecting that I should find he had taken some steps while he was at the Board. I did find a very respectful memorial drawn up by a captain of a line-of-battle ship, setting forth his expenses and urging that his pay was inadequate to his expenditure. I looked to see what the right hon. Gentleman had done. I found that all the other members of the then Board of Admiralty expressed strong opinions that the pay should be increased; but when the memorial reached the right hon. Baronet I only found the word "read." That was all the notice he then took of a very respectful memorial which was laid before him. I only want to show that my right hon. Friend when out of office and with full

  117
  leisure to think over these matters is bringing forward cases with which he should have dealt himself when he was at the Admiralty. As to this very memorial, what has the present Board done? It was unfortunately laid before them after the Estimates had been prepared, but the Board made a Minute that in the next Estimates the case of the captains should be deal with, and at the beginning of next year we shall be prepared to propose some increased allowance for officers in command of ship? It is a question I think of great importance to the service, and one that ought to be admitted. The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison between the pay of officers in the French and English navies respectively. But again my right hon. Friend tells the House what is certainly interesting, but what is not complete. He omitted to state that the captains in the English navy got allowances of plate, linen, &c, which are not granted in the French navy, and those allowances must be taken into consideration in instituting a comparison between the pay of those respective services. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Sir Michael Seymour) alluded to the time passed in the Coastguard service being by the Admiralty proposal allowed to count as one year in three. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend, a distinguished officer who has been all his life at sea, whether he thinks that officers serving in the Coastguard are entitled to count their time as respects superannuation and half-pay exactly as if they were serving on distant foreign stations, many of them unhealthy and very expensive? I say the idea is perfectly monstrous. It would be a gross injustice to the officers on active service; it would hold out a premium to every married officer, who would, no doubt, be very glad to live with his family, to say, "I will enter the Coastguard, where I have equal hopes of promotion, superannuation, and increased half pay. Why should I go and serve in the West Indies, or on the coast of Africa?" It would be impossible to carry out any such scheme as that. With regard to harbour and guard-ship service, I think it may very well be arranged that the time during which officers are employed in the harbour guardships should not count altogether in the same ratio as the time passed in real sea service. An hon. Member proposed to put a question to me to-day as to the actual position of the reserved captains. The position of
  118
  those officers, according to the Admiralty scheme, is this:—Reserved captains who have served less than 9 years will continue to receive the half-pay which they may be receiving at the time of retirement. Officers who have served over 9 years and under 12 will receive 10 s. 6d. per day; those who have served over 12 and under 15 years, 12 s. 6d. per day; those who have served over 15 and under 20 years, 14 s. 6d. per day; and those who have served more than 20 years, 16 s. 6d. per day. I beg the right hon. Member for Portsmouth's attention to this. Every reserved captain who has served at sea above 20 years will receive an addition of 6s. a-day to his half-pay. The right horn Gentleman seemed disposed to claim for these officers the same position in the Navy List as those have who are liable to go upon active service. It would, I maintain, be very unjust to officers on the active list if men nominally having the same commission but never liable to be called on to serve wore allowed to rise with them on the Navy List, and so to struggle upwards with them for their flags. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, when as First Lord he established his scheme, distinctly stated over and over again that he could not put this class of officers in the same position, as the active list; and successive Boards of Admiralty have always acted on the same principle. With regard to the Motion of my right hon. Friend, I think it far better that these cases should be dealt with by the Government as they arise. A reference to what has been done of late years will, I believe, show that it is unnecessary to have a Commission appointed to examine this question. For instance, in February, 1855, the rates of full and half-pay for masters, second masters, and masters' assistants were revised, and retirement at sixty years of age provided for. In April, 1856, the rates of captains were established; and though I do not mean to say that the changes were always advantageous, yet they are a proof that the subject was constantly engrossing the attention of the Admiralty. In January, 1856, an Order in Council was issued, increasing the pay of chaplains in the navy; in the same month a second Order was made, regulating the full and half-pay, and otherwise improving the position of masters; in May, 1859, the pay granted to the medical officers was established by a new Order in Council; and in the same month a fresh regulation

  119
  was made respecting the pay of the chaplains, which Order in Council was afterwards cancelled from the fact that the chaplains declined the conditions under which the advantages were offered to them. During the period to which I have referred, there were also numerous changes in relation to the retirement and pay of the Royal Marines. I quote these facts in order to show that this subject has been constantly before the Admiralty, and that as it becomes manifest that the pay or position of any class of officers requires revision their case is taken into consideration, and year after year Parliament is asked to grant considerable sums for their benefit. And this has been done not by one Government and one Board of Admiralty, but by every Government and every Board of Admiralty in succession, I think, therefore, it would be wiser to trust to the responsible department of the State to suggest such alterations as may from time to time be required to improve the position of those officers who may appear to be insufficiently paid, rather than, by calling together a commission, to open the whole subject, and thereby, in my opinion, to render the officers of every branch of the navy unsettled in their minds. Each grade thinking it has a grievance would naturally bring it forward, availing itself of the opportunity thus afforded to it, as we should all of us do in the same case if we knew that a body of men were about to sit for the improvement of our condition. For that reason I believe it is most undesirable that such a Commission should be appointed. With due respect for my right hon. Friend, and for the great zeal and talent he brought to bear on the discharge of his heavy and important duties while at the head of the Admiralty, I say it is most injurious to the public service, when the man who may fill such an office comes down and tells the House of Commons that every class in the navy is discontented. I say that is holding out a positive premium to discontent. I beg leave to deny that this wide-spread dissatisfaction exists. Naval men, no doubt, like all other Englishmen, have the privilege of grumbling, and a blessed privilege it is, and that sometimes they have a good cause for their grumbling I am quite ready to admit. But Boards of Admiralty—whether that presided over by my right hon. Friend or the present one—have had these very questions relating to the pay of captains and other ranks continually before
  120
  them, and wherever the Board sees any class of officers whose position requires improvement, I can only say they will not fail to give the matter due attention. Under these circumstances I trust the House will not agree to the Commission for which my hon. Friend has moved.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he could not regard the speech of the noble Lord as having satisfactorily shown that the proposed Commission should not be appointed. The noble Lord had told them that post captains on the reserved list would receive certain advantages from his plan, but he did not think that the same advantages ought to be given to officers who had served in the Coastguard, fie would show the House what the services of those gentlemen really were, having received a very simple statement from one of the officers on that list of his case, and the effect of the noble Lord's scheme on his position—and he believed the case was a fair sample of many. The gentleman in question had served 16 years as a midshipman, 17 years as lieutenant in the Coastguard, and 7 years as inspecting commander of the Coastguard—making altogether 40 years' service, for which service he would receive seven years' and nine months' consideration under the new scheme. In the course of his service he had had his arm broken and been otherwise wounded in six different encounters with smugglers, his life being three times despaired of. His services as midshipman and mate were in war time, and had extended over almost as long a period as many gentlemen born with silver spoons in their mouths served to get the rank of post captains; and after all those years of service he had actually no other means of getting employment than by entering the Coastguard, for no other means was open twenty years ago to officers of that class. That was not an individual case, but on the contrary hundreds might be enumerated, and he asked whether that was not a class of officers who ought to enjoy the same advantages as those who had been more fortunate in obtaining employment in the service. He could state of his own knowledge that very great discontent did exist among all classes of officers in the navy, and that not only did it exist, but there was the strongest grounds for its existence. He thought, therefore, that such a Commission as was asked for ought to be appointed. It should be of a very wide and comprehensive

  121
  character, and the inquiry under it ought to commence with the warrant officers, who from the paucity of efficient midshipmen very frequently had to perform the duties of officers of that rank. He complained that by some extraordinary arrangement the Admiralty had succeeded in cutting off at least thirty years' pension from the officers' widows, and that many of the changes which had been made, so far from being an advantage, were detrimental to the interests of the warrant officers. He thought, also, that they should exercise more care than they did in introducing young and but half-educated boys into the navy. The way in which this was done was this—some influential elector in a county or borough wanted to get his son into the navy. He immediately went to the Member for his place, who got the boy sent to the Britannia, and after a short time he was drafted into the navy. He contended that many of these boys would never make really good and efficient officers. Let a boy have a good classical education at a public school, if possible, and then put him into a naval college, and at fifteen or sixteen he might enter the navy, and would learn his profession a great deal faster and better than a youngster placed in the navy under the other system would ever do. He had always remarked that well-educated young men became speedily proficient in their duty at sea, and the reason was obvious: they were much more intelligent than the great mass of boys who entered the navy uneducated and their minds totally unformed. In the same way they found that the Volunteer corps had learned their duties much more quickly than ordinary recruits did, because they were intelligent, and at once comprehended the nature and effect of the orders which they received. He thought that the time of a Commission might be most valuably employed in ascertaining the character and acquirements of the class of boys who entered the navy, with a view of becoming its future commanders and officers. The lieutenants had not the same advantages as officers in the army of the same rank; they were not allowed servants; they had no leave or any opportunity to visit their friends and families; their position altogether was inferior to the position of officers in the corresponding rank of the army. Very often they were sent to command small vessels at sea, and had duties cast upon them which were of the most arduous
  122
  description. A lieutenant commanding a gunboat or a vessel of that size would have a second master, and an assistant-surgeon, but at the same time he himself would have to do all the pen-and-ink work on board the ship, and there would be the same amount of that work on board that small vessel as there would be on board the Royal Albert, while he only received an addition of two shillings a day to his pay. The noble Lord said that he intended to look into the case of the post captains. It was high time that he should do so. There were now many captains and commanders who were carrying on the business of the country out of their own funds; and he did not believe that there was a single captain in our magnificent fleet who had not a private fortune who would not be glad to exchange to half-pay if he could honourably do so. The expense of entertaining not only their own officers, but those of other squadrons and of foreign navies and strangers of distinction, was so great that it must seriously diminish the private fortunes of all captains of line-of-battle ships and frigates. He thought that the introduction of a different system of mess on board ship would be attended with the greatest advantages, especially in small ships, for he never could understand why a captain in the navy should sit in solitary grandeur dining by himself in his cabin instead of being president of the mess on board his ship, in the way that colonels of regiments were presidents of the officers' mess. Not only in such cases would the general comfort of the officers be increased, and many irregularities abolished, but the tone and manner of the younger officers, he thought, would be greatly benefited by association with their seniors and their superior officers. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich had stated what were the rates of pay in the French navy. With the permission of the House, he would mention those of the American marine. In the American service a senior captain received £1,177 per annum; a captain in charge of a squadron, £1,041; all other captains, £911 9s. 2d.; commanders who had served five years, £650 5s.; those who had commanded less, £588 10 s. 16 d.; lieutenants after thirteen years, £468 16 s. 11 d.; after eleven years, £416 13s. 4d.; after nine years, £395 10 s. 6d.; after seven years, £354 3s. 4d.; under seven years, £312 10 s.; mates, £172 18 s. 4d. Lieutenants after thirteen years service got £18 a year more than

  123
  post captains in the British, navy; junior lieutenants more than commanders; and mates within a few pounds as much as commanders. [Lord CLABENCE PAGET: Read the half-pay.] Captains on leave or waiting for orders, which answered to our half-pay, got for the first five years 1,900 dollars, and for the second 2,016 dollars; lieutenants received from 1,200 to 1,450 dollars. He was not, therefore, surprised at hearing the comments which had been made on the rate of pay, and he sincerely hoped that this Commission would be appointed, and that the whole subject would undergo the closest and most searching-investigation.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he came down to the House with the firm determination of opposing the right hon. Baronet. Since hearing his statement, however, he had changed his mind. He had never before heard any First Lord of the Admiralty support the claims of the officers of the navy as the right hon. Barenet had done, nor had he ever listened to a fairer and more accurate statement of their case. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that the treatment of the captains in the navy was most unfair and most injudicious. Now, it was of the utmost importance that the captains should be properly remunerated. He knew from experience how prejudicial it was to the discipline of the navy when their pay was inadequate to maintain the dignity of their position by receiving their officers at table and living in proper style. It lowered them in the eyes both of officers and men. When the captain was forced, from the smallness of his means, to order a chop and potato for dinner, there was a great quizzing at the galley, and he was called "a poor, miserable, shabby devil." His outfit too involved a very considerable expenditure. It was impossible for a captain to furnish his quarters on board ship, even in the most economical manner, for less than £300. It was quite true that the Admiralty supplied officers with linen and plate, but they charged more than a Jew's price for them. It was the first time their position had been fairly brought before the House, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having done it. He would certainly vote for the Commission with his right hon. Friend, and he hoped it would inquire not only into the position of the higher class of officers, but also into that of the warrant and petty officers and seamen, whose condition
  124
  undoubtedly required amelioration. He trusted also that the Commission would not neglect to inquire into the provision made for warrant officers' widows, which was quite disgraceful. The question of promotion ought also to occupy the serious attention of the Commission. It was absurd to hope that political interest would ever cease under any administration to have its effect on the disposal of patronage, but surely merit and seniority ought not to be entirely overlooked. In Prance so many officers were promoted by seniority, and so many by what was called "selection." That was a question the Commission would do well to consider. The noble and gallant Lord (Lord C. Paget) had told the House that they had better leave the matter to the Admiralty, and that he was going to do a great deal next year. But the Admiralty was a moveable body, and perhaps the noble and gallant Lord might not be in office next year to fulfil his promise. Besides, experience warned them that very antiquated notions prevailed at the Admiralty, and that a question of this kind could not be left entirely to its discretion. The noble Lord had asked why, if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) complained of so little having been done, he did not do more when he was at the Admiralty. It was only fair, however, to remember that the right hon. Gentleman effected much, and, if he had remained in office he had not the smallest doubt he would have done a great deal more. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was open to the charge brought against him by the noble Lord, of causing discontent among the officers of the navy. He had, on the contrary, endeavoured to ameliorate their position, and had left a bright example for his successors to follow, which he was sorry to say they had not done; moreover, a Member of the House who showed what real grievances those who served in the navy suffered and endeavoured to remedy those grievances contributed, not to create discontent, but to produce a better feeling throughout the service. The noble Lord's attack upon the right hon. Gentleman was both unjust and ungenerous. If the noble Lord could show that the present Board of Admiralty had been more successful in its administration than the last there would be some reason why the noble Lord should find fault with the naval administration of the right hon. Gentleman. Before the noble Lord came into office he made many most

  125
  severe accusations against the late Boards. He accused them of spending £5,000,000 in eleven years, either improperly or without accounting for it. The noble Lord was not able to justify that accusation before the Committee, but he had never withdrawn the charge. The noble Lord was mistaken in asserting that his (Sir Charles Napier's) speeches had caused discontent in the navy, and that he had gone about among the sailors to excite discontent. He had, on the contrary, kept away from the men, for the express purpose of averting such a charge. When the noble Lord said that corporal punishment should be done away with, he did more harm to the service than he would ever be able to do good. He should support the Motion for a Commission, and he trusted it would be composed of men who really knew the service, and who were not afraid to speak their minds to the Admiralty. If, however, the recommendations of such a Commission were only to be partially attended to, like those of the Manning Commission and the Greenwich Hospital Commission, then it would be better not to appoint a Commission at all. If the rules of fairness and justice were observed there would be no difficulty in manning the navy. With regard to the officers, if the discontent which was said to exist really did prevail, the sooner the Admiralty set to work to ameliorate their condition the better.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGwould not enter upon the numerous topics which had occupied the attention of the last two Speakers, but would address himself to the actual question before the House. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was for an inquiry upon two grounds. The first, which stood at the head of the Motion, was for a Commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement, and the pay and position of the officers. The second branch of the inquiry stood upon a different footing, and he would first take that question which in the course of his official career claimed much of his attention—namely, retirement from the service. Now, upon what ground did the right hon. Gentleman ask for an inquiry into the subject of retirement? He must regard this as much too serious a matter to be dealt with as a party question, and he confessed he was struck with the want of any good ground for the appointment of a Commission for taking the retirement of officers out of the hands of
  126
  the Admiralty, and vesting it in an independent authority. Was any great evil shown to exist in regard to the present state of promotion and retirement? When he (Sir Francis Baring) was at the Admiralty the list of Admirals was filled with officers incapable of going to sea, and who by their ago were, however gallant their services had been, unfit to command in time of war. It was admitted that this was no longer the case, and this was an important improvement. When he came into office it was his duty to look out for an Admiral for some service that was required. After doing his best he was obliged to choose an officer who was above seventy years of age. If war had broken out at that time, there would only have been two Admirals under sixty who could have been sent to sea. He earned a great deal of unpopularity by the measures he undertook, but ho had the consolation of feeling that, if a war now broke out, and it was necessary for the Admiralty to look out for an Admiral, there would be plenty of Admirals young and active enough to be able to do their duty and serve their country efficiently. The captains' list was at that time similarly encumbered. An officer was, however, no longer obliged to serve thirty years as a captain, and the captains' list was now amply supplied with young and efficient officers. With regard to commanders and lieutenants, a fixed number for each rank was established. It must be admitted that until the specified number was reached promotion was slow, to a certain degree. If the right hon. Gentleman, however, fairly compared the promotion of ton years under the new system with the promotion of ten years when there was no limit, he would find that the promotion of captains and commanders was much more rapid now than in the old times. Promotion was then made out of 3,000 names, while it was now made out of 1,000, so that the chance of promotion was much better than it used to be. After a considerable struggle things had just been brought to this condition—that the list had been brought down to a proper number, and for the future every vacancy would be filled up, promotion would consequently be more rapid than it had ever been before. In short, they had got into that position which had been the day, dream of successive Lords of the Admiralty for many years past. Was this then the moment for disturbing the arrangement by which the object so long sought for

  127
  had been accomplished, or to enter upon an inquiry which would excite hopes of a great change in the existing system of retirement that were not likely to be realized? He would remind the House that however generous their feelings towards the profession, they had a duty to perform, and would urge them not to be led away by their feelings to do that which he believed would be alike injurious to the service and to the officers themselves. What happened at the close of the great war? The consequence in some degree of the pressure put upon the House, and of those generous feelings towards the naval profession to which he had alluded, was to force on a mass of promotions, the evil effects of which even to this day were not altogether removed. In one single year 1,000 lieutenants were made and placed upon the active lists; but it was impossible to find employment for them, so that they were really in a worse position than if they had been allowed to retire from the service, and turn their abilities into some other sphere of action where they might have been profitably employed. He hoped the House would take warning by that example, and not allow their feelings of generosity to carry them too far. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich referred to three plans which had been submitted to the late Board of Admiralty, and urged that as a ground for inquiry; but he (Sir Francis Baring) confessed that up to the present moment he was not aware which of those was the ultimate plan of the right hon. Baronet, and which scheme the late Admiralty Board recommended. Certainly he could not recognize the suggestion of those three plans as any sufficient ground for appointing a Commission. The right hon. Baronet said he had reason to believe that this plan had the approbation of the navy, and he (Sir Francis Baring) took it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman's own Board approved of it. If so he should be glad to know which plan it was. The rumour, however, went that it was not quite so acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues at the Admiralty. But whether that were so or not, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to show, on moving for a Commission of inquiry that there existed some specific evil which required a remedy. The inquiry into which the right hon. Gentleman asked them to enter was a very formidable one. It was an inquiry into the promotion, retirement,
  128
  pay, and position of all officers in the navy. To justify such a Motion very strong grounds were necessary. No such ground had been shown, and he had heard nothing which would warrant the House in taking these questions out of the hands of the Government, who were responsible, and handing them over to a Commission. The ground of the recommendation of the mixed Commission had been cut away, for it had been proved that, with regard to naval flag officers, there was a sufficient number of young active officers now upon the list. It was said that the lieutenants were satisfied with the state of things in 1842; but if so they had materially changed their tone since he was at the head of the Admiralty in 1849—for then the state of the navy was represented to be as bad as bad could be, and he heard from all sides grumbling enough to satisfy even the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But he objected altogether to taking these subjects out of the hands of the Government, and handing them over to a Commission. He did not say that there were not questions in which it might be well to appoint Commissions of Inquiry; but, as a general rule, it was far better for the House of Commons to hold the Government responsible for the proper and efficient performance of the duties which properly belonged to it. Suppose a Commission appointed and certain recommendations made. The House would naturally insist upon those recommendations being carried into effect. Who in that case would be responsible? Certainly not the Government, for they might altogether differ from them. Nor would it be the Commission; for no responsibility could attach to them beyond the inquiry itself. The Commissioners would look only to the immediate object for which they were appointed; whereas the Government were responsible for all that they did; and would, consequently, take a broader and safer view of any question upon which they might be required to deliberate. Again, he reminded the House that these Commissions were expensive luxuries. These questions of pay, promotion, and retirement were no light matters; and he recommended the House to leave them in the hands of the Admiralty, who were responsible; and not transfer them to an irresponsible body of Commissioners, who might make recommendations which the Government might consider impolitic and unwise, and yet feel themselves bound to carry out. He

  129
  opposed the Motion, moreover, because, if carried, it would produce uncomfortable feeling's in the navy, and excite hopes which could never be realized. There was not a finer service in the world than the British Navy; but, amongst other privileges, it enjoyed that of unlimited grumbling; and he was not surprised at the right hon. Baronet receiving any number of letters from officers of the navy, setting forth cases of individual grievance, as arising from the present regulations. He might be sure, when it was known that he, as an ex-Lord of the Admiralty, took the lead in these questions, he would have plenty of such letters flowing in upon him. There would be many who would believe they had a grievance, because a late First Lord told them so, though they never knew it before. He had heard with great pleasure that the condition of the mates—he meant the old mates of the time of war—was before the Admiralty. He thought they had a case; and he should be glad if, upon consideration, the Admiralty found they could do anything to ameliorate their present position. He had no wish to prevent inquiry; on the contrary, he was anxious that every case of grievance, or supposed grievance, should be investigated; but that the investigation should be by the responsible authorities, and not by an irresponsible Commission.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEobserved that the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke had touched scarcely at all upon the pay and position of the officers of the navy, which really constituted the most important portion of his right hon. Friend's Motion. He gave every credit to the noble Secretary to the Admiralty for doing all he could for the navy, and if he did not do all he wished, it was because he was controlled in his good intentions. A great ground of complaint was that the navy was not treated with the same consideration as the army. Look at the immense advantage which General Officers had of being appointed to the colonelcies of regiments—but there was no corresponding benefit held out to old admirals as rewards for long and distinguished service. Then, again, military men were frequently appointed to Colonial garrisons in various parts of the world, but it very rarely happened that such appointments fell to the lot of naval officers. He might refer to many other instances showing that the navy was not treated with the same generosity as the army. He brought forward
  130
  a case the other day proving that the navy had, in respect to the recent war with China, been treated with great injustice as compared with the army, and he was happy to say that that injustice the noble Lord had endeavoured since to remedy. He could bear testimony to the accuracy of what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) in regard to the officers commanding ships, having himself known many officers who had been put to great expense—in some instances to expense they could ill afford—through being appointed by the Admiralty to command. It should be recollected that upon foreign stations the captains of British men-of-war were frequently placed very much in the position of the Foreign Minister, and not only had great responsibility cast upon them, but had often to incur very considerable charge, and it was a well known fact, that many well-qualified naval officers would prefer not to be appointed to ships, because of the expense to which they were in consequence put—often to the serious injury of their families. The noble Lord at the head of the Government brought forward on Monday the question of coast fortifications, and submitted the Government proposition amid the entire sympathy of the House. But he (Mr. B. Cochrane) believed that some of the money proposed to be raised—and this was a question of money—could not be better expended than in doing justice to the naval service, and thus fortifying themselves in the hearts of the people. That he believed would, after all, be found the most efficient fortification. He trusted the Motion would be pressed to a division and carried, the necessity of which he thought was sufficiently proved by the difference of opinion which had been shown during the debate to exist between two ex-First Lords of the Admiralty.
  MR. LINDSAYwas also of opinion that inquiry was necessary. If they looked at the active list of admirals—not the retired or reserved list—they would find that in 1859 out of 99 admirals on the list there were only 14 employed, that out of 357 captains only 97 were employed, and ont of 514 commanders, only 173 were employed. And, if they turned back to the most active period of the late war, when all our naval force was put forward, they would find that out of 99 admirals only 18 were employed, that of 399 captains only 139 were employed, and out of 550 lieutenants, only 192 were employed. This was a matter that

  131
  ought to be inquired into, for he held that they had no right to bring men into the naval service unless there was a fair chance of finding employment for them. Here, however, it appeared that so little was the chance of employment that, even during the heat of war, four-fifths of the officers on the effective list were unemployed. The cost to the country of the unemployed admirals, captains, commanders, and lieutenants was, during peace, £509,000 a year; and during a period of war, £484,000 a year. And while the country was paying half a million of money annually without obtaining any service in return for the outlay, the officers were justly dissatisfied with being condemned to waste the best part of their lives in idleness. Let there be an inquiry, therefore, for the purpose of seeing if the supply could not be brought more into accordance with the demand. It was all very well to say that the matter should be left in the hands of the Admiralty; but it should be recollected that the Admiralty had already brought forward a plan which had given no satisfaction. He had that morning received a letter from a distinguished naval officer (whose name he would not mention publicly, but would communicate to the Secretary of the Admiralty privately if he wished it) asking him (Mr. Lindsay), as he knew the disabilities under which officers in the navy laboured, to support the Motion of the right hon. Baronet, and adding that the noble Lord's scheme met with the strongest condemnation in the profession. That scheme did not touch the question of a large number of officers of various ranks unemployed, and inquiry was, therefore, more necessary now than before that scheme was propounded. Then, with regard to the mates in the navy—on the part of the merchant service he wished to remark that in the event of a war the Government would have to bring in a large number of activo young officers from that service to assist in the navy. If they expected them to come they must, however, deal more liberally with them than they had hitherto done. They must not shut the door of promotion against them, but give them a fair chance with the rest of rising to the highest station in the service. He should certainly, if the House divided, vote for the Motion.
  MR. WHITBEEADsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who was known to have paid great attention to all these subjects, complained of the excess
  132
  of officers in high position, and said that we admitted officers into the service whom we could not employ. But the answer was obvious; that it was necessary that in ordinary times we should have a large margin of such officers, because if a war broke out, and we were called on suddenly to man a large fleet, these were the officers whom we could not extemporize. We could easily fill up the lower ranks, but we could not produce on an emergency a number of experienced naval officers. The grounds which had been urged on behalf of this Motion were two. One was the grievances of the captains of line-of-battle ships, and other officers in command who were not allowed adequate table money; and the other, that mates' time was not counted for their promotion. He had certainly expected that the right hon. Baronet would have stated somewhat broader grounds for the appointment of a Commission that was to inquire into so many different points; but he had heard no adequate grounds stated. The right hon. Baronet made no attack upon the system of promotion—he confined himself to broad assertions that discontent which he knew—though the present Board did not—existed throughout the service, and to the two grievances before mentioned. Now, what was the reply of his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty? He stated that the question of the mates' time was still under consideration, and that no decision had been come to by the Board. And then with regard to the table-money question, the rule now so much complained of was, that captains should be paid according to their standing, and not according to the size of their ships; and the origin of the rule was this:—In 1856 it was necessary to appoint officers of the highest standing to small vessels, there being then a probability that the best men would be wanted in those commands. The rule in question was therefore established, on the representation of a large number of officers, who said it was manifestly unfair that when appointed to a fifth-rate they should not have the pay to which by their position in the service they were entitled. Since then, however, a memorial had been presented to the Admiralty on the subject of table money. The right hon. Gentleman was in office at the time, but he could not find that anything was done. In February, however, the present Board decided that the subject should be taken into consideration when the next Estimates were

  133
  prepared, which was the earliest moment at which they could bring forward a Vote, unles they were to prepare a Supplemental Estimate for every case that came before them. The right hon. Gentleman said the Admiralty ought to entertain all serious complaints. He believed that this had been done. The changes made in the position of the paymasters, the engineers, and the chaplains were all founded on memorials presented by those officers, but in this case the officers who complained had not manfully set forth their grievances. The right hon. Gentleman had, indeed, taken letters from his pocket and read them anonymously; but he did not call these serious complaints, and it must be remembered that the language of the right hon. Gentleman on former occasions had been well calculated to elicit such complaints. One hon. Gentleman said, that many officers of the navy complained that if it were not for the duty they owed the country they would not take the situations offered them. He believed that was a very usual mode of complaint in all services; but practically they found it all ended in this—that they did take the situations; and, therefore, the grievances were not practically so important as might be supposed. He agreed with every word that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth had stated with respect to Commissions. Commissions had not the fear of Parliament before their eyes, and were very apt to recommend the expenditure of vast sums of money, and in fact they generally found that the Reports of Commissions did end in that way. And so, if a Commission were appointed in this matter, it would produce one of two results—either it would cause a large increase of the Estimates, or it would create, what the right hon. Baronet so much deprecated, universal discontent throughout the service. Now, was the navy underpaid? Compare it with the army. A captain in the navy of the first class received £700 a year, a lieutenant colonel of the army about half that sum. Did they find it difficult to induce young gentlemen to enter the navy? It was but the other day they were discussing a Motion which was based on the assumption that there was a great pressure to get into the navy. He was not at all sure that they would be going upon a right principle if they made the navy looked upon as merely a lucrative profession; but he would ask whether even now a poor man's
  134
  son found it as difficult to enter and support himself in the navy as in the army? Before the right hon. Gentleman made himself the organ of these complaints, he should have made further inquiry as to what was being done, and what was the relative position of the army and navy in respect of pay. He hoped the House would not agree to the appointment of a Commission, which, instead of remedying a small grievance, would only lead to general discontent.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman said that he had not complained of the system of promotion in the navy. The reason why he had not referred to that question was, that promotion and retirement were, in fact, the same question, the one depending on the other; so that in demanding an improvement in the mode of retirement he was really dealing directly with the subject of promotion. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) had asked—and asked in a tone which showed, he thought, the question an embarrassing one—what were the great evils into which the Commission was to inquire? The answer was supplied by the Secretary to the Admiralty, who had told the House in plain terms what the evil was—namely, a stagnation of promotion to such an extent as to create a serious and a discouraging effect upon the whole naval service. The right hon. Baronet had been First Lord of the Admiralty, and would be the last man to deny that this was a serious matter. Then the right hon. Gentleman, alluding to his scheme of retirement, said the number of promotions had been as high under the present system as under the check system. But the right hon. Baronet did not go on, as he should have done, to give the reason for this. The reason was that the check system, as it was called, had been broken up by Board promotions, which exceeded the restriction of promotion in other ways. The right hon. Gentleman also said that we had arrived at a desirable state of things as regarded promotion. The captains' list might be reduced to the prescribed number no doubt; but the commanders' list was not. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: It will be by the retirements under the new scheme.] But how long would it remain reduced? It was that miserable hand-to-mouth system that he objected to. No system would answer but a self-acting system, permanent in its operation, and not a mere temporary contrivance. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the

  135
  House could not deal with the question in a generous spirit; but he (Sir John Pakington) only asked for a Commission of inquiry, and did not ask the House to deal with the subject at all at present. The right hon. Gentleman further asked a question which would have surprised him coming from the youngest Member of the House, but which, coming from a right hon. Member who had been First Lord of the Admiralty, was quite incomprehensible—he asked why the Admiralty could not deal with this question, and added, "What was a Government for?" But had the right hon. Gentleman never before heard of Commissions of inquiry? Only the previous evening the House was engaged in considering the recommendations of a Commission upon the subject of fortifications. Again, in 1854 a Commission with similar objects was appointed for the army. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman object to these Commissions and ask what the Government was for? When the right hon. Gentleman could only find such excuses for his vote, it proved that there were no strong arguments to be found against the present Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to ridicule the letters he (Sir John Pakington) had read; but those letters came from officers of the highest character and station, and were quoted by him as the strongest evidence he could adduce in support of his Motion. He would notice one or two points in the speeches of his noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget), and the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Whitbread). He regretted the noble Lord should have departed from his usual courtesy in repeating an attack upon a point which had been previously explained. The noble Lord had asked why he (Sir John Pakington) had not dealt with this question when he was at the Admiralty. The answer was, that he did so as far as he could. He had dealt with the surgeons and the chaplains. He admitted the warrant respecting chaplains had not been successful; but the explanation was that it was based upon the assumption that chaplains of men-of-war, like other officers, adopted the naval service as their profession, but he found that those gentlemen after serving afloat for a few years generally desired to obtain a living or a curacy on shore. The noble Lord had also referred to the captains' memorial having been marked by him with the word "read" only. That was true; but it was no argument against his state
  136
  ment that he intended to deal with that memorial. Another reason that was urged against the appointment of a Commission was, that improvements had been effected by successive Boards; but that was a reason for a Commission, because so many anomalies and inconveniences had been introduced by the action of different Boards, acting upon various and conflicting views, that a complete consideration of the whole subject was necessary. He could assure the House that he was contemplating while in office the very step which he asked the Government to adopt now. When the change of Government occurred he had not made up his mind whether it would be better to deal with the subject seriatim or to appoint a Commission. He made this Motion from no party motive, but solely from a desire to promote the welfare and efficiency of the navy, and therefore he hoped the House would assent to his proposition.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of Naval Officers, and to report what changes therein are desirable, with a view to the increased efficiency of Her Majesty's Naval Service."
  The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 89: Majority 33.

PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS—RESOLUTION.
MR. DUNLOP,in rising to move Resolutions with the view of bringing packet and telegraphic contracts under the more effectual control of the House, referred to the recommendations of the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and to the importance of the considerations which the question involved, inasmuch as no less a sum than £1,000,000 a year was now expended under the head of packet contracts. One subsidy alone amounted to £268,000 a year; and one of the telegraphic contracts was for so long a period as fifty years. The Committee which had just concluded its sittings were of opinion that these contracts should be brought more immediately under the control of Parliament than they had hitherto been, and it was the object of his Resolutions to carry that recommendation into effect. Now, it might be contended

137
that a sufficient check for the provident expenditure of so large a sum was to be found in the fact that the various items were set down in the Estimates which annually came before the House; but then it should be borne in mind that the Votes taken for contracts furnished no intimation as to their renewal in those instances in which they were renewed; and thus the first Vote for a renewed contract to subsist for an additional term of years was taken, and the new contract held to be thereby confirmed by Parliament without any notice to the House that the Vote was not for the service under the previously subsisting and unexpired contracts, the renewals often being made by anticipation, and before the subsisting contract had expired. Then, again, even as to services entirely new, these frequently did not come into operation for a year and a-half or two years after they had been entered into—and consequently the Votes were not laid before the House until some time after the contracts had been executed, the contractors having, in the meantime, gone on building vessels and making the other necessary preparations for the performance of new engagements; so that it was almost impossible for the House to exercise with respect to Votes so submitted to its notice a fair and deliberate control. To such an extent, indeed, was that the case that it was only in those instances in which there had been some alleged misconduct on the part of persons in obtaining a contract that the House hesitated as to whether it should or should not be carried into effect, the mere question of the providence or improvidence of the contract itself being scarcely ever brought under the consideration of Parliament with any practical result. Now, the object with which the Committee had been appointed was to provide a remedy for that state of things. Two suggestions had been made on the subject, one was that before any contract was entered into a Vote for the proposed service should be laid before the House, and, that Vote having been agreed to, the Government should then be at liberty to conclude the contract. To that suggestion, however, arose the objections, that its adoption would lead to two distinct discussions, the one on the Vote for the service and the other on the contract when made, and that by fixing by anticipation the sum to be voted for the performance of the contemplated service the advantage of that competition, by which
138
the real market price of the work to be done might be ascertained, would be lost. The Committee had under those circumstances adopted the second course suggested, namely, to leave as now the Government the full responsibility of making the contract accompanied by the condition that the terms of that contract should forthwith, if Parliament happened to be sitting, be laid on the table of the House, and that it should not be binding until it had lain for a certain period on the table of the House or been specially confirmed by vote. The result of acting on that recommendation would be that an efficient control over the expenditure of the public money in those cases would be established, for no Government would be disposed to incur the unpopularity to which the immediate exposure consequent upon the conclusion of a careless or improvident contract must, under these circumstances, inevitably lead. In dealing with the subject he did not wish to allude to any special contract, but he might nevertheless be permitted to glance for a moment at the case of the Cunard contract in support of the views which he entertained. That contract, which was, he believed, carried out in the most admirable and successful manner, had been renewed in 1858; so that, instead of expiring in 1862, as it would have done if it had been allowed to run its regular course, it would not come to an end until 1867. Now, without entering into the question as to the expediency of renewing the contract four years before its term would have run out, he should contend that there were important circumstances overlooked in the matter, which, if the contracts had been laid on the table of the House in the way which he proposed, must have been taken into consideration. There was, for instance, the correspondence with Canada with reference to the postal question, in the course of which correspondence the Government of Canada represented to our own that an injury was being done to them by the operation of the contract; the consequence being that an understanding was arrived at that matters should remain on the footing on which they stood at the time, until the Cunard contract had expired, the Government of Canada looking upon that as a pledge that their complaints should be considered before the contract was renewed. Then, again, when the question of the Galway service was first started, it was obvious that in the event

139
of its being adopted, a part of the mails transmitted by the Cunard line would necessarily be transferred for conveyance by the Gal way line at the expiration of the contract of the former in 1862, and a portion of the expense of the Galway service be met by a corresponding diminution of the Cunard subsidy. The possibility of effecting such an arrangement, however, was completely excluded by the renewal, by anticipation, of the Cunard contract four years before its termination; and till the renewed contract expired in 1867 this country will be paying twice, and in both cases at a most extravagant rate, for the conveyance of the same letters. Nor is any security given to the public by the course adopted in some of the telegraphic contracts, which require the confirmation of Parliament, but allow it to be given in the form of a private Act. In the case of the Red Sea and Indian telegraph the agreement had been confirmed by private Bill; but the agreement itself was not recited either in the Bill or in the Schedule, and was not added till it reached the House of Lords; yet this was a contract involving a charge of 4½ per cent on a capital of £600,000 for a period of fifty years. The Acts of Parliament passed in the case of the Atlantic Telegraph Company contained clauses enabling the Government to enter into agreements unfettered by any limitation whatever; and, being private Bills, these unusual powers passed without attracting the attention of the House. The Propositions recommended by the Committee, which were embodied in the Resolutions that he had now the honour to submit to the House, wore calculated to secure greater care and providence in taking these large contracts, which ought not to be left to the discretion of the Executive Government without that control which the Constitution required that Parliament should exercise. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—
"That in all contracts extending over a period of years, and creating a Public Charge, actual or prospective, entered into by the Government for the Conveyance of Mails by Sea, or for the purpose of Telegraphic Communications beyond Sea, there should be inserted the condition that the Contract shall not be binding until it has lain upon the Table of the House of Commons for one month without disapproval, unless, previous to the lapse of that period, it has been approved of by a Resolution of the House.
"That every such contract when executed should forthwith, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if Parliament be not then sitting, within fourteen days after it assembles, be laid upon the Table of
140
the House, accompanied by a Minute of the Lords of the Treasury setting forth the grounds on which they have proceeded in authorizing it.
"That in cases where any such Contract requires to be confirmed by Act of Parliament the Bill for that purpose should not be introduced and dealt with as a Private Bill; and that power to the Government to enter into agreements by which obligations at the Public Charge shall be undertaken should not be given in any Private Act."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, before you put the Question I have to say one word on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I need not detain the House more than two or three minutes after the clear and dispassionate statement of my hon. Friend, but there is one duty from which the Government cannot be dispensed, and that is the agreeable duty of tendering its warm thanks to the Committee in general, and particularly to my hon. Friend, who, during the most important and laborious periods of the sittings of the Committee, has fulfilled the very difficult office of Chairman, I think, in a manner entirely worthy of his high character and ability. I think the circumstances of one of the cases mentioned were such as to make it eminently desirable that the House of Commons should give particular attention, by some organ of its own, to the system on which our packet and telegraphic contracts are concluded. It is not, however, necessary to enter into the merits of particular cases. One such has recently been discussed on its own merits before the House, and another may possibly come shortly under discussion. Nor, in point of fact, did the appointment of the Committee rest on any one case exclusively. I do not speak in any sense with respect to any single Administration, or to either side of the House exclusively, when I say that it is undoubtedly clear that there has been an excess of discretion, or rather an excess of power exercised by the Executive Government, which is felt on all hands to require limitation. With that subject my hon. Friend and the Committee had to deal; and they have dealt with it with great judgment and discretion. The Resolutions they have proposed are, on the one hand, well calculated to prevent a repetition of former errors on the part of any Government; while, on the other hand, they avoid a difficulty equally serious and involving perhaps as much danger—namely, that which would be caused by the interference of the House of Commons in duties which do not enter into its functions. I have endeavoured to

141
look on the Resolutions proposed by my hon. Friend with a critical eye, because I think it was a duty, in the first effort made to lay down rules for the Government, of a system of this kind, to see whether it was possible to detect a flaw in I them, with a view to their amendment. Without pretending that these Resolutions will prove in every way applicable to the purpose, or will bring these transactions into a state entirely satisfactory—for experience alone can demonstrate that—I must say that the Committee have well I steered their course between opposite dangers, and adopted the very best expedient I of which the case admits. There is only one point of expression in which I think it well that at any rate the sense and intention of the House should be made I clearer. The first Resolution says that in all contracts extending over a period of years and creating a public charge there should be inserted the condition that the contract shall not be binding until it has lain upon the table of the House of Commons for a certain time. Now, by the term "contract" I apprehend my hon. Friend j and the Committee cannot mean to con I fine themselves to the original formation of the contract, but must likewise intend to include renewals. There is no doubt that when the matter is looked at accurately the renewal of a contract is itself a contract; and, being so, it certainly comes within the legitimate scope of these words. On the other hand, there is a sense of the words in which it might perhaps be held that these renewals might not be included; and I think it is well that the public and all parties interested should understand that renewals, modifications, or alterations in the construction of contracts, which may in themselves be said to constitute new contracts—that is to say, where something is given and taken—must be subject to the order which this Resolution provides. I also think that Resolution a very wise one which provides against the dealing with cases of this kind by Private Rills. I dare say it is in the recollection of the House that during last year there was a Bill relating to the Red Sea Telegraphic Contract, which passed through this House, I believe, without any particular attention being drawn to it, and attached to it was an agreement which pledged the public credit and resources to private parties. That Bill went up to the House of Lords, and was read a third time, and in the
142
House of Lords the agreement of the Government was inserted in the Bill, setting out the whole of the circumstances in a way to draw attention to it. When the Bill came down to this House, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle took notice of the wide powers given by the Bill, and drew the attention of the House to them, claiming that they should be considered and examined; but the general opinion of the House was that the matter had proceeded too far, the Bill having been read a third time in the House of Lords, for the Commons to interfere. It was thought to be an undue exercise of discretion that we should avail ourselves of the official information we had acquired, and although, if there had been a general knowledge of the circumstances previously, the House would certainly have taken time to consider the measure; yet under the circumstances it was thought that our hands were tied. But, inasmuch as it was only by the accident of the moment that the House of Lords became acquainted with the real nature of the Bill, it is a clear proof how necessarily and essentially unsatisfactory and insufficient the forms of a Private Bill are with respect to undertakings between the public and private individuals, and how desirable it is that we should adopt such a Resolution as is proposed by my hon. Friend. I think my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is much better to leave the power of interference with the House of Commons rather than to call upon them for a positive approbation. If we had been dealing with the question of a vote of money the case would have been different. If it was a question of an absolute grant of money, then of course we could not have sanctioned any arrangement which passed by the positive interference of the House of Commons; but as this is only a question of contracts, premonitory of a vote of money, and as the formation of such contracts is a matter entirely belonging to the Executive Government, and to which only the machinery of an Executive Government can be suited, I think my hon. Friend and the Committee have exercised a wise discretion in defining the functions of the House, and limiting it to conditions of openly and directly objecting to an undue exercise of power by the Government, and not placing the positive power of authorizing these contracts by a direct Resolution at the hands of the House itself. The Resolutions do not call for any further

143
comment. They seem to be wisely adapted to the purpose; and again I thank my hon. Friend and. the Committee for the valuable service which I think they have rendered.
MR. ROEBUCKwas anxious that the Resolutions should not be adopted by the House without a word of warning. It seemed to him that the Resolutions mixed up two distinct offices belonging to two distinct authorities. The Government had an administrative power, for the due exercise of which it was responsible; but the: moment the House of Commons was called upon, broadly and distinctly, to give its sanction to an act of the Government, a great portion of the responsibility of the Executive was taken away. Suppose a contract were entered into by the Government and laid upon the table for a month; after that interval the House would have approved the contract. It might, indeed, be said that the House was not asked to give its direct approval; but then, by keeping back its disapproval, it would practically I give its approval. The House could not I afterwards turn round on the Executive, and say, "You have entered into an improvident contract." The Executive might answer, "You have taken from us our responsibility. The contract lay on the table for a month, and you never found ' fault with it. All we have to do is to make the contract and submit it to you when you have given it your approval, we are no longer answerable for it. "Nothing that had been said in that debate had I caused him annoyance or displeasure. He only wished humbly to point out to the House the danger of the course they were about to take. They might depend upon it, if they mixed up two distinct classes of duties, one of which belonged to the Administration, and the other to the House of Commons, they would relieve the Executive of its responsibility, and thereby introduce serious mischief.
SIR GEORGE LEWISdid not think the circumstance of these contracts having I been laid on the table, would deprive the Executive Government of their motives for caution. In a vast number of cases it would be impossible to submit the contracts made by the Executive to Parliament. I Nobody proposed, for example, that when the Admiralty bought timber, coal, or other stores for the navy, they should come down and ask the House by Resolution to authorize them to enter into a contract, There was another set of contracts, fortu-
144
nately of not very frequent occurrence—namely, contracts for public loans; with respect to which it was absolutely necessary to obtain the express sanction of that House. Yet he believed he would be borne out when he said that there was no class of contracts which were entered into with greater care on the part of the Government, with greater publicity, or a greater desire evinced by the Executive to secure the most favourable terms possible for the public, than contracts for loans. The peculiarity of the contracts now under consideration was that they were prospective; namely, for the conveyance of the mails for a considerable term of years, and he much questioned whether the Executive would not exceed its powers, if it entered into such a contract without the express sanction of Parliament. Now, it was with regard to the class of contracts intermediate between the ordinary contracts to which he had referred, and contracts for loans, that the machinery at present proposed was to be introduced. They were not contracts merely for the delivery of a specific quantity of goods, but contracts which pledged the national faith to the payment of large sums of money for services to be performed for a term of years. There was no reason to believe that the publicity and the check of Parliamentary control, which these Resolutions suggested, should in any way diminish the caution of the Government; but on the contrary, they appeared to him calculated to render the Executive still more circumspect in its proceedings.
MR. HOPEsaid, he wished to suggest that in future so large a question as that of the East India Telegraph should not be disposed of in a Private Act of Parliament. There should, he thought, be some authority in Parliament to provide that business extending prospectively over a period of fifty years, should be brought before it in some shape. He only threw out this suggestion in the event of such a matter recurring.
Resolutions agreed to.

POOR RELIEF, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1, (Lands, &c, heretofore vested in the Commissioners to be vested in Board of Guardians).
  SIR JOHN ARNOTTcomplained that the workhouse system as at present ad-

  145
  ministered in Ireland led to the permanent pauperism of those who received relief, and was productive of much immorality. There was abundant evidence also to show that the health of the paupers was not properly attended to, and that the mortality in the workhouses, especially among children, was excessive. Scrofula prevailed in some of them to a greater extent than even in the worst parts of the towns. He owned that the condition of the workhouses in this respect was not so had as it was formerly, but there was still great scope for improvement. The Irish Poor Law, he maintained, had been a complete failure. It was enormously expensive, nearly half of the whole funds being absorbed in the expenses of the administration, yet the streets still swarmed with beggars. While 4½ per cent of the population in England, and 4 per cent in Scotland, received relief, the percentage was only ¾ in Ireland. The fact was that even the most destitute portion of the Irish population refused to avail themselves of the mockery of relief which the present law held out to them. The convicts, the prisoners, the insane were carefully watched over, but woe to the helpless poor who were sane and honest, for they had no friends. The time had come when an entire change in the Poor Law administration of Ireland was absolutely necessary. Such a change need not be accompanied by an increase of expense, for, judiciously administered, the present rates were amply sufficient. A small trifle of 1s. a week of out-door relief would give to many an opportunity of earning something by their industry, while it would amount to much less than their maintenance in the workhouse. The present workhouses, if outdoor relief were judiciously administered, might be reserved for hospitals. He trusted that the Secretary for Ireland would next year meet Parliament with a more humane and economical system of Poor Law administration, so that Ireland might be relieved from a system so discreditable to civilization and humanity.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEconcurred with the hon. Member in condemning the present cumbersome and inefficient Poor Law system in Ireland. If, however, the hon. Gentleman advocated a system of unlimited outdoor relief—[Sir JOHN ARNOTT: Except to ablebodied persons.]—the expense would be so tremendous that the whole of Ireland would be receiving outdoor relief. A more infamous system than
  146
  the Irish Poor Law as it was now constituted was never foisted on any country. The English Commissioners were Englishmen; the Poor Law Commissioners for Scotland were Scotch: but, of the three Poor Law Commissioners for Ireland two were Englishmen, unconnected with the country either by feeling or property, and Protestants. The Irish Commissioner was a medical man, who did not take so prominent a part as the other Commissioners, and who took charge of the medical business. The result was that the Commissioners were so ignorant of the feelings of the people that they were involved in constant conflicts with the boards of guardians all over the country. The whole system was unadapted to the wants and feelings of Ireland, while the expenses of administration swallowed up almost all the money. He maintained that one of the Commissioners ought to be a Roman Catholic; but when Mr. Ball resigned, an Englishman unconnected with the country and a Protestant was appointed; the Commissioners removed all the Roman Catholics they could lay their hands on, and four inspectors, one auditor, and one Secretary were replaced by Englishmen. He wanted the Irish Members to insist upon a searching inquiry into the Poor Law system of Ireland. The Irish Poor Law Board, as at present constituted, was a disgrace to the country, and he hoped the Irish Members would unanimously press for a searching inqniry.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had no doubt that the intention of the hon. Member for Kinsale (Sir John Arnott) was most humane; but he did not think they could discuss on the first clause of a Continuance Bill a question so wide as the hon. Member had opened. When it was said that the Poor Law administration of Ireland was a disgrace to the nation, the hon Member must remember that if it really were so, the local authorities and not-the Commissioners were to blame. He doubted whether the Irish Members would think the English system so verys uperior as to induce them to sanction a system of out-door relief. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne) complained of the ruinous expense of the system. English gentlemen would be gratified to hear that the whole of the Irish Poor Law assessment did not exceed 8d. in the pound; while the medical relief, which was more abundant in Ireland than in any other portion of the United Kingdom, was represented by a rate of only 2d. in the pound.

  147
  As far as expense was concerned, he thought economy had been the rule and not the exception. He certainly thought the Commissioners ought not to be exclusively Protestant, but there ought to be no reproach cast on the individual Commissioners on that account. He was aware that in the extremely interesting union in which his hon. Friend resided there were some disputes; but considering the great difficulty of introducing the Poor Law mechanism into Ireland, so far from speaking of the system as a disgrace, they ought to speak of its introducers, who were philanthropic men, in terms of kindness and respect. At an early period of this Session he received a deputation on this subject who asked for an Inquiry next year. He had offered to commence it forthwith, and on communication with the Poor Law Commissioners he found them equally desirous of an inquiry. If, then, the Irish Members were unanimous in demanding an inquiry next Session, they could have one, provided they would state at once the definite object of the inquiry. He thought that any comparison of the Irish Poor Law with the English would induce Irish Members to pause before they unsettled the present system in Ireland with a view to replace it by the English system.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that as to the merits or demerits of the Irish Poor Law system, he differed altogether from the hon. Member for Liskeard, who had a lawsuit with the Commissioners, and had come down to the House to attack them when they could not defend themselves. [Mr. OSBORNE denied that he had had any lawsuit with the Commissioners.] It was alleged that in the majority of the Irish unions the establishment charges were greater than the amount paid for the relief of the poor. The answer was that these workhouses were almost empty, and it followed as a natural consequence that the expense of the staff of officers connected with them was greater than the expense required for the maintenance of the few inmates. He contended that a system of out-door relief would be more in accordance with the circumstances of Ireland than the present system. This was the view of many of the largest proprietors and ratepayers. The practice of confining the relief to the workhouses in Ireland was productive of immorality, as was shown by the great increase in the number of illegitimate children in that country. Outdoor relief had been found by experience
  148
  beneficial in Scotland, and equally advantageous to the ratepayer and recipient of relief, and it would be equally so in Ireland. That the existing system in Ireland worked ill was not because the Commissioners were Englishmen and Protestants, but because the principle upon which the Act was carried out was defective. The clause now under consideration would, as he understood it, continue the power of the Commissioners for two years, and he therefore moved an Amendment limiting the continuance to one year.
  MR. COGANrose to corroborate the opinion stated by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, that the Commission as now constituted did not command the confidence of any portion of the Irish people. He likewise thought that the modified system of out-door relief might be introduced into Ireland with advantage and economy. It was a curious fact, that while the relief was most inadequate, the expense of maintaining paupers per head was much greater in Ireland than in England or Scotland.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON,as chairman of a large union and conversant with the administration of the existing system, felt bound to declare that the charges made against the Poor Law system were unjust and unfair to the merits of a scheme which had done so much for the poor of Ireland in the time of their distress. All the attacks made upon it were based upon a period of prosperity, when the unions were nearly empty, except in the ease of the sick and the afflicted, and that was the reason why the diet in the Irish unions appeared to be higher than in England. He admitted that abuses had been committed, especially at the time of erecting the unions, but that time had passed away, leaving a debris, he admitted, in the shape of useless workhouses. But that was not the fault of the Poor Law system. He trusted the Committee would not interfere with the Government Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2, (Guardians may admit any Poor Person requiring Medical or Surgical Aid in Hospital).
  SIR EDWARD GROGANthought this clause should be omitted, and that the measure should be limited to a mere continuance Bill.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the clause would enable him to effect an arrangement by which the amount of establishment expenditure would be considerably reduced.
  There was no new principle involved in the clause. It was merely intended to prevent a waste of money.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. HENNESSYmoved the insertion in the Bill of the following clause:—
  "And whereas, by an Act passed in the 10th year of the reign of Her Majesty, c. 31, s. 10, it is provided that no person who shall he in the occupation of any land of greater extent than the quarter of a statute acre shall be deemed and taken to be a destitute poor person under the provisions of an Act passed in the second year of the reign of Her Majesty, c. 56, for the more effectual relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, or of the Acts amending the same; and whereas it is expedient that the said provision of the said Act should be repealed; therefore, from and after the passing of this Act, the 10th section of the said Act, passed in the 10th year of the reign of Her Majesty, c. 31, shall be and the same is hereby repealed."
  Clause brought up and read 1°.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that although he was the author of the original clause, he had no wish to see it retained. It was framed and passed in order to prevent an inordinate pressure upon the guardians of the poor; but he fully believed that it had been accompanied with serious evils in time of famine. If therefore the hon. Member pressed the clause to a division, he should vote with him.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was not in a position to oppose the clause.
  MR. BAGWELLwarned the Committee against the danger of introducing a system whereby small farmers might be led to have recourse to the poor-house in times of distress, instead of depending on their own resources.
  MR. GEORGE,and other hon. Members, opposed the clause, on the ground that if it came into operation it would strike at the root of the self-respect of the small farmers in Ireland, inasmuch as after it passed into a law there would be nothing to prevent the occupiers of land in that country, to the extent of thirty or forty, or even a larger number of acres, from seeking relief in a poorhouse.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 53; Majority 31.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. HENNESSYmoved the addition of another clause, enabling guardians to maintain orphans and deserted children out of the workhouse till the age of twelve.
  COLONEL DUNNEcomplained that the
  150
  honourable understanding, according to which this was to have been a mere continuance Bill for two years, had been broken. The right hon. Gentleman had not himself departed from the agreement, but he had evaded it by collusion with the hon. Member for the King's County. It was the last time he would be a party to any similar engagement with a Government.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the hon. Member ought to reflect on the meaning of the phrases which he employed before making use of them. All that he had undertaken on the part of the Government to do was to confine his Bill to two clauses, which he had accordingly done. After these wore carried, additions were proposed for which he was in no way responsible. Neither on that nor on any other subject had there been collusion between himself and the hon. Member for the King's County.
  [Several hon. Members repeated the charge that the Government had evaded the understanding that the Bill should be a continuance Bill merely.]
  MR. CARDWELLreplied, that as far as the Government were concerned the Bill was a continuance Bill only, limited to two clauses which had passed. The new clauses were not proposed by the Government but by private Members, without any collusion on the part of the Government.
  LORD LOVAINEmoved that the Chairman do report Progress.
  After further discussion,
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsuggested that the clause should be withdrawn for the present, and brought up again on the Report.
  Motion for reporting Progress withdrawn.
  Clause postponed. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.— [Sir J. SHELLEY.]

  THIRD READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [20th July],
  "That the Bill be now read the third time;' and which Amendment was, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day three months.' "
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYrose; but the Question having been put.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that he was too late.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 97: Majority 74.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for three months.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported on Vote 3, £23,000 for Furniture of Public Departments.
  MR. CHILDERScalled attention to the subject of unexpended balances in the Exchequer of former Votes. In fifteen cases in the Civil Service Estimates of the past year the expenditure had exceeded the Votes, and been paid from the balances of previous years to the extent of £131,189. For printing and stationery last year the Vote was £337,000; the expenditure, £427,000, or no less than £90,000 more than the Vote, the money available from previous balances amounting to £115,000. The House was now asked to vote £23,000 for furniture; but on the 1st of April last £28,000 remained unexpended from former Votes, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to take any Vote this year. Therefore, he moved that this Vote be negatived.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that there was now £51,000 to the credit of this Vote, all of which the Government could, if they pleased, spend next week.
  MR. LAINGsaid, a recent Committee on this subject had recommended that in future the balances should be brought forward, and the Government had signified their intention to adopt that course. The Government, under the existing system, had no power of expending a single penny not voted by Parliament; and he hoped, therefore, at this hour of the morning (2–30) he need say no more on the subject.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BIILS.—1a Heritable Securities, Ac. (Scotland); Game Certificates, Ac; Manchester Cathedral Church; Landed Property Improvement (Ireland).
2a Queen's Prison; Offences within Her Majesty's Possessions Abroad; Coast of Africa, Ac, Act Amendment; Herring Fisheries (Scotland); Felony and Misdemeanour; Crown Debts and Judgments.
3a Labourers Cottage (Scotland); Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Burial Grounds (Ireland) Act (1856) Amendment; Isle of Man Harbours; Dominica Hurricane Loan.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would express his satisfaction that the

79
clause relating to religious professions had been struck out of the English Census Bill. He wished to ask whether such a clause had been retained in the Irish Bill, in accordance with the wishes of noble Lords connected with that country? He also observed that there was a provision not in the Irish Bill, which it would be desirable to introduce into it, and another which it was in his opinion expedient should be omitted from it. The Census would give the numerical return of the population it found in that kingdom, but it would not give any return of the persons who had emigrated in the interval since the last Census. In former times emigration from Ireland was strongly advocated, and a great diminution of the population necessarily ensued. Latterly a very large increase had apparently taken place; but the extent of this increase had hitherto been only estimated by setting the number of deaths on one side and the number of births at the other, no account being taken either of emigration or immigration. Emigration they knew had largely gone forward, and he feared that when the details were ascertained it would be found that the country had lost a great portion of its military strength. Those who emigrated were principally the strong and hale, who would to a great extent have become soldiers if they had remained in the country; while those who stayed behind were largely made up of the old and very young. If it should be found that in proportion to the total number the most valuable portion of the inhabitants had left the country, it would be time, he thought, for the Government and Parliament to determine whether it was any longer advisable to take measures for the encouragement of emigration. He would suggest that the Government should introduce into the Irish Bill a clause similar to that contained in the Bill for England, defining the allowances of those who were to carry the provisions of the Act into operation. He likewise begged to move the omission from Clause 3 of the words, "and to take account of all such further particulars as by such instructions they may be directed to inquire into," which he thought placed an undefined power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
LORD MONTEAGLEfully admitted that there was no longer any necessity for the encouragement of emigration from Ireland on the part of Her Majesty's Government, as that emigration had been attend-
80
ed with nearly all the benefits that were expected to follow from it. He would certainly impose no restraint upon that emigration; nil he thought the Government were now bound to do in the matter was to see that the emigrant vessels were perfectly seaworthy, well-found, and that the emigrants were adequately provided for, and exposed during their voyage to no improper treatment. He thought the noble Earl was mistaken with respect to the class of persons of whom the Irish emigrants now consisted. It was true that at the commencement of the movement those emigrants consisted principally of the young and active; but many of them after their success abroad had shown the most affectionate solicitude for the welfare of the relatives they had left behind them, and had, in many cases, taken care to supply the necessary funds for bringing over to join them both their young children and their old parents; so that the emigration now in reality included people of every age and of every variety of physical power. The latest returns would show that there was no longer any reason to apprehend a loss of military strength. With regard to the clause in the Bill which sanctioned an inquiry into religious professions, he strongly approved of that power being given, and he believed that such inquiries when made in 1835 had met with no opposition of any kind in Ireland. He very much regretted that it had been found necessary to omit the similar provision from the English Bill. He thought it was a concession to clamour and false alarm. It was impossible to suppose that to require a statement of the religious faith of persons returned by themselves could be regarded as an interference with religious freedom; there must consequently be some other motive for the objection. Could it be that persons objecting to afford information on such a point were actuated by an apprehension of some loss of their own importance if the truth were accurately made known. A party unwilling to have the exact truth stated thereby manifested a belief that the notions entertained as to its numbers and influence were at present exaggerated. In Ireland no objection was made to such inquiries. Under Lord Melbourne's Administration a special census was taken which was pointed solely at the relative numbers of the various Christian denominations, and yet the returns were obtained without the slightest difficulty. The ministers of all sects concurred in making the Returns most complete, and

81
there never yet was a more expeditious, more accurate, or cheaper statistical return made. No objection had been raised to this provision in its passage through the other House, and he hoped their Lordships would adhere to the Bill as it now stood. The Irish Census was, however, incomplete in one respect, inasmuch as it was a mere enumeration of numbers, unchecked by those calculations derived from the returns of births, marriages, and deaths which were so indispensable in England. He was glad to hear that a Bill had been introduced in the other House for establishing a system of registering births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland, which had only been withdrawn on account of the lateness of the Session. He trusted it would ultimately become the law of the land.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he did not propose to press any Motion; he had only pointed out the difference between the two Bills. No doubt this provision would give a great trouble to the enumerators, for he remembered hearing that in a small town in the North of Ireland, near which he had resided many years ago, there were no less than sixteen different sects.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he certainly regretted that it had been necessary to remove from the English Bill the provision which was originally inserted for obtaining Returns of the religious professions of the people. But when the Government found that, rightly or wrongly, that provision was offensive to a great portion of the inhabitants of the country, it would have been very improper upon their part to insist on its retention. He hoped the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) would not press his Amendment for the omission of certain words in the Irish Bill, which had only been introduced for the purpose of ensuring greater completeness in the Returns.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the point that he objected to was the general power given to inquire into any subject besides those actually specified in the Bill which the curiosity of the Lord Lieutenant, or of somebody about the Lord Lieutenant, or of somebody else who was about somebody who was about the Lord Lieutenant, might prompt him to have inquired into.
LORD MONTEAGLEwas disposed to object to a general power, but was afraid it might deprive the collectors of the op-
82
portunity of making their Census comparable in all respects and in all points of information with the last, and thus injure the relative value of the results. He would suggest that the noble Earl should postpone his Amendment until he had had an opportunity of ascertaining what were the exact points inquired into in the last Census.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had no objection to the Government preparing a schedule, in which should be inserted all the subjects that were inquired into in 1851; but he did object on principle to this clause, which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to inquire into any subject on which his curiosity might lead him to seek information.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the objections of the noble Earl did not seem to be shared by the Irish Peers. Unless there was some particular objection he thought it was desirable to keep the form of inquiry as near as possible to that which was instituted in 1851.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, his objection was that these irrelevant subjects of inquiry would extend the time for taking the Census, and would increase the expense. He objected to it, therefore, on economical as well as Parliamentary grounds.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the last observation did not support the argument of the noble Earl, because in Ireland the constabulary performed almost all the duty, and the expense was small.
Amendments withdrawn.
Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

CENSUS (ENGLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobjected to the unnecessary details required by this Bill. What earthly use could there be in taking the names of every man, woman, and child, in England and Wales? 28,000,000 of names, which no man would ever read, to be bound up in 30,000 volumes! Why, it would be enough to form the foundation of a new Alexandrian Library. Besides this, the rank, profession, occupation, and condition of every person were to be stated, it was obvious that the occupation and profession were sufficient. Moreover they required to know what was the relation of every

  83
  person in a Souse to the bead of the family, and where each person was born—a question which many persons would be unable to answer. And it was to be remembered that the English inquiry at least would be very expensive, and these irrelevant inquiries would probably add some hundreds of thousands of pounds to the expense. It would be impossible to obtain this information in a single day; another day would be required, and the expense would be proportionally increased. He must say he greatly preferred the system of Ireland, which was much simpler, and where these particulars were not required.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, these particulars were required in Ireland, for he distinctly remembered that on the last occasion these particulars were required to be filled up in the papers left at his House; and more than that, there was a column for the blind, deaf, and dumb.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: That is here too.
  THE EAEL OF DONOUGHMORE: The only difference between the two countries appears to be that in England the information is entered in a book, and in Ireland on separate sheets of paper.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that all these particulars were required by the former Census, and the Home Secretary thought it desirable to continue the forms as exactly similar as possible. In England sheets were first left at every house, and afterwards collected. They were often written in pencil, and would be illegible by the time they had been turned over six or seven times. It was also a great assistance to the central office to have them copied into books, and in the case of sheets filled up in the Welsh language a translation was indispensable. It was not desirable to make changes which would perplex the enumerators. It was refreshing, however, for the Government to find themselves asked to omit details for which hitherto the pressure had been all the other way. There had been a great anxiety in some quarters to have an educational column, and one enthusiastic ethnographer was anxious to have returns of the number of people with different coloured hair, that some idea might be formed of the relative proportions of the Saxon and Danish races.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, his object in the remarks he had made had been to point out how all the statistics that were really necessary might be most simply and cheaply procured. If they got
  84
  a statement of the number, sexes, and ages of the people, they had all that, as a Legislature, it was possible for them to require. He did not think that the returns which would be obtained under this Bill would be such as they could rely upon, and the reason of that was simply that too much care was taken to make them perfect. First, a schedule was to be sent to each house; the enumerator was then to call and see that answers were attached to all the questions: having amended and completed the answers as well as he could he must proceed to copy them into a register: then the return had to be examined by the registrar, who, if not satisfied with it, was to make out another; the superintendent-registrar was to perform the same operation; so that by the time the return had been enlarged and amended by the various officers it would be a perfectly original document, on which they could hardly place much reliance. The truth was that the system was quite overburdened, and that the Irish system as it had hitherto prevailed was much superior.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.

  REPORT,
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD REDESDALEobjected to that clause in the Bill which made the price for the commutation of tithes compulsory at twenty-five years' purchase. There was no reason why a greater number of years' purchase should not be accepted if it could be obtained. For this purpose he would move an Amendment, the effect of which was, that the commutation should be for "not less than" twenty-five years' purchase.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONopposed the Amendment. A Select Committee of their Lordships had pronounced in favour of the arrangement in the Bill, and he thought it would be better to adhere to it.
  After a few words from Lord PORTMAN and Lord CRANWORTH,
  Amendment disagreed to; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD BROUGHAM,adverting to the

  85
  petition he presented last night, complaining of the alteration in the Friendly Societies Act of 1855, by a clause introduced on the Report of the Bill of 1853, on the eve of the prorogation of Parliament, whereby the consent of only one-fourth was substituted for five-sixths of the Members as necessary previous to the dissolution of a Friendly Society and the distribution of its funds, observed that this Bill was, he believed, intended to remedy the evil there pointed out.
  Bill passed.

FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BROUGHAMmoved the second reading of this Bill. Its object was to assimilate the practice in cases of felony or other criminal proceedings to that adopted in civil proceedings, so far as regarded the regulation of addresses to the jury. It provided that in every trial for felony or misdemeanour, at the close of the case for the prosecution, the presiding Judge shall ask the prisoner's counsel whether he intends to adduce evidence; and if he states that he does not, then the counsel for the prosecution shall, if the Judge think fit, be allowed to address the jury a second time for the purpose of summing up the evidence. The Bill further allowed the prisoner or his counsel, after opening his case and calling his witnesses, to again address the jury, commenting on his evidence; the right of the counsel for the prosecution to reply, and all other proceedings, to remain as at present. Under the existing practice it had been found in too many cases that counsel for the defence, being afraid of the speech in reply at the other side, abstained from calling witnesses, thereby defeating the very aim and end of justice, namely, the discovery of truth. The great recommendation of the Bill was, that it placed the procedure in cases of felony and misdemeanour on the same footing as in civil cases. He did not support it on the ground of its being more favourable to prisoners and defendants, but because it was calcuated to elicit the truth.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEfelt great objections to the measure. The nature of civil and criminal proceedings was entirely different. In the former, which were often most complicated, a clear exposition of the law was requisite in the first instance,
  86
  and difficulties which constantly presented themselves in the course of the trial required to be elucidated by argument. There were, moreover, no means of anticipating what the witnesses would say. But in any criminal case in which a conviction could be hoped for, the facts appeared clearly in the preliminary depositions; and long speeches would only consume the time of the Court, without being attended with any corresponding benefit. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this Hay Three Months."
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he was unable to understand on what principle it could be refused to place counsel in criminal cases on the same footing as in civil actions. The consumption of time, he thought, was wholly beside the question. If it were just and proper that counsel should have this right, the time employed was a secondary matter as compared with the attainment of justice. The counsel for the prosecution had always the advantage of basing his statement on ascertained facts; the defendant's counsel, on the contrary, having to treat of evidence which in most cases had never before been adduced. An ingenious counsel on the other side might point out discrepancies between the speech made under such circumstances and the evidence as afterwards given; it was consequently but fair to afford defendant's counsel an opportunity by summing up the evidence of removing such an unfavourable impression from the minds of the jury. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he felt the greatest diffidence in giving an opinion upon this question, but still be must say that he thought there was great weight in the objections which had been stated to the measure. He also thought that it would he particularly hard upon prisoners who had no counsel to have two speeches instead of one made against them by the counsel for the prosecution.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that, though with some hesitation, he should support the Bill. He was quite persuaded that this Bill would lengthen trials; yet if it were necessary for the proper administration of criminal justice the question of time ought not to have any weight in their decision. The principle, however, had been tried in civil cases, and on the whole successfully, and it might be of use in crimi-

  87
  nal cases. If, indeed, the Bill were to pass, he could not help feeling some satisfaction that he would no longer have to go circuit. He was afraid that the multiplication of speeches would tend to the perplexing of juries. In Scotland there were only two speeches in criminal cases, one for the prisoner and one for the prosecution; both being delivered after the evidence on both sides had been given. This practice had been found very successful. Under the Bill, as at present worded, if four prisoners were tried together there would be ten speeches. Still, as this right of summing up might be essential in 'some cases, he would not withhold his assent, though it was with some misgiving and hesitation that he gave it.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that practically in all important criminal cases in Scotland there were two speeches on each side.
  LORD CRANWORTHthought that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 the Bill would very unnecessarily lengthen trials, and anything which made the proceedings of criminal courts more distasteful to prosecutors must be generally injurious, and prevent the detection and punishment of crime. A great increase in the number of speeches, he was afraid, would by no means tend to the enlightenment of juries. He had no doubt that in many cases the Bill would operate more to the advantage of prosecutors than prisoners, but the advantage of either part was not the question they had to consider. The object to be attained was the greatest possible safeguard for the delivery of true decisions, and if he could persuade himself that improper verdicts were given for wan); of this right, he should be very sorry to oppose the Bill. He suggested that the Bill might be qualified in this way—that the presiding Judge might allow two speeches if he thought the case one of such difficulty a nddoubt as to make it reasonable. They would thus secure the object in view whenever it was necessary, and yet save the unnecessary protraction of all trials; because every counsel would construe the powers into a duty to address the jury a second time.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that having heard the speeches of two lawyers on each side, though they were not of great length, his mind was not more clear than before they addressed their Lordships. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, with a partiality for Scotland, said that the proceedings in that country
  88
  were perfect. His noble and learned Friend who moved the second reading must also have a natural admiration for Scotch institutions, but he proposed an entirely novel course, different from what existed here, and different from what existed there. If the Scotch law were so perfect, why should it not be adopted?
  On Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:—Contents 13; Not-Contents 10: Majority 3.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2° accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

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

  Somerset, D.

  Broughton, L.

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Caithness, E.

  Foley, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Harris, L.

  Granville, E.

  Stratheden, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Amherst, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

  Egerton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford)

  De Vesci, V.

  Wensleydale, L, [Teller.]

  Melville, V.

  Sydney, V.

  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.