Sitting of 15 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Votes for Disqualified Candidates.

ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION (EDINBURGH) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 14 agreed to.
MR. MURE MR. MURE moved the following proviso at the end of the clause:—
"Provided always, That upon the death or removal of any of the present ministers of any of the above-mentioned thirteen churches, the successor or successors of such minister or ministers shall not be entitled to a salary or stipend of more than £550 per annum until such time as the Commissioners named in this Act shall have made such provision as they may deem expedient
508
for payment of a salary or stipend, amounting to not more than £550 per annum to the ministers to be nominated by them to the Tolbooth Church and the Old Church under the powers by this Act conferred upon the said Commissioners."
The hon. Gentleman disclaimed any wish to interfere with the principle of the clause. His object was simply to give power to the Commissioners to deal with the matter of the amount of salaries of the successors of the present incumbents to a limited extent, so that, if they thought it expedient, they might fix the salaries of successive ministers at £550.
THE LORD ADVOCATEheld that the interests of religion and of the Established Church would be more effectually served by the maintenance of thirteen ministers at a salary of £600 or £700 a year, than by keeping up two inefficient charges such as these, at a cost of a diminution of the stipends of the other ministers. He would not, however, oppose the Amendment if his hon. Friend would consent to leave out the specification of the two churches, and say "any minister nominated by the Commission."
MR. MUREsaid, that he had no objection to comply with the suggestion of the learned Lord.
Amendment, with the alteration proposed, agreed to.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 15.
Clause 16 (Accounts to be kept and published by the Commissioners).
THE LORD ADVOCATEsuggested that this clause should be postponed for further consideration. He would, however, take that opportunity of explaining the facts of the case with respect to Trinity College church to which the clause referred. It appeared that the North British Railway of Scotland, being obliged to take down the church for the purposes of their railway, paid a sum of £16,000 to the Town Council, to be applied to the rebuilding of the church on another site. Owing to some differences of opinion upon the question, an action was commenced against the Town Council to compel them to build the church according to the agreement. The Lord Ordinary decided against the Town Council, and the money would be handed over to the Commissioners for the rebuilding of the church. The arrangement was, that the church should be rebuilt after an interval of five years, during which time the minister of Trinity College church was to be maintained at a salary of £600 a year. After the rebuilding of the church there would be a balance of between

509
£5,000, and £6,000. A Committee of the House had recommended that a portion of this fund should be applied to the redemption of the Annuity Tax. On the part of the Town Council he had been pressed over and over again to take the money for the same purpose, and he thought it would be fair enough to relieve the town on the one hand and give the church the benefit on the other. The Amendment he was going to introduce was that the money should be handed over to the Commissioners, who should be bound to build the church and to apply the remaining fund as had been already stated.
MR. E. ELLICEthought that if any parties had reason to complain, in respect to this matter, it was the Railway Company itself. They were compelled by the Town Council to pay a large sum of money for the rebuilding of this church. He observed that although this money had been extorted by the Town Council from the North British Railway Company for the specific purpose of rebuilding the church on another site, the Town Council had resorted to every technical quibble, to every mode of legal chicanery they could think of, in order to escape from the obligation which they took upon themselves when they received the money. As a matter of equity, if after rebuilding the church any balance remained, the Town Council ought to hand it back to the Railway Company.
MR. BLACKcontended that the former part of the transaction was highly creditable to the Town Council; and he might say that he was himself the Town Council on that occasion, because it was left entirely to him to arrange with the Railway Company in London. The Company at first proposed to remove the church and go to a jury to declare the value of the land; but he (Mr. Black) required that they should rebuild the church, and the Parliamentary Committee decided in his favour. The Company then preferred to pay the money, and he left it to the Company's own architect to say what sum the church could be built for. After that he (Mr. Black) left the Council; but he could not defend the Council for attempting to evade the obligation he had undertaken. Up to that point he maintained that the Council had acted very liberally towards the Company. The Company, in endeavouring to overreach the Council, had been overreached themselves.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that the fault of the Council lay not in accepting the money, but in attempting to misappropriate it. If after the church was built a balance remained it should be applied to the support of the church, but not to the relief of the inhabitants.
MR. HADFIELDwas surprised that not a single Scotch Member had a word to say for the Town Council of Edinburgh. He was satisfied from what he knew of members of the Council that they had acted in an honourable manner.
Clause postponed.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 postponed.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to, with Amendments.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28. (Provost, Magistrates, and Council to pay to succeeding Minister and his Successors a Salary of £200 per annum.)
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEproposed an Amendment which would have the effect of giving to the ministers of the Church of Montrose a salary of £250 a year, instead of £200. The town was a very large one, and he was sure the Committee would admit that even £250 a year was not more than adequate to enable the minister of such a place to maintain his position.
Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 38, after the word "hundred," to insert the words "and fifty."
MR. BAXTERreminded the Committee that the original proposal for the settlement of the Annuity tax was, that the salary of the minister should be £340. Now it was proposed that £200 should be paid as the stipend of the minister, and that the remainder of his income should be made up from the pew-rents, &c. That arrangement was acceptable to the Church party in Montrose, and so far as the result was concerned, the salaries of the ministers, so far from being reduced, they would rather be increased by the operation of the Bill. He should certainly oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, that he was informed that, a little time ago, the Town Council of Montrose were willing to have the salary fixed at £250, but that when the smaller sum was suggested they readily accepted it. He spoke in the interest of the minister, who, he considered, should not be left dependent on the generosity of any body of men.
MR. MUREobjected to the proposal, because it would interfere with the administration of relief to the poor, who received aid out of the church-door collection.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he should not feel himself justified in agreeing to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Bruce), inasmuch as he believed it would have the effect of disturbing the arrangement that had already been agreed to by the Church party in Montrose.
Question put, "That the words 'and fifty' be there inserted."
The Committee divided—Ayes 42; Noes 70: Majority 28.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 29 (Stipends of the Ministers of the Montrose Church).
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsuggested that, as the Bill was a compromise on this subject, it was desirable that no element should be left in it which could give rise to future misunderstanding and irritation. They had experience of the effect of pew-rents in England, and he did not think it would be wise to extend that principle in Scotland. It was very desirable that a certain portion of every church should be reserved for the poorer classes, and that they should have absolute security that those free seats would be reserved for them. He wished, therefore, that a clause should be introduced giving the poor a right to adequate accommodation in the church.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, it was his intention to propose that one-tenth of each church should be appropriated to the poor. He proposed in line 15 after "case," to leave out to the end of the clause, and to insert "it shall be lawful for them to increase the salary or stipend of the ministers of the said church to an amount not exceeding £340." He did not think that the salaries of the ministers should be made dependent upon pew-rents or church-door collections, which should be devoted to the poor.
MR. BAXTERurged upon the hon. Gentleman not to persevere in his Amendment, which would have the effect of creating much dissatisfaction.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he supported the Amendment, on the ground that if the people knew that those collections would be appropriated to other purposes than the relief of the poor they would cease to contribute to the poor-box.
Amendment negatived.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEproposed
512
an Amendment in the clause appropriating one-tenth of the church at Montrose to the use of the poor in the same way as had been arranged in the churches of Edinburgh.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYproposed a proviso at the end of the clause, by which not less than one-third of each church should be appropriated to the public without costs.
THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the proviso, on the ground that the accommodation already provided for the poor was amply sufficient, and that, if adopted, it would only lead to confusion.
Proviso negatived.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 were agreed to.
Clause 16 (Accounts to be kept and published by the Commissioners).
THE LORD ADVOCATEthen proposed that the clause should be framed to this effect:—
"That the moneys now in the hands of the Town Council of Edinburgh for the purpose of rebuilding Trinity College church, including all interest and accumulations, should be handed over to the Commissioners under this Bill in November next, and that after an interval of five years, the Commissioners should appropriate these moneys, or such amount as should be necessary, to the rebuilding of the said church according to the plan already agreed upon; and that during the said period of five years the minister of that church should receive a stipend of £600 a year."
The rebuilding of the church would cost £12,000, which would leave a balance of £6,000 or £7,000 to be applicable to other purposes set forth in the Bill.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 21 (If Commissioners fail in the Discharge of their Duties, the Lord Advocate may bring a Complaint before the Court of Session.)
Mr. STIRLINGproposed the following Amendment:
"After 'on,' leave out the rest of the clause, and insert, 'and after the passing of this Act, the advocation, donation, and right of patronage of the following City churches—namely, St. Andrew's, St. George's, Greenside High Church, New Greyfriars, Old Greyfriars, St. John's, Lady Yester's, St. Mary's, St. Stephen's, Trinity College, Tron Church, and New North Church, shall cease to be in and belong to the Magistrates and Council, and shall be vested in the Commissioners; and the right of patronage of the said churches, as vacancies shall occur among the ministers thereof, shall be exercised by the Commissioners, assisted by representatives annually elected by the Kirk Sessions of the said churches, one by each Kirk Session, from among its own members, for the

513
special purpose of acting with the Commissioners in filling up such vacancies, subject to the rules of the Church of Scotland."
He did not wish to cast any imputation on the manner in which the Council had exercised their patronage; but the altered circumstances of the case, he thought, required this change. He denied that the Council had any right to compensation for the withdrawal of the patronage, inas much as it was a trust vested in them on behalf of the public. No compensation was proposed to be given to the Town Council of Edinburgh, when the University patronage was withdrawn; and in this very Bill the patronage of the second charge in Montrose, was to be transferred to the elders and members of that church, without compensation to the Town Council.
THE LORD ADVOCATEheld that the Town Council had always exercised their patronage well and wisely, and had been hardly dealt with in the University Bill. An ordinary patron could, of course, sell his right; but the Town Council could not alienate their patronage, which was, therefore, at present not saleable. He thought it right that they should have the power of negotiating for the disposal of their patronage, and could not consent to its being forcibly withdrawn from them.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him that the clause proposed was one so just and reasonable, that it ought to receive the general assent of the Committee. They should recollect that it was this question of patronage which had occasioned the great schism in the Church of Scotland. When they were changing the application of those funds, he thought it was but a just concession that this patronage should be given to the unexceptionable body proposed. It was most desirable that the patronage of the Church should be exercised by the members of the Church.
MR. BLACKsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; but as the right of presentation had always been treated as property, it was but fair that the Council should be permitted to sell a property which belonged to the City of Edinburgh. He suggested that the patronage should be transferred to the Kirk Session and congregation, instead of the Commissioners, as in the case of the church of Montrose, and that a year's rent should be the price of the patronage.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, in the case of Montrose church, there was no price; the
514
Council merely held the patronage as a public trust; and if it were for the general good that it should be transferred, that was no reason why the Council should receive money, and make a profit out of it.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, nothing could be more injurious than to transfer the patronage from the public Council to another body, elected in a wholly different manner. Let the Council sell it, or let it be transferred in each instance to the respective congregations.
MR. E. ELLICEpressed on the Lord Advocate the propriety of taking away the patronage from the Council, who had no title to compensation. The patronage ought to be transferred to the congregations; but sooner than see it remain in the hands of the Council, he would vote for the Amendment.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEthought there were grave objections to giving congregations this patronage; because very frequently there were two or more pastors amongst them; and the result was, that in the exercise of this patronage much animosity was engendered.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, that in this case there were very special reasons for vesting the Church patronage in the congregations; because they would look out for the most popular minister, whereby the seat-rents would be increased.
MR. STIRLINGhad no objection that the patronage should be vested in the congregation, and suggested that the Lord Advocate should put the clause in a shape that would satisfy all parties.
Clause negatived.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would not undertake to bring up a clause in place of it; he would, however, consider whether he could so amend it that it ought to meet the wishes of all parties.
Preamble agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported as amended, to be considered on Monday 25th June.

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED ELECTION.
Message from The Lords, That Her Majesty has appointed To-morrow, at half-past Twelve of the clock, at Buckingham Palace, to be attended with the Address of both Houses of Parliament, under the provisions of the Act 16 Vict. cap. 57, with respect to the Berwick-upon-Tweed Election, and that the Lords have appointed the LORD STEWARD and the LORD CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD to attend Her

515
MAJESTY therewith on the part of their Lordships, and to desire this House to appoint a proportionable number of its Members to go with them.
Ordered, That four Members of this House do go with the Lords mentioned in the said Message to wait upon Her MAJESTY with the said Address.
Ordered, That Viscount PALMERSTON, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Viscount CASTLEROSSE, and Lord PROBY do go with the Lords mentioned in the said Message.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewih; and that the Clerk do carry the same Message.
On Motion "That the House, at rising, adjourn till Monday next,"

UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps in accordance with the recommendation of the Astronomer Royal and the Comptroller-General, contained in the Letter of the latter of the 9th February, 1859, and the Report of the former gentleman, on the subject of the better administration of the Law with regard to Weights and Measures, and the organization of a separate office for that department.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the question raised by the Report of the Astronomer Royal, was no less a one than whether the Government should take upon themselves to establish a centralized agency for insuring uniformity of weights and measures throughout the kingdom. The connection of the Treasury with the subject was very slight; it merely related to seeing a standard of weights and measures deposited in the Exchequer; the extension suggested would fall within the department of the Home Secretary. He could not say that the Government had made up their minds to the introduction of any measure on the subject.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade questions relative to the Treaty of Commerce with France, namely, first, it having been stated that applications are pressed upon our leading commercial men to proceed to Paris, under the auspices of the Board of
  516
  Trade, to convince the French Commissioners that liberality is the true policy, whether it is true that leading commercial men have been pressed to proceed to Paris, and, if so, for what purpose; and, secondly, it having been publicly alleged that the Treaty is an universally admitted failure, whether the President of the Board of Trade can state if anything has occurred in the progress of the negotiations, to cause the Government or their negotiators to believe that the Supplementary Convention will fail to carry out the original design of the Treaty?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: If it has been stated that the Board of Trade have urged upon any commercial gentlemen to go to Paris in order to convince the French Commissioners that "liberality is the true policy," I can assure my hon. Friend that the statement is entirely incorrect. No commercial gentleman has been asked to go to Paris for any such purpose; but, it being necessary under the Treaty that a Supplementary Convention should be con-eluded in order to convert the ad valorem duties into specific duties, and also to settle the actual amount of such duties, it was thought desirable to obtain from the Chambers of Commerce, and from persons interested in the various branches of industry affected, the best information possible, in order that the conversion might not take place in a manner disadvantageous for the interests of the trade of this country for want of information. The Chambers of Commerce were invited to supply the Board of Trade with information, and it was suggested that deputations should go to Paris. But the suggestion thrown out on our part was that delegates should go to Paris, sent by the Chambers of Commerce, representing the various branches of trade and industry affected, in order to supply the special information practically necessary to settle the details of the Treaty. That was the course taken, and that was the most reasonable and the most proper course to be taken; and unless it had been taken, it would not have been possible to convey to the Commissioners the special information on the various branches of our manufactures and industry which it was necessary for them to possess in settling the duties. There is not, therefore, the slightest truth in the statement that any gentlemen have been sent by the Board of Trade for the purpose of recommending any particular policy. Those gentlemen

  517
  went to Paris for the simple purpose of supplying the necessary information, which can only be afforded by skilled persons connected with the various manufactures and trades that will be affected by the Treaty. In answer to the other Question which my hon. Friend has put—whether the Treaty is not held to be an universally admitted failure, I will only say that such a statement is entirely new to me. As far as I am aware, the negotiators are succeeding in carrying out, by a Supplementary Convention, the original design and intention of the Treaty. All that I hear leads me to believe that its practical commercial value has been much underrated.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.
  QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to repeat the question which he had put to the noble Lord opposite a few days ago, as to whether any steps have been taken for the enlargement of the period at which the ad valorem will be turned into specific duties. The question was of great importance, because though it was possible that the French Government might not fix a lesser duty than 30 per cent ad valorem, if it were left in their power to do so, if the change were once made into specific duties it would no longer be in their power to increase, though they might, if they chose, diminish their amount. But if the time within which the ad valorem were to be changed into specific duties were allowed to lapse, it would be at any period in the power of Prance to lower the ad valorem duties from 30 to 10 per cent; or, on the other hand, to raise them from 10 to 30 per cent. The British manufacturer, consequently, would never have any certainty as to the amount of duty which his goods might be called on to pay on their entrance into Prance. It was, therefore, highly important that either the ad valorem should be turned into specific duties within the period prescribed by the Treaty, or else that by mutual consent the time should be enlarged in a Supplementary Convention?
UNIFORM VALUATION OF PROPERTY. LONDON CORPORATION.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. STANLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home De-
  518
  partment if it is his intention, now the Reform Bill is withdrawn, to bring in his Bill this Session, to enforce a uniform Valuation of Lands and Tenements in England? The right hon. Gentleman stated some time since that he had a Bill prepared for procuring an equal valuation of all the property in England, and that he did not lay it on the table owing to the pressure of business—alluding as he (Mr. Stanley) understood to the Reform Bill— which he said was likely to take up the whole time of the House. That Bill was now withdrawn; and the House would probably agree with him that it was of the greatest importance that a Bill for a more perfect valuation of property should be introduced in case another Reform Bill was brought in proposing a rating franchise, such a valuation would be absolutely necessary.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was quite prepared at once to introduce the Bill for the Amendment of the parochial valuation; but he feared, though the Reform Bill had been withdrawn, there was little prospect, from the pressure of business, of bringing the Valuation Bill under the consideration of the House. He wished, however, to caution the House against the expectation that the Bill would establish one uniform system of valuation, similar to that of Ireland. As long as the English system was parochial it was impossible it could be so uniform as one established under a single Government Board.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works what arrangements have been made since the lamented death of Sir Charles Barry to complete the Houses of Parliament and the adjacent buildings; and whether there is any plan left by Sir Charles Barry for the completion of the whole, on which it is intended to proceed. During the lifetime of the late Sir Charles Barry various steps were taken more or less ineffectually, in order to ascertain when the Houses of Parliament would be finally completed. Like the clock just alluded to by the hon. Member for Peterborough, the Houses, commencing at an estimate of £750,000 had already cost the nation £2,400,000. Now, at the death of Sir Charles Barry it became an object of special interest to the public to know

  519
  whether the works wore completed; if not, how much remained to be done; and what would be the extra cost. He also wished to know who was the person deputed, or to be deputed, to carry out any additional works which had been projected by Sir Charles Barry. It was generally understood that Sir Charles Barry had prepared plans, not merely for the completion of the Houses, but other plans of an extensive nature for improving the neighbourhood, including the removal of the Courts of law, the formation of the approaches to the bridge, and of a quadrangle in New Palace Yard, and other alterations. He wished to know whether the Government were in possession of Sir Charles Barry's plans for those improvements; and if so whether they were prepared to act upon them? Another question he wished to ask was this: It was well known that a short time previous to Sir Charles Barry's death a misunderstanding existed—a misunderstanding of very long continuance—as to the rate and mode of remuneration for his services; and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that misunderstanding had been finally arranged, and if so upon what terms? He would also ask whether arrangements had been entered into with the person who had been appointed to succeed Sir Charles Barry and complete any works that remained, which would not be subject to the like misunderstanding; and whether the Government had agreed with that individual for the final and total completion of all works at present unfinished connected with the Houses of Parliament?

THE PARKS AND CHARING-CROSS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether more seats round the larger trees in Kensington Gardens and the Parks can be placed there for the accommodation of the public; also, whether the large piece of ground lately used as a reservoir for one of the Water Companies, opposite Grosvenor Gate, can be thrown into the Park for the use of the public; and whether the unsightly iron railing round the Statue of King Charles I., at Charing Cross, might not be advantageously removed?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that when the country was deprived of the services of Sir Charles Barry, there were some works in progress in connection with the Houses
  520
  of Parliament which had been commenced some time ago, when his predecessor in office had proposed a final Vote for the completion of certain works which it was then agreed should be carried on. Those works were of small extent, and in selecting an architect to finish them, he thought the right course to pursue was to ask Mr. Edward Barry, the son of Sir Charles Barry, to undertake the direction of them, because he knew he had assisted his father in their construction, that he was in possession of the plans and designs, and had manifested his competency for the task by the results which he had achieved in the case of Covent Garden Theatre and the Floral Hall. He had proposed to Mr. Barry that he should accept the same amount of remuneration as that which it had been agreed his father should receive —that was to say, 3 per cent on the whole outlay on those works, with 1 per cent additional on the measured work. The plan which Sir Charles Barry had prepared in order to enclose New Palace Yard as a Quadrangle, had been laid before Parliament in 1855; but in his office there were no further details than those contained in the Parliamentary Returns. The design consisted of throe parts; the first was intended to occupy the place on which the houses in Bridge Street now stood, and would cost £67,000; the second portion would extend from the east end of Bridge Street to the Courts of law, and would cost £80,000; while the third would occupy the site of the present Courts of law, and would cost £150,000. Hereafter, when all the houses in Bridge Street were pulled down, the House would probably deem it desirable that buildings should be erected on that site for the accommodation of the public offices, and likewise that the site of the Courts of law should be built upon; but it was as yet premature to come to any decision on these points.
  In reply to his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ewart), he could say that he was extremely anxious to provide as much sitting accommodation as possible for the public in Kensington Gardens and the Parks, and steps had been already taken for increasing the number of seats. With respect to that hideous circle in Hyde Park, opposite Grosvenor Gate, which had hitherto been used as a reservoir, he had to state that it had only lately passed into the hands of the Crown, and that it would be necessary soon to determine to what purpose it should be applied. He should be

  521
  very glad if the subscribers to the Monument which it was proposed to erect in Waterloo Place to the memory of the Guards who had fallen in the Russian war, and which, he thought, was too large for the present site, could be induced to place it in the circle to which he was referring; but he could give his hon. Friend no positive information as to how that particular spot would be ultimately disposed of. He quite concurred, he might add, with his hon. Friend in condemning the unsightly iron railing which surrounded the statue of Charles I., and he knew of no necessity for its being continued. It was a work of ancient date, and had been erected probably from a feeling that some of the mob might at that time be disposed to mutilate the statue as being an emblem of principles of which they disapproved. He found that there were three Royal equestrian statues in the Metropolis, and of those, that of George IV. in Trafalgar Square, was unprotected by a railing; while in the case of the statue of George III., in Cockspur Street, which had until lately been so protected, he had taken the liberty of ordering the railing to be removed, and the result had been that the appearance of the pedestal had been improved without any injury to the statue having arisen. He believed, therefore, that the best course to take would be to remove the railing which surrounded the pedestal of the statue of Charles I., and he felt assured from the quiet and becoming demeanour of the people in the streets of the present day no harm to the statue need be apprehended.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENasked, what the Estimate was for the completion of the remaining works connected with the two Houses of Parliament?
  MR. COWPER: In the Estimates which have been laid on the table, no sum has been put down for the completion of any such works. The works which are now being carried out are to be paid for by means of a Vote which was taken in a former year.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTEN: Are there any works remaining to be carried on for which an Estimate will be required?
  MR. COWPER: None.

DISTURBANCES IN NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL, in rising to put a Question on this subject, said the disturbances to which he wished to call
  522
  the attention of the House had their origin in the circumstance that a native chief had taken it upon himself to endeavour to prevent the sale of a plot of land in the province of New Plymouth, with which the owner was desirous to part. To such interference the Government of the colony could not, of course, submit, and martial law had been proclaimed in the province. The consequence had been that the Europeans had been brought into collision with the natives, and it being recollected that a number of the settlers were at some of the outlying positions, a force of about 265 strong, including volunteers, colonial militiamen, and some men of the 65th Regiment, had been sent out to secure their safety. The volunteers, who had been sent in advance, while the military, under the command of Colonel Murray, remained some distance in the roar as a reserve, came upon the enemy and attacked them in the most gallant manner. Being, however, in an isolated position, and being in danger of being surrounded, they sent one of their number back to Colonel Murray to ask for support. Now, what did Colonel Murray do? He stated that the volunteers had brought themselves in the difficulties of their position without orders, and he shortly afterwards took the troops home. No doubt he was acting according to the strict letter of his orders; but he did not think that was quite the way in which an officer commanding Her Majesty's forces ought to act when 140 of the finest volunteers the colony possessed were in advance and in a dangerous position. There could not be the slightest doubt that but for the arrival of Captain Cracroft and his blue jackets— who deserved all honour for their gallant conduct—these unfortunate settlers would have been cut to pieces during that night, being short of ammunition. He did not wish to cast any imputation on Colonel Murray. He only hoped the Government would call on him to give an explanation of his conduct. Having said so much on that point, he wished to state some facts as to what he believed had been the cause of this outrage. First of all there was the system of Europeans acquiring possession of land under the direct title of a native chief which a European Government would not recognize. Then, two years since, an arms ordinance, enacted by Sir George Grey, preventing the selling of arms and ammunition to natives, was repealed. He at the time put a question to the Colonial

  523
  Secretary as to whether the repeal of that ordinance had received the sanction of the Government; and the reply he received was that it had become a dead letter and was inoperative, and that, therefore, there was no use in longer retaining it. No doubt the natives by various means did acquire arms and ammunition, but the Act did impose a great check on them, and the probability is if that Act had not been repealed we should not have had the arms to contend with which were brought against us on this occasion. He had received a letter from a gentleman largely connected with the colony, which stated:—
  "The European population of that province is only about 3,000 souls. The lands are principally held by the natives, who appear to have been encouraged to resist the sale of them by Europeans of the very vilest character who have settled among them, such as runaway convicts, sailors of different nations, and others, who, preferring a life of licentiousness, have lived among the natives, and encouraged them, not only by their advice but by subscriptions, to resist the Queen's authority. A considerable sum was raised last year to support the pretentions of this rebellious chief to the kingly authority, and I regret to say that there has been large quantities of gunpowder recently shipped for New Zealand from London."
  This extract was fully borne out by the intelligence received by the last mail, that Sir Henry Barkly, the Governor of Victoria, had issued a proclamation against the importation of arms from Melbourne and New South "Wales; for in this instance, as in the Kaffir war, it was found that individuals in the Colonies and this country had been supplying the natives with arms to fight against us. There was another point to which he wished to refer—the difficulty at all times of employing soldiers against the natives of New Zealand. They might do very well for garrisons, but they could not be taken into the bush, serving, as they did, from the very nature of their clothing, as a mark for the enemy. The army had not taken that part in this affair which they ought to have done, the blue jackets and volunteers being chiefly engaged; but the fact was that a ship of war, a gunboat or two had much more effect on the natives than a whole regiment of soldiers; for the simple reason that they could be moved about without difficulty. He had seen in the New Zealand papers that not fewer than seventy-six waggons were required to convey the baggage of the soldiers. They could not, therefore, be of much use in that colony. Volunteers and a greater number of blue
  524
  jackets were chiefly required. He trusted that at any rate the Government would declare the lands of all the chiefs who had joined in the rebellion forfeited. Without some such exemplary punishment a proper effect would not be produced on the native mind. He also hoped the Government would reimpose the ordinance against the sale of arms to the natives, which would have a considerable effect in preventing the natives obtaining ammunition. With these observations he begged to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to state to the House the information received respecting the recent disturbances in New Zealand, whereby Her Majesty's forces have been brought into collision with the native tribes, and also what course Her Majesty's Government' intend to pursue?
  COLONEL DICKSONhoped hon. Members would express no opinion as to the conduct of Colonel Murray before further information had been received. He was quite sure the noble Lord did not mean to throw out any imputation on that gallant officer. He had not the slightest personal knowledge of Colonel Murray, but he had seen upon former occasions that officers had incurred blame, which the House had reason afterwards to regret when full information as to the actual facts had been obtained.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEwas afraid he could not add much to the statement of facts made by his noble Friend. He had stated both the cause of this unfortunate outbreak in New Zealand, and the facts themselves quite accurately. As to the facts, he really could not add anything to the account they had read in the newspapers. As to the conduct of Colonel Murray, it would certainly be premature to pronounce any opinion. There had been a want of co-operation, however, between the military, volunteers, and militia, which required explanation, and he had no doubt in due time that explanation would be received. One word as to the causes of this collision between the colonists and the natives. One could not deal with these matters without being painfully conscious of the difficulty of getting at the full and exact truth and rights of the case; but, nevertheless, with the pretty full information they possessed at the Colonial Office he was glad to say there was every reason to believe that, however this unfortunate affair had originated, the New Zealand Government were in. the right. No doubt

  525
  this was a critical moment in the history of New Zealand. On the one hand the colonists were rapidly increasing in numbers and power; they were longing for the use of the land which was lying useless on all sides around them, the nominal owners not being capable of turning it to account; on the other hand, these lands belonging to some native tribe or family, they had to deal for every acre of them with native owners, among whom there was often a strong feeling against the increase of territory in the hands of the white race, partly arising from the sense of their own decay in power and numbers, and the rapid increase in both of the colonists. The Governor was strictly adhering to the rule, evidently a just one—on the one hand to take no land from any native who could not show a fair title; and, on the other, if such a title was shown to allow no other native or tribe to interfere with the sale of land by such an owner. That was exactly the case which had arisen. The chief who sold this plot of land was admitted to be the proprietor of it. That admission was made by the leader of the present revolt, although he pretended to have some vague claim to it of a feudal character. It appeared that the natives themselves admitted that, even according to their own usages and notions of equity, the sale of the land was perfectly legitimate. Though the value of the plot was not very great, the question involved was one affecting the whole future acquisition of land in New Zealand, and also affecting, in the highest degree, the welfare both of the colonists and the natives. It was manifestly necessary for the colonists that they should be enabled to buy land, and it was likewise for the interest of the natives that they should be at liberty to dispose of the lands they could not turn to account, and thereby contribute to that prosperity in which they would themselves participate. Such being the case, there had been, he feared, nothing for it but to decide the question at issue by force of arms. The Government deplored that necessity. As far as they knew, they believed the Governor had acted with great judgment and vigour; and his Excellency had hopes that the disturbances would not proceed any further.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the circumstances that had occurred in New Zealand illustrated the wisdom of his recommendation that the Colonies should be left to provide for their own defence. 1,400 regu-
  526
  lar troops, entirely paid by this country, were employed to keep the peace of New Zealand, and on the very first occasion I when they might have been of use, they had proved themselves of no use whatever. ["No, no!"] Not only were they of no use, but they did absolute mischief. They took no part in the action, but they had created a feeling of bitterness between themselves and the colonists by abstaining from action. They left the whole brunt of the day to the volunteer force. The volunteers had proved themselves capable, as far as courage and skill went, of undertaking their own defence, all that they required being increased numbers; but why were they not more numerous? Simply because the Colonies had been taught to lean upon England to find troops for them, and while that was the case they would never develope their own resources. In New Zealand we were having an exact parallel to what happened in North America when General Braddock was sent to aid the colonial militia. The moment the regular troops appeared the colonial militia broke down and became utterly valueless. In that case also regular troops had proved equally unfit to cope with native warfare. In the portion of New Zealand where the disturbance broke out there were only 50,000 natives, men, women, and children, while the number of British emigrants, chiefly, of course, adults, was 70,000. Surely, then, if the colonists were left to depend upon themselves, they would soon organize a force that would render any such native insurrections as these absolutely hopeless. Let it not, however, be imagined that the colonists would not ask for Queen's troops. They were certain to ask for them as long as the business of supplying those troops produced one of the best trades the settlers could have. But the only result of sending out regular soldiers was that they broke down the volunteer forces, strong and well adapted as they were for the purpose, while they were themselves utterly useless against the natives.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could assure his right hon. Friend that, so far from the success that had been gained being due to the volunteers, that force was a mere handful; and in the opinion of the Governor and every authority in New Zealand, the safety of the lives of every European man, woman, and child in the colony depended on Her Majesty's soldiers and sailors.
  Afterwards,
  CAPTAIN JERVISthought that some observations with respect to the conduct of our officers in New Zealand ought not to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) in order to cry down the Colonial system, had been pleased to state that the British troops had not conducted themselves in that distant part of the world as they ought to have done, and the case of General Braddock had been quoted. But there was not the slightest similarity in the cases. What was the cause of General Braddock's disaster? That he would go into the woods against advice, and consequently he had his troops destroyed in a jungle. The commanding officer in New Zealand was ordered on no account to allow himself to be drawn into a jungle, and not to remain after daylight. He obeyed his orders and saved his troops, and the only thanks for his services were insinuations, in order to prove that the Colonial system was not what it ought to be.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to correct a very grave inaccuracy in the statement that the native population in the district in which this unfortunate affair had taken place was less than the English population. The native population of New Zealand was lately between 100,000 and 150,000, and the entire English, population from about 50,000 to 70,000; and in this part of the Northern Island the English were outnumbered by about ten to one. When the despatches came home he hoped they would be laid on the table, and he believed they would show that, however, gallantly the volunteers had behaved, the conduct of Colonel Murray had been free from all blame. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had again put forward his peculiar views about Colonial defences. He did not say that our Colonial possessions must not partly depend for defence on the military prowess of forces raised among themselves, but in the colony which had been most successful in raising volunteers the success was due to the fact of there being a considerable number of British troops in the place. In Victoria there had been 1,000, and there were now 400 or 500 British troops, and 2,000 efficient volunteer rifles, cavalry and artillery had been raised. Much of this success was due to the assistance which they had received from the officers of the regular army, and from being brigaded with the regular forces in the colony.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he entirely concurred with those gentlemen who had spoken of the unfairness of complaining of an officer who had no opportunity of answering the accusation which had been made against him. Colonel Murray had given an account of his own proceedings, which appeared to have been strictly in obedience to orders, but he had had no opportunity of rebutting the particular allegations made against him. He would not enter into the question of how far the Colonies ought to defend themselves, but with regard to the opinion formed in New Zealand of the value of British troops, there was clear evidence that the first thing done was to send off in hot haste to Sydney and Melbourne to get the assistance of regular troops from the neighbouring colonies, and he was glad to say that assistance was immediately rendered.
  COLONEL LINDSAYthought they ought to know who was responsible for the conduct of the operations—was it the officer in the command of the troops, or was it the officer in immediate charge of the volunteers? There ought not to be a divided command, and the volunteers ought not to be able to go where they pleased. In this case it appeared, not that the volunteers were successful, but that being rather in a scrape the blue jackets got them out of it.

EUROPEAN ARMY IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, What was the date of his communication to the Indian Council on the subject of the abolition of the local European army in India, and whether the Council collectively declined expressing their dissent on the ground of its being too late to do so? The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night that as long as the question between the abolition and retention of a local army was pending in the Cabinet, he thought it unadvisable to consult with the Indian Council on the matter. What, then, was the Indian Council appointed for? The right hon. Gentleman said in effect that he belonged to two Councils, each consisting of sixteen members—the one being the Cabinet Council, possessing no specific knowledge of India whatever, and the other the Indian Council, composed of men most capable of giving advice relative to the affairs of that country, and chosen expressly for that object. Of what use was the Council of India, which cost the coun-

  529
  try some £25,000 or £30,000 a year, if the Cabinet was to decide such questions first, and then to consult these gentlemen afterwards? These gentlemen were, he believed, high-minded men, and if they were to be thus treated, they would naturally think the country might be spared the expense of their salaries.
  MR. SPEAKERsuggested to the hon. and gallant Member that he should confine himself more strictly to the question he wished to put to the Indian Minister.
  SIR DE LACY EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman having statod that he at last made a formal communication to the Indian Council for the purpose of allowing it to express its dissent from the decision of the Cabinet, and that the Council then declared that it was too late to do so, he therefore wished to know whether the Council collectively declared that it was too late, and what was the date at which the right hon. Gentleman made his communication to that body?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could only repeat what he had said on a former occasion — namely, that throughout the whole of the autumn, while the question of the abolition of the local army was pending, he was in constant communication with the leading members of the Council of India, though not in their collective capacity, and was, therefore, in perfect possession of their opinion. Whether that opinion was expressed individually or collectively, the result was practically much the same. The essential point was that in taking part in the Cabinet, he should be able to state what was the opinion of the members of the Indian Council en this important question. It did not seem to him that it would be proper to bring the subject formally before the Indian Council till some step was to be taken in one direction or the other. If the decision of the Cabinet had been in favour of maintaining a local army, no step whatever would have been necessary, but things would have gone on as they had done before. The decision of the Cabinet was come to on the 16th of May, and on the very next day he stated what that decision was to the Indian Council. He said they would be sorry to hear that the decision arrived at the day before by the Cabinet was against the maintenance of the local army; and, therefore, that now, for the first time, he could bring before them a practical question on the subject; and that he was ready to do so in order that any Member who wished
  530
  to put on record his dissent might have it in his power to do so. The proposal he should make was that a letter should be written to the Commander-in-Chief, desiring him to suspend recruiting for the Indian army, and any member of the Council wishing to raise objection might then do so. An opportunity was thus offered to the Council to express an opinion, but they said that the Goverment having come to that decision, they thought it was too late for them to express assent or to attempt to alter that determination. He could not say how many of the Council expressed that view, but no one expressed a contrary opinion. He did not therefore actually propose the writing such a letter, as the Council did not seem to wish to record opinions against it; and the rosult was that, having had an opportunity to dissent, they had declined to avail themselves of it.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) said, he was informed by Lord Cowley that considerable labour had been employed in the task of bringing the ad valorem duties into the shape of specific duties, but that it was not likely that the task would he accomplished in the time proposed for it in the Treaty itself. Lord Cowley, therefore, expected that some prolongation of time would be required, but he was unable to say how much, and as he had some observations to make upon the subject, he begged Her Majesty's Government to wait for those observations before they took any determination with regard to the prolongation of the period. He could not therefore give a more definite answer; but as soon as he heard from Lord Cowley on the French Ambassador here the matter would receive his immediate attention. He agreed in the statement that it was of great advantage that the task should be accomplished, but it required a great deal of inquiry and specific information, which occupied much time. There were one or two other questions which from time to time had been asked, and to which he had not been able to reply.
  With regard to the case of Senor Escalante, the gentleman who was imprisoned in Spain upon suspicion of distributing the Bible, he was imprisoned for a considerable time, though in a very indulgent way; but on application to the Superior Court, that tribunal had, upon his plea, decided in his favour, and he had been set at liberty.

  531
  A Question had been asked respecting the export of unmanufactured cork from Spain. There had been a correspondence with Spain on the subject, and the Minister of Finance said that he could not make out that there was any duty on the export of unmanufactured cork except from one province—the province of Gerona; that the Spanish Government were employed very assiduously in endeavouring to improve the tariff of Spain, and that they wished to show the same liberal spirit to us as we had manifested towards Spain in respect to wines; but that there were conflicting interests, which were found difficult to be dealt with, just as in England a similar difficulty had been felt, as the experience of the opposition to the repeal of the Paper duties showed.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDinquired whether the proposed changes in the Spanish tariff were to be effected by a supplementary convention?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Yes, it will be done by a supplementary convention.

HARBOUR OF HOLYHEAD.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary to the Treasury, when the new Boats will be put on the Holyhead Station; when the Piers at that Station will be completed; and, as to overtures said to be made to the Midland and Chester Railway Companies on that subject? He had heard that some offer had been made to the railway companies that if they forewent the building of the piers they should be allowed half an hour in addition to the time agreed on for the journey; but he trusted to hear that no such offer had been made.
  MR. LAINGbelieved, that large boats would commence running on the 1st of August. The works going on at Holyhead belonged to three classes. First, the large outer works; second, the pier from which the present boats ran; and third, the new pier partly for Irish boats and partly for the Transatlantic steamers, on the plan of Mr. Hawkshaw. The latter plan was not yet commenced, and was likely to undergo some modification, as, Irish ports being made points of departure for Transatlantic steamers, it was not probable that Holyhead would be used for that purpose. The estimate for the work was £450,000, but if the Transatlantic steamers' pier were not required, the ex-
  532
  penditure would be very much less. Under any circumstances, some additional accommodation would be required at the existing pier, because the other could not be completed under a period of three or four years. It had been represented by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company that it might be more advantageous to lay out money on the present pier, in making it a permanent stone structure, instead of a wooden structure, than upon the other proposed by Mr. Hawkshaw. He believed there was a good deal to be said on both sides, and as a considerable amount would have to be laid out, it would be desirable to have a little experience of the working from the present pier before deciding the question. The arrangement with the railway companies was, that they were bound by a contract to complete the whole transit between London and Dublin in eleven hours; but he understood that the penalties attached to the contract with regard to that time were not to take effect until the requisite accommodation was provided at Holyhead for carrying the mails direct on board the steamboats without stopping at the station. About two years would elapse under any circumstances before the accommodation could be complete, and as in the meantime the railway company had only access to the pier by a very sharp curve, which could not be traversed with safety by the large engines, they very naturally claimed some allowance of time before being subject to the penalties. No express allowance had been made, but the understanding come to was that half-an-hour should be allowed, and that all parties were to do their best to accomplish the transit in the shortest time which the present circumstances would admit. He hoped that the delay would not be more that a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes.
  House at rising to adjourn to Monday next.

ARMY (MEDICAL OFFICERS).

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  COLONEL LINDSAYrose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to reconsider the eleventh Clause of the Army Medical Warrant of October, 1858, as far as relates to its retrospective application to the Medical Officers at that time serving in the ranks affected, having due regard to the Public

  533
  Service. The clause to which he alluded was as follows:—
  "With a view to maintain the efficiency of the service, all medical officers of the rank of surgeon major, surgeon, or assistant surgeon, shall be placed on the retired list when they shall have attained the age of fifty-five years, and inspectors general and deputy inspectors general when they shall have attained the age of sixty-five years."
  He did not mean to attack this compulsory system of retirement generally; on the contrary, he thought that, acted upon in the case of all subsequent entrants it would be productive of great public advantage; but he did attack the retrospective application of the clause to those who were already in the service. The junior ranks would derive advantage from it, but they would obtain that advantage at the expense of their seniors. He admitted that the public good ought in all cases to be paramount to all other considerations; but when that public good did not clash with existing interests, those interests ought to be respected. On this subject he might quote the opinions of two Commissions which sat on the subject of general promotion in the army. The Commission which sat in 1854 stated,
  "If the system recommended were at once substituted for that which has been hitherto in force without adopting some means to protect the interests of those whose prosperity would be affected by the change, much injustice would be inflicted on those who have relied on the continuance of the present regulations. We are of opinion that a liberal view ought to be taken of the claims of those officers, and that in introducing a change which the public good requires, they ought to be carefully protected from injury and from having their just expectations disappointed."
  In 1858 another Commission was issued, and they reported that,
  "It appears to us that an officer enters the army subject to any changes in the existing regulations which Her Majesty from time to time may think necessary for the good of the service to make. Yet, on the other hand, we are of opinion that great care should be taken to introduce these changes in the manner which shall as little as possible prejudice the interests of the officers affected, and that every consideration should be shown which may be compatible with the public objects in view. When great changes are necessary for the advantage of the public service, we hold it to be expedient, because just, to give to individual interests and claims every consideration which is compatible with the attainment of the public objects in view."
  He regretted that the same view was not expressed by the Sanitary Commission. They said—
  "It is true that all general rules must occasionally press hard upon individuals, but at the same time they inflict no individual injustice, though they may produce individual hardships,
  534
  for all are aware of the existence of the rule and of the effect it may have."
  But all officers were not aware of the existence of the rule. One gentleman—he believed it was Dr. Lucas—who received the first intimation of his removal from the service by seeing his name in The Gazette. That was a mode of dismissal in which he apprehended no gentleman would treat his servant. He would now state some cases of the hardships of this rule. The first was the case of an officer who had been thirty years in the service, twenty-one of which were spent abroad, and he was still in full vigour. His colonial service had in fact ruined his prospects. During the Crimean war he was in the Colonies; he had, therefore, no war employment; having no war employment he had not been promoted; and not having been promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector, he was removed at the age of fifty-five instead of sixty-five. There was another case, that of an officer who was first for promotion when the warrant came out. The rule by which an Inspector General should retire after having served three years had previously been issued. An officer at Malta had not only served these three years, but had been removed from the service; he was, however, kept at Malta when the late Director General should have gone out. It was not convenient to send the latter gallant officer out, and the other was kept at Malta though not in the service. He was afterwards replaced in the service, and received his full retiring allowance, but the effect was, that the officer who had been first for promotion, and who under other circumstances, would have become Deputy Inspector General, lost that advantage in consequence of the delay, because he was fifty-five years of age, and was consequently, by the terms of this warrant, compelled to retire. What did he (Colonel Lindsay) now ask? That those officers who had been forced to retire in the full vigour of life, under a warrant which had no existence when they entered the service, should be fully compensated, inasmuch as by quitting the service they forfeited the high pay and allowances to the enjoyment of which they had a right to look forward under the former warrant. The compensation which a staff surgeon of the first class was to receive was an advance of 1s. 6d. a day. That was what had been said to him (Colonel Lindsay) by way of answer when he brought this matter under the notice of the House on a former occa-

  535
  sion. He must, however, say that the answer was anything but a satisfactory one. Eighteen pence a day was not a sufficient compensation for officers, who had passed so many years of their life in the service of the country, and who had been deprived of that higher rank to which they had looked forward, and which they would have received only from this alteration. In the proposals just circulated by the Admiralty for the compulsory retirement of naval officers at the age of sixty the scale was much more liberal. It was there proposed that naval officers who would have been in receipt of 10 s. 6d. a day should have their half-pay increased to 18s., and those whose position entitled them to 12 s. 6d. would receive 20 s. He hoped he should hear from the right hon. Gentleman that some change would be made, especially as there was in the retiring allowances proposed for some of the naval officers a precedent, which might, in this case, be followed with great advantage, and with a due regard to what was just on all hands.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to re-consider the Eleventh Clause of the Army Medical Warrant of October 1858, as far as relates to its respective application to the Medical Officers at that time serving in the ranks affected, having due regard to the efficiency of the Public Service."
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTregretted very much that he could not accept the view which the hon. and gallant Member took of this question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted that compulsory retirement even in the army was necessary for the public good. [Colonel LINDSAY: In this particular case.] Well, that compulsory retirement was necessary in this particular case; but he complained of the age at which the retirement was placed; that it was placed at an earlier age in the case of surgeon and surgeon major than in that of deputy inspector and inspector. But there was this difference between the two cases—that the former officers were executive—they prescribed and operated; but the deputy inspector and inspector were simply administrative. That was the reason why the retiring age was placed, in the case of the one class—surgeons major and surgeons— at fifty-five, while in the other—deputy inspectors and inspectors—it was fixed at sixty-five. He believed that the rule was a perfectly sound one, and had been pro-
  536
  ductive of much advantage to the medical profession, though like most other regulations it might in some cases be productive of individual hardship. He believed that compulsory retirement in the case of medical officers was less disadvantageous than was supposed. As a general rule, medical officers on their retirement from the army got into practice in civil life as consulting practitioners, and in most instances a fair amount of practice was the result. In fact they themselves had always urged that they should be allowed to retire at the age of fifty—five years earlier than that fixed for their compulsory retirement—if they wished to do so. As to the question of the retrospective operation of the warrant, it was true that the warrant was retrospective, and acted upon all men who were already in the service; but to postpone a change of the kind till every man in the service at a particular date had left, would be to postpone to an indefinite period an alteration which it was admitted was beneficial to those now entering the service. He must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, had no advantage accrued to the medical officers from the warrant of which he now complained? Had there not been established by that warrant an increase of rank, an increase of full pay, and an increase of half-pay, in favour of those officers? Their position, as a class, was immensely improved by it. But if they allowed officers to say, "I shall take this because it is an advantage to me, but I refuse to submit to this other, because I consider it a disadvantage to me," they would get into inextricable confusion. The hon. and gallant Member had referred to individual cases of hardship; but he (Mr. Sidney Herbert) did not admit that illustration by personal cases was the best kind of argument in cases of this kind. He should prefer to deal with the case generally. He admitted that there was a particular provision in this warrant that was open to argument against it; but it was counterbalanced by those which conferred the advantages to which he had just alluded. In the case of the captains of the navy there was nothing to gild the pill for them when they were compelled to retire, and, therefore, it was necessary to give them a larger retiring allowance; but there were several excellent medical appointments in military establishments which did not require any great activity, but might be regarded as retirements. The Government had exclusively devoted those

  537
  to officers who were affected by the warrant of 1858. One of those was in the College of Sandhurst, another in the Asylum at Chelsea, a third in the Hibernian School, a fourth at Enfield, and so on. He thought it was mischievous to be constantly changing, or trying to change, that which had been done. Had he yielded to the suggestions made even during the present Session for alterations in military regulations of recent date, the Army Estimates would have been increased by some £40,000 or £50,000 per annum. He was anxious to do all in his power to meet what he admitted to be cases of individual hardship, but he thought the best mode of doing this was to give to the officers who had been affected by the warrant priority in appointments to the different situations which might fall vacant and to which they were eligible.
  COLONEL DICKSONthought that the provision in the warrant by which higher ranks were given to medical officers was in some respects unwise; but he concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Lindsay) in thinking that an injustice was done to many of those officers by the retrospective operation of the warrant in the manner so clearly pointed out by him; and for that reason he should support his hon. and gallant Friend's proposition. In dealing with such cases as these expense ought never to be allowed to outweigh the claims of justice.
  COLONEL LINDSAYin reply quoted the evidence given before the Sanitary Commission by the director general, Dr. Smith, in which he stated that the rank of first-class staff surgeon was generally not executive but inspectorial—that was, that the first-class staff surgeons did not, for the most part, treat disease, but inspected those who did, and took their share in the administration of the Hospitals. As he (Colonel Lindsay) thought that his object might be effected by the ventilation of the matter, he should not press his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

VOTES FOR, DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. BUTT MR. BUTT moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and declare the Law relating to Votes given for a disqualified Candidate at Parliamentary Elections. The hon. and learned Member said that it was a perfectly well established principle of law, that if the party voted for a person
  538
  who was disqualified, with a full knowledge of such disqualification, his vote was forfeited. But the decisions of Committees of that House, in respect to votes for disqualified candidates, were contradictory. Some of them went the length of holding that the mere service of notice on the elector of the candidate's disqualification forfeited his vote for that candidate if disqualification was afterwards established. In some cases the question of disqualification turned upon a nice question of law; so that it was going a great length to say that the mere putting of a paper in an elector's hand, and stating that the person for whom he was going to vote was disqualified, forfeited his vote, in case the Committee of the House afterwards decided that the candidate was disqualified. In 1835, in the case of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, who had been returned by a majority of votes for the county of Cork, a Committee decided that a lease of lives renewable for ever was not a qualification which entitled a man to sit in Parliament for a county. Notice of Mr. O'Connor's disqualification had been served on the electors; but it was almost universally believed in Ireland that a lease of lives renewable for ever was a qualification. Nevertheless, the votes of the electors who had voted for Mr. O'Connor were declared forfeited, and Mr. Longfield, a relative of the hon. and learned Member for Mallow, was declared by the Committee to have been duly elected, though it was notorious that the great majority of the electors were opposed to him. In like manner, Mr. C. O'Dwyer had been unseated as Member for Drogheda, and his opponent, who had not got one-third of the number of votes recorded for him, declared duly elected, though the latter was the last man in Ireland whom the great body of the electors would have returned. The voters in such cases could not be expected to know that the candidates were disqualified, for there was no reason why they should take for granted the mere statements of the opposite parties upon the subject. The state of the law was such, that if Committees were to follow some of the precedents, it would be possible that, without the slightest fault on the part of the electors, a person might obtain a seat in that House whose political principles were disliked by nine-tenths of the constituency he would be supposed to represent. The question then arose how was that evil to be remedied? It had been proposed they should declare that no

  539
  one could be duly elected a Member of the House for whom a minority only of the electors had voted. But he was not prepared to go quite that length. A person might give his vote for a foreigner, or for a man convicted of high treason, or any individual who was manifestly disqualified by law from sitting in that House; and it was only fair that he should pay the penalty of such perversity of conduct. All that it was necessary to provide in such cases was that votes should, not be thrown away which had been given with an intention of making a fair and reasonable use of the franchise. The measure which he then proposed to introduce would contain three provisions. It would declare that in no instance should a vote be deemed null in consequence of its having been given to a disqualified candidate, unless the Committee which inquired into the case should be convinced that it had boon given perversely, and with a knowledge that it had been given to a person legally incapacitated from sitting in that House. The Bill would further provide that the vote should not be annulled, unless a notice of the disqualification of the candidate had been given before the candidate had been put in nomination; and it would further contain a provision to the effect that a vote should be held valid in case of a candidate being unseated for corrupt practices, unless the corruption had been proved previously to the election, and before a legally constituted tribunal. With that explanation he would beg for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. M'MAHONseconded the Motion. Leave given.
  "Bill to declare and amend the Law relating to Votes given for a disqualified Candidate at Parliamentary Elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. MELLOR, and Mr. M'MAHON."
  Bill presented and read 1°.

SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY BILL.

  SECOND READING. PRIVILEGE.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURrose to call the attention of the Speaker to a question of privilege. There was a clause (the 11th) in this Bill which provided that a certain part of the penalties which might be imposed under its provisions within the Metropolitan Police district or within the City of London should be paid over to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police dis-
  540
  trict or to the Chamberlain of the City of London, as the case might be, and applied in aid of the expenses of the police. Now, he (Mr. Digby Seymour) understood that a considerable portion of the cost of the Metropolitan and City police was provided out of the Consolidated Fund, and if that were so, the Bill was one which would lessen the taxation imposed upon Her Majesty's subjects. Two Resolutions were passed by that House bearing on such legislation in the years 1831 and 1849 respectively. The first of those Resolutions declared that when, in any Bill sent down from the House of Lords for the purpose of receiving the concurrence of this House, it appeared that any pecuniary penalties were imposed, raised, or taken away, the Speaker, before the second reading of the measure, should report to the House whether the object of the provisions imposing, varying, or taking away such penalties was merely to punish and prevent offences, and whether it was expedient for the House to exercise its privilege with respect to such enactments. If there ever was a moment when it was expedient for the House to assert its authority over questions of taxation it was the present. The Resolution of 1849 was an amendment of the rules of the House as modified by the Resolution of 1831. It declared—
  "That with respect to any Bill brought to this House from the House of Lords, or returned by the House of Lords to this House, with Amendments, whereby any pecuniary penalty, forfeiture or fee shall be authorized, imposed, appropriated, regulated, varied or extinguished, this House will not insist on its ancient and undoubted privileges in the following cases:—
  "1. When the object of such pecuniary penalty or forfeiture is to secure the execution of the Act, or the punishment or prevention of offences."
  "2. Where such fees are imposed in respect of benefit taken or service rendered under the Act, and in order to the execution of the Act, and are not made payable into the Treasury or Exchequer, or in aid of the Public Revenue, and do not form the ground of public accounting by the parties receiving the same, either in respect of deficit or surplus.
  "3. When such Bill shall be a Private Bill for a Local or Personal Act."
  The first clause of that Resolution apparently relaxed the general effect of the Resolution to which he had referred, but the objection he raised was supported by the second. He submitted that the present Bill, being one which would indirectly come in aid of the revenue, it ought to be laid aside and not entertained by the House.
  MR. BRIGHT: I think it very likely that the House may consider there is some force in the objection which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour); but I think it a great pity that the case was not brought before your notice at some time before the second reading of this Bill, in order that you might have looked into the case and been fully prepared to give an opinion with regard to it. But the hon. and learned Gentleman is not to blame, because I believe his sagacity has only very recently enabled him to discover the point, and I believe during the time when you were not in the Chair this evening. I do not make this observation for the sake of blaming the hon. and learned Gentleman; but for your convenience, and that of the House, I think it would be better not to proceed with the Bill now, but to adjourn the further consideration for a few days, in order that you may have an opportunity of considering the question fully, and to see whether or not we are establishing a precedent which hereafter we may have occasion to regret. I do not know whether I should be in order in moving this at this stage—but if it is thought I am in order, I would move that the Order of the Day for the second reading stand adjourned to this day week.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton had taken rather a nice distinction in regard to the Bill. As it was very desirable that no opinion should be given on the point thus raised without due consideration, he should prefer the opportunity which would be afforded by the adjournment of the Bill for considering the subject.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, that the point had not occurred to him before, but he had lost no time in bringing the matter before the House the moment he discovered the informality.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that if the Speaker wished for time to consider this matter, he certainly should not object to the adjournment. He must say, however, that he thought the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman was rather unprecedented. He had not given the slightest notice of his intention, and he (Lord R. Montagu) thought it would have been better had they gone into the principle of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman expected that fines would be levied: but the Resolution said:
  542
  "The House will not insist upon its ancient and undoubted privileges, &c., where such fines are not made payable to the Treasury or the Exchequer."
  Now, the fines imposed by the Bill were not made payable to the Treasury or the Exchequer. [Read!] "Well, "or in aid of the public revenue." [Mr. D. SEYMOUR: Hear!] It appeared the hon. and learned Gentleman rested his case upon that. How was an Act which levied fines to prevent Sunday trading to be held to be "in aid of the public revenue? Was it to be supposed that no Act could be brought in by the House of Lords, or that no penalty could be enforced by them for the disobedience of that Act? It appeared to him that this passage which the hon. and learned Gentleman had read ex-eluded altogether the question of privilege. He was glad, however, that the hon. Member entirely disproved the only solid argument which had been raised against the Bill. It had been very generally asserted, that the Bill, if passed into law, would intend to suppress Sunday Trading, but that it would be as inoperative as the present law. But now, on the contrary, the objection which is raised rests on the supposition that the Bill would be operative, and that fines would be raised under its provisions. As, however, time to consider the question was desired by the Speaker, he moved that the debate be adjourned to that day fortnight.
  Notice being taken of Clause 11, relating to the Appropriation of Penalties, which was alleged to be inconsistent with the Privileges of this House,
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29th June.

TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1, (Corn Bents under Local Acts may be converted into Tithe Rent-charge).
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEexpressed his opinion that the measure would be an extremely useful one.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was glad to learn that the Bill met the approval of the hon. Baronet.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEremarked that the average prices of corn had fluctuated more since the establishment of free trade than they had done before.
  Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
  The House resumed.
  LORD HENNIKER LORD HENNIKER moved the following Clause to follow Clause 30:—
  "Whenever it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that by reason of error as to boundary or otherwise, any rent-charge or portion of rent-charge shall have been charged by any confirmed instrument of apportionment on lands not within the parish in respect of the tithes of which the aggregate rent-charge, the apportionment of which shall have been so confirmed, was agreed or awarded to be paid, the Commissioners may, if they see fit upon the application of the owner or owners of the said lands, and without the consent of any owner of land in the said parish, or of the person for the time being entitled to the receipt of the said rent-charge, by an order under their hands and seal, direct that such rent-charge or portion of rent-charge so charged on lands not within the parish, shall be redeemed by the payment by the owners of lands charged with the residue of the said rent-charge by the said apportionment or any of them, of such a sum of money, and within such time as the said Commissioners shall, by such order, direct and appoint, such sum not being less than twenty-four times the amount of such rent-charge; and, if there shall be any question touching the situation or boundary of the lands which shall be alleged to have been erroneously included in the said apportionment, the Commissioners shall have the same powers for hearing and determining the same as are given by the said first recited Act for hearing and determining any difference whereby the making of an award of rent-charge in lieu of tithes is hindered."
  The noble Lord said that he submitted for consideration and adoption the clause of which he had given notice, and stated that it was for the purpose of affording a remedy for a grievance inadvertently, or perhaps somewhat through their own negligence, caused to owners and occupiers of land and tenements, whereon apportionment of rent-charge had been twice awarded in consequence of disputed boundaries of adjoining parishes, and thus they have been rendered liable to payment of a double amount of rent-charge for the same property—this clause, being an extension of the powers given by the Act of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 73, and the 10th & 11 Vict. c. 104. He trusted there would be no objection to the proposition for rectifying so palpable an error, and he might add injustice, as that alluded to, which had arisen in many instances; for, unfortunately, the apportionments being confirmed, there was no appeal, nor had the Tithe Commissioners the power to relieve the parties concerned.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he had no objection to the clause of the noble Lord.
  Clause added.
  Bill reported, as amended; to be considered on Monday next.

  TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, —"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. HASSARDsaid, that since the reprinting of the Bill he found no Amendment in it sufficient to remove his objections to the measure. The first part of the Bill was intended to enable owners of property to raise money for the purpose of improvement; but there was an Act of Parliament already passed that enabled them to do this better than was proposed by the present Bill. The fund from which it was to come was one to be objected to. There was a still greater objection to the machinery by which the Bill was to be carried out, the application for the purpose having to be made to the Board of Works. It was also proposed that loans applied for should be by application to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions; but although he had a great respect for Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, he thought that they were not qualified for the purpose. He was to be a barrister of ten years' standing; but unless he was a resident and knew the country, he could have no adequate local knowledge and no knowledge of land. He would suggest that this first part of the Bill be left out altogether. The Bill also proposed to introduce the provisions of the Montgomery Act; but he did not think this could be effective. He did not think that any man would consent to submit his case to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, or, if done at all, it should be submitted to the Quarter Sessions itself. With regard to the leasing powers, he thought it would be much better to adopt the Bill on that subject which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. As to the third part of the Bill, which related to tenants' improvements, and for which object alone he believed the Bill was introduced, he thought it ought to depend upon agreement between landlord and tenant. He saw no more reason why they should interfere in contracts between landlord and tenant than in contracts between the owner of a ship and the man who chartered it. His principal objection was that it was sectional legislation. It applied only to Ireland, but he was at a loss to understand why, if it were good for Ireland, it was not equally good

  545
  for England. He hoped, therefore, that it would be made an Imperial measure.
  COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, the Secretary for Ireland deserved great credit for having introduced the Bill and shown a desire to settle a question which had been long agitated; and he thought the objections of the hon. Gentleman applied rather to the details than the principle of the measure. Although it did not go so far as he could wish, and did not meet what he considered the justice of the case, he was prepared to go into Committee to give every assistance to the Government and to amend those details which could be amended without endangering the passing of the Bill. It was said that there was great apathy, and that the farmers in Ireland did not call for the measure. The fact was that the farmers were tenants at will, and they were afraid to set themselves in opposition to their landlords lest they should be told they could leave. But what was just eight years ago was just now. It was right that a tenant who had, with the tacit consent of his landlord, made improvements which increased the letable value, and was suitable to the estate, should receive compensation upon eviction. But as Bills with retrospective clauses had failed to pass for the last four or five years, it was not likely that the House would grant such a demand now. There was no chance of passing a retrospective clause, and it was only delaying the Bill to propose it. The same might be said of the provisions which the hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue) wished to introduce into the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would be content to take what was now in the Bill without endangering its passing into law by proposing Amendments which it was not possible to carry. Contrary to the opinion of the hon. Baronet who opposed the second reading of the Bill, he thought it was of great advantage that all the different branches of the subject were treated in one Bill. If the Bill passed into law, though it would not settle the question so effectively as he could wish, it would still do a great deal of good, and he should therefore support it.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I ask the indulgence of the House for a very few moments, while I refer to a matter of some importance, as well to several hon. Members as to myself. It is well that, as we are now on the eve of the discussion of a measure which is of vital interest to the people of
  546
  Ireland, there should be no misconception, either in this House, or elsewhere, as to the reasons for the course which was adopted in 1858 by gentlemen with whom I had the honour to act, in reference to what is termed the retrospective principle. I have been specially attacked for the course which we were compelled to adopt in 1858, and I have even been denounced —I admit by a very small and insignificant number of persons—as a traitor to the cause of the tenant. Now what are the real facts of the case? As my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greville) has stated, the retrospective clause of the Bill of 1855 was negatived by a majority of this House. In 1857, Mr. Moore, then Member for Mayo, introduced his Bill, or the Bill of the League. Mr. Moore, being naturally anxious to push his Bill as far as he possibly could, organized a deputation to the noble Lord who was then as now at the head of the Government. The deputation consisted of 44 or 45 Irish Members, as influential as any who have ever represented any class. Mr. Moore stated his case, and wished to know what course the noble Lord was inclined to take with respect to the further progress of the Bill. The noble Lord expressed strong objection to the Bill, but to one feature—the leading feature—of it in a special degree. That was the provision for retrospective compensation. The noble Lord even refused to permit the Bill to be read a second time and sent into Committee, saying that he would not sanction or affirm the principle of the Bill. Mr. Moore soon after lost his seat, and the Bill was not further proceeded with. What happened in 1858? I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary, had the honour of re-introducing the same Bill that year. When the discussion took place on the Motion for a second reading, the retrospective principle of the Bill was denounced in the strongest manner by the leaders on both sides of the House, by the noble Lord, the present first Minister and by the noble Lord, the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), who represented on that occasion the opinions and determination of his party. The result of that condemnation was, that on the division we were beaten by more than three to one—I believe by four to one. And it is the fact, not before stated, that it was only by the persuasion of myself and others that several Irish and several English Members were induced to vote for the second reading,

  547
  but on the understanding that by so doing they sanctioned the principle of compensation but not the particular application of the principle. Had that not been so we should have been beaten by as many as six to one Well, Sir, what were we to do, after such a division?—what course were we to adopt, after a pronouncement so emphatic, and a majority so overwhelming? Were we to act the part of hypocrites, and continue, for party purposes, to keep up a false cry in the country? Were we to tell a trusting people that a measure embracing retrospective compensation could be carried under the circumstances then existing? I should be ashamed of myself—I should be unworthy of my position, as a Member of this House, if I lent myself to so dishonest and so base an imposture. What did we then do? Some twelve or fourteen Members of us determined to endeavour to effect something for the people we represented, although we could no longer hope to obtain all that we desired to acccomplish. We saw that some legislation was absolutely necessary, we knew that a general feeling of discontent pervaded our people,—we beheld them leaving the country in vast bodies,—we felt that this migration originated in an almost universal sense of insecurity, and in that "hope deferred" which "maketh the heart sick." We waited on the then leader of this House, and through him we urged on the Government—which we had previously supported—supported solely on public grounds — the absolute necessity which existed for legislation on this subject; while at the same time we stated—I certainly did—that we could not ask for the re-introduction of a clause which had been defeated but a few days before by an overwhelming majority, and the re-introduction of which we felt convinced would ensure the immediate rejection of the measure we demanded. We did not insist on that which was no longer possible of obtainment; but we did ask for an honest and comprehensive measure of prospective compensation; and, Sir, if I am called a traitor to the cause of the tenant for the conduct which I have described, I think I need not care much for the judgment of the person who called me such. As to the principle of retrospective compensation, I hold the same opinion with respect to it now that I ever did. I think it as just and as fair as that of prospective compensation; but I find that, although it is a just and right principle, and one which in
  548
  conscience and equity ought to be maintained, I cannot avoid remembering that this is an assembly with landlord sympathies and landlord instincts; and believing that this assembly will not recognize it, I certainly will not condescend to be a party to perpetuating a mockery and a delusion upon a subject of such grave importance.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was anxious to go into Committee on the Bill, and deprecated further discussion at the present moment.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYnever knew a Bill that had so little in it, and considered that it was even a greater sham than the Reform Bill. The Conservatives, for that reason, liked the Bill, and would not oppose the Motion to go into Committee, because they did not object to swallow this harmless "bread pill," as it had been called. The Bill introduced by Lord Derby's Government contained a very strong retrospective clause. It was carried in 1853 by a large majority, when the late Solicitor General for England (Sir Hugh Cairns) voted, as he had always done, for the retrospective clause. The noble Lord at the head of the present Government also voted for it, and agreed in 1855 to support the principle. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, representing extreme tenant league views, were then loud in their support of a retrospective clause, and urged that the Bill must be rejected if it were not retained. It was monstrous, therefore, for them now to get up and oppose and denounce a retrospective clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  Clause 1, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Application of Act).
  COLONEL DUNNEobjected to the pro posed title inasmuch as it limited by anticipation the operation of the Act to Ireland. He moved that the clause be postponed.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, there was no precedent for the insertion of an interpretation clause at the beginning of a Bill.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he should have thought it was a matter of the greatest possible indifference whether the clause was placed in the early or the latter part of the Bill. It was put in the early part, in order that the Committee might have notice of the subject-matter with which it had to deal, which, in his opinion, was a great advantage.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEapologized to

  549
  Irish Members for interfering in the discussion, but objected to the Motion for the postponement of the clause as informal, and thought it ought not to have been received by the Chairman. A clause could be postponed by consent on the suggestion of the Gentleman having charge of the Bill, but in no other way. There could not be two questions before the Committee, and the question in Committee was always upon some Amendment, or that the clause should stand part of the Bill, a question interposed that a clause be postponed, was a Previous Question, and in Committee the undoubted rule was, that the Previous Question could not be put. Such had been the invariable practice of his predecessor and successor in the office of Chairman of Committees as to Motions for postponement, and such was the principle on which he himself had acted during his tenure of that office; otherwise their discussions in Committee would be interminably protracted.
  THE CHAIRMAN, in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, said he understood the practice was different from that stated by the right hon. Gentleman. It was undoubtedly a rule of the House that a Motion to postpone a Vote in Committee of Supply could not be put, because there was no period to which the Tote could be postponed; but it was quite competent to any Gentleman to move the postponement of a clause in Committee on a Bill, because the arrangement of the clauses was a matter over which the Committee had control. A Motion to that effect on the part of the Minister or the Gentleman introducing the Bill was constantly agreed to, and it certainly would not have been competent for him to refuse to put the Motion.
  LORD NAASrejoiced at the decision which had just been made, that in Committee the House was at liberty to consider which portions of a Bill it deemed most important to discuss; and believed that it would facilitate their future deliberations. The practice of introducing an interpretation clause at the beginning of a Bill was certainly a departure from the usual practice, but it was a convenient course, and one which, if generally adopted, would prevent the inconsiderate extension of measures to a part of the United Kingdom for which they were not intended.
  COLONEL DUNNEwithdrew his Motion.
  Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 3.
  Clause 4 (Clerk of the Peace).
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsubmitted that the Bill could be better carried out by the Landed Estates Court and the Valuation Office than by the Quarter Sessions.
  LORD NAASsaid, this question was most important, but it would be best raised upon the 10th clause.
  MR. CARD WELLaccepted this suggestion; and thereupon the clause was agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 9 were also agreed to.
  The House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Infants Marriage Act Amendment.
3a Bank of Ireland; Union of Benefices.

INDIA.—LEASING OF CHILDREN.
  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had yesterday presented a Petition praying for the suppression of a gross abuse that existed in India, that of parents leasing out their children, and had stated that it was a practice destructive of all morality. He hoped, by returns, for which he meant to move, to show fully the infamous character of this description of slavery. The specific evil to which he referred was that of individuals leasing out their female children, of eight, nine, or ten years, for ninety-nine years, for purposes of prostitution; and leasing out their male children for purposes of mutilation. He hoped that steps would be taken to put an end to this monstrous evil, to alter the law, if that was found necessary; but if no alteration of the law was required, to have it declared in such a way as to make it known to the people of India.

  RIFLED CAST-IRON GUNS.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of considerable importance, of which he had given notice. It was a question connected with the national defences of the country. He was one of those who believed that the defence of this country must mainly depend upon our maintaining our navy in a greater state of efficiency than that of any other country in the world, and it gave him great satisfaction when the Secretary for War stated

  493
  in February last in the other House, in moving the Army Estimates, that he was anxious, as soon as possible, to issue rifle guns for the use of the navy. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that he hoped, by means of enlarging the Royal Factory at Woolwich, and with the aid of Sir William Armstrong's factory at Elswick, to have, between the 1st of January last and the end of the next financial year, something not very far short of 3,000 rifled guns on board Her Majesty's ships. When rifled guns were about to be introduced into the French and other navies, he hoped the answer which his noble Friend was able to give would be that a large number of guns had been rifled and delivered to the navy. He had so framed his question that it might have reference to cast-iron guns, because he found this class of guns distinctly mentioned in the evidence of Captain Caffin before the National Defence Commission. When asked about the guns that were being prepared for the navy, he said—"The present arrangement is to encase a east-iron gun in a wrought-iron cylinder;" and on being further asked if Sir William Armstrong was doing that, his answer was "Yes." Now he was informed that the Government had been warned that these cast-iron guns, when they came to be tested, would be sure to burst. Nevertheless, large contracts for cast-iron guns had been entered into by the Government, and he was informed that when experiments came to be made the result was that the whole of the guns experimented upon burst. The consequence, he believed, was that the contracts had been cancelled. He wished, therefore, to ask his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War, What number of cast-iron guns have been rifled and delivered to the navy; by whose advice cast-iron guns have been hooped and rifled; what has been the results of the experiments upon the cast-iron guns so treated; and whether the Ordnance Select Committee were consulted on the subject, and approved of the rifling of the guns in question? He asked this question because he was at a loss to know who was responsible for the advice that had been given—whether it was the Secretary for War, the Commander-in-Chief, or Sir William Armstrong. He thought it was an anomalous position to place Sir William Armstrong in, a gentleman enjoying a salary from the Government, to ask him to make a report on the very article which he had contracted to manufacture for the Government. He
  494
  thought it right that the very best advice should be given to the Government on such a subject, but it was unfair to place an individual in the invidious position of being a contractor for the manufacture of an article, and then to call on him to give advice to the Government with respect to the very article he and his partners were manufacturing.
  THE EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in answering the Question of the noble Earl, had, in the first place, to draw their Lordships' attention to the circumstance, that he thought it desirable that he should answer it strictly as it stood on the paper, and in the next, that there were good reasons why he should not go into all the particulars to which his noble Friend had referred. With regard to the question, what number of cast-iron guns had been rifled and delivered to the navy, his answer was that no rifled cast-iron guns had been delivered to the navy; for that description did not apply to the guns called the Armstrong guns, which were not cast-iron guns. With regard to the second question, by whose advice cast-iron guns had been hooped and rifled, he had to state that at the end of last year, and in the early part of the present, it was a subject of serious consideration with the Government how they should be able, at the earliest possible period, to supply both the army and navy with rifled guns. The gun of Sir William Armstrong had been adopted after a full and satisfactory trial, but it was found that Sir William Armstrong's guns could only be delivered comparatively slowly. The Government had therefore to consider whether they might not issue guns not exactly so perfect as the Armstrong, but still rifled guns, that could be supplied more rapidly. At that time orders were given that cast-iron guns should be provided, and subsequently rifled by Sir William Armstrong. A certain number of guns were prepared and hooped, and some of them were subsequently rifled. The rifling was upon what was called the "shunting" plan, which was suggested by Sir William Armstrong. Those guns were tried, but the result was not satisfactory, and all proceedings with respect to guns rifled upon that plan had been suspended. The hooped guns—that was, the ordinary service guns turned down and hooped, but not rifled—had also been tried, and in the experiments those smoothbore guns had stood considerable trials, but all had ultimately burst—in fact, they

  495
  had been tested to destruction; and although it was not in his power to say that the hooped smooth-bore guns had established any marked superiority over the ordinary smooth-bore guns, yet neither could he say that the trials had proved them to be failures. It would be, in fact, rather premature to pronounce upon the matter as it then stood. The noble Earl had further asked whether the Ordnance Select Committee had been consulted on the subject, and had approved the rifling of the guns in question. That question implied some misconception on the part of the noble Earl as to the nature of the functions of the Ordnance Select Committee. That Committee was a body of officers of experience and scientific attainments, to whom every description of invention for warlike purposes that was brought forward was referred. They examined all those inventions and reported to the Secretary of State whether they were likely to be useful, or whether they were of such a nature as to render it undesirable that the Government should have anything to do with them. The Committee had no function to decide what description of gun or other materials should be ordered for experiment—that was the function of the Secretary of State—it was the province of the Committee to conduct the experiments and to report the result. Therefore, the answer to the third question of the noble Earl must be in the negative—that the Ordnance Select Committeee was not consulted before these guns were rifled. The noble Earl, at the conclusion of his speech, had alluded to the position of Sir William Armstrong, and had spoken of that gentleman as contractor with the Government. It was due to Sir William Armstrong that that matter should be cleared up. The facts were that Sir William Armstrong was not a Government contractor at all, for he was not a partner in the Elswick Iron Works, which supplied the guns. He had no profitable interest in those works, but he had advanced money to that concern, for which he held security, and of course received interest, but none of the profits of the concern. It was also true that Sir William Armstrong was a partner in certain iron Works at Elswick, but those were not the Works which supplied ordnance to the Government. Having now answered the noble Earl's questions, he would only further observe that their Lordships would not expect him to give very minute in-
  496
  formation upon a subject of this nature. He had answered the questions, he hoped, to the satisfaction of his noble Friend, but certainly as far as was consistent with the public interests.

FURIOUS RIDING AND DRIVING BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that by the present law the penalty for furious riding or driving through the streets of the Metropolis, so as to endanger the life and limb of any person, or to the common danger of passengers, was but 40 s., a sum totally inadequate to ensure protection for the lives and limbs of Her Majesty's subjects. It appeared from a Return laid upon their Lordships' table that, within the last two years, no less than 134 persons had been run over and killed outright, and 1,827 injured. Of those who had been run over but not killed at the time, eight had subsequently died, and of those who had been knocked down, nine had afterwards died. Even this inadequate penalty of 40 s. might, under certain circumstances, be reduced to 2s. 6d. He thought it was monstrous that any person should be able to set the law at defiance merely because he was able to put his hand into his pocket and pay the fine imposed. He therefore proposed that in cases of accident or loss of life through reckless driving, the perpetrators should be visited with imprisonment, and not mulcted in a fine. He had himself seen examples of reckless driving in the streets of London, particularly in those neighbourhoods in which the traffic was not very great, such as in Belgravia, which was perfectly inconsistent with the preservation of public safety. The furious driving was principally by persons in one-horse carts belonging to tradesmen and others. The noble Marquess cited several cases of the lamentable and even fatal effects of furious driving:—among them the case of one Thomas Barnard, who had been tried in February previously for feloniously killing a man by furious driving. It appeared that Barnard had driven against a poor old man of 70, and knocked him down, and he died in two hours afterwards. The defence was that the driver was on the right side of the road. That man only got two months' imprisonment; but within a few minutes afterwards a man was convicted of stealing

  497
  a watch, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude. He thought such an inequality of punishments afforded ample justification for bringing forward the present Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was obliged to the noble Marquess for his laudable efforts to improve the law in this particular, but doubted whether the Bill would effect the object. This question had very recently been considered by a Select Committee, consisting of all the law Lords and other Peers, and after great deliberation they came to the unanimous conclusion that the law upon the subject ought not to be altered as was now proposed. The noble Marquess did not appear to have accurately studied the existing law. It would be supposed from the noble Marquess's statement that if a man by furious driving killed another he was only subjected to a fine; but the law really was that if a man by furious driving maliciously killed another, he would be in jeopardy to lose his life; and if it were done by negligence he would be guilty of manslaughter, and would be liable to a sentence of penal servitude. Now, the Bill before their Lordships was only confined to improper driving where no injury was sustained. As the law now stood, upon any such occurrence a pecuniary penalty might be inflicted upon the offender by summary conviction before the magistrates; but the noble Marquess proposed that even where no injury had been done, any person might be convicted of furious driving—that was, in fact, for driving at a greater rate than some nervous or timid person thought he ought to do—before a single magistrate, and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. For so undefinable an offence as furious driving, unaccompanied by personal injury, he thought it would be hard to inflict a punishment so severe. Believing the provisions of the Bill to be inexpedient and improper, he must ask their Lordships to reject the second reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he did not think the explanation of the noble and learned Lord was any answer to the very serious state of things disclosed by the Return which he had quoted.
  LORD PORTMAN LORD PORTMAN moved, that the Bill be read that day three months. The Bill only proposed to inflict a punishment of imprisonment, but without hard labour he could not see that that would be of much use in checking the evil complained of.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now"), and insert ("this day throe months").
  LORD DENMANrecommended the noble Marquess to withdraw the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that after the strong expression of opinion from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor—an opinion from which it was, nevertheless, his misfortune strongly to dissent —he would not persevere in the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
  Amendment and original Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn; and Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.—INTRODUCTION OF ANIMALS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked, Whether the Question of introducing and acclimatising in the Australian Colonies Animals of a rare and valuable Character, has been brought under the Consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and is favourably entertained by Her Majesty's Government? The question, he thought, did not fall within the category of ordinary questions, inasmuch as no principle of public policy was involved in it; but it was one, nevertheless, of considerable interest and importance both to the Colonies and to this country. The expediency of introducing and acclimatizing in Australia various British and other animals had been mooted some time since, and had been brought under the notice of the Colonial Office by an Australian gentleman, and since then a scheme for that object had been sketched out, and had now acquired considerable maturity. The noble Earl here mentioned several of the animals which had been introduced into that country, and stated that Her Majesty had countenanced the scheme by sending out specimens. The introduction of British fish into Australia was a matter which received a good deal of attention, and, considering the great value of the salmon fishery in this kingdom, the introduction of the salmon would, doubtless, be of the greatest advantage to Australia. Moreover, numbers of the fine birds which thronged the English woods, or flew about the fields, had been exported to Australia, and he was glad to think that in the groves and streams of the British colonies the birds and fish of the mother country would be revived. The Victoria Government had given £500 towards the encouragement of

  499
  this scheme, and in public meetings the Government had been urged to increase the grant to £2,000. He should certainly not wish to make any addition to the Miscellaneous Estimates of this country in the present year, because he thought them high enough already; but the scheme might be promoted by other means besides money, and much might be done for it by the expression of opinion in its favour.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the subject of the introduction and acclimatizing animals of a rare and valuable kind into a distant quarter of the world was no doubt one of very great interest, not only in a scientific point of view and with reference to the enjoyment which it was calculated to produce, but also for a more practicable reason—namely, the value of those animals to those countries in which they were introduced. The matter had attracted some attention for a number of years, and two great attempts had been made to introduce animals from this and from other countries into Australia. One of these attempts had hitherto been successful, while the other had met with eminent success. The first, of course, was the introduction of salmon into the Australian waters. That was attempted during the previous time that he was at the head of the Colonial Office; but that undertaking, although it was conducted under very scientific superintendence, failed in consequence, it was now supposed, of mistakes which might in future be obviated. Another effort was at present being made for the attainment of the same object, and he earnestly hoped that it might prove successful, because it would tend greatly to the pecuniary advantage as well as the social enjoyment of the colonists. The second experiment to which he referred was the introduction of the alpaca into Australia; which he believed might already be said to have completely succeeded. His noble Friend said that he did not wish that any Vote should be taken in the present year among the Miscellaneous Estimates for the promotion of these experiments; but he (the Duke of Newcastle) should go rather further than his noble Friend, and he should express his belief that, as a matter of principle, it would not be desirable to take a Vote in any year for such a purpose. He believed that the Government could assist such an undertaking more effectually in other ways than by any pecuniary contributions, and he felt persuaded that the general superintend-
  500
  ence of such schemes would be best conducted by private individuals. That was the opinion he had maintained with respect to the transmission of botanical specimens, and he held it with respect to the removal of animals also. He could, however, assure his noble Friend that he was sincerely desirous of assisting those who engaged in such experiments by addressing communications in their favour to the Governors of colonies, and other measures. In the case, for instance, of the removal to Australia of that very rare and delicate fish which had originally come from China to the Mauritius, he had written to the Governor of the latter colony for the purpose of asking him to give all the aid in his power to the undertaking. As his noble Friend had brought forward that subject he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it would be wrong for him not to give credit to a gentleman connected with Australia—namely, Mr. Edward Wilson, for his efforts in ensuring the success of the experiment as far as it had gone. He certainly could not hold out any expectation that the Government would contribute pecuniarily to that object; but on the other hand he should feel it to be both a duty and a pleasure to afford every other kind of aid in his power to those who were so generously and patriotically promoting an object of such great social and scientific importance.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble Duke had misunderstood him upon one point. He had not expressed the opinion that a Vote should be taken either in the present or in any future year. On the contrary, he believed with the noble Duke that such an object as the introduction of animals into Australia should be left to the enterprise of private individuals.

BANK OF IRELAND BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  On Motion, That the Bill be now read a third time;
  LORD MONTEAGLEobjected.
  On Question, resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 3a and passed.

  PROTEST.
  DISSENTIENT:
  "Because no Evidence or Argument has been adduced to prove that the Restraint imposed on the Bank of Ireland, prohibiting the Loan of Money on Mortgage or other Landed Security, has been productive of Injury to that Establishment, or of public or private Inconvenience, and has thus justified its Repeal.
  "Because this Restraint forming a part of the

  501
  original Constitution of the Bank of Ireland, and steadily maintained to the present Time during a Period of about 80 Years, has been shown to be consistent with a System of successful and prudent Management, upholding public and private Credit, not only in prosperous Times but during Periods of Commercial Pressure and of Political disquiet.
  "Because even during the Crisis which produced the Bank Restriction that Measure was recommended, adopted, and condemned in Ireland less in reference to Dangers or Exigencies affecting Irish interests, than as a Consequence of the Suspension of Cash Payments enacted by the Legislature of Great Britain.
  "Because the Repeal of this Restraint upon Loans and Mortgages of Land, which has so long subsisted, cannot but he interpreted as giving the Sanction of the Legislature to the Investment in Landed Securities of the Capital of Banks issuing Promissory Notes payable on Demand; a Practice which has been condemned as contrary to sound Principle, and therefore open to serious Objection.
  "Because the ultimate Security of the Promissory Notes payable on Demand is insufficient for the Public Interests, unless their immediate Convertibility is also provided for, and for this reason the practice of locking-up Capital thus rendered unavailable to answer pressing Demands is inconsistent with the true Theory of Banking, or with its safe Application.
  "Because if this Repeal of the wholesome Restraint of the Irish Bank Charter Act, 21 & 22 Geo. III. Cap. 16, had taken place during the existence of the Agricultural Distress consequent upon the Failure of Crops, it can hardly be doubted that a Pressure so urgent would have been cast on the Bank of Ireland as would have led them to unwise and dangerous Advances, adding to the existing Agricultural Distress the further Risks attendant on an imprudent Extension of the Circulation.
  "Because the Danger of the Principle involved in the Bill becomes greater when it is proposed that it should be applied to the central and most important Bank in Ireland, which, as holding the Public Accounts of the Treasury and Exchequer, as paying the Dividends, and intrusted with the Public Remittances from England, stands in all these important respects in the Position of a National Bank, and is liable, if deviating from its present more prudent Course, to risk the certain Convertibility of its Notes by Investments not available in the immediate Discharge of its legitimate Banking Engagements.
  "MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON."

DUCHY OF CORNWALL (LIMITATION OF ACTIONS) BILL.

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the day for the Report of the Amendments in this Bill read.
  LORD KINGSDOWNstated for the information of their Lordships the mode in which the accounts of the Duchy were kept.
  LORD VIVIANrose for the purpose of asking the noble Duke below him (the
  502
  Duke of Newcastle) a question as to the meaning of a remark which the noble Duke used in a former debate, but which then escaped his notice. The noble Duke was reported to have said that the Duchy had always exercised its rights with leniency and forbearance, and that many of those noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who were now most forward to complain had received favours at their hands. He wished the noble Duke would explain who were the parties to whom he referred. A noble Lord who opposed the Bill the other evening, but who was not now in his place (Lord Churston) had authorized him to say that he had never received any favour at the hands of the Duchy; for himself he could say that he had never asked for or received any. The Council of the Duchy, he considered, had failed in their duty if they had granted any, and he challenged the noble Duke to mention the names of the noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen to whom he referred. He might say here, too, that he had been taken to task for applying the term "sharp practice" to the officers of the Duchy. He was quite aware that that term ought not to be applied unless there were ample means of justifying it. He did not apply the term to the Council—the term was applied to some of the subordinates; and he only wished that noble Lords who were on the Council would examine into these questions and see for themselves whether their conduct did not deserve the name of "sharp practice." He had formerly explained that he had no longer an interest in the Bill— the case in which he was interested was decided before this Bill was brought forward; but he had thought it right to refer all the correspondence that had passed between him and the officers of the Duchy in reference to that case to the hands of an eminent counsel, whose name he was not at liberty to mention because he had only received his reply as he entered the House; but it was to the effect that he thought a degree of pressure existed which few gentlemen would have thought it desirable to exercise; and however technically justifiable the course of the Duchy might be it was one which he would not advise any client of his to take unless he were a Jew or "some sharp practitioner." It was legally right, but it would hardly be thought right by any fair-dealing man. He might also add that he was borne out by many of his Friends—some of them Members of the other House of Parliament

  503
  —in the application of the term "sharp practice" to the conduct of the officers of the Duchy.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he did not rise to discuss the provisions of the Bill, but to reply to the question of the noble Lord—a question, however, he must say, which appeared to him to be not only a singular but an irregular one. The noble Lord asked him what he meant by an assertion that was made in the noble Lord's own hearing, and which he then allowed to pass without challenge, but now came down with it cut out of a newspaper, and challenged its correctness. He had not a word to say against the correctness of the report, which he believed conveyed a fair representation of what he said, but the noble Lord had put into it a word which he did not use, and which he did not think was in the report. He never said that either Lords or Gentlemen had received favour at the hands of the Duchy. What he said was, that noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who were most forward in complaints had derived great advantages at the expense of the Duchy. In saying this he intended no personal attack on the noble Lord himself, still less on the noble Lord who had been before alluded to (Lord Churston), there was no one who had shown more courtesy, and he might say kindness, to the officers of the Duchy than that noble Lord. He was stating a general fact which applied to all the landed gentry of Cornwall. There was no reflection on them; but, nevertheless, for several years past a course of events had taken place tending, pro tanto, to enrich the landowners at the expense of the Duchy. Fifty or sixty years ago a measure was passed through Parliament by which about 20,000 acres of land, the property of the Duchy, were disposed of at nominal prices. Then came a dispute about the settlement of the septennial leases. Though it was generally admitted that the holders of those leases could not enforce any right to renew, yet by the Cession of Manors Bill the property thus held on leases was converted into freehold, by which several years' value was added to the property of the landowners. Then, one of the most ancient rights of the Duchy of Cornwall was the duty on tin. Disputes, however, arose with respect to them, and a Bill was introduced by Lord Mont-eagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which these tolls were given up, the Duchy receiving a compensation out of the
  504
  public Exchequer. He had no hesitation in stating that if those rights were existing now they would be worth £25,000 a year. Altogether he believed that the property the Duchy had lost of late years in this way was of the value of between £50,000 and £60,000 a year; and this was a public question, because it must be remembered that the revenues of the Duchy diminished the provision that must be made from the public Exchequer for the heir to the Crown. The subordinates of the Council had been accused of sharp practice. As to that he must say that they had occasional law suits; but considering the nature and extent of the property these were very few, and he did not recollect a single case in which the Duchy had not been successful. Was not that a proof there was no sharp practice in the matter? He could assure the noble Lord that he would not make either himself or his colleagues angry by the employment of these terms; and as to the opinion which the noble Lord had read he knew nothing of the counsel or of the case that had been submitted to him; but he was quite willing to take the opinion of any independent and honourable man whether the opinion which the noble Lord had read was a fair description of the transaction. The noble Lord had made these complaints to him several months ago, and also to his noble and learned Friend opposite, the Chancellor of the Duchy (Lord Kings-down); and they had both gone over the noble Lord's case with the utmost minuteness, calling in the aid of their most experienced servants, and they convinced themselves that there was no just cause of complaint against what had been done. He did not say the noble Lord had not a case; when both he and his noble and learned Friend began to look into it they thought he had cause of complaint, but they were now satisfied that the decision was legally, morally, equitably, and generally right. As to any other complaints the noble Lord or others might have, he could only say that if they were sent to the Council he would take care that they should be investigated.
  LORD VIVIANthanked the noble Luke for his offer, and said he would accept it.
  LORD PORTMANsaid that the noble Duke who had to-night defended the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall was not a Member of their Lordships' House when the first investigation was made into the affairs of the Duchy. The Report then made

  505
  to the House was that customs had been abandoned, fees and heriots had been lost, boundaries of estates had become doubtful, and adverse claims had been made which had grown into habits, if not into legal rights. It had taken the Council twenty years to put the affairs of the Duchy to rights. The Council did not wish to encroach upon the property of others, but it was their duty to guard the rights, privileges, and estates of the Duchy.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he remembered, in the days of His late Majesty, George IV., great complaints had been made of malversation in favour of particular individuals, and against the interests of the Duchy. He deprecated the employment of such terms as "sharp practice."
  Amendments reported; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  BILL READ 3a, AND PASSED.
  Order of the Day for the Third Beading read.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobserved that some of the Commissioners under the Bill were to be appointed by Corporations. Now, whatever might be the merits of Corporations, they were certainly not religious bodies, and he recommended that this portion of the Bill should be altered.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, this point had received very serious consideration. It was difficult to say in what way the Commissioners should be appointed, and the mode proposed in the Bill was adopted as the least objectionable that could be thought of. The duties were not wholly of a religious kind. There was property to look after, and Corporations were considered the proper guardians of such property.
  Bill read 3a.
  On Question that the Bill do pass,
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON THE BISHOP OF LONDON moved to insert at the end of the 1st Section the words—
  ("And a Benefice, Sinecure Rectory, or Vicarage in the Suburbs of any City, Town, or Borough in the Schedule to this Act, and the Parish of any such Suburban Benefice, shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be within such City, Town, or Borough, and shall be included in and subject to the provisions of this Act accordingly.")
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to insert
  506
  in Clause 17 words to permit the appropriation of the disused churches to foreign congregations not being in communion with the Church of Borne. The object of this proposal was to include the Greek Church, to which a large and influential community in London, Manchester, and Liverpool belonged; and which was not at all of a hostile character as regarded the Church of England. But for the remarks of a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Durham), it would never have occurred to him that such an Amendment as he proposed would be thought objectionable; for the object of the contemplated enactment had nothing whatever to do with questions of orthodoxy, but it was simply a matter of international courtesy, such as English congregations often received in foreign countries.
  Moved in Clause 17 line 31, instead of ("Foreign Protestant Congregations,") to insert ("Christian Congregations not in communion with the Church of Borne.")
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAM, after the pointed allusion of the noble Earl, felt bound to explain that he did not oppose the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl on the ground that the Greek Church was a hostile or proselytizing body. Still he could not forget that there were important differences between the docrines of the Greek and the English Churches —that the former did not hold the same doctrine as the latter with regard to the Procession of the Holy Ghost; that it held as much as the Roman Catholic Church the dogma of the Real Presence; that it enforced compulsory confession; and that, though it did not worship images, in indulged in the adoration of pictures. He considered that there was in particular a spirit rising in this country against compulsory confession, and he thought it would be unwise to do anything that might seem to encourage that practice.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHpreferred the existing words of the Bill— "Foreign Protestant Churches." The Amendment would allow churches to be appropriated to congregations of Mahomedans, Jews, or Buddhists.
  LORD REDESDALEconceived that under the proposed clause Unitarians would be admitted, which would be very repugnant to the feelings of English Churchmen. If the clause was good for anything it was good as showing that the English Church took a comprehensive and tolerant view of the subject, and that the Christian Protes-

  507
  tant Church of England held out the hand of fellowship to other Christian Churches.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought that in introducing the clause he was only following out principle and precedent in allowing churches to be used by foreign Protestants, and he considered that the clause should remain as it was.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHwas of opinion that the qualification of "Christian" was equally necessary.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sapproved the Amendment.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he thought it would show a very great want of Christian charity if we were expressly to exclude the members of the Roman Catholic Church from the power of the clause. The Roman Catholics were a very large proportion of our fellow subjects. We provided chaplains who professed that religion for the army, the navy, and various public establishments, and, in his opinion, to except Catholics in a case of this kind would be an offensive provision, and one which he should regret to see adopted. There should be a community of religious feeling between all Christian Churches; he trusted therefore that their Lordships would not give their assent to the Amendment now proposed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause enabling the reseating and rearranging of churches inserted.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.