Sitting of 21 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Passengers (Australian Colonies); Church Endowment Act Amendment.
2° Durham University; Attornies and Solicitors (Ireland).

HARBOURS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee that he should state the course which was to be taken in regard to the clauses giving power to the Board of Trade to make arrangements with any public body in regard to the transfer of Ramsgate Harbour. It had been represented that such a power, if taken in this Bill, might have the effect to some extent of prejudging the question, should it afterwards be submitted to Parliament. His own view of such a proposal was that it could only have been carried through after a careful
  1408
  investigation by a Select Committee. As nothing was farther from his intention than to do anything that would anticipate the opinion of Parliament on this point, he was quite willing to omit the proposal altogether from the Bill. Any company, therefore, wishing to obtain the use of the harbour would have to come to Parliament for such powers as they desired, and Parliament would be free to deal with the application as they might think fit.
  Clause 7 (Dues levied for Shipping Purposes on Ships or Goods which derive no benefit),
  MR. MILLERmoved to add at the end of the clause—
  "With the exception of the said dues leviable by the Trinity Corporation at the port of Leith, where such dues shall cease to be levied so soon as provision shall have been made, by sufficient accumulated funds, for all annuities, pensions, and obligations which have been lawfully granted, or in which a vested interest, absolute or contingent, has been lawfully created before the 15th day of March, 1861."
  The hon. Gentleman said, that such great objections had been felt to the manner in which the Trinity Corporation disposed of its funds that the people of Leith resisted payment of the tax by force. The result was that the Corporation was obliged to procure an Act of Parliament, which was granted them for twenty years. That period happening to expire about this time, the community of Leith were anxious that their case should be an exception to the general arrangement which the Board of Trade had made with the Trinity Corporation of the kingdom. The clause was drawn in very liberal terms, and he hoped that it would be agreed to.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he must resist the exception on the ground that an arrangement had been come to with the various Trinity Houses, and the Trinity House at Leith was represented in that arrangement. The Government certainly entered into an agreement with it as well as with the Trinity Houses of Hull and Newcastle. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to make a different proposal with regard to Leith from that which was submitted to the House.
  MR. BLACKsaid, the proposition of the hon. Member for Leith appeared to him exceedingly reasonable. From the reports upon the subject, it appeared that the Leith Trinity House was entitled to levy a penny per ton upon all goods imported, and it was further stated that the Corpora-

  1409
  tion was not in debt, and that its property was sufficient for all the charges upon it. Supposing that the funds were properly applied, and that this £2,000 was to be given to the poor mariners, all the poor mariners in the neighbourhood would flock to Leith, and the consequence would be that a large number of paupers would be thrown upon Leith and Edinburgh, whereas by agreeing to this proposal there would be no occasion for the House to provide for anything whatever.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, that the very Amendment which was now proposed showed the wisdom of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and he saw no reason for departing from that course.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  MR. LINDSAYurged that the dues should not be allowed to go on increasing, and for the purpose of preventing such increase, he proposed to add at the end of Clause 7 the following words, "but the amount of such dues shall not exceed the amount levied in 1860."
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he could not agree to the introduction of the words, because their insertion would interfere with the general construction of the clause. If there should be a surplus, it was to be applied under the provisions of the clause in payment of such pensions as should subsist after the expiration of ten years.
  MR. LINDSAYremarked that if any of the pensions should be payable after the expiration of ten years there was power given in the Bill to make provision for the payment of them.
  MR. HEADLAMdid not think that, practically, the Amendment could be carried into effect.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, that if at a future stage of the Bill the hon. Member should bring up a clause to accomplish the object he had in view he should willingly give him support.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would endeavour to prepare a clause, and would submit it to the President of the Board of Trade.
  The Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 8 and 9.
  Clause 10 (Compensation for Differential Dues, when to cease),
  MR. LINDSAYproposed to omit the words "1872," and insert "1867." By the first Bill it was proposed to give to the
  1410
  parties who now received differential dues five years' compensation, or in round numbers £250,000. By this Bill the time was extended to ten years, and the amount doubled, so that the parties would receive about £500,000 more over and above the £1,000,000, they had received for compensation since the reciprocity treaties were passed. He could not see any reason why these parties were entitled to receive so large a sum, considering that they had received five times more than they could consider themselves entitled to. When the reciprocity treaties were passed there were about eighty places recipients which had a right to levy those dues. Of these fifty seven had ceased already to receive them. He concluded by moving that "1867" be inserted for "1872."
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 9, to leave out the words "seventy-two," in order to insert the words "sixty-seven," instead thereof.
  MR. HORSFALLdenied that either this Bill or the first one gave the parties who levied the duties one farthing to which they were not entitled. They were entitled to levy the dues in perpetuity under the guarantee of that House, and now they were willing, in accordance with the proposal made by the President of the Board of Trade, to relinquish these dues at the end of ten years, instead of levying them in perpetuity. This was, therefore, no compensation at all. He also denied the accuracy of the statement formerly made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) relative to the Liverpool pilots.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, it was very true that if the dues had been abolished in 1626 the arrangement might have been made at less cost than now; but that no arrangement was made with the owners when the reciprocities came into force was no pretence for confiscating them now. The parties levying the dues had done so under the sanction of Parliament, and in virtue of charters, and they were clearly entitled to full compensation. He questioned whether, in a court of law, compensation for twenty years might not have been obtained instead of ten years. The pilotage dues of Newcastle, to which the hon. Member had referred on a former occasion, went to maintain the pilotage service of various other places, and had been of great public value; so that the people of Newcastle were not open to the charge made against them that they did nothing for the money they received.
  MR. HODGSONalso supported the clause.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSthought that the clause would grant an extravagant compensation.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he was in favour of making a fair arrangement with the parties interested in these dues, though he must admit that they had made a very good thing of it already.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was either wrong in giving compensation at all, or his present proposal was fully justified. He was persuaded that if the right hon. Gentleman had not extended the amount of compensation to a period of ten years, there would have been no chance of passing this Bill this Session. He thought the course taken was a wise one, and he hoped it would be carried out.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, his constituency were only interested in this question as taxpayers, and he should, therefore, support the Bill, as it would relieve several burdens that now pressed very heavily on the shipping trade. If the House delayed the passing of the Bill it would only increase the claim for compensation. The real question for them to decide was, was ten years a sufficient time for that purpose? He thought that it was; and he also thought that the Government deserved great praise for the great consideration that had been given both to taxpayers and tax-receivers.
  COLONEL FRENCHthought the parties interested had received a million of money already more than they were entitled to. He objected to the way in which the sum now proposed to be given had been doubled since the Bill was first brought in.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURhoped the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) would not press his Amendment, as it was of great importance that the present Bill should pass, and it would be endangered if his Amendment were carried.
  MR. CLAYthought that the bargain made by the Bill with the Corporations was an advantageous one for the country, and it would, therefore, have his support.
  MR. BUCHANANthought the question was one of expediency, and he believed the parties concerned had received quite as much as they were entitled to. He thought the proposal of the Government was a most liberal one, and for his part he must express his thanks to the hon. Mem-
  1412
  ber for Sunderland for having brought forward the question.
  MR. LINDSAYshould not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not divide the Committee on this Amendment.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDbelieved that the President of the Board of Trade had substituted Bill No. 2 for Bill No. 1, because he could not resist the pressure brought to bear upon him by the parties interested in these dues. As he believed the refusal of this compromise would endanger the Bill, he was not prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland.
  Question put, "That the words 'seventy-two' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 28: Majority 100.
  MR. CAVEproposed to add at the end of Clause 10—
  "Provided, that in the case of any body of proprietors paying a dividend to shareholders out of the profits made by them, or of any company paying a like dividend, or of any private individual entitled by reason of a private proprietary right, adequate compensation shall be made in such manner as may be determined by arbitration or otherwise."
  He rose, he said, to advocate the rights of private parties whose interests were affected by the Bill. They were a feeble body, incapable of exercising the pressure upon Government that more powerful corporations could, and, therefore, entitled to a scrupulous measure of justice from that Government. He chiefly advocated the interest of Shoreham Harbour, though he believed there were others in the same category. He might be permitted to say that he had no personal interest in the matter. He was a Commissioner appointed under the Act. The office conferred simply certain duties, and he believed he was discharging one of those duties in protesting against what the proprietors looked upon as a confiscation of their property. Shoreham Harbour was originally made by a body of private individuals who raised money by shares, and by that means constructed, and have since maintained it. They had great difficulties to contend with, as they had to carry on a constant struggle against nature, unassisted by any public money, as in the case of Newhaven. For a long period they paid no dividend, and the sum received as compensation under the Act of Parliament which had been so often referred to had, for that time, gone simply in expenses for

  1413
  public benefit. He considered that private shareholders in such an undertaking as this were in the same position as creditors of public bodies. They bought their shares as the others lent their money, on the faith of the property which belonged to the company or corporation; and, as the rights of the latter were always saved, so ought the rights of the former. Hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the opposite side proved his case. They said that this compensation ought to have been bought up years ago. That admitted the right; but then they said, because this was not done, we had received more than we were entitled to, and, therefore, ought to have nothing more; but, what sort of justice was that? Supposing the hon. Member for Glasgow had an opportunity of buying up an annuity (with which, he was charged) for five years' purchase, which he refused, thinking the recipient would not live so long, would he have the right to come to him ten years afterwards and say, you have already received the annuity five years longer than you ought, and, therefore, I will pay you no more? Again it was said Committees had always insisted on the surrender of this compensation when the parties holding it came for fresh privileges. Did not that prove that the claim was a valid one, not to be given up without consent? An hon. Member had said this ten years' compensation was the price they had to pay for the Bill. He (Mr. Cave) contended that the surrender of a perpetuity at the end of ten years was the price the Government made other people pay for public good. He agreed that private rights should give way to public, but he thought the principle might be carried a little too far. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended them to recompense themselves by raising the tolls, a recommendation rather inconsistent with the allegation that they had benefited by the tolls having been lowered. He, for one, could not consent to the tolls being raised. Such a measure would drive away the trade to other harbours; and, without benefiting the shareholders, would injure the town of Shoreham and country round, which had as great, though a more indirect, interest in the harbour. He approved generally of the Bill, but he was sorry to see it tarnished with this injustice; and, without prejudging the question, or fixing any amount of compensation, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONtrusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. He saw no difference between the case of proprietary harbours and those held by corporations, and he did not see why there should be any distinction in the mode of dealing with them. He thought that ten years' payment from the Consolidated Fund was an adequate payment, and the parties ought to be satisfied with it.
  MR. LYALLsupported the addition.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONhoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, and said he could make no difference between public bodies and bodies of private proprietors.
  MR. CAVE, in reply, said, he wondered at this, because in the Bill as it originally stood this distinction was admitted, as it had been on all previous occasions. However, as he found private interests were so unpopular, he would not make them more so by giving the House the trouble of dividing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 11 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Transfer of Ramsgate Harbour to Board of Trade),
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, it was proposed in this Bill to transfer the duties and responsibilities of the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour to the Board of Trade. He wished to know what it was proposed to do with the compensation fund to which they would be entitled.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that now that they had abolished passing tolls he was given to believe that the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour desired to be relieved of the duty of looking after the harbour for the future. The funds will be applied to the support of the harbour, and it would be the duty of the Government to manage the harbour in the way best calculated to secure the interests of the public.
  MR. MITCHELLwas of opinion that the funds of the harbour would be amply sufficient, under proper management to maintain it, without transferring it to a railway company.
  MR. MACKINNONsaid, that the transfer of the management of Ramsgate Harbour from the trustees to the Board of Trade would, in his opinion, be of great advantage to the public. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the funds were sufficient to maintain the harbour.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that the harbour had cost £2,000,000, when the trustees' own engineer, Sir John Rennie, agreed that it might have been constructed for £700,000, a fact not very complimentary to the trustees, and he (Mr. Liddell) was glad that the harbour was to be withdrawn from their management.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, possibly it could be constructed at the present time for £700,000, but it should be remembered that at the time when the works were erected the same appliances were not then in existence which were now in use.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 25 struck out.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clauses 27 to 30 struck out.
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Board of Trade may sell Property),
  In reply to Mr. LIDDELL,
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the object of the clause was merely to enable the Board of Trade to make any charges in the nature of their investments that might seem expedient.
  MR. DEEDES AND MR. LINDSAYwere strongly of opinion that the clause required alteration, otherwise the Board of Trade would have power under the clause to transfer the harbour to any company.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that if the clause were passed, he would undertake to remove any possible difficulty.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 33 to 41 agreed to.
  Clauses 42, 43, and 44 omitted.
  Clause 45 (Power to Warden and Assistants to levy Rates),
  MR. MILNER GIBSONproposed the omission of the clause, in order to insert clauses constituting a new Dover Harbour Board, as follows:—
  "The said Dover Harbour Board shall consist of seven members, four of whom shall form a quorum; the said seven members shall be the Lord Warden for the time being of the Cinque Ports, who shall ex officio be chairman of the said Board, two burgesses of the borough of Dover, elected by the town council every three years, and to be eligible for re-election, a member to be from time to time appointed by the President of the Board of Trade for the time being, a member to be from time to time appointed by the First Lord of the Admiralty for the time being, a member to be from time to time appointed by the South-Eastern Railway Company under their common seal, and a member to be from time to time appointed by the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, under their common seal; and the said Lord Warden shall from time to
  1416
  time nominate, under his hand, one of the members of the said Board to be his deputy, to preside at all meetings at which the said Lord Warden shall not be present; and in the event of an equality of votes at any meeting of the said Board, the chairman at such meeting shall be entitled to a casting vote; provided that in the event of either or both of the said railway companies failing or declining to appoint a member of the said Harbour Board within one calendar month after having been required so to do by the President of the Board of Trade, then such president shall, from and after such default, be entitled thereafter to appoint from time to time another member or members in lieu thereof, as the case may be."
  MR. DEEDEScomplained that the Dover Commissioners had not been consulted with reference to the proposed change in the management of the Dover
  Harbour. He could not but regard this as a most uncalled for change introduced in a most unusual manner, and in these circumstances he and his brother Commissioners had to consider how they ought to act. The Commissioners had been summoned to meet at Dover to investigate the claims of eighty persons who were candidates for the office of harbour master at Dover. On seeing the change that was contemplated in the constitution of the Board, he thought it his duty to call the attention of his brother Commissioners to that change, and they all felt that pending this change it would be unfair and improper in them to exercise any patronage in regard to the harbour. They communicated their views to the Lord Warden on this subject, and hoped to hear from him some expression of opinion on the subject of the proposed change; but in their interview they failed to elicit from him any opinion on the subject of the constitution of the Board of Management. They had intimated to the Lord Warden that it was their intention to abstain from any act that was not imperatively called for by the interests of the harbour, and that they had only been prevented from placing their resignation in his hands from a fear lest the interests of the harbour should suffer before the present Bill could be passed, and that they thought it their duty to remain in office till their successors could be appointed.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONcould assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to show any disrespect or neglect to the Commissioners of Dover Harbour. When the Bill was introduced it was not the intention of the Government

  1417
  to make such a change in the constitution of Dover Harbour as was now proposed; but the people of Dover, and others interested in the harbour had, through their Member, expressed a strong desire for some change, and the hon. Member for Dover gave notice of an Amendment proposing an alteration in the constitution of the Board. It was not till after consideration that the Government consented to the proposal of the hon. Member for Dover, and it was not possible to have that communication with the Dover Commissioners on the subject which might have been desirable. He could assure his hon. Friend, however, that there was not the slightest intention to show any discourtesy towards them.
  LORD LOVAINEprotested against the Amendment. It was the first time that the constitution of a Board which had existed for centuries had been changed at the suggestion of a private Member.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that instead of a Board consisting of eight gentlemen not connected with the place it was now proposed that there should be a Board consisting of two members of the Town Council, one appointed by the Board of Trade, one by the Board of Admiralty, and one by the South Eastern and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies, both of which had a very great interest in the proper management of the harbour. He thought, then, that the right hon. Gentleman was only doing a public service by adopting the proposed change.
  SIR BROOK BRIDGESsaid, that notwithstanding the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given the Board had a right to complain of the treatment the Assistants had received.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONShad the greatest possible respect for the Assistants in their individual capacity; but he thought the condition of Dover, as compared with. Hastings and the other southern ports, was not such as to render the proposed change undesirable.
  Clause omitted as was also Clause 46.
  On the Motion of Mr. SOMERSET BEAUMONT, a clause was inserted giving power to town Corporations to transfer shipping dues to harbour authorities.
  MR. NICOLmoved clauses providing for a new constitution for the management of the harbour of Dover. The following is the constitution of the new Board:—
  "The Dover Harbour Board shall consist of seven members, four of whom shall form a quo-
  1418
  rum; the said seven members shall be the Lord Warden for the time being of the Cinque Ports, who shall ex officio be chairman of the said Beard, two burgesses of the borough of Dover elected by the town council every three years, and to be eligible for re-election, a member to be from time to time appointed by the First Lord of the Admiralty for the time being, a member to be from time to time appointed by the South Eastern Railway Company, under their common seal, and a member to be from time to time appointed by the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, under their common seal; and the said Lord Warden shall from time to time nominate, under his hand, one of the members of the said Board to be his deputy, to preside at all meetings at which the said Lord Warden shall not be present; and in the event of an equality of votes at any meeting of the said Board, the chairman at such meeting shall be entitled to a casting vote; provided that in the event of either or both of the said railway companies failing or declining to appoint a member of the said Harbour Board within one calender month after having been required 80 to do by the President of the Board of Trade, then such President shall, from and after such default, be entitled thereafter to appoint from time to time another member or members in lieu thereof, as the case may be."
  Mr. DEEDESsaid, there was no adequate provision made for the liquidation of the debts that had been incurred under the sanction of Parliament. He ventured, to say, from the accounts given by the official manager of the harbour, that the mode in which it was expected to pay off the debt was not so simple, or likely to be so successful, as was expected. He was perfectly satisfied that, after the income from passing tolls ceased, great difficulty would be found in meeting the obligations that had been incurred. He believed it would be found that the advantages derived from the establishment of this new Board would not be so satisfactory as seemed to be anticipated.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENdefended the constitution of the new Board, and observed that the new constitution had the unanimous approval of the people of Dover.
  LORD LOVAINEobserved that it would be useless to discuss the clauses, but he must again protest against the unprecedented step of making such sweeping changes without notice.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENreplied that the notice of the hon. Member (Mr. Nicol) had been on the paper for several days. He had no doubt, from conversations which he had had with gentlemen in the neighbourhood, that the change was most earnestly desired by the inhabitants of Dover.
  Clauses agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  MR. THOMPSONmoved the following clause:—
  "(Vessels using Whitby Harbour to pay toll for Support of tide lights.) On and after the 1st day of January, 1862, all vessels exceeding ten tons entering or leaving the harbour of Whitby shall pay to the trustees of Whitby Harbour such sum or toll, not exceeding 1d. per ton, as such trustees may from time to time direct to be paid to them, for the support, maintenance, and improvement of the existing or any future tide lights at the entrance of the harbour: provided always, that any vessel which shall have paid such toll on entering the harbour may again leave the harbour without further payment of toll."
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

ST. MARGARET'S CHURCH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is intended to contribute Public Money towards the maintenance of the fabric of St. Margaret's Church, the religious service of this House being already provided for by an expenditure on St. Stephen's Chapel? And whether it might not be preferable to take steps for removing to another spot St. Margaret's Church from the Abbey Yard?
  MR. COWPERsaid, St. Margaret's Church had for many years been the place of worship used by both Houses of Parliament on public occasions, and there were also seats reserved in the Church for Members of both Houses at the usual services on Sundays. On those grounds it had been the practice for many years for Parliament to make grants whenever extensive repairs were made in that Church During the last 100 years there had been six occasions on which considerable sums were voted by the House of Commons to aid in the repairs of the Church. It was not in his contemplation to propose any grant for that purpose, because a sum was voted in a former year, and the sum to which the hon. Member had alluded was one which had already been voted. There had been some difference of opinion among persons of taste as to the general effect of the removal of the Church. It served as a foil to enhance the beauty and size of the Abbey, and it concealed the junction with Henry VII.'s Chapel. However, a Committee of this House some years ago recommended that the Church should be
  1420
  removed, and an estimate was made by the late Sir Charles Barry of the cost of another site and of re-erecting the Church. That estimate was a very large one, and nothing had been done, and he had nothing under consideration with regard to that question.

AFFAIRS OF NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, now that the rebellion in New Zealand is suppressed, the Government are taking such steps as will tend to extricate this Country from any future implication in Native Policy; and whether they will now advise Her Majesty to give assent to the Native Council Bill sent by the New Zealand Legislature for Her approval?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, a new Governor, Sir George Grey, had been appointed, and had been desired to report to the Government upon the whole subject. It would, therefore, be wrong to fetter his discretion by advising the Crown to assent to the Native Council Bill. Her Majesty's Government had no disinclination to assent to that Bill, but they would reserve their final decision until they had received the Report from Sir George Grey.

PENSIONS TO COLONIAL GOVERNORS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, in the absence of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne) he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it has been determined by the Government to grant Retiring Pensions to Governors of Colonies; and, if so, after what period of service, and on what scale?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the question of granting retiring allowances to Governors of Colonies had been considered by the Government of Lord Derby when they were preparing the Superannuation Bill, it having been suggested by the Colonial Office that some provision of that nature should be included in that Bill. Nothing, however, was done, and the present Government had not renewed the consideration of the question.

ROYAL ATLANTIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Galway, If he is,

1421
prepared to-night to name the Committee to inquire into the circumstances attending the termination by the Postmaster General of the Postal Contract with the Royal Atlantic Steam Navigation Company.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he had been perfectly ready for several days to name the Committee, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to know why he had not nominated it, he begged to refer him to the Secretary of the Treasury. He certainly should name the Committee tonight. If he could not come to terms, he should select five Members whose names would be a guarantee for their intelligence and impartiality, and add to them the Secretary of the Treasury and himself. He should take the sense of the House on each name on Monday next.

NAVY—THE "HIBERNIA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Messrs. Palmer of Newcastle-on-Tyne, the builders of the Hibernia—which was pronounced unseaworthy by the Admiralty before making a voyage—are the same parties who are constructing an Iron-cased Frigate for the Admiralty?
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, it was a fact that the Hibernia was pronounced unseaworthy by the Surveyors of the Admiralty, and that the firm of Messrs. Palmer of Newcastle-on-Tyne, were constructing an iron-cased frigate for the Admiralty; but, at the same time, it was only fair to say that in all cases in which that firm had supplied iron cases for the Admiralty they were of the best quality.

NAVY—THE CHANNEL FLEET.
SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he wished to ask, Whether it be the intention of the Government to send the Channel Fleet to Great Yarmouth this year, and there to remain for some days, as was believed to be the intention last year?
MR. WHITBREADsaid, it was not intended to send the Channel Fleet to Great Yarmouth this year.

THE SLAVE TRADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the would beg to ask the Secretary of Stare for Fo-
  1422
  reign Affairs, Whether he has received any, and, if any, what assurance from the Government of Spain that it will not take advantage of the events which have lately occurred in the eastern portion of the island of St. Domingo to introduce Slavery or the Slave Trade into any part of that island?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could best answer the question of the Member by reading to the House extracts from two Despatches which had recently been received. In a Despatch, dated April 22nd, Mr. Edwardes stated that Marshal O'Donnell had told him—
  "You can toll your Government that which it will be pleased to hear—namely, that whatever may be our decision, whether or not we accept the annexation of St. Domingo, no slavery shall exist there, because I consider it contrary to existing treaties and not in accordance with civilization. It exists in Cuba and in Porto Rico because the land requires it."
  Again, in a Despatch of date May 2nd, Mr. Edwardes wrote—
  "As to the question about slavery, Marshal O'Donnell stated to him that 'he had given me assurances which he was ready to repeat, and His Excellency did so in the same terms that he used on two previous occasions, which I have already had the honour to report to your Lordship.'"

ORANGE RIOTS.—IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has received any information of proceedings reported to have taken place upon the occasion of an Orange Riot at Lisburn, on Wednesday last, when several of the Constabulary and Townspeople were assaulted, one man named Megan having been stabbed, from the effects of which he now remains in a very precarious state?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the event having only taken place two days ago, there had not been time for Government to receive any official information.

DISTURBANCES AT ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received complete information as to the disturbances at St. John's, Newfoundland; and if he has any objection to lay a Copy of the Papers on the Table?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEstated that information had been received at the Colonial Office of disturbances having taken place at Newfoundland, in consequence of excessive party feeling during the last elections. The occurrences were now under investigation, and when a Report on the subject arrived, he would lay it on the Table.

THE RED SEA TELEGRAPH.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is not advisable that the question of the lied Sea Telegraph should be referred to a Select Committee in order to inquire whether it may not be worth while endeavouring to render it available?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had stated on a former occasion that if there was a disposition to examine into this contract he should not have the smallest objection to the appointment of a Select Committee; but with regard to the subject mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, it appeared to him that to appoint a Committee would be to devolve upon the Executive Government, which it was their duty to undertake, and which, though it was a difficult duty, they had greater advantages in performing than a Committee could have. He would inform the hon. and gallant Member of the position in which, the matter at present stood, so far as the Government was concerned. The question was to be considered, in the first place, in regard to the financial engagements of the Government; and, in the second place with regard to the material of the cable itself which had been laid, and the practicability of turning it to Advantage. As regarded the financial part of the question, they had at present under examination the mode in which they might come to an arrangement with the persons who at present formed the Company and had charge of the Telegraph, and upon that they should be prepared very shortly to proceed to some measure, because it did riot appear, nor so far as he knew to the parties themselves, that there was any particular advantage in retaining the Telegraph in the hands of those parties. On the contrary it would appear; on various grounds, to be desirable that they should be divested of all further concern in it. Then, with regard to the Telegraph cable, and the possibility of turning it to account,
  1424
  they had referred to the Board of Trade, and that Board was now preparing a Report on the best method of making an examination of the different parts of the cable on the spot; and it was obvious that it was only upon such an examination that they could, found any plan for the future dealing with that cable. Of course the expense of the examination and the mode of conducting it were matters for consideration, but those matters were at present in the hands of competent persons connected with the Board of Trade.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I understand that the private business of the Session is now nearly concluded, and I would, therefore, suggest that it may be convenient to the House that public business should during the remainder of the Session commence at a quarter past four, instead of at half-past four, on those evenings when the House meets at four o'clock.
On Motion to go into Committee of Supply,
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

DUBLIN REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE.
SIR EDWARD GROGANcomplained of the great accumulation of arrears of business at the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, and of the vexatious delays which occurred in consequence, He begged to ask the Secretary for Ireland whether he will produce a copy of the Report of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the subject, and whether the Government intend to introduce any Bill during the present Session to obviate the delays which at present exist in performing the duties of the office?
MR. BERNAL OSBORNErose to order. There were several names before that of the hon. Baronet on the Notice paper, and he wished to know from the Speaker whether Members in making Motions on going into Committee of Supply were not to take precedence in the order in which they stood on the paper?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member's question was one to which he had already given a reply. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin on rising, as he stated, to ask a question, had caught

1425
his eye, and he did not consider the hon. Member out of order in proceeding. At the same time it was certainly a desirable course, and one to which he was anxious to adhere, that the hon. Member whose name stood first should have precedence.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the question to which the hon. Member had referred was a very important one, and the state of the registry for deeds in Ireland was such as required very careful consideration. A Commissioner had been appointed by
his noble Friend who preceded him in office, and that Commissioner had visited all the various register offices. He (Mr. Cardwell) had received from him a very elaborate report, which contained, however, certain references to individuals such as rendered it not desirable to be laid on the Table of the House. The report had been returned, in order that it might have those passages of a private nature removed from it, and when it was re-delivered, if his hon. Friend would move for it, he (Mr. Cardwell) should be very happy to produce it. With regard to the question as to whether any legislation was intended on the question this year, he begged to inform his hon. Friend, that amongst those who had carefully considered the question great differences of opinion prevailed as to the best mode of effecting the important object in view; and, therefore, no legislative measures would be proposed until the Report had been well considered, both by that House and by the public of Ireland.

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANErose to move a Resolution—
  "That the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Civil Service Examinations proves that the System of Examinations should be modified, in order to meet the requirements of the Public Service."
  The hon. Members said that the importance of this subject was proved by the fact that there were 105,000 Government places in this country, which were now almost in the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners, and it was, therefore, doubly important to consider the effect which these examinations had produced on the different professions. The Committee on this subject, which was presided over by the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), had reported very fully and as
  1426
  to the result of the evidence taken before that Committee, two very different opinions had been formed. The noble Lord and those who thought with him were of opinion, as the result of the evidence, that previous to 1855 the Civil Service of this country was very inefficient, but that the system of examination, up to the present time, had been attended with great advantages, and that, although the proposal of throwing open all situations under Government to open competition was not desirable at the present moment, they looked forward to a time when that proposal might be carried into effect, and anticipated that the result would be for the benefit of the country. He (Mr. Cochrane) had read the same evidence very carefully, and he had come to precisely the opposite conclusion—that there was no evidence to show that the Civil Service prior to 1855 was inefficient; that no practical advantage but, on the contrary, great disadvantage had arisen to the public service from the system of examination; and that if the system of open competition was introduced, it would terminate in the ruin of the public administration of the country. He could not comprehend how the Committee could have adopted such a Report as they presented to the House. Twenty-five witnesses were examined by the Committee; of these he struck off six as being Civil Service Examiners themselves, and, therefore, subject to view the matter with partiality. Of the remainder, eleven gave their evidence in opposition to the present system of examination: and there were only four who distinctly stated that they thought it had been beneficial to the country. Mr. Arbuthnot, the auditor of the Civil List, was of opinion that the effect of the competition had been to exclude objectionable men; but that, in the case of the supplementary clerks of the Treasury, it had introduced a class of men above their work, and thus gave rise to discontent and inconvenience. Mr. Trevor said that the present class of clerks were superior in social position, but he did not know that they had been superior for the purposes for which they were wanted. Sir Thomas Freeman tie, Chairman of the Board of Customs, said that in the appointment of inferior officers too much stress had been laid upon intellectual attainments, and too little attention had been paid to physical qualifications. Mr. Tilley, the Assistant Secretary of the Post Office, said that the introduction of the competi-

  1427
  tive system had not made much difference. Mr. Romilly and Sir Richard Bromley gave similar testimony. Sir Thomas Freemantle issued a circular to the heads of departments and the collectors of the outposts, and he received from many of them reports by no means favourable to the new system. The Surveyor General stated that the examination had failed to supply a more valuable class of persons to the service. It was not a superior test of fitness to that which was previously in operation, and many persons might, be rejected for deficiency in mere book learning who possessed qualifications which would be of infinitely greater value. The Inspector General said that no doubt under the present system many men of intelligence and energy had been appointed, but it was equally true that such men were by no means excluded under the former system, nor were instances of superior zeal, intelligence, and efficiency more unfrequent then than they were now; and the experience of the new system went far to establish the fact that a man's general usefulness would not always be on a par with the amount of school education he had received. Prom one office the Report was—
  "I am rather disappointed at finding myself compelled to admit that the clerks in this department who have undergone an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners do not evince more talent, nor display greater energy and aptitude for business, than those appointed within the six years preceding the institution of such examinations."
  From another—
  "Having had several clerks under my supervision who have been admitted into the service since May, 1855, and also several who were appointed within the six years preceding the examination by the Civil Service Commissioners, I am enabled to state that I have not found the former display any greater energy or aptitude for business than the latter; and although generally tractable, I have experienced both personally and towards the public a self-sufficiency and presumption, from an imagined superiority in having undergone such examination, and also a desire for literature in business, that I have been obliged to check."
  Of twenty-five Reports, all but one were against the system of examination. One gentleman, said that the officers appointed possessed a better education, but less usefulness, than, formerly; another, that the clerks appointed under the new system were better educated, but had not as good business habits as those who entered the service before 1855, and were not so easily managed. Why did not the Committee quote other witnesses than those who were
  1428
  referred to in their Report, such, for instance, as Mr. Waddington, Mr. Timm, and Mr. Hammond? Mr. Hammond stated that under the old system no clerks were appointed whose conduct during the first six months would not have insured their confirmation. Lord Elgin also gave evidence strongly against the new system, or, at all events, to the effect that the public service had derived no advantage from it. He could scarcely find in the evidence a single sentence in support of the principle of open competition in favour of which the Committee had reported. He could not comprehend how this Report had been drawn up, or how the Committee were able to state that it was based on the evidence which they had received. The only hypothesis which he could form was that several of them had only attended at long intervals. This system, at which Lord Brougham said everybody in the streets held up his hands, had not been introduced in consequence of any dereliction of duty on the part of public officers. Distinguished men declared that at the time there never was such a body of civil servants. Among those who made that declaration was Sir James Stephen. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Oh, oh!] Did the right hon. Gentleman doubt that such an opinion had been given? Sir James Stephen said—
  "In all seriousness, I think that the man whose name stood half-way down the examination list of merit would probably make a better clerk than he whose name stood first. Is this system founded on a truth so evident and on maxims of such universal application that we ought to apply it to 16,000 public offices at once? It is at least a perfect novelty; it is a rule hitherto never enforced in any republic except Utopia; it does not prevail in the legal, or medical, or sacerdotal, or mercantile professions; it is unknown to the great commercial world and municipal corporations among us."
  Lord Herbert was a very good authority, and he said—
  "A young man who comes fresh from a cramming tutor and answers a few unintelligible questions is not the same thing as a young man who has gone through a regular professional course, and who becomes immediately available for regimental duty."
  Mr. Chadwick stated that—
  "Some of the most eminent members of the professions, as well as of the Civil Service, have gained their start in actual life—not away from it, but in the midst of practice, so early as to preclude academical accomplishments. The first entrance into life of an eminent civil servant, high in the civil class of the Order of the Bath, was, as he says, in being when a boy pushed through

  1429
  the porthole of a ship into the midst of a coil of rope."
  It always astonished him how, with opinions such as these, given at the time these gentlemen could be quoted as upholding this extraordinary system of examination. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman would feel indignant with him for again referring to the questions put by the Civil Service Commissioners; but, notwithstanding the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that any schoolboy could answer them, he believed they had improved very little since last year. He had been taunted with being the friend of ignorance, and he was aware that he was taking the unpopular view; but he had never denied that a test examination was necessary. What he objected to was that a man's career should be made to depend on the number of marks which he obtained in different branches of science. He would take the examination papers for 1860 and 1861, and he would ask the House whether they really tested the power, the intelligence, and the merits of the young men by whom they were answered—
  "Out of what other languages has the English language been formed? What difference does the English of the Spectator present as compared with that of the authorized version of the Bible? What do you understand by the words 'a good English style?' Give rules for writing such a style."
  Why, there was nothing with regard to which persons differed so much in opinion as upon "a good style." Essays might be written on the subject. Again, the candidates were asked—
  "What do you understand by a 'figure of speech' in English? Write a series of short sentences, each containing an. example of a figure of speech."
  They were next required to write an essay on winter, mentioning its duties and amusements. Winter amusements differed with the country in which they prevailed; in Scotland, curling; and in England, hunting possibly were the chief amusements.
  "Give a list of English historians, characterizing each of them by a single epithet."
  "Compare the influence of the ballad writer in early times with that exercised by the press at the present day."
  "Sketch briefly the course of the chief wars waged by Great Britain in Hindostan."
  All these questions, it would be borne in mind, were to be answered in the space of two hours. As if they were not suffi-
  1430
  ciently comprehensive the next had an even wider scope—
  "Of what use to Great Britain are its several colonies and dependencies?"
  Then it semed as if some sentimental examiner took the matter in hand, forgiving the verse,—
  "Few the words that I have spoken;
  "True love's words are ever few;"
  Yet by many a speechless token
  "Hath my heart discoursed to you;"
  he required it to be translated into Latin! The next thing required was that the candidate should
  "Write a short sketch of the origin of Parliaments in England, and show how their power has progressively increased."
  [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed at these questions; it was very natural that they should do so, but he could truly state he had no wish to throw ridicule on the gentlemen of great ability by whom these questions were framed. It might be said that all these were matters which young men should know, but within the time limited and for the object which was in view they seemed to be unnecessarily comprehensive. The Examiners next required the young man to
  "Write a letter describing the overland route to Calcutta via Marseilles, and containing information on the natural productions of the States through which the writer is supposed to pass, and on their commercial relations with other nations."
  Why that was not a question, it was a volume.
  "Write a short life of the Emperor Napoleon I."
  And then came a question which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could probably answer better than most persons—
  "Enumerate the struggles which England has entered into with the Chinese Empire since 1830."
  He also found a question which might lead to some awkward discussions—
  "Give the names and essential characters of the minerals which enter into the composition of the building stones ordinarily employed."
  Why, that was a question very interesting just at present to the Houses of Parliament; and another followed of hardly less importance—
  "From what class of substances are the noxious odours of the Thames likely to originate; what conditions are most favourable to their development, and what means ought to be resorted to in order to destroy them?"
  LORD STANLEYinquired whether the questions selected by the hon. Member had reference to Civil or Military Examinations?
  MR. BAILLIE COCHEANEsaid, they were some of the questions sot on the part of the Council of Military Education. "What he contended was that the competitive system, whether applied to the Military or Civil Service, was equally objectionable. Young men were not only required to answer questions of the class which he had illustrated by selections, but they were also obliged to write essays. For these one of the subjects given was "a panegyric on Garibaldi, General Havelock, and Sir Isaac Newton." That particular question was intended for Civil Service candidates. Among the other subjects given for these essays was "The Recent Visit of the Queen to Germany;" with a suppositions case, "How it would be most advisable that a young man should spend a two months' holiday from a public office?" The Commissioners were very particular about "Garibaldi's expedition to Sicily," and repeated that subject no less than five or six times. But perhaps the most remarkable of all the headings for essays which he had encountered was "The late Tight for the Championship between Tom Sayers—[Great laughter and cheering, which interrupted the conclusion of the sentence.] Many Gentlemen were interested in geological inquiries, and differed in the views which they entertained on those subjects, but an entirely new idea was started for the benefit of the young men about to be examined—
  "Give the evidence for the submersion of the British Isles at several periods. State when the last of these submersions took place, and by what phenomena it appears to have been accompanied."
  He thought he had sufficiently proved to the House that he was justified in declaring, first, that the Report was not maintained by the evidence; and, secondly, that the Civil Service Commissioners still continued the same description of questions as those to which he had last year called the attention of the House. He believed the system required modification. He lamented that the Committee had not secured gentlemen well able to give the information; that they had not examined old diplomatists like Sir Hamilton Seymour or Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; or military men of station like his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and ascertained from them what the effect of
  1432
  those examinations had been on the class of men entertaining those respective services. The British army was proud of being officered by gentlemen. The Crimean war did not prove that our officers had deteriorated, or that they were incompetent for the discharge of their duties. Then what a number of first-class diplomatists we had at this moment representing Her Majesty in foreign counties. He had no hesitation in saying that this was a dangerous principle which we had introduced into the public service; and we ought to inquire into and weigh it well before we broke up the old system. Quieta non movere—it was dangerous to tamper with the old system, under which such admirable officers had been obtained for the service of the country, unless it could be clearly shown that the new would be productive of greater benefit to the country. Hon. Gentlemen knew what the opinion was out of doors. Persons did not like to express that opinion in public; but, privately, men competent to form an opinion on the subject would tell them that the public service Avas deteriorating under the new system, and it was with a view of preventing such deterioration that he begged to move—
  "That the evidence taken before the Select Committee on Civil Service Examinations proves that the system of examinations should be modified, in order to meet the requirements of the public service."
  SIR HENRY STEACEYseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "The evidence taken before the Select Committee on Civil Service Examinations proves that the system of Examinations should be modified, in order to meet the requirements of the Public Service."
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HENNESSYwished to explain that when he put on the paper his Amendment to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. B. Cochrane), he expected that that Motion would come on in a different form. But, according to the rules of the House, it was not competent to him to move that Amendment now, because his hon. Friend made his proposition as an Amendment on the Motion for going into Supply. He hoped, however, that within the next two or three weeks he should be able to submit to the House a Motion affirming the same principle as that embodied in the Amend-

  1433
  ment—namely, that the best mode of procuring competent persons to fill junior clerkships in the Civil Service would be through a system of competitive examination, open to all subjects of the Queen who fulfil certain conditions as to age, health, and character. For the present he should confine his observations to a partial defence of the Report of the Committee. The noble Lord the Chairman of that Committee (Lord Stanley) was present, and would be able to answer his hon. Friend; but, as he had the honour to move for the Committee, he was anxious to say a word on its constitution. His hon. Friend had charged the Committee with having framed a report which was inconsistent with the evidence taken before it. Now, who were the Members of that Committee? Among them were Sir William Hayter, Sir William Jolliffe, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Monckton Milnes, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Bright, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Collins, Colonel Sykes, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Tite, Mr. Clay, and himself. The House would observe that he had nominated Gentlemen who were not supposed to favour the system which he advocated. He appealed to hon. Members whether the Committee was not one which fairly represented the various opinions entertained in that House on the subject of competitive examinations? The Committee examined witnesses, not, as his hon. Friend seemed to suppose, chosen for any particular views to promote the object which he and other Members entertained in regard to open competition; but they examined witnesses who, to some extent, were prejudiced against the views which he and others entertained. They examined permanent Secretaries and heads of Departments; they examined gentlemen who had entered the Civil Service under the old system, and who, if they had a prejudice, would have had one in favour of that system under which they had obtained admission, and under which they had worked. They examined gentlemen connected with the Civil Service Commission—the Commissioners themselves, the Examiners, and the Secretary; but it would have been idle for them to go into an inquiry as to what the public opinion—"the educated public opinion—was on this subject. They already knew what that opinion was, and that it was generally believed that open competition would be the result of the system which at present prevailed. There were two branches
  1434
  of inquiry into which the Committee could not enter—the one, the effect of the present system of patronage on the public service and on the Members of that House; the other, how far throwing open the Civil Service would affect the public education of the country. Though the Committee did not feel at liberty to enter into those branches of the inquiry, he believed they were as important as any that could be discussed in reference to this subject. But taking the narrowest ground and looking at the question merely as it bore on the efficiency of the public service, he had no doubt that if hon. Members perused the evidence with attention, they would arrive at the conclusion to which, the Committee had come. The gentlemen whom they examined declared, he thought unanimously, that the present system of examination, if it did nothing else, excluded inefficiency. What was the meaning of that? His hon. Friend had passed very lightly over this part of the case; but if the system did nothing more than provide a check against the admission into the public service of inefficient men, that alone would be a sufficient ground on which to defend it. But it did more. The public service was conducted at a great cost to the country, its efficiency was of enormous importance to the State, and we ought to get the best men we could for the money. How were we to accomplish that? The Committee were told by the most trustworthy and competent witnesses that, under the existing system, the country did get the best men. His hon. Friend had amused the House by reading some of the questions put to gentlemen who proposed to serve in the Artillery and the Engineers, for whom peculiar qualifications were necessary. One of these was a question about the submersion of Great Britain, which his hon. Friend thought exceedingly amusing; but for the Engineers an examination in geology was thought necessary, and every hon. Member must be aware that if the Examiner entered into the most superficial view of that subject he must, ask questions of that kind. For the Indian Civil Service an examination in chymistry was deemed right, because it was thought advisable that gentlemen in that service should have been instructed in the various branches of a first-class education. He would put it to his hon. Friend whether his Parliamentary avocations had not prevented his paying that attention to natural science which these candidates might be

  1435
  expected to have given? Certain tests of ability and intelligence were required, and the Civil Service Examiners had only selected those tests which were common not only to the public Universities and schools of this country, but also to those of all Europe. He was unwilling to enter upon the defence of the Report of the Committee, because the noble Lord who presided over it was present; he could not, however, refrain from protesting against the course which the hon. Gentleman had, upon the Notice which he had placed upon the paper, taken in impunging the examination papers and denouncing the whole system of examination for the public service and the scheme of public competition, instead of frankly and boldly bringing his opinions forward and taking the sense of the House upon it.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNES: I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) has not quite laid sufficient ground for so important a Motion—because if he brings it to a division he calls upon us to reverse the decision of a very important Committee upstairs, which the House will hardly be prepared to do upon the reasons he has submitted. Although this is the longest day of the year, yet it was hoped this would be one of the shortest of Sessions; and the House is, I think, hardly in a state of mind to enter upon the merits of a somewhat abstract question. Having sat upon the Committee upstairs, I am bound to say that the Resolution to which the Committee came represented rather the state of mind of the majority of the Committee than the result of the evidence. The hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) has read the names of the Members of the Committee, and any one cognizant of the opinions of those hon. Members must see that he went into the Committee with a very well-secured majority. I do not impugn the fairness of the Committee, but I may appeal to any one who will read the evidence to say whether it justified the Report? The Committee was composed of Gentlemen who attached more importance than I do to the system of competitive examination. I trust that in nothing that I have done either here or elsewhere have I ever been the advocate of ignorance. I am in favour of instruction, and of giving encouragement to education in every possible manner. But the position I hold is that an undue prominence has been given to these Civil Service Examinations, that results have been expected from them
  1436
  which are not likely to be realized, and that they cause an enormous degree of individual trouble and even suffering without any correlative public good. It must be remembered that in this Civil Service examination you have established a new and expensive branch of the public service. It is impossible that among the body of gentlemen thus employed there should not be a strong esprit de corps, that they should not exaggerate the importance of their functions, and induce others to believe that the whole efficiency of the public service depends on a set of clever boys answering a set of clever questions. But the clever boys will not necessarily make the best public servants. Every one's experience furnishes him with instances of the little adequate success in public life of those who have gained the highest University distinctions. It does not follow that those youths who give evidence of the power of fixing their attention and acquiring knowledge must necessarily make the best public servants. I am not prepared by voting for the hon. Gentleman's Motion to join in a vote of censure upon the Select Committee, but I think he is justified in bringing the matter before the House, and I should be glad if hon. Members will take down the blue book from their dusty shelves and run their eyes over the evidence taken by the Committee; I wish they would read the evidence given, for example, by Mr. Waddington'—a man who combines the knowledge of the scholar with the acuteness and administrative faculties of the best men of the world—and then contrast that with the evidence given of casual failure on the part of certain officers whom it was necessary to bring together on a sudden—say ten years ago, on the collection of the census. Hon. Members would then be in a condition to say whether the Committee have given fair weight to the evidence before them. We, the minority, protested against the interpretation of the evidence, and that, I think, will be the decision of any one who reads the blue book. The Committee were presided over by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) with great judgment and ability. I do not wish to throw any slur upon their fairness. The majority availed themselves of their privilege, and they made the Report in which the noble Lord illustrated his opinion in an able manner, but in which the Committee did not, I think, give all the weight it deserved to the opinion of such witnesses as Mr. Wadding-

  1437
  ton. One plain result of your system of examination is that it has effected one good purpose of excluding great inefficiency; but it does not necessarily follow that you ought to carry it much further, or that you should go on to institute a competitive examination for all the offices of the State. A competitive examination is, in fact, the most uncertain of all examinations. Take the case of three young men competing for an office. If two out of the three happen to be men of ability, the test is a good one for the third, but if they happen to be men of little or no ability he may gain an easy victory. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers the system of examination that prevails in another country, and which was recently illustrated by a Chinese gentleman who resides in this country, and who is the Chinese Examiner for the Civil Service Commission. This gentleman mentioned with pride that in his native country he came out of an examination where there were no less than 8,000 candidates. I do not know whether the aspirations of my right hon. Friend would bring about such a result. I should not myself desire to Bee it, nor do I think our present system of competitive examination compensates for the annoyance it causes to individuals by the benefit it confers upon the State.
  LORD STANLEY: I congratulate my hon. Friend who has brought forward this Motion on having at last succeeded, after four or five unsuccessful attempts, in bringing this subject fully and fairly before the House. I can only say that if any one of those gentlemen in whom he takes so strong an interest, and who have not been fortunate enough to satisfy the requirements of the Civil Service Commissioners, had shown half as much industry and. perseverance in supporting their pretensions as he has on their behalf, I do not think there would have been any grievance or failure on their part. My hon. Friend has raised two questions which, though connected, are at the same time quite distinct. On the general argument I am ready to meet him—namely, as to the merits or demerits of a, system of public competition. But he has also made a specific charge against the Committee, that the Report to which they came is contrary to the evidence on which that Report professes to be founded. Now, a charge of unfairness against a Committee is one of a grave character, and I wish that my hon. Friend, if he thought him-
  1438
  self justified in preferring such a charge, had gone more into detail, and had furnished more ample proof in support of his assertion. Because, when you are dealing with evidence extending through 400 folio pages, it is not a very satisfactory way of giving the general effect of that evidence to look for any sentence you may find here or there in favour of your own view, instead of collecting the general sense and purport from the perusal of the whole. I have not been able, in the short time that has passed since my hon. Friend addressed the House, to refer more than cursorily to the evidence which he professed to cite; but I have seen enough to enable me to say that, even in regard to the witnesses referred to, the statements of my hon. Friend are not entirely borne out by the evidence. My hon. Friend began by quoting Mr. Arbuthnot, and made a great point by representing that, according to Mr. Arbuthnot's evidence, certain clerks coming into the service by the competitive system are, from their position, dissatisfied with their appointments. Now, going rapidly over the evidence, I find that Mr. Arbuthnot has given the following answers:—
  "Q. 795.—That being the case, do you think it is fair to ascribe what you call the discontent in that class to the system of competition?—Certainly not.
  And he goes on to state what, in his belief, is the real cause of this alleged discontent—
  "Q. 796.—Do you think that the fact of holding those offices up to competition does to some extent induce men to think them more valuable than they really are?—I cannot say. I think that the salaries are fixed much too high for the class of work that is required, and that that has tempted men of superior intelligence to compete for them."
  Therefore, according to Mr. Arbuthnot, whatever may be the reason of the discontent to which my hon. Friend referred, the competitive system is not the cause. I quote this instance, not because it is in itself particularly important—for the class alluded to is a very limited class—but I refer to it because it is an example of the manner in which the evidence has been dealt with by my hon. Friend.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Will the noble Lord read Questions 772 and 805?
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think it is my business to read over such portions of the evidence as my hon. Friend may select; I am only endeavouring to show

  1439
  that his own witnesses do not support his attack on the Report of the Committee; but if my hon. Friend thinks I am doing injustice to his argument, other hon. Members who take the same view with my hon. Friend will be able to reply to my remarks. I am simply defending the Report of the Committee. With respect to the evidence of Mr. Tilley, I do not find any fault with the manner in which it has been used by my hon. Friend. That evidence is, on the whole, unfavourable to the system of competition; and, unfavourable as it is, it will be found summed up in the Report. And here let me say once for all, that, whatever other fault may be found with our Report, there is one part of it to which I believe my hon. Friend can take no objection, and that is the summary given of the evidence of the witnesses. The fairness of that summary may be relied on, and I will tell the House why. All parties were represented on the Committee; there was considerable difference of opinion on the abstract question of competition or no competition; every proposition which admitted of dispute, and a good many which I should have thought admitted of no dispute, was controverted, yet it will be seen that those paragraphs in which the evidence was summed up were passed without any division, or with not more than one division. That is a sufficient proof that the summary fairly represents the bulk of the evidence taken before the Committee. I now go on to the case of Mr. Romilly. That gentleman was quoted by my hon. Friend as being one of those who evidence was hostile to the principle of these competitive examinations; but, in answer to questions put to him, he stated (Q. 2,749–50) that the effect of the examinations before the Civil Service Commissioners had been to increase the efficiency of the clerks, and that previously to the Civil Service Examinations certain clerks, totally inefficient, came into his office, but that since that time no such case had occurred, and that he thought there was now a marked difference. That gentleman went on to say, at Q. 2,810, that many years since, before the Civil Service Commissioners were in existence, a gentleman was appointed in his office who could hardly read or write—he was, in fact, almost an idiot, and there was the greatest possible difficulty in getting him out of the office. I think, therefore, that it was not a very wise proceeding on the
  1440
  part of my hon. Friend to call Mr. Romilly as a witness in his favour, if, as he said, he wanted to prove the deterioration of the service in consequence of the examination test. I proceed to the case of Mr. Waddington. Everybody knows that he was a strong opponent to the institution of the Civil Service Commissioners, and my hon. Friend quoted evidence formerly given by him to that effect. He is not now favourable to the system of unlimited competition; but, from his answers to questions put to him before the Committee, the House will see that it is not reasonable to cite him as being one of those whose evidence is entirely opposed to the system of competition; for he answers the questions put to him thus—
  "Q. 3,013.—Taking into consideration the system of limited competition among a certain number of candidates, do you think that that system has decided advantages over one of simple nomination?
  "Answer.—I should prefer it, undoubtedly; and I think it is not open to any objection on the score of inconvenience, and that it does give some additional chance of having superior men."
  And in the next answer he goes on to add, that—
  "Within the limit where no great inconvenience is produced by the number of candidates, he should prefer a more extended competition."
  Yet the hon. Gentleman quotes Mr. Waddington as one of the witnesses to whose evidence justice has not been done. I do not wish to weary the House with extracts; but still, as we have been charged with misrepresenting the evidence, it is necessary to show that the charge is without foundation. Mr. Hammond is my hon. Friend's last witness, and he says (Q. 3,433) that he is—
  "Perfectly satisfied with the clerks who have been appointed since competition has been established; he has no reason to doubt that they will come up to the standard required."
  And now I think I have done something to refute the charge brought against us if I show that four out of the five gentlemen cited by my hon. Friend have given answers which, in a more or less degree, are favourable to the system of competition, while the fifth, whose evidence is partially unfavourable, is quoted at full length in the Report. I now pass on to a minor matter, and I do not think my hon. Friend dealt quite fairly with the House when he read out the list of questions which excited so much amusement. They were not questions put by the Civil Service Commissioners, or to candidates for the Civil

  1441
  Service, and, therefore, have nothing to do with the evidence taken before this Committee, but they were introduced in the present discussion because it was thought that they would throw ridicule or odium on the system. It is not my business to defend the aptness of every particular question asked by every Examiner, and in the list read by the hon. Member there were some which, perhaps, had better not have been put. At the same time I think that, even in reference to these questions, justice has not been done by the manner in which they have been quoted, because anybody who heard my hon. Friend read them out would suppose that these were questions which every candidate was expected to answer. So far from that I find that the five or six subjects for English composition which excited so much amusement have been selected, not at random, but very ingeniously for his purpose, from a list of sixty-nine subjects, on any one of which a candidate might write his essay. If you are to have a test of English composition, a considerable latitude of choice must be given, and it cannot affect the general character of the examination that some out of a long list of questions had better not have been put. Then my hon. Friend says, "Why did you not examine other witnesses besides those which you called?" I do not think that either members of the diplomatic body or military officers are at all likely to know so much of the requirements of the Civil Service as those witnesses whom we did examine. I deny most strenuously that we refused to call any witnesses on the ground that their views were hostile to the views of a majority of the Committee. I know enough of the feeling of those with whom I sat to feel assured that if there was any bias in the matter they would be more scrupulous of hearing in the fullest extent the case of those who constituted a minority rather than the case of those whose views they themselves supported. Both parties were fairly represented. Our discussions were animated, and not brief, and no complaint was ever made by any Member of the Committee that material evidence was excluded. With regard to the more general question of limited or unlimited competition, I almost hesitate to go into arguments which have been so often reiterated. But I must just observe that my hon. Friend cuts the ground altogether from beneath his feet when he says—not very consistently with his former remarks—
  1442
  that he does not object to a mere pass test, however severe. The strongest argument for a competitive examination is that a mere pass test can never be kept up. When there are the interests of the candidate on one side and only the interest of the public on the other, there is always an inclination to lower the test, and make the admission easier; and thus a test which at the beginning is very strict often ends in being no test at all. But the moment you introduce the competitive element that difficulty altogether vanishes, because, although an Examiner may be inclined to show tenderness to a candidate who ought not to pass, he has no possible motive to favour one candidate in preference to another. My hon. Friend complains that when a competitive examination is the mode of entering the service a man's career depends on the accident of his examination being successful. No doubt, no test that you can devise, whether intellectual or otherwise, can be absolutely conclusive. Accident plays a large part in all human affairs. All men do better at one time than they do at another. But when it is said that a man's career may turn on an accident, let us look at the matter on the other alternative. Is it not better that a man's career should depend on the accident that he has done a little better or a little worse on one particular day than on average occasions, than that it should turn on the accident of his having been born in a small constituency, whose representative is intimate with a Minister having a good deal of patronage at his command? It has often been said, and may be said again to-night, that the system gives irresponsible patronage to the Examiners. But, replying to that in advance, I say that I can as little conceive that the system gives to the Examiners an irresponsible patronage over the Civil Service appointments, as I can conceive that the Judges of the land have an irresponsible power over property because they decide the disputes of those who come before them as litigants. The hon. Gentleman has proved that the Examiners are not irresponsible; for he, and another hon. Friend of mine on a former occasion, have given ample proof of willingness to criticise whatever they may do amiss. Their decisions—I do not mean in individual cases, but the general principles upon which those decisions are formed—are subject to the criticism, and, if need be, to the censure of the House,

  1443
  and that responsibility is much more likely to be enforced than the responsibility of a person holding a judicial office. We do not complain of the irresponsibility of a magistrate or a County Court Judge when they judicially decide on cases which come before them; and yet it is very difficult to say that the magistrate who sentences a man to imprisonment, and the County Court Judge who tries claims to considerable property, do not exercise quite as important powers as the Examiners when they decide that a man shall or shall not enter the Civil Service. Then, there is the old objection of "cramming." If, when the word is used, it is meant to apply to a candidate who learns for the purpose of the examination by rote something which he does not understand, then, in that strict sense, cramming is one of the rarest things possible to happen, because it is much more difficult for a man to learn that which he does not understand in order to reproduce it from memory on paper, than to learn that which he does understand. If all that is meant by cramming is that candidates acquire a good deal of knowledge for the examination which they afterwards contrive to forget, I do not deny that cramming takes place; but to it I see no objection. "We all of us at some period of our lives do the same. Counsel, who have to get up briefs, or Members of this House who wish to speak on questions of the day, must prepare themselves in much the same manner; and I believe there is no better test of a capacity for business in its higher branches than the power to acquire accurately, and to reproduce easily, knowledge which has been gained for the occasion. A good deal has been said as to the test being an intellectual test, and not a test of moral character. My answer to that is that in the case of the Civil Service Commissioners there is precisely the same test of moral character as in the case of patronage exercised by a Minister. Any one against whom anything is known is not admitted; and it is idle to say that the knowledge of a Minister as to the persons whom he is appointing goes further than that. I do not defend the system of competition merely on the ground that it is an assistant to public education. Of course, the object is to get the best men to carry on the work of the Civil Service; and we ought not to sacrifice that object to any other consideration, however important. But there is one point which we ought to
  1444
  consider, and it is this:—I believe that any person who is interested in our Parliamentary form of Government and in the purity of public life must be glad to do that which in him lies to diminish—I do not say that kind of patronage which is exercised before the public, the right of appointing to high and important places, because that right is generally exercised in a very fair spirit—but to diminish or restrict that kind of patronage which, from its unimportance, is not exercised under any check or control from public opinion, and which, nevertheless, in some constituencies, may be as effective a means of demoralization as the most open bribery. I do not mean to dwell upon that. I should have been prepared to go into a general discussion; but before doing so I should have preferred to hear more fully what can be said on the other side. My chief object is to vindicate the fairness of the conclusions to which the Committee came, and to show that the Report is fairly founded upon the evidence before us. And if the House will only bear in mind the instances which the hon. Gentleman has himself selected, and the comments which I have made on those instances, I think they will not come to the conclusion that we have abused the important power which the House reposes in every Committee—that of investigating and reporting upon facts which from their multiplicity and minuteness cannot possibly be examined in detail by the House itself.
  MR. BENTINCKmaintained that the opinion he had on a former occasion expressed—that the Civil Service Commissioners possessed an irresponsible power—was a correct one. He had heard nothing at present to confute it. The noble Lord who had just resumed his seat had compared them to County Court and other Judges; but he saw no affinity between them; the one had to decide upon a right, the other upon the merits of a candidate. The Commissioners were not only completely irresponsible, even to public opinion, but they contended that if they were once made responsible their utility would be gone; and, therefore, it was that they declined to give the grounds on which they arrived at their decision, contending that nobody had any right to make any inquiry into the course of proceeding which they might have followed; yet on that decision rested the patronage of all the public offices in this country. He asked the House was that a position which could

  1445
  be maintained for one moment? and whether the Government could point to any; other body of men who were totally irresponsible? He had ventured to impugn that position last year, and inasmuch as it had been now alluded to, he had thought fit to revert to this question of responsibility, and to show that by their own language they would consider that if once they were made responsible they would be rendered useless.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not rise to trouble the House with anything like a reply to the speech of the hon. Member who introduced the subject, for it would be quite superfluous to do so after the able speeches of the hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Hennessy) and the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). The hon. Member who has just sat down has very judiciously avoided any defence of the statements of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. B. Cochrane), and has raised another issue which forms no part of the proposition in the Motion. I really must appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton as to the manner in which he has treated this question. I believe him to be the last man in the House who would be guilty of wilful misrepresentation; but, through, the inveteracy of the prejudices—I might almost say of the passions—with which he has approached the discussion of the subject, he has certainly fallen into unconscious misrepresentation. For instance, my hon. Friend cited Sir James Stephen as a witness to the admirable condition of the Civil Service in the golden age prior to the introduction of these abominable examinations; but the passage which he quoted refers to a totally different matter, and embodies Sir James's opinion on the competitive system, which, as all the world knows, was unfavourable in the last degree. Sir James Stephen, in his evidence, divided the civil servants in the Colonial Department into three classes:—The first class, he said, comprised the narrow circle of men of admirable abilities; and the second the men who performed their duties diligently and faithfully. Sir James went on to say—
  "The members of the third class, who formed the majority of the members of the Colonial Department in my time"—ranging from 1812 to 1818 or 1850—"possessed only in a low degree, and some of them in a degree almost incredibly low, either the talents or habits of men of business, or the industry, zeal, or knowledge required for the effective performance of their appropriate functions."
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I believe I copied accurately the passage which I read from Sir James Stephen's evidence.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have no doubt my hon. Friend did so. What I say is that it referred to a different point from that on which he claimed the support of Sir James Stephen's opinion. Sir James, however, told us further how the large class of inefficient men whom he had described came to hold office. He said—
  "The members of that class to which I have given the designation of the third class were, without exception, men who had been appointed to gratify the political, domestic, or personal feelings of their patrons—that is, successive Secretaries of State."
  I am somewhat surprised that my hon. Friend should presume to challenge the fairness of the Report of the Committee, regardless of the fact that it was composed of men to whom the House gave their confidence, that it embraced every shade of opinion, and that the view adverse to competition was backed up by the support of two Secretaries to the Treasury on opposite sides of the House, who found no reason to appeal against the decision of the Committee. Yet my hon. Friend comes down armed with a great blue book, reads certain passages, selected in the manner of which the noble Lord opposite has exhibited the fairness, and calls on the House to reverse the decision of the Committee. A stranger proposal I have in my Parliamentary experience scarcely ever heard. I regret for the sake of my hon. Friend himself, but also for the sake of others, the keenness and warmth with which he presses this question. I cannot think that he is sufficiently mindful of what we owe to the Civil Service Commissioners. It is beyond dispute that these Gentlemen are engaged in the performance of a duty which is in itself a very difficult one, and which, moreover, they have to fulfil in the face of great pressure from personal and selfish interests. They are the friends and champions of the public interests against interests of another character—very watchful interests, which, without the countenance which they receive from the hon. Member, are always sufficiently vigilant and determined in carrying out their purposes. I think that Gentlemen in that position are entitled to be spared being made the subjects of ridicule and sarcasm, especially of ridicule and sarcasm founded upon selections of questions made with so much, I am sure involuntary, but substantial unfairness as those of my hon. Friend. What

  1447
  I think most unfair in his mode of dealing with this subject was that in the early part of his speech he led us to suppose that he was dealing with questions asked of candidates for situations in the Civil Service, strictly so called, and proceeded to quote a number of questions which we imagined were to be put to letter carriers, clerks, or tidewaiters; and it was not until he was interrupted in a very timely manner by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn that he, with apparent reluctance, disclosed that the questions as to the component parts of stone and the submersion of the British islands were not to be asked of letter carriers, tidewaiters, or clerks, but of gentlemen who were intended for the service of Engineers, and who, therefore, absolutely required a knowledge of those subjects. The persoverence of my hon. Friend is so great that I have no doubt that even, although his Motion is negatived to-night, he will return to the charge; but I do beseech him, if he does so to make his attack, if he pleases, with so much courage and as determined a spirit as he has shown to-night, but, at the same time, with greater care, with greater fairness, and a more anxious desire to do justice, not merely to the feelings, for that is but a small matter, but the efficiency of those gentlemen who were engaged in most important duties. My hon. Friend is very zealous for a test examination; but I am afraid that the reason he is so fond of such an examination is that for which other persons dislike it. If we could really keep a test examination up to the mark, I do not think that there is much to be said against it. That, however, is impossible; and, knowing that defection is the necessary law of test examinations—that they are perpetually tending downwards, therefore it is that my hon. Friend professes his inclination and admiration for them. I will not enter more at length into this subject, which has been succinctly, but very ably treated by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn; but I must tell the hon. Member for Honiton that he quite misapprehends the ease when he speaks of the discussion in which he has been engaged, and the system which now exists, as one of competitive examination. The truth is, it has been only to a very limited degree a question of competitive examination. It would, indeed, be absurd to think that such a system could be brought to a final test and judgment upon the evidence which is now in our
  1448
  possession. It appears to me that the Committee upon the whole took a judicious course in not attempting to make any great change of principle in this system, but endeavouring to make it what it professes to be, and to provide that it shall be really, even though to a limited extent, a system of competition. The main object of the Committee was to provide that the competition, which now exists should have a certain foundation which should be given to it by a previous test examination. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) has said, the competion under the present system is in many cases almost nugatory; it may, in some instances, happen that all the candidates are unfit to stand. At all events, we cannot judge fairly of the principle of the present system until by some such means as are recommended by the Committee a test examination shall be introduced, in order to insure the reality of the subsequent competition. I think that the evidence which has been quoted, especially that of Mr. Waddington, who, though formerly an opponent of, has now given his sanction to, the principle of a limited competition, shows that this system, as far as it has gone, has upon the whole done good. If we desire to prevent a recurrence to the intolerable abuses of the old system, and to secure the full benefit of the new one, we must proceed in the spirit of the cautious and judicious recommendations of the Committee; and if we do not try anything of a broader character let us at least endeavour to insure the reality of that competition which we have adopted as the condition of first entrance into the lower offices of the public service.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that after the language in which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed his hon. Friend, the Member for Honiton, and the severity with which he had challenged his statements, he should not be acting fairly to his hon. Friend as one who thought with him if he did not say a few words upon the subject. The reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the opinions of Sir James Stephen was a fair sample of the mode in which Motions of this kind were always met. They urged that this system was causing the decay of the Civil Service, and were answered by being told that before that system was introduced there existed great abuses. It was true that Sir James Stephen had spoken in severe terms, which were indignantly pro-

  1449
  tested against at the time, of the old Civil Service as it existed in his time; but it was equally true that he had spoken in terms still stronger and still more contemptuous against the system of competition. The right hon. Gentleman, the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn, and his hon. Friend, the Member for the King's County, had all relied much upon the verdict of the Committee; but, constituted as that Committee was, consisting as it did of ten eager competitionists, of four who were opposed to competition, and of one Gentleman whose opinions were not decided, its Report could not be held to be a fair representation of the opinion of the House of Commons, nor was it a tribunal to which any one could appeal with confidence. Nothing could have been more unjust than to charge his hon. Friend with garbling the extracts which he read from the evidence, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, taking the opinions of the whole of the witnesses, his hon. Friend had not rather understated than overstated his case? The opinions which Sir Thomas Fremantle obtained from public servants engaged in the Custom House would show whether or not his hon. Friend had misrepresented the facts. One gentleman said that there was about the clerks who had been appointed under the new system a self-sufficient presumption arising from imagined intellectual superiority. Another gentleman spoke of "a desire for literature in business." Another complained of "a fondness for discussion, argumentative display, and private reading and writing during office hours." One head of a department complained that his clerks looked upon their duties as beneath their abilities, and another stated that "the clerks possessing more intellectual abilities than their duties require become dissatisfied with the motony of their occupations, and are less valuable than clerks of sufficient though less attainments." These were strong and important statements, especially coming as they did, not from private individuals, but from heads of Departments, who suffered from the defects of which they complained. His noble Friend complained that a charge of unfairness had been impliedly made against the Committee, and had not been substantiated by evidence in detail. The Committee had certainly not given to the evidence of the Custom-house officers the weight which they deserved; but there was a far stronger point against them.
  1450
  The Committee reported directly in favour of open competition; while, with the exception of Mr. H. Chester, who was a member of the Society of Arts, all the heads of Departments had pronounced an opinion strongly against it. Sir Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Tilly, Sir Benjamin Hawes, Mr. Romilly, Sir Richard Bromley, Mr. Sargeant, and Mr. Waddington had, among others, said that open competition would be injurious to the public service, and some of them had used the strongest terms in expressing their opinion; yet the Committee had, despite that fact, reported that the evidence which they had received was in favour of open competition. Now it appeared to him to be impossible to adduce a stronger case of a verdict against evidence. But if he were to make any positive charge of unfairness in the matter, it would be with respect to the composition of the Committee, who, not unnaturally, drew up a Report in accordance with the opinions which the majority of its members were from the first known, to entertain. He had risen to repel the attack made upon his Friend, the Member for Honiton, and would not, therefore, further pursue that subject. But he would express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford, should, with his experience, have endorsed the opinion that test examinations were incapable of being maintained at the level on which they were originally placed. That the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn, who was a Cambridge man, should entertain that view he should not be so much astonished; but, be that as it might, there was at Oxford a certain standard fixed to which every candidate was expected to come up, and, although that system had been going on for the last thirty or forty years, he had not the slighest complaint that the standard had been lowered either in deference to the wishes of the parents of the candidates, or from other causes; the complaint, on the contrary, being that it had risen year by year. It was, he might add, unjust to charge those who took the same view of the subject under discussion as he did with being animated by a desire to set themselves in opposition to merit or to protect ignorance. The first question in reference to persons seeking public employment should be as to their merit; and for his own part, he was ready to admit that examinations properly conducted were, to a certain extent, a very efficient means of

  1451
  ascertaining merit. While, however, he made that admission he could by no means concede that because a man was found to possess some scholarly and literary merits, he was, as a matter of course, fitted to be appointed to a clerkship in a public office, or to be nominated to an ensigncy in a Inarching regiment. There ought, he maintained, to be some sort of connection between the examination to which a candidate was subjected and the profession which he was about to adopt. The supporters of the present system discovered that a youth could compose an eloquent panegyric on Garibaldi, or turn love verses into the form of a Latin elegy, and then they were ready to make him a clerk in an office, to post up accounts, or send him to govern a whole district in India. To proceed upon that system was, however, he should contend, just as absurd as it would be to appoint a man Archbishop of Canterbury because he happened to be a good rifle shot, or to give him the command of an army in the field because he was able to preach an effective sermon. It was this incompatibility to which the opponents of this system objected. It was said that this system worked equally well for the candidates as for the public service, and that there was nothing so onerous or burdensome to a candidate for a public appointment as to have to loiter in antechambers seeking for the patronage to great men. Now, for his own part, he was far from desiring that that should be the case; but having adverted to the point, he might be permitted to draw attention to the injury which was inflicted on the candidate under the present system. Great eulogiums had been passed on the Civil Service Commissioners, and he should be the last to seek to detract from their merits; but he must, at the same time, remind the House that those eulogiums were beside the question. Parliament, in dealing with the subject under discussion, was legislating, not for a few years but for all time, and it might be that new Commissioners with very different characters from the present might be appointed under very different circumstances. Bearing those considerations in mind, he should endeavour to point out to the House the injury which was by the existing system inflicted on the candidate. That system had, he should contend, been justly called a system of irresponsible patronage. It was, indeed, sought to be maintained that the Judges of the land might, with as
  1452
  much propriety, be called irresponsible as the tribunal to which he was adverting. There was, however, the striking difference between the Judges and the Commissioners that the former transacted their business in the light of day, and that their proceedings were published in the newspapers and freely commented upon by the community at large—so that if it should happen by any chance that one of their body was found to be corrupt or incapable, public opinion might immediately be brought effectually to bear upon the matter; the Civil Service Commissioners, on the other hand, conducted their proceedings in the dark, ascertaining from written papers what the merits of the several candidates were, deciding upon those merits without any publicity, and pronouncing a decree from which, though it might involve the success or ruin of a young man, no appeal was allowed, either to a superior Judge appointed to revise the verdicts of his inferiors, or, as was proved by the experience of last year, even to the House of Commons itself. Without, therefore, wishing to say one single word which could be construed as offensive to the Commissioners, he could not help declaring it to be his opinion that such a system as that of which he was speaking was fraught with danger in a constitutional country like England. They had no right to hand over that patronage of the Crown which escaped public attention to men who judged in the dark, who had no check from publicity, and from whose decision there was no appeal; and he believed the House of Commons would before many years be disposed to look upon the question in a much more serious light than was at present the case. There was as yet, he was aware, no chance of inducing hon. Members to set aside a system on behalf of which it might, perhaps, with some reason be urged that it had not yet had a fair trial; but he could not, at the same time, help saying that he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified in charging those who held opposite opinions on the question from himself with being neglectful of the public service, because they had deemed it their duty to point out the vices of a tribunal which had no parallel in England.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, lie thought that if the remarks of the noble Lord could be said to be directed against any body in particular that body was the House of Commons, who had, he con-

  1453
  tended, appointed an unfair Committee. If, he might add, the noble Lord was BO strongly opposed to the composition of that Committee as he seemed to be, he, among other Members, ought to have objected to its appointment. He thought, however, that the fairness of the Committee was to be inferred from the modification of its Report, which did not go to the full length of either opinion. The noble Lord was evidently very much dissatisfied with that Report; and, for himself, as a pledged competitionist, be might say that lie also was, in a certain degree, dissatisfied, or rather unsatisfied, with the extent to which it went. The Committee stated that they were undoubtedly of opinion that the evidence which they took made strongly in favour of open competition, but that they were anxious to avoid such precipitancy in the adoption of the system as might lead to a reaction in public feeling. They then proceeded to advise the adoption, not of a system of open, but of limited competition, founded on nomination. The evidence which they received from the public servants, he might add, was to the effect that the present system was successful so far as it went, that it required to be developed, but that they regarded it as not having been sufficiently tried to enable them to speak with sufficient confidence With respect to it. Of the witnesses, of whose impartiality there could be no doubt, an immense majority was favourable to the present system. Seven or eight gentlemen holding high office—Mr. Hammond, Sir Benjamin Hawes, Mr. Romilly, Mr. Sargent, Mr. Trevor, and Major Graham—in the different departments, all spoke of the system as having worked well; the evidence of two other witnesses did not touch the particular question; and there were but four witnesses who, on the whole, objected cither to the system of examination or to that of competition. Mr. Lingen, of the Education Board, who objected to competition, confined himself entirely to theory, and did not adduce any facts in support of his arguments. Mr. Arbuthnot of the Treasury was peculiarly placed, being, in fact, the representative of the old body of civil servants. In his opinion the system worked well with regard to the superior clerks in the Treasury, and, no doubt, it excluded dunces; but, with reference to the supplementary clerks, be thought it bad worked unfavourably. Happening to know something of the condition of the supplementary clerks he cross-
  1454
  examined Mr. Arbuthnot, and elicited that the discontent prevailing among them was in no way caused by competitive examination, but arose from the erroneous and false system of salaries which was adopted. Sir Thomas Fremantle, though favourable to the system in one or two points, was, on the whole, decidedly opposed to it, and that fact was in no way disguised by the Report of the Committee, but his evidence was fully and fairly set forth. However, as additional opportunities were afforded of investigating the statements made anonymously by officers at the outports, the extraordinary stories about persons physically unfit for duty who were appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners, to the exclusion of others in every way qualified, had entirely broken down; for it turned out, as would be seen by reference to the last Report of the Civil Service Commissioners, that every one of the incompetent persons was originally nominated and recommended by these very officers at the outports who now complained of them. The Civil Service Commissioners recommended a scheme in which physical qualifications would be the test, and Sir Thomas Fremantle, he believed, adopted that scheme. His noble Friend stated that some of the gentlemen appointed were very high and mighty, and altogether above their business. But in the good old times, when men were selected by patronage, he had known a case in which a man was appointed a tidewaiter who was son to an influential voter in a certain borough, which had the honour of returning a Cabinet Minister. He soon found that the post was very much below his deserts, and he declared that he would get his influential friends to remove him; but in the meantime he became so insubordinate that he had to be dismissed. He went to his right lion. Friend and succeeded in getting appointed to another situation, which he held for two or three years; but ultimately he had to be again dismissed for insubordination by the successor of the right hon. Gentleman. Yet this had happened under the patronage system—that golden age, which was now broken up. Mr. Tilley, of the Post Office, said the effect of the Civil Service Examinations was to render it impossible to get proper persons to execute the duties of sorters, letter-carriers, and other inferior officers. But, on cross-examination, he admitted that the best remedy would be in open competition, and that no difficulty

  1455
  whatever existed in getting men from a similar class for the police. The Commissioners wrote to the Postmaster General, proposing that the system, which was apparently favoured by Mr. Tilley and Mr. Trollope, should be adopted. The Duke of Argyll, who was then locum tenens at the Post Office, approved the suggestion, and, physical qualifications having been adopted as the test, the minor appointments were thrown perfectly open to competition; but on the accession to office of Lord Stanley of Alderley, without a single reason assigned, the open system and the physical test were abolished, and the appointments at the Post Office were replaced on their old footing. He did not mean to impute anything improper to Lord Stanley of Alderley, who might have had very good reasons for the course which he adopted; but it was unfair in the same breath to complain of the educational qualifications required by the Civil Service Commissioners as impediments, and to repudiate the improvements which they suggested. The matter ought to be treated in a different spirit. The Commissioners had no wish to interfere with the Departments, but they entertained a belief—which he was persuaded was the right one—that if good men were wanted the appointments should be thrown open to competition. Sufficient evidence had been obtained to show that there was not the slightest inconvenience or danger in open competition, and were it adopted the absurd difficulties which arose from the attempt to enforce a test examination would cease to exist. The way in which the evidence and opinions elicited by the Commissioners had been quoted was most extraordinary. He wished to call the attention of the House to what Sir James Stephen said in evidence, which, in the report of Sir Charles Trevelyan, himself was described as the "evidence of an eminent public officer." In that statement he said that he remembered only four instances in which young men had been introduced into the public service on the ground of eminent fitness. After having attacked the system of open competition, Sir James went on to say that in order to provide a remedy for the evils which existed in his time he would subject each nominee to an examination, to be conducted by strangers to the Government, by men of indisputable learning and integrity, who would admit every candidate who had attained a certain standard of knowledge and reject those who
  1456
  had not. [Mr. B. COCHRANE: He says more.] It was quite true that Sir James Stephen did speak of the rashness of plunging into deep dark waters without first making an experimental attempt; but such an attempt had been made. A Committee was appointed last year on the Motion of his lion. Friend the Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), and after a full inquiry the Committee made a conscientious Report which, while not going the length to which the private opinion of certainly a large majority of the Members extended, recommended a small tentative experimental advance on the existing system. One witness spoke strongly against the competitive system. He alluded to Sir Richard Bromley, who was in favour of preserving nominations, and said he trusted the system would never be carried to open competition; adding that, as an old public servant, he hoped he should never see the tie which existed between Members of the House of Commons and the public service severed. But what did Sir Richard Bromley say in 1854? Why, he complained that in some branches of the public service there was a want of that moral tone which was so essential in the common affairs of life; and he spoke of men of talent seeing their inferiors advancing before them. Sir Richard Bromley's principal objection to the abolition of the nomination system seemed to be that it would deprive Members of that House of the advantage of putting their relatives and friends into public offices. He believed that to be at the bottom of the whole thing. His hon. Friend had read the titles of some of the essays which candidates were required to write; but there, were others which he might have read with equal advantage. One of these was "Write a letter as to a friend describing the nature and duties of the office for which you are a candidate, and the qualifications you have for it." Another was "Write a letter applying for any place or situation, and mentioning any reason you have in support of your application." Under the existing system there might be a number of able young men, fit to enter the public service, but who could not get nominations because the party with which they had influence did not happen to be in power. Such young men watched every division in that House, and every election; but perhaps the change did not come till they were too old. That was a state of things which we should put an end to as soon as possible.

  1457
  He believed we should never get rid of it till we adopted that which we must soon come to—a system of open competition.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he was a Member of the Committee, and he quite admitted that the Report of the Committee was not so strong as he could have wished. At the same time he fully admitted the fairness and impartiality with which the noble Lord had summed up the evidence. The hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to establish that great injury was being done to individuals by the present system. In reply to that he would refer to the evidence of Major Graham, who was appointed the chief of a new office, which was improvised in 1836, that of the registry of births, marriages, and deaths. Mr. Graham said that on the occasion of the establishment of that office many persons were appointed to situations in it who were very objectionable, through age, broken health, bad character, or want of proper qualifications. One person had been a fraudulent debtor, another had been guilty of fraudulent acts, a third was unable from ill health to associate with his fellow-clerks—he had been obliged to live in a separate room, and afterwards died; others were inefficient. The deputy registrar performed no duty for fifteen months; the duties of another officer were transferred to the solicitor to the Treasury. Twelve of the least efficient had been dismissed in 1852, eleven or twelve had been removed afterwards, and four had been dismissed for disgraceful conduct. Now, a new system might have to be improvised any day; but a competitive system would exclude some of the least competent and worst qualified. If a Government were to remain in office, say for ten years or longer, a large class of the community would be deprived of advantages which ought to be open for the benefit of all. He (Mr. Maguire) had been asked over and over again for nominations. But he was compelled to refuse, knowing that in order to obtain them a Member must be a thick and thin supporter of the Government, and if he were to obtain a place the Secretary of the Treasury would look extremely black if he happened lo see him in the opposite lobby. This was not only degrading to a Member of the House, but it impeded his free action. The noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) had said that the present system made the members of the service dissatisfied. But he (Mr. Maguire) had inquired into this, and he found that in no case had this dissatisfaction led
  1458
  to insubordination; men gradually became satisfied with the positions they occupied. Mr. Fremantle, in his examination, was obliged to admit that the Government themselves were not anxious for the exercise of this power. But though it was a source of inconvenience to them, they were unwilling to give it up, as a source of power. Even in the case of candidates who failed, the education and examination which they went through was no loss to them; a class of better educated men was an advantage to the country; they had an increased stock of intellectual power, and were animated by a spirit of emulation. He cordially hoped to see the question carried further by the House.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEwished to explain that the noble Lord had misunderstood his statement with regard to Sir James Stephen's evidence. What he meant to say was that Sir James Stephen preferred the system which prevailed in 1855 to the system of competitive examination, which it was then proposed to introduce. The noble Lord complained that he had not proved his assertions from the evidence; but he had been unwilling to trespass on the time of the House by quoting his authorities, and his statement that the Report was not justified by the evidence, had been borne out by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes). In the present state of the House, so many of his hon. Friends having left their seats, he would not trouble the House to divide. He would, therefore, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Put, and agreed to.

SUEZ CANAL.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether accounts have been received that M. de Lesseps has induced the Viceroy of Egypt to employ large numbers of natives by forced labour in the construction of the Suez Canal? and expressed his opinion that the noble Lord, in his desire to oppose a plan which he deemed injurious to this country, had, in fact, given indirect encouragement to it; for to say that the execution of such a work would give other European powers the start of us in the way to India, rendered the enterprise at once attractive in the eyes of the French. Twenty years ago it was the noble Lord's policy to reduce a

1459
rebellious vassal of the Porte, who had made himself almost master of Egypt, to the state of a dependent Pasha, and ever since that period French policy had found favour in the eyes of the Pashas of Egypt. The result was that the present Pasha had been induced to enter into the enterprise to which his Question referred, and to employ, it was said, forced labour, which was nothing but slavery under another name. He condemned the interference of England between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan. Had the Pasha of Egypt been allowed to establish his independent power, the influence of England in Egypt would have been much greater than it was now with the country under the nominal but illusory government of the Porte. But he did not think the noble Lord, in similar circumstances, would venture to repeat that policy of interference for which he, rather gratuitously, set France at defiance. He did not complain that the noble Lord the Prime Minister should be of opinion that the Suez Canal was extremely difficult and almost impossible—for in that opinion he himself had always concurred—but he did complain that the noble Lord should have characterized it as a "bubble scheme," which was an expression conveying gratuitous offence to the promoters. It was not likely to realize any profits for the shareholders; but that might be said of many great English works, such as the Thames Tunnel and the Great Eastern. And yet nobody applied to them opprobrious epithets on that account. He approved the recent policy of the Foreign Secretary in reference to Syria. The honour of France was satisfied by the occupation of Syria; and that the occupation had been terminated was satisfactory also. The hon. Member concluded by asking the First Lord of the Treasury whether accounts had been received that M. de Lesseps had induced the Viceroy of Egypt to employ large numbers of Natives, by forced labour, in the construction of the Suez Canal; and by moving an Address for copy of any despatches that may have passed on the subject of forced labour of Natives of Egypt in the construction of the Suez Canal. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether he could justify his policy of the past, and give some assurances for the future?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he rose to a point of order more than to answer the question.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the noble
1460
Lord could only speak to the Motion before the House, and that Motion was that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.

THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, in pursuance of notice, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What he considers the position of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to be with reference to the Government of that Country, and whether the Earl of Carlisle intends to retain that office? As to the office itself he (Colonel Dickson) thought the Irish people generally wished for its continuance; and if the opinion of the individual who filled the office was properly considered, and he desired to pursue a wise policy in regard to that country, it might be one of great utility. He believed that the noble Earl who at present filled that office was thoroughly imbued with the desire to promote the prosperity of the country. It was absolutely necessary, however, that the person filling that office should be consulted, and whatever opinion was entertained by him with respect to the welfare of the country ought to be fully carried out. It had been a reproach to the Government that they had not in their councils a single Irishman; but at the present time that ought to be considered more as a necessity than as a subject of reproach, because, after what had lately happened, no candidate could show his face on the hustings in Ireland with much chance of success as the regular supporter of the present Government. The present Chief Secretary for Ireland could have no very intimate knowledge of the opinions, or, if they chose to call them so, the prejudices of Irishmen. Nevertheless, unsupported as he was by even an Irish Lord of the Treasury, he stood forward on the present occasion, utterly ignoring the existence of a Lord Lieutenant, and acting more as a Minister for Ireland than as that noble Earl's secretary, lie (Colonel Dickson) had no wish to open again the question of the Galway contract, but that contract which had been agreed to by lion. Gentlemen on his side of the House, had been steadily opposed by hon. Members opposite, until the hostility to it culminated in its abrupt annulment by the Postmaster General, who stood notoriously before the public as certainly a strong partisan. The Government had taken upon itself to adopt this proceeding and to share the responsibility of the con-

  1461
  duct of their colleague. The Secretary for Ireland called it a departmental question, and deliberately stated that he did not think there was any occasion to consult the Lord Lieutenant in the matter, because he had nothing to do with it. If this were so he should like to know what could not be called a departmental question? If the Government acted in a similar manner to the Governor General of India or the Governor of a colony he would resign immediately. In his opinion the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ought to have the immediate control of the government of that country—of course with the assistance of his colleagues. In saying this he spoke as an Irish representative, and asked that the same treatment should be accorded to that country which was given to other colonies or dependencies of this country, lie hoped the noble Lord would distinctly state what he considered was the proper position of the Lord Lieutenant. He could not conceive any more contemptible position for a British Peer than to be the puppet of his own Secretary, while he appeared in the borrowed plumes of mock loyalty, and aped the pageantry of a Royal Court, while he had not an atom of power to carry his own views into effect, or to do anything that he considered would benefit the people.

INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, In what manner the provisions of Clauses 35, 36, and 58 of the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, and of the Act 22 & 23 Vict. c. 27, which guarantee that "all advantages as to pay, I pensions, allowances, privileges, promotion, I and otherwise, shall be secured to the Military Forces of the East India Company, in any plan for the reorganization of the Indian Army," are to be carried out in respect to the 1,225 officers (more or less) of the Local Armies of India who will be thrown out of employment by the reduction of the former fixed establishment of twenty-six European regimental officers to six only, to serve for the future with a Native Regiment, as directed by the Amalgation Order published in the Calcutta Government Gazette, dated the 10th of April, 1861? The hon. and gallant Member said that the amalgamation order would convert the whole Native army of India from regular into irregular troops, reducing the fixed establishment of officers in each regiment
1462
from twenty-six to six. Originally the Native regiments had a very small number of European officers, their complement being one captain, one lieutenant, and one ensign; but, gallant as those troops were, they were found comparatively inefficient from the paucity of European officers. The history of the services of the Bengal army by Captain Williamson, show that successive additions of officers to Native regiments were deemed indispensable, and from the year 1770, to within a recent period the strength of European officers with a regiment had gradually increased to twenty-six. Now, however, the old defective system was about to be revived, and a vast body of officers would be thrown out of employment. Under the Acts of Parliament quoted the existing officers of the Native regiments were guaranteed against any loss of emoluments consequent upon the reorganization of the local army; but by the conversion of the troops from regulars into irregulars many of the officers must suffer great pecuniary as well as other disadvantages, they would lose the command allowance of a regiment, cavalry or infantry of £40 a month; the captains of cavalry would lose their "troop" allowances; and officers of infantry entitled to command companies would lose their company allowance. The appointment of quarter-master and interpreter would cease, and these losses and changes involved unquestionably a breach of faith with the army. Would the Secretary of State for India like to have a thousand actions at law brought against him for compensation by these officers? That might, however, be the case, if those gentlemen could prove that they had sustained any loss by the change. Is it not as ungenerous as unjust to forget the services of these troops. On the colours of the different Native regiments at least a hundred victories were inscribed. Until driven to rebellion by outraging their religious prejudices they had always stood faithful to us. The Madras Native army, which was wholly free from the late mutiny, was once, too, on the brink of rebellion in 1806, from Sir J. Craddock's dangerous orders interfering with the religious usages of the Madras Sepoys, but it was happily saved by Colonel Montressor, who commanded the Hyderabad subsidiary force, consisting of one European and six Native regiments. His firmness of purpose, and his courage in daring to disobey Sir J. Craddock's orders averted the mutiny; and ever since

1463
the Madras army had remained staunch in its loyalty. The Secretary of State for India had had the misfortune to impose an income tax, which created discontent, if not hostility, among the bulk of the people of India. Now he was also carrying out a measure which degraded the Native army, and caused the discontent if not hostility of the Sepoys and their European officers, while, at the same time, he was raising a feeling of discontent by the manner in which lie proposed to handle the Civil Service of India. He (Colonel Sykes) lamented that he could not look with satisfaction to the probable future of our position in India.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was glad that it lay in his power to relieve his hon, and gallant Friend from the apprehensions which he had expressed. The hon. and gallant Member complained that, in consequence of the conversion of the Native army of India from regulars into irregulars, the guarantee of the Act to officers would be broken. The conversion however, had nothing whatever to do with that guarantee; in point of fact the conversion had, as far as the army of Bengal was concerned, been effected long before the amalgamation took place. Out of seventy-five regiments, sixty mutinied, were disbanded, and ceased to exist. Irregular levies were raised in their place, and were officered on the irregular system. The armies of Madras and Bombay had not yet been changed into irregulars, and whenever that operation was performed, it would be done gradually, without displacing any officer, or depriving him of any promotion, pay, or emoluments which he now enjoyed. The hon. and gallant Member also set forth the advantage of regular troops over irregulars; but the irregulars had played a distinguished part in the whole of the recent campaigns in the North of India and had displayed great gallantry and efficiency. He maintained, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend was mistaken in asserting that the irregular system had proved a failure. As to the Commission appointed to carry out the details of the amalgamation in India, he was very sorry it had ever been appointed, for he believed it had produced considerable mischief. No better proof of that could be afforded than the publication of the Report of the Commission against the will of the Government. That Report was based on the assumption which, as he had said, was entirely devoid of foundation, that the ar-
1464
mies of Madras and Bombay were at once to be placed on the irregular system. That put an end to one half the case of his hon. and gallant Friend. The Commander-in-Chief had undertaken to provide employment for all the officers for whom it was stated in the Report of the Commission that no places could be found, with the single exception of the senior field-officers, who were not very competent for active service. To meet the case of these, a certain number of officers would be superannuated. There would, doubtless, be some allowances which officers now received to which they would not be entitled under the irregular system; but there would be no substantial alteration in their position. To say that the whole of the officers should retain all their emoluments and allowances was tantamount to saying that the Indian army should be kept up to its former establishment, in order to provide emoluments for the officers, without reference to the public service; and he was sure his hon. and gallant Friend was not prepared to recommend such a measure.

RECRUITING AND CLOTHING OF THE ARMY.—OBSERVATIONS.
GENERAL UPTONsaid, he rose to cull attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Army Estimates, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it be intended to adopt that portion of the Report of the Royal Commission on the present system of Recruiting the Army, which recommend that a pair of regulation boots, two shirts, two pair of socks, and one towel shall be supplied every year to the soldier; and one pair of summer trousers, one forage cap, one stock and clasp, every alternate year, at the public charge; and if so from what date such, alteration will take effect? He certainly thought that two of the recommendations of that Committee deserved the attention both of the House and the country—namely, that portion which had reference to the getting rid of all the lying and quibbling, and sometimes almost kidnapping that formerly prevailed in the army, but which had now been put a stop to, as well by the recommendation of the Committee as by the order of the Commander-in-Chief? The other point was one which was of great importance to the soldier, and the hon. and gallant General contended that the best of all substitutes for increase of pay to the soldier was the finding him good clothes.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PORTSMOUTH, &c. OBSERVATIONS.
SIR MORTON PETOpaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the nature of the Fortifications about to be erected at Spithead with reference to the very great changes now taking place in Naval Armaments; and to inquire if the Government intend to reconsider the question, whether Floating Batteries would not prove more effective for the defence of the Arsenal than the Forts proposed to be constructed on the shoals? He did not wish to deprive the Government of the money necessary for the defences of the country, but simply to induce them to reconsider their determination; because, as it appeared to him, the construction of stationary batteries at Spithead was a great mistake. The question now at issue is, whether the proposed sea-forts, in conjunction with a small auxiliary floating force and other adjuncts, will protect the roadstead and dockyard of Portsmouth; or whether in lieu of these forts, at no greater expense, iron ships, as proposed by Admiral Sir Richard S. Dundas, may be substituted; and putting us thereby in possession of an infinitely superior force, able to effect that which the forts might fail to do. The letter of the Admiral clearly shows and recommends that available ships of the line could be fitted with engines and converted into iron-cased ships, for this local purpose, carrying thirty of the heaviest guns, at £60,000 per vessel, thus giving fourteen of these vessels for the sum estimated for the three forts (namely, £840,000), or if it should be expedient to take vessels already fitted with engines, they could be converted for £40,000 or £45,000 per ship, giving 20 or 196 vessels for the same cost as the forts. The Admiral concludes his letter with the following remark:—
"Taking into account, therefore, all the expense and all the difficulty which must necessarily attend the construction of batteries upon the shoals at Spithcad, and looking also to the contingency that stationary batteries alone might not be sufficient to prevent the passage of iron-cased ships, and would imperfectly defend the entrance of Spithead against vessels so protected, I am of opinion that any immediate outlay of money to be expended in the course of the ensuing financial year would be more profitably employed upon the equipment for purely defensive purposes of ships of this description, and it might be proper that the attention of the Secretary of War should be called to the subject in order that reports if necessary from the Comptroller of the Navy may be called for without loss of time."
1466
The objection that the vessels would be of too great a draught might be met by the observation that if any attack was to be made it must be made by vessels of equal draught; and the question of speed did not arise, because the proposed floating batteries would be simply for the protection of that part of the coast where they were placed. He reminded the House that stationary batteries were of no use while ships kept out of their range; and from the situation of Portsmouth it could be shelled from a position on which it could not bring its guns to bear. Again, it was admitted that those fortifications would not prevent iron ships passing them; so that, practically speaking, they would be useless. Another of the recommendations of the Commissioners was the use of explosive machines; but the late Russian war had proved the worthlessness of such means of defence as these. They also advised the construction of a number of iron-cased forts on the shoals at Spithead. It should be remembered, however, that Spithead was practically Portsmouth harbour, because vessels of war could not enter Portsmouth except at certain tides. And what would happen if the enemy's iron-clad ships came in and attacked the merchant vessels and ships of war? Why, that the forts could not fire at all; for if they did so they would inflict as much injury on friend as foe. Moreover, it was well known that such was the smoke arising in an action that soon after the commencement of a battle no objects were seen. He contended, therefore, that the dockyard might be shelled without the forts being of any use at all. The question was, then, whether they were spending the public money for the protection of the right place? Would Portsmouth dockyard be in future what it had been in the past, when ships of war were of comparatively light draught? Being adapted only for the repair of wooden vessels, was it likely to be continued hereafter for the repair of iron vessels? He believed that with forts, auxiliary ships, and explosive machines, and all these acting together, the only result would be to paralyse one another and create confusion. In his opinion ships were preferable; for they could choose their position, act as steam-rams, and board the enemy. Another objection which he entertained to batteries on the shoals was that they would serve the purposes of buoys. He appealed to the Government, then, not to act precipitately in carrying out the Commissioners'

1467
recommendations. He had endeavoured to ascertain what were the opinions of many eminent men in both the army and navy on the subject; and all had agreed that neither of the Commissioners' Reports was based upon practical data, and that the Government were not justified in proceeding to incur such an enormous expenditure upon Reports so made. They might depend upon it that recourse to this Chinese mode of defence and painting of tigers' heads would not do for us. The French knew well how far these forts were an adequate defence; and if they would be able to effect all the mischief they desired, just as if the forts were not erected, then the fact that these defences were not what they were intended to be—namely, a means of absolute and perfect security—would prove the justification of the Government in hesitating to adopt the recommendations of the Commissioners.
SIR FREDERIC SMITH: If he had correctly understood the view of his hon. Friend, it appeared to be that he thought the defences of Portsmouth should be entirely confined to ships of war of some kind, and that land defences or forts on shoals would be useless; and he grounded his case in some degree on the difficulty which he fancied the defensive batteries would have in seeing an object after firing once or twice owing to the smoke of the guns. But that was an objection which would apply with equal force to the attacking party, as it would, indeed, to every battery along the coast. His hon. Friend also complained that the second Report on the proposed Fortifications and system of defence had been made by the same Commissioners who drew up the first Report; and, perhaps, U might have been more satisfactory had other Commissioners been employed; but whilst he (Sir Frederic Smith) had objected to many of the recommendations in the first Report, he did not object to any of those which were in the second. The arguments of the Commissioners, indeed, had only confirmed him in the opinion he had long held, that forts on the shoals ought to be erected. For twenty years past he had been considering officially the question of the defence of Portsmouth and the Solent, and he had never doubled for a moment that the forts now proposed should be constructed for the defence of Spithead and Portsmouth Harbour, It was intended that these works should be covered with iron of considerable thickness, though what the thickness
1468
should be was still doubtful. Experiments at Shoeburyness showed that 10-inch iron was not shot-proof; and that being so, was it probable that enemy's ships clad in 4½ or 5-inch iron would dare to venture within reach of these forts? Firing was accurate from a fort at even the distance of 5,000 yards; but that from a ship was inaccurate at so long a range. His hon. Friend said that objects would not be seen from the forts after the first round. He (Sir Frederic Smith) contended that they would be seen, unless it were a calm, and then the enemy's ships would be as much enveloped in smoke as the forts, for they must bring too, or anchor to obtain any accuracy of fire at long ranges. Under these circumstances the argument that Portsmouth dockyard could be destroyed by ships, whilst the ships themselves were safe, at once fell to the ground. Further, he would ask if the batteries in Stokes Bay were to count for nothing? As he understood, the whole line of that coast was to be furnished with strong and powerful batteries; and if that were so, they would have a range equal to the ships which proposed to bombard the dockyard. He hoped, then, that the Government would act on the determination they had already formed to construct these forts with all despatch. It was, of course, a work of time and expense, and he believed they had greatly underestimated the cost; but even if the cost were doubled, he should prefer seeing those forts erected rather than those which had been projected for Portsdown Hill, which he considered an useless waste of the public money. He would now ask the Secretary to the Admiralty under what department the experiments now being made were conducted? Were they under the War Office or the Admiralty—or both,? If of both, these departments were certainly very slow in their operations, for as yet they had only come to this conclusion, that 10-inch iron was not shot-proof at 400 yards. They ought to have discovered by actual experiments long since what was the minimum thickness of iron required to resist shot of a certain weight. If 10 inches of iron were not shot-proof against a 120-pounder, what would be the effect of a 300-pounder of 2,000 yards? With a range which we should shortly have, he should like to know what ships of war would stand a 300-pounder. A fleet might come into the Solent, but they could not remain longer there than they were master of the seas.

1469
He firmly believed that if we had even powerful shore batteries alone, no fleet would ever venture there, but he strongly urged the noble Lord that no lime should be lost in completing these forts, which would render Spitliead a perfectly safe anchorage for British ships. The question of the thickness of iron was not very pressing, because the iron could, be prepared when they knew the thickness it was required to be. But the formation of the foundations under water was a very tedious operation, and should be entered upon without delay and prosecuted with vigour. He believed that 10 inches would not be sufficient but if these forts were to be of the curve form, they would not require the same thickness as if they were straight lined. What he complained of was that the experiments were not pursued with sufficient earnestness. They were building ships cased with iron 4½ inches thick, which was ridiculous if they expected these ships to be shot proof.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE, notwithstanding the opinion of the lion, and gallant General, thought that at the present moment Government would not be justified in going to great expense in the erection of forts, and for this reason, that only a few weeks ago they were led to believe that iron plates, 4 inches thick, would be sufficient to withstand shot, whereas they were now told that 10-inch plates would not be sufficient. He had no doubt that his hon. and gallant Friend would be delighted to see a mangnificent fort erected, but they must remember that forts would buoy ships into Spithead. His firm belief was that ships would be of equal advantage, and in time of need they could be removed elsewhere.
CAPTAIN JERVISobserved that every inch thickness of the iron plates with which a ship was covered required 1,000 tons of measurement, and if they had plates seven or eight inches thick they would require the ship to be 7,000 or 8,000 tons burden. Then, again, he differed with the gallant General in his depreciation of the Committee. The Committee had now sat three months, and what had been done? They had shown that the whole of the expenditure which France had incurred in iron ships had been thrown away, and that we must be careful not to waste our money in the same way. Sir Howard Douglas had been spoken of as having been the encourager of these iron vessels, but if there was one man more than another who had
1470
been against the building of these ships it was Sir Howard Douglas. He felt perfectly conscious that the Government would not be goaded into having so many ships because the French had that number. They would act with caution, as they had done with regard to ordnance, in which we were far ahead of any country.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) has adopted the views of a very intelligent officer, Captain Cole, and no doubt prima facie there is something very plausible in them; but I confess that, after full reflection, and after hearing the arguments on both sides, I cannot concur in the conclusion at which the hon. Baronet and Captain Cole have arrived. It is somewhat remarkable that in this very short discussion we have had military men arguing in favour of forts, and naval men arguing in favour of floating defences. So it will always be; and that was one of the difficulties which the Government experienced in coming to a decision upon this matter. But I think the argument is entirely in favour of forts as against ships. Let us just consider for a moment what the object is which we have in view. That object is the security of Portsmouth. What is it that Portsmouth is to be attacked by? By a fleet coming into Spithead. Now, that fleet, as may be supposed, would be the strongest fleet that the enemy, whoever he may be, could concentrate upon that point. It would consist of ships of the largest size, and of the most formidable armament; and to meet those ships we ought to have a fleet of equal strength. Does my hon. Friend propose that we should have permanently stationed at Spithead ten iron-cased ships of the largest dimensions and of the most formidable armament, equal to any fleet that might be brought into Spithead for the purpose of attacking Portsmouth? Why, unless your fleet were equal in force to any fleet that might be brought there you would only lay-in store for yourselves defeat and disaster. You are, then, for the defence of an arsenal which is useful only for the creation of a fleet, which fleet is to operate wherever required, to lock up another fleet equal in size and strength to the one produced at the place which it is your object to defend. Again, you could never reckon upon having your floating defences on the spot when they were wanted. If there was an alarm, upon another part of the coast do you imagine that the Government would allow these

1471
ten formidable ships—ships which must necessarily be of the first class—to remain at anchor at Spithead? Public opinion and the exigencies of the service would infalliby cause these ships to be sent elsewhere; and then, when the enemy, having made a feint at Plymouth, or in some other direction, came to Spithead, your floating defences would not be there. Take the expense. The forts we propose will, probably, not cost so much as the large fleet which, according to the theory of Captain Cole, should be permanently stationed at Spithead, for the purpose of defending Portsmouth. Moreover, the ships would decay; they would require constant repair; they would require a large body of sailors to man and work them. A much larger number of men would be required in the ships than in the forts we propose to construct. In point of economy, therefore, either in first construction, or in maintenance, or in permanence, the balance of opinion is in favour of forts as against ships. They would require less money to make them, they would require less money to keep them in repair, they would require fewer men to man and work them, and they would be always on the spot. My hon. Friend says that ships could not be hit from the points at which these forts are to be built. I doubt that statement. There seems to be scarcely any limit to the power of modern artillery: but there is a limit to the resisting power of ships, because there is a limit to the capacity of ships to float with a certain weight upon them; and I defy you to construct a ship covered with iron coating of sufficient thickness to repel the heavy shots which are now sent from cannon, and yet to be buoyant enough to float on the water. But that is not the case with a fort. There is no floating in a fort. You may make the walls of your fort as thick as experience may show to be necessary to resist the attack of the heaviest ordnance. Then, ordnance of a certain weight is unmanageable in a floating ship. You may have your guns upon deck; but upon deck they are exposed to the fire of the adversary, and may be soon disabled. In the embrasures of a fort they are protected. You may have any amount of ordnance in a fort. You are limited in regard to the weight of ordnance which you can put on board ship, whereas you may have in these forts guns of any calibre; and I venture to say, in spite of all the calculations that have been made, that if the forts at Spithead were to be con-
1472
structed and armed with such cannon as Sir William Armstrong and others are able to put into them, any ships which might come to attack Poitsmouth would very soon be sent to keep company with the Royal George. Therefore, though I quite agree with my hon. Friend that in a matter of this sort, in which repeated experiments are necessary to enable you to feel sure that what you are doing will answer your purpose, you ought to proceed with the utmost care and circumspection, yet, on the other hand, I concur with the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) that no time should be lost beyond what is necessary for seeing your way clearly, and I am quite sure that the course which the Government have determined to adopt with respect to the construction of these forts is the course which ought to be pursued. My hon. Friend says truly enough, that there are defects in Portsmouth arising from an insufficient depth of water, and that some other place may be found better adapted for the building and repair of an iron fleet. That is one of the considerations which led the Government to think that Chatham might be made useful to the public service. I only make that observation in passing, hoping that my hon. Friend will bear it in mind when we come to discuss the question about the dockyard at Chatham. Upon the whole my opinion is, in spite of the ingenious arguments which Captain Cole has urged in favour of floating as against permanent defences, that permanent defences are indispensable. I do not mean to say that they may not be assisted by floating defences—we cannot rely upon permanent defences alone—but, no doubt, you would always have at Ports-month a certain number of ships to assist your forts, and your forts and ships together would be sufficient. It it said that these forts would serve as so many buoys to guide the ships of the enemy into Spithead. Does anybody really imagine that any naval Power on the Continent or elsewhere would require the assistance of these forts to find their way to the anchorage at Spithead? We have charts which indicate with the greatest nicety the course which ships ought to pursue. We know well that all foreign Governments which have navies are in possession of these charts. We also know that visits of vessels of war belonging to foreign Powers have not been unfrequent, and that there is no part of our coast which has not been

1473
accurately surveyed, and which is not as familiar to the naval officers of other countries as to the officers of our own service. So much, then, for the subject to which my hon. Friend has called attention. I am bound to say that there is nothing in his arguments or his figures which leads me to think that the Government have arrived at a wrong conclusion in proposing permanent defences. Before sitting down I may be allowed to answer a question put by an hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Dickson) with respect to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The question is what are the relations between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government, and whether Lord Carlisle intends to continue in the performance of his duties in Dublin. Without going into the question of the Galway contract, I may say that the relations between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government are the relations fixed by law and by usage, that the relations actually existing between Lord Carlisle and Her Majesty's Ministers are of the best possible description, and that I have no reason fur supposing that my noble friend is not willing to continue his valuable public services.
MR. BENTINCKremarked, that if the House had had to consider the question whether some corrupt borough should be allowed to continue practices of corruption 500 or 600 Members would have been present; but when the defence of the country was brought forward there was a large amount of empty benches. This showed a defect in a portion of our representative system. He had just heard with the deepest regret an opinion expressed by the head of the Government in favour of building these forts; for he believed that every shilling of the expenditure might as well be chucked into Spithead. The opinion of Captain Cole was borne out by the opinion of naval officers throughout the country. Government ought to remember that the Commissioners had reported twice, and that signal and glaring contradictions existed between the two Reports. The noble Lord had talked of the enemy sending his best fleet to take Spithead; but he (Mr. Bentinck) hoped that we should always have as fine a fleet as any the enemy could bring against us. The question was whether Spithead could be best defended by forts or ships; but if we had as good ships, and as numerous as the enemy, there was no argument in favour of forts. As to smoke, ships would sail out of their own smoke,
1474
which forts could not. As to the comparative expense of the two modes of defence, ships would be less expensive than forts, especially when the forts would be built without foundation. The estimated expense of £840,000 would probably be doubled or trebled.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that he had heard naval men say that no fleet could put into Spithead if the buoys were taken away. The noble Lord had said no limit was to be placed to the power of modern artillery, and that it was impossible to say how far artillery might be made to carry. But it was stated that the object in building those forts on sandbanks was to get thorn as closely as possible to any enemy's fleet entering Spithead, and, therefore, if the argument of the noble Lord were to prevail, that for building those forts on sandbanks must fall to the ground. Why not build them on shore at Portsmouth, or on the Isle of Wight? He was disposed to place more importance in the training of our men in arms, and if they had volunteers on sea as well as on land, for his part he believed the country was safe.
MR. T. G. BARINGthought the fair way to put the, question was this: If a foreign commander had his choice, would he rather have the forts to show him the way into Spithead or not? A naval officer, who was reckoned one of the ablest surveyors afloat said that with a simple chart he could pilot a fleet into Spithead during the greatest fog which was ever known in the Channel. With regard to the apprehended inconvenience from smoke in casemated forts, experiments showed that no difficulty of that kind need be feared; and he might also state that a tender had actually been received for the construction of one of the forts, at a price less than was originally estimated. Hon. Gentlemen who were disposed to underrate the labours of the Commission forgot that two of the most distinguished officers in the navy, Admiral Elliot and Captain Cooper Key were upon that Commission, and brought to its inquiries the advantage of their great experience in scientific knowledge. In reply to two questions which had been addressed to him in the course of the discussion, he wished to mention that £20,000 would be taken this year for the supply of additional articles to the soldiers; it was not proposed to give all the articles which had been recommended at once, but when these were

1475
all issued there would be equal to an extra pay of 1d. a day. The Committee on Iron Plates carried on its experiments under the joint authority of the War Office and the Admiralty, both these Departments being interested in the result of its investigations.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee, Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
(1.) £179,407, Civil Buildings at Home and. Abroad.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, at that hour (five minutes to twelve o'clock) it was too late for discussion; and he, therefore, begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
MR. T. G. BARINGhoped the hon. Gentleman would allow the first Yote to be taken.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHobjected to the sum of £2,000 and odd for constructing a new cement store. Cement never should be stored at all, but should be taken from the manufactory and used immediately.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to the expenditure of £6,000 on account of the Pimlico clothing establishment. He thought the change which had taken place in this respect had been most unfortunate, so far as expense was concerned.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that increased room was required in the storehouse at Pimlico clothing establishment. It had also been strongly recommended by every able officer that a storehouse should be built for cement.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he should not oppose that motion; but he hoped hon. Gentlemen would recollect that there were 203 votes in Supply, and that they had made very little progress.
MR. HENLEYsaid that there was a great stir at the beginning of the Session to give Tuesday for Supply, but the Government had not availed themselves very much of the advantage thereby afforded to them.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought that a whole evening should be given to Supply. This evening had been consumed in the delivery of speeches, several of which were left unanswered; so that the discussion had been of a very desultory character.
COLONEL DICKSONhad asked a question on the subject of the functions of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to which he
1476
had received no further answer from the noble Lord at the head of the Government than the statement of a mere truism. He should take care to renew the subject on a future occasion.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Larceny, &c.; Malicious Injuries to Property; Forgery; Coinage Offences.
2a East India Loan.

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION.
THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved that four Bills on the subject, which had passed the Commons, should be read a first time, and congratulated the House on their progress.
LORD BROUGHAMheartily joined in the congratulations of the Lord Chancellor. His hopes were now sanguine that we should at length have a digest of at least the criminal law, and it had been, hitherto, almost impossible not to despair. For many years he had laboured strenuously to obtain this great benefit to our jurisprudence and to the county. Above twelve years ago he had so far succeeded that the Commissioners, whom when in office he had appointed, having reported the heads of a Bill he had framed, a digest of which was fully discussed in a Select Committee; and another digest had been afterwards prepared by him from the report of the learned and experienced Commissioners, and afterwards examined by a Select Committee, with the assistance of experienced and skilful practitioners. We had the invaluable assistance, also, of Members of this House, not law Lords, of whom one might be named, as he was not now present, Lord Overstone, whose high commercial station, and whose great weight, arising from his position, but still more his eminent sagacity and acuteness was of incalculable value in the inquiry. But, when all was prepared and reported to the House, it was found utterly hopeless to have the other House's adoption of it. If that House, with all its magistrates and lawyers, were to discuss three or four hundred clauses of a digest, whose only purpose was the consolidation of the law and not its alteration, it was absolutely impossible that it should be carried. There was but one way of having such digest, if you really desire to have one. As Lord Lyndhurst had observed, either you wish for a digest or you do not. If you will not commit the preparing it to men in whom you can confide, but are resolved to have each word discussed in the Commons, confess at once that you do not want to have a digest. Only consider how the discussion must go on. The magistrates are a most valuable body of men; they perform inestimable service to the country with the utmost integrity, the most exemplary diligence, and fair ability. But they are not made for discussing the phraseology of Acts of Parliament. The bare idea of two or three hundred clauses, discussed clause by clause, in a House having half a hundred county justices, twenty or thirty town magistrates, and many more country gentlemen, whose solicitors, or whose sons preparing for the Bar, set them on and furnish them with objections to every
1378
other word of the digest, was enough to make the least somnolent slumber, and turn the steadiest head. There is but one way of obtaining what we all want, and that is to delegate the details to skilful and trustworthy persons, and to adopt the result of their labours. The Commons, happily, have at length admitted this truth in passing the Bills sent down from this House, and he rejoiced so heartily in the prospect afforded, that he no longer regretted the long years of labour which he had bestowed on it, and till now without hopes of the public or the law reaping any fruit from his toil.

THE INDIAN NAVY.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHrose to put a Question to the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty on the subject of the Indian Navy. Having read a passage from the speech of Mr. Laing proposing a reduction of the Indian Navy, the noble Earl said that from this speech he was afraid Mr. Laing was not aware of the original purpose for which this navy was established. It never was intended to place it in a position to contend with any European Power, for everybody knew that in any such contingency a naval force would be sent out from this country. It was created for local purposes only—for putting down piracy, transporting troops and treasure, and other duties which Her Majesty's ships were in the habit of performing in times of peace. So far back as thirty years ago he had calculated that a reduction might be made in the expenses of the Indian Navy by the employment of Her Majesty's ships for these purposes—he calculated the saving by such a change at something like £100,000 a year; but he had always contemplated that the Indian Government should pay for the European force, which might be employed on their requisition by Her Majesty's Government, and that that force should be as much at its disposal as the purely local force. The difficulty was, however, that the Admiralty always reserved to themselves the absolute command of every force which they despatched to any part of the world, and would not delegate it to the Indian Government on any other authority. If the Government of 1846, when he was at the head of the Admiralty, had lasted for a longer period he had no doubt that an arrangement would have been made; but it was brought to a sudden termina-

1379
tion, and there had been no opportunity since of renewing the discussion of the matter. He wished to know who was to pay for the naval force to be substituted for that now employed in India. If the Indian Government were to pay for it the reduction of expenditure contemplated by Mr. Laing could hardly be maintained, and if this country were called upon to pay for an additional naval force to supply the place of these ships this would seriously interfere with the surplus anticipated by Mr. Gladstone, As, the Indian Navy was doomed he could not help saying a word in its favour. It was originally called the Bombay Marine, and had performed very considerable service on many occasions. Iii the first war with Ava it performed considerable service; and the first steamer ever employed in war was a steamer belonging to the East India Company. Again, in the China war of 1839, the first iron steamers were employed in that war and were manned by crews in the service of the Company; and it was only due to the Indian Navy to say that it had done good service whenever it had been called upon. If the proposed arrangement were carried out, he hoped the noble Duke, the first Lord of the Admiralty, would take into consideration the; expediency of establishing a Native force of, Arab marines under the command of local officers speaking their language. To every one of Her Majesty's ships sent fop service in the Indian sea? a small body of these marines ought invariably to be attached or, otherwise, these vessels would, often have no means whatever of communicating with the shore, What he desired to know was what arrangement had been made for the purpose of placing at the disposal of the Indian Government a sufficient force of Her Majesty's ships to supply the place of the Indian Navy, and whether the expense would fall upon the Indian or the English Treasury?
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the question put to him was one of great importance, and had occupied considerable attention on the part; of Her Majesty's Government; but they had not yet come to any absolute conclusion upon it. With regard to the financial part of the scheme, he believed the Indian Government had taken sufficient; funds for this year amply to provide for such naval service as they required, the amount of the service being very much reduced as compared with previous years. A question which had a fur-
1380
ther financial bearing was whether the Indian Navy should be entirely abolished, or whether a certain proportion of vessels should still be retained for river service and coasting communication, in the event of the further naval defence of India being intrusted to-Her Majesty's Navy. This was a view which had been favourably considered by the Government; but up to the present time his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood) had come to no definite conclusion. If the British Government were to take upon themselves additional expenditure account of the naval requirements of India, of course it would be but fair to this country that the Indian Exchequer should, to some extend contribute to that expenditure. Thai question had not yet been fully considered, nor whether the Indian Navy should be, entirely abolished, or some portion of it retained. Probably a portion pf the smaller vessels of the Indian Navy should be retained. From all he had heard of this navy, he believed it had always done its duty, and he fully admitted that its services ought to be duly remembered by the House.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the opinion of Her Majesty's Government in favour of refining the smaller vessels. As to retaining the larger vessels, he would say that if they were retained they would be found valuable in the case of any sudden emergency, because on the breaking put of a war in India before the news arrived in England the Indian fleet might be in action.

PRIVATE BILLS—STANDING ORDERS.

  STANDING ORDER No. 185.
  LORD REDESDALEmoved, that the Standing Order No. 185 (formerly be considered, in order to its being amended in the following:—After paragraph 2, to insert—
  "3. That no Provision authorizing any Company to raise Money or to subscribe towards or to guarantee any Money in the Undertaking of another Company, shall be introduced into any Bill which is riot brought in by the Company thereby authorized to raise Money op to subscribe or to guarantee,"
  It had been said that such a provision would interfere with fee establishment of branch railways; but he maintained that there would be no such interference in the case of lines which were really required. Such branch lines were frequently got

  1381
  up without first obtaining proper support from the companies of the main line itself. The effect of the adoption of the Amendment to the Standing Order would be that the promoters of small railway schemes must, in the first place, go to the Company from whom they expected to receive assistance, and who would then consider if, and see if fair exertions lad been used to obtain that independent support of the line which it was right that it should receive. And having been satisfied that that had been the case, and that they had failed, they themselves would then bring in the Bill. He had been in communication with several Chairmen of Committees of the House of Commons upon the subject, who generally approved of the Amendment. They agreed that some legislation was required to check the practice of forming small branch line companies without independent capital, and only in the expectation of obtaining the necessary funds from the Company of the main line; and one of these Gentlemen mentioned that in the course of the present Session a railway Bill came before him for the construction of a branch line, which was estimated to cost £400,000. It turned out that in that case, although only £3,300 had been paid up on calls, the sum deposited under the Standing Orders was £37,000. From what fund it was supplied, however, did not appear;' but it came out in the course of the inquiry that the whole of the remainder of the capital, upwards of £300,000, was to be raised by the London and North-Western Railway Company.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that his experience of branch lines was that they were usually projected by the residents in particular districts upon their finding that it was almost intolerable to be left without railway communication. They then exerted themselves to get up subscriptions for the purpose, and' very naturally went to the railway company whose line they proposed to join, and with whom the first and main consideration was whether there was any other competing line to which the tragic of the district could go if they did not secure it for themselves. If they found that the traffic could not go upon any line but their own, then they would be in no hurry whatever to assist the new branch line; they would consequently turn their attention to other cases where they feared competition more, and to the district in which
  1382
  they were most exposed to competition, not to that which required a railway most, they would apply their resources. He took quite a different view of the subject from the noble Lord. His opinion was, and it was fortified by his experience throughout the United Kingdom and the Continent of Europe, that the wonderful advantage of these instruments in the development of wealth had been proved to such a degree that to encourage the construction of lines in districts which were not at present provided with railways was alike consistent with reason and sound sense. In Ireland the country might be said to be divided between two great companies; and it was notorious in the cases of small branch lines that the only question was in which district would they run? If a company found that a district was bound to them it had small chance of being assisted to form a branch line; or that the line ran into-their rival's district, of course they would have nothing-to do with it; whilst no assistance was to be obtained from the other. He had been assured by several friends in Great Britain that they were very similarly circumstanced; and that the assistance which they were able to get from the great companies mainly depended upon whether they had any chance of rivalry or opposition from other quarters. He was, therefore, very averse to adding another impediment and difficulty in the way of the formation of these branch lines. He had never heard of any branch line doing much mischief, and very few had been given up. The great companies would always take care not to lend their money too hastily; and he did not see why agricultural districts that were without commercial wealth should not have fair facilities offered them for developing their resources. The Amendment to the Order would add to the expense and difficulty of obtaining such branch lines.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think the object of the noble Earl would be attained by the Amendment to the Standing Order. There were few great railway companies that had not made arrangements of this kind; and, should the Standing Order be amended as proposed, he feared it would deter those companies from promoting the construction of branch lines that were essential to the completion of the railway system of the country. He thought it was the duty of Parliament to simplify as much as possible the compli-

  1383
  cated system of railway legislation, and diminish its expense. But it was quite clear that the Amendment would augment the expense. Any change had better be made by some general Order in which both Houses could concur; and being unwilling to take the responsibility of the proposed change by this House only, he should oppose the Amendment.
  LORD LIFFORDconcurred in the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquess. The effect of the Amendment of the Standing Order would be to protect one great interest in the country, and that was the interest of the law, by increasing the expense of railway Bills and promoting litigation; and he trusted that the noble Marquess's argument would induce his noble Friend to withdraw his proposal.
  LORD PORTMANalso opposed the Motion, the adoption of which, he contended, would throw immense difficulties in the way of small railway lines, which could only be constructed by the assistance of the larger companies.
  LORD REDESDALEheld that the Amendment would have the effect of putting all parties on a just and proper footing, in regard alike to themselves, the public, and Parliament. He granted that without the assistance of the larger companies many smaller schemes could not be carried oat, and he did not object to that assistance being supplied; but what he wanted was that it should, be given in a proper form. His Motion would ensure prudence in the action of the parties at the first starting of the scheme; whereas at present more. than half the schemes which came before Parliament had no foundation whatever.
  LORD STANLEY, OF ALDERLEYobjected to the introduction of special legislation as regarded railways merely by the [Resolution of one House of Parliament, and the establishment by one Standing Order of a general law applicable to all railways in which the House of Commons was not asked to concur. If legislation of this kind was required it should be provided by the joint action of both Houses, and by a general Order which would be applied by both Houses. He had another objection to the alteration—that it would necessitate the application to Parliament by both companies, the assisting and the assisted, and thus the inconvenience and expense would be greatly increased.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, he did not per-
  1384
  ceive the force of the noble Lord's objection, as if this House adopted the proposed Amendment it would be quite open to the other House. He thought there was great force in the argument of the noble Lord who had proposed the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had the greatest possible respect for the opinion of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, and agreed, moreover, in the general policy of his Motion. He could not, however, but think that the terms of the Resolution went beyond the necessity of the case. He would, therefore, suggest to his noble Friend whether his object would not be entirely answered if, instead of the Bill being introduced by the company proposing to advance the money, the Bill were not allowed to pass unless there were an undertaking—which might be inserted in the preamble—binding the company proposing to advance the money to fulfil that stipulation? It would perhaps be sufficient if the assisting company appeared before the Committee and signified its willingness to bind itself, and if its undertaking were then recited in the Bill.
  EARL GREYthought that before the Bill was brought in the assent of the company intending to subscribe should be obtained. A Standing Order ought to be adopted requiring satisfactory proof to be given that the other company was willing to bind itself to advance the money.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he would endeavour to modify his Resolution in accordance with the suggestion of his noble Friend, as he merely wished to carry the House with him as far as possible. At the same time he retained his opinion that unless the parties who were to advance the money were themselves either joint promoters of the Bill, or in some way concerned in it, the object in view could not be satisfactorily attained. He would, however, not press his Resolution at present, but take time to frame it in another shape.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING PUT OFF.
THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTER(who was very imperfectly heard), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the object of the measure was to remove a serious practical difficulty in the way of supplying additional spiritual instruction for populous districts. Under the Church Building Acts,

1385
when a new church was proposed to be erected notice was required to be given to the patron and the incumbent of the parish, in order that if they were willing to undertake the expense of providing more church accommodation they might have the priority in doing so. But in certain districts where there was an increasing population no patron and no incumbent had existed for centuries past. The right rev. Prelate was understood to state as an instance, that some four centuries ago an encroachment of the sea destroyed several parishes lying between Hastings and St. Leonard's, leaving a narrow slip of land between the sea and the steep cliffs which rose above. Of late years a great number of houses had been built here, occupied by a population of several thousand persons, and churches had been erected; but it had been found impossible, as the law now stood, to place the ministers of these churches in the full and proper relation in which they ought to stand towards those to whom they ministered. When he applied for an assignment of a district to these churches to the Church Building Commissioners, and afterwards to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to whom had subsequently been transferred the powers formerly possessed by the Church Building Commissioners, he was always asked, "Have you given notice to the patron? Have you given notice to the incumbent of the parish?" Why, ever since the parishes had been swept away by the irruption of the sea, leaving only these fragmentary slips of land, there had been no patron, there had been no incumbent. "Well," replied the Commissioners, "under the circumstances we can do nothing. We cannot assist you in accomplishing the praiseworthy object of placing the ministers of the different churches in a right position towards their congregations." The Bill which he now asked their Lordships to read a second time had no other object in view than to remedy this difficulty, and to enable the ecclesiastical Commissioners, in cases where there was neither patron nor incumbent in existence, to proceed as if the provisions of the Church Building Acts requiring notice to be given to the patron and incumbent had been complied with.
LORD PORTMANthought the Bill was not so simple as the right rev. Prelate described it. It dealt, not with St. Leonard's only, but it went elsewhere. How could it be said that there was no patron? Why a man might start up any day and say,
1386
"I am the patron." The specific instance proposed to be dealt with was that caused by the incursion of the sea at St. Leonard's but the Bill said, that wherever, by the encroachment of the sea or any other cause, there was no incumbent the consent of the incumbent should not be required. The Bill, therefore, interfered with the rights of the Crown and of private patrons without providing carefully for ascertaining who the persons entitled might be. Again, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to be considered the patrons where there was no other patron; and all marriages celebrated in the churches affected by the Bill were to be deemed marriages in the parish church. The Bill required much consideration on the part of their Lordships before they agreed to a second reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not prepared to give advice with regard to this Bill. There were already so many Church Building Acts that if they were bound together they would make an unwieldy volume. He concurred with the noble Lord who had last spoken, that the Bill required careful consideration before the second reading was assented to.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEremarked that these churches were in a most novel and anomalous position; and it was most desirable to place the ministers on a proper footing in relation to their congregations.
THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERstated, that in framing the Bill he had obtained the assistance of a professional gentleman, who had had at least as many dealings with the Church Buildings Acts, and as much experience in drawing Bills, as any man in his profession; he meant Mr. Bellenden Ker. He was quite willing to postpone the second reading, in order that their Lordships might have time to fully consider the subject.
Second Reading put of to Thursday next.

EAST INDIAN LOAN BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second, Reading read.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said the necessity for the loan which it gave power to contract did not arise from any deficiency of income or excess of expenditure in India, but simply from the state of the cash balances in the home Treasury. Those who were acquainted with Indian

  1387
  matters would be aware that, speaking theoretically there was no mode by which the Home Treasury could be supplied except by remittances from India; but, of late years since the establishment of the railway system, the Indian railway companies had been accustomed to pay into the Home Treasury the sums necessary for the execution of their works; and money Was advanced to them in India by the Indian Government so that between the two there had always been balances in the Home Treasury which rendered actual remittances from India unnecessary. At the end of the financial year 1860 these balanees amounted to £2,220,000; but owing to short payments by the railway companies and the state of the money-market during the past year, at the end of the last financial year, tire balances had fallen to a little less than £370,000! In addition to that, owing to the state of the cash balances in India, the Secretary of State bad thought it advisable, in order that the railways now in the course of construction in India should not be stopped, to remit the sum of £1,000,000 sterling to India. The estimated amount of expenditure in England on Indian account for the Current year was £9,500,000; the estimated expenditure on railways £8,000,000 composed of £6,000,000 to be spent in India, and £2,000,000 at home, so that, If it were borne in mind that two terns expended for railway purposes in India was the only form in which a remittance to this country would be looked for, there would remain £3,500,000, at least; of home expenditure on Indian account to be provided for in this country. In order, therefore, to meet the demands which would thus be made on the Home Treasury his right hon. Friend found it necessary to apply to Parliament for authority to borrow the sum of £4,000,000 in this country, and to give him that authority was the object of this Bill.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.

  REPORT.—ORDER DISCHARGED.
  Order of the Day or receiving the Report; of the Amendment read.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that In consequence of the objections which had been raised against this measure in this House, and the still more powerful opposition which be understood would be raised
  1388
  in "another place," upon the ground that the Bill was objectionable in its form, inasmuch as it should have originated in the House of Commons, he did not propose to proceed with it further. He Wished, however, to say a few words, arising from a remark of the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke), in reference to an appointment he had recently made to one of the livings, It would be satisfactory to their Lordships to know that that appointment had not been made for party or personal purposes. The circumstances were these. He had the appointment of a chaplain to one of the livings upon the Hospital property in the north of England; and he selected for the living a gentleman who had been chaplain in the service of the Admiralty on the Mediterranean and Black Sea stations. He was five years chaplain On board the Albion; and whilst he was there the ship's company was attacked most severely by small-pox and cholera, eighty men being carried off in a few days. This clergyman was, during this time) most assiduous in his attentions to the sick and dying. The ship's company's suffered in the attack on Sebastopol the loss being eighty-seven men; and this same chaplain, on that occasion, assisted the surgeon to the utmost of his power. The surgeon and the paymaster were both wounded, and the chaplain continued to render assistance to the wounded sailors, and continued this assistance after he himself was slightly wounded. Having obtained a report to this effect from officers in command, he confessed he thought that the gentleman Was very fit for the preferment; and he thought that their Lordships would see that he had been actuated by no other motive than zeal for the interests of the service; It would also be gratifying to their Lordships to know that Since the gentleman had filled the living he had given the greatest satisfaction in the parish and was most popular in the neighbourhood.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid he recollected that when a boy the great living of Symington was divided into six livings upon the Understanding that they should be given to chaplains in the navy as a reward for services; the object being to enable the Admiralty to induce a more respectable class to enter the service; The noble Duke had done right in promoting this gentleman, and the only doubt he had was whether the noble Duke ought not to have relaxed the Order in Council in his

  1389
  favour, and made him a commander in the navy?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEdisclaimed having had any intention of imputing to the noble Duke that he had used the Hospital patronage for political purposes. What he said was that Greenwich Hospital had been used by all patties for political purposes, and he thought the opportunity had now arrived for doing that Which Would at once put an end to the possibility of doing the same sort of thing for the future. He thought that the property of the Hospital should be managed by an independent body of persons selected for that purpose by the Crown, and responsible to Parliament; Whilst the internal management of the Hospital should be regulated by the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and other officers.
  EARL GREYunderstood the Bill would re-appear in this Souse at a Very late period of the Session, when he should certainly not be present. He would now, therefore, express a hope that a more effectual remedy for the evils which were allowed to exist in the management of the Hospital would be applied than that which had been suggested. He could bear testimony to the fact that Greenwich Hospital used to be considered as pile of the great interests in the county with which he was connected. It was one of the great objects of any candidate there to secure that interest and on one occasion—in 1826—it had told powerfully against himself. For the last twenty-five years or more this influence had not been exerted on either side, but it was impossible not to admit that there was some danger of a revival of this influence at a future time. That dagger would not, however, be averted by the plan proposed. At present all our public servants were subordinate to Ministers; who in their turn were responsible to Parliament. If this sound principle were departed from, and ah independent authority like that suggested by the noble Earl were created, abuses of a far more dangerous description would spring up than existed under the present system. Ministers of the Crown were liable to answer to parliament for any such abuses, but permanent servants of the public would be exempt from this control; it would be difficult to make them properly responsible to anybody; and jobbing and mismanagement, of which we had no experience, would ensue if Parliament created what was known in foreign countries as a bureaucracie. The proper
  1390
  mode of guarding against the evils anticipated was by selling the Greenwich Hospital property. He was persuaded that the public was an essentially bad owner of landed property. On a long series of years it was impossible that land could be well managed on behalf of the public, though it was quite true that for the last twenty-seven years the Greenwich Hospital estates had been admirably managed. On referring to the Report of the Commissioners he found Sir James Graham expressed a strong opinion that they were not likely to get another Receiver who would manage the affairs of the Hospital with equal success. By the sale of the property the Commissioners themselves stated there would be an immediate, accession to the income of the Hospital; and, considering the advantage to the country of having this property held by residents instead of absentees, he hoped the noble Duke would consider the expediency of selling it. There could not be a more advantageous time for effecting a sale than the present. A considerable part of the estates of Greenwich Hospital was sold about twenty-eight or thirty years ago, just before the present Receiver was appointed. But it realized a most inadequate price. Now, however, if the present Receiver were authorized to take measures for selling the property, under the control of the Admiralty, there was an opportunity of realizing its true value, to the great benefit of the public; it would also provide a security against future abuses and evils. It seemed almost an absurdity that this property should be retained by a public body. Of the whole expenditure of the Hospital, only a small proportion, about £40,000 a year, was derived from this property. Considering the hopeless task of creating an authority to which the management of a property of this kind could be safely trusted, he hoped the Government would weigh the advantages to be derived from selling it.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the Bill on this subject would be introduced into the House of Commons, and he could only say that in the Amendments he should introduce it would be his earnest desire to meet the wishes of their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHtrusted that the Bill to come up from the other House would not contain words to the effect that any number of places might be created, at any amount of salary.
  Order discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

INDIA (COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION)— EXCLUSION OF NATIVES FROM ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.

  PETITION—ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD MONTEAGLErose to present a Petition from certain British subjects—Parsees—Natives of India, complaining of their exclusion from the competitive examination required for appointments to office. He would also move for all Official Correspondence relating to their case. He said, the question he felt it his duty to bring under their Lordships' notice, not only stated a grievance of which the petitioners had the justest right to complain, but involved the still more important question of the obligations the Legislature of the United Kingdom had contracted in reference to British subjects in India, and of those obligations the Crown had more recently assumed on the transfer to the Sovereign, of the Government of the Indian Empire. This question included the civil rights and privileges of the Natives of India, and their eligibility to all official appointments under the Government. He did not wish to state the case of the petitioners without assuring the House that he brought it forward without any wish to express any reproach or imply any mistrust of the conduct of the present Governor General; he wished to speak of the conduct of Lord Canning, from his arrival in India to the present time, with all the respect that was so justly due to him, and more especially for the justice and sympathy he had manifested for the Natives. The Act of Parliament to which he first wished to call attention was that of 1833—the Charter Act of 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85)—the 87th Clause of which statute enacted, that
  "No Native of India nor any natural-born subject of Great Britain, nor any natural-born subject resident therein, should, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, or colour, be disabled from holding place, office, or appointment under the East India Company."
  The words of that clause had his entire concurrence. They were comprehensive; admitting of no doubt or exception. But he grieved to say that there was conclusive evidence to prove that, in practice by the construction given to the words he had read, they had been made subject to the most narrow and ungenerous limitation. What was the just meaning of the clause, and the intention of Parliament he would prove by referring to the authority of the statesmen by whom this Bill was prepared,
  1392
  or supported. At that time Mr. Charles Grant, now Lord Glenelg, was President of the Board of Control; Mr. Charles W. Wynn had been Jus predecessor; Lord Macaulay filled the office of Secretary for India; the Duke of Wellington, a great authority on all subjects, but especially on Indian affairs, was in the maturity of his power; the Marquess of Lansdowne had undertaken the charge of the India Bill, representing in this duty, the Government of the late Earl Grey. Those Statesmen all expressed their high approval of the 87th Clause, or, of the principle on which, it rested. That clause had not been carelessly framed, or, surreptitiously introduced. It was carried unanimously, its object and its consequences having been first pointed out, and the special approval of Parliament, justly claimed and given to its authors and their supporters. Mr. Wynn, who had at that time quitted Earl Grey's Government, stated on the 10th of July—
  "It is with great pleasure I have heard a declaration that all Natives of India, without regard to colour, descent, or religion, should be eligible to every office under the Government which their education might qualify them to fill." He went still further, declaring emphatically "That the only principle on which India could be justly or wisely administered was that of admitting the Natives to a participation in the Government, and allowing them to hold every office, the duties of which they were competent to discharge."
  Lord Macaulay, on the same day, in one of the most powerful and finished of his orations, described the 87th Clause as "wise, benevolent, and noble, enacting that no Native of our Indian Empire shall, by reason of his descent, colour or religion, be incapable of holding office. To the last day of my life," he added, "I shall be proud of having been one of those who assisted in the framing of the Bill which contains that clause." He concluded by asking, "Do we think that we can give knowledge without awakening ambition; and do we mean to awaken ambition and to give it no legitimate vent?" The Duke of Wellington was somewhat more guarded, but without differing in principle. His words were—
  "If there was one point on which all parties had agreed—and he made this assertion from a perusal of the evidence taken before the Committees which sat in both Houses—it was that the Natives of India should, as much as possible, be employed in the revenue and judicial establishments of the country. That point was again and again impressed on the attention of Ministers in the evidence of the last Session."
  The organ of Earl Grey's Government,

  1393
  the Marquess of Lansdowne, was still more explicit in his statement of the facts, and in his exposition of the Bill, of which he moved the second reading—
  "It was part of the new system which he had to propose, that to every office in India, every Native of whatever caste, sect, or religion, should be by law equally admissible; and he hoped the Government would seriously endeavour to give the fullest effect to this arrangement, which would be as beneficial to the people themselves as it would be advantageous to the economical reforms which were now in progress in different parts of India. The Natives," he continued, "are alive to the grievance of being excluded from a larger share in the Executive Government. They are at present only employed in subordinate situations in the revenue, judicial, and military departments. It is amply borne out by the evidence that such exclusion is not warranted on the score of incapacity for business, want of application, or of trustworthiness; while it is contended that their admission, under European control, into the higher offices would strengthen their attachment to British connection, and would conduce to the better administration of justice."
  This evidence is conclusive with respect to the intentions of the framers of the Charter Act of 1833, and gives an unimpeachable commentary on the true meaning of that statute. The fundamental principle on which it rests never had a more decided support than from a noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) now in the House, and whose high abilities and eloquence have never been more brilliantly employed than upon Indian affairs in assisting and guiding the deliberations of Parliament. He observed in 1830, that
  "Among the means of reducing expenditure was the very desirable one of reducing gradually the number of Europeans employed, and of bringing forward, though gradually and with extreme caution, the most deserving Natives by employing them in situations of higher authority and trust than they bad hitherto been accustomed to fill."
  The next period to which he would refer was 1853, when the renewal of the Charter again toot place. While this latter Bill was in progress through the other House he (Lord Monteagle) inquired, perhaps somewhat Drematurely, of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) whether the principle of competition for the civil service would be extended to Natives of India. The conversation which took place in the House of Lords on the 13th June (Hansard's Debates, vol. cxxviii. p. 48) was irresistible in showing that the declarations made by the Government of Earl Grey in 1833 were repeated, adopted, and strengthened by their successors in the Cabinet of the Earl of Aberdeen twenty years subsequently; and of that Cabinet the leading persons in the
  1394
  present Administration were members. On that occasion he (Lord Monteagle) raised the discussion as follows:—
  "Lord Monteagle: The question which he wished to ask the Government was this, Whether the principle of competition proposed to be applied to the Civil Service would be extended to Natives of India as well as to European-born subjects of the Crown? Supposing the case of a Native medical student, being the Queen's subject, born at Calcutta, would he be admitted to the free competition for a medical appointment, in the same manner as if he were European born?
  "Earl Granville, in answer, had not the slightest hesitation in saying that, if Natives of India arrived here competent to pass the required examination, they would gain the appointment awarded, in free competition, the same as if they had been born in Europe.
  "Lord Monteagle stated that he received this reply with the greatest delight—Jess from any largo immediate consequence to which it would lead, than from the all-important results which it must produce, in carrying out eventually the full meaning of the 87th Clause of the last Charter Act and the intention of its framers. It had been stated by Lord Lansdowne in 1833 that there should be an entire equality among all the subjects of the Queen, whatever their colour or their religion. He considered the reply now given by the Government, through Earl Granville, to be a fulfilment of this engagement. It would be the entire destruction of the monopoly of what was called the covenanted service as now understood. He was mistaken if there had not been, with respect to these covenanted appointments, a violation of the law of 1833 as it had passed.
  "The Marquess of Clanricarde desired to express his great satisfaction at the statement of Earl Granville that the Natives of India would hereafter be eligible for the highest civil appointments. That certainly was a great step.
  "The Earl of Albemarle: A great stress has been laid on that portion of the Government plan which laid the higher departments of the civil service of India open to the Natives of the country; but so long as their admission to this competition depended merely on a single clause in an Act of Parliament, which was liable to be set aside or disavowed by subordinate authority, he, for one, must be allowed to state that his objections would remain as strong as ever."—Hansard cxxviii. pp. 48, 66.
  Upon moving the second reading of the Bill in that House, August 5th, the noble Earl (Earl Granville), who had charge of the India Bill, said he was bound to admit that the intentions of the Legislature had not, up to that time, been carried out, and that the Natives of India were not employed to the extent which he should wish them to be employed, but that the Bill he then proposed would give a free entry for Natives of India into the covenanted services. Again, on the 8th and 12th of August, the same subject was resumed, and an explanation was given by Earl Granville, pointing out the reason why the exclusion of Natives from the

  1395
  covenanted service had been, hitherto enforced, but why Parliament might confidently expect that such exclusion would cease on the passing of the Bill then before the House. He (Lord Monteagle) then adverted to the circumstance that,—
  "Notwithstanding the 87th Clause introduced into the Act of 1833, renewing the Company's Charter, and declaring the eligibility of Natives to the covenanted service, not one had ever been admitted; recommended a clause, declaring that no natural-born subject of Her Majesty should, by reason of colour, Of religion, or place of birth, be incapable of holding office and employment under the Company, whether in the covenanted or uncovenanted service. If this clause should not be inserted in the Bill, the Company might treat the wishes and intentions of the Government in this respect as mere moonshine. He begged to give notice that he would bring up this clause on the third reading, in order that his proposal might stand recorded in the Journals.
  "Earl Granville observed, that the aptitude of Natives for certain departments of the service had been satisfactorily established before the India Committee. If, therefore, he objected to the noble Lord's clause it was not from any doubt that Natives of India would be found fully qualified to fill the offices referred to in it. The noble Lord's clause, however, was directed against an imaginary evil. The reason why Natives had not been employed in the Civil Service was this—The clause in the existing Act was merely permissive, and the Civil Service being entirely dependent on nomination, it had happened that no director had nominated a Native. Had a Native been nominated, he must have been employed. The present Bill abolished the system of nomination, and any. Natives who exhibited equal talent with Englishmen at the examination would obtain employment."—3 Hansard, vol. cxxix. p. 1449.
  This assurance was so clear and satisfactory as to induce him (Lord Monteagle) to abandon any intention of dividing the House, though he moved a declaratory clause on the third reading for the purpose of recording his opinion and conviction. He next came to the Act of 1858, transferring the Government of India from the Company to the Crown. While that measure was under discussion he took the opportunity of calling attention a third time to the miserable manner in which the promises previously made to the Natives of India had been redeemed. On that occasion he urged his noble Friend (Earl Granville) to hold out some more satisfactory assurance on that subject. His noble Friend answered by appealing to him not to press him for any specific declarations on the matter, observing that one of the duties of the Government, on the passing of the measure then in Parliament, would be to lay before Her Majesty, for Her gracious approval, a Proclamation which should declare Her intentions, and
  1396
  thereby fully recognize the rights of the Natives of India. His noble Friend added that it could not but be felt more gracious and more conducive to the future interests of India that those words of grace and favour should come from the lips of the Sovereign than appear to be forced from the Executive Government by any Parliamentary pressured To an appeal so just and reasonable he did not hesitate for a moment in acceding. The noble Lord's engagement had been performed to the letter, in that message of mercy with which Her Majesty strove to heal the wounds of India, after the mutiny. In the Royal Proclamation issued in November, 1858, and shortly afterwards circulated throughout India, the very words of the 87th Clause to which he had referred as the great charter of civil and religious equality for the people of India were incorporated. The language of the Proclamation was—
  "We hold ourselves bound to the Natives of our Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other subjects; and those obligations, by the blessing of Almighty God, we shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil."
  Her Majesty continued—
  "We decree that so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, may be freely and impartially admitted to those offices in our service the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity, fully to discharge."
  Such was the solemn confirmation given by the Sovereign, on assuming the Government of Her Indian Empire, to the pledge repeatedly held out by Parliament to the people of that country since the year 1833. It had been given by the Government of Earl Grey in 1833, by that of Earl Aberdeen in 1853. In both cases it had been adopted by Parliament as a part of the solemn compact made in renewing the charter. Finally, it was adopted and announced by the Sovereign Herself on assuming the full and undivided authority of ruling Her 180,000,000 of Indian subjects, constituting the most magnificent Empire in the world. Never was an engagement so solemnly contracted between the Crown, the Legislature, and the People. Yet the petitioners, whose case he stated, were still left, in a position to complain of its nonfulfllment. This statement he was fully prepared to prove. But before doing so he would ask leave to refer to one further authority he had omitted, which would show that the engagements entered into by England with the Natives

  1397
  of India had also been acknowledged by-one of the ablest men who had governed that country, he alluded to Lord Hardinge who in 1844 issued the following wise and liberal minute:—
  "The Governor General having taken into consideration the state of Education in Bengal, and being of opinion that it is desirable to afford it every reasonable encouragement by holding out to those who have taken advantage of the opportunities provided a fair prospect of employment in the public service, not only to reward individual merit but to enable the State to profit largely by the measures taken for public instruction, has resolved, that in every case a preference shall be given to the candidates who shall have been educated in the established institutions, and who shall have distinguished themselves by more than an ordinary amount of merit and attainments,"
  If there was one mode better than another of redeeming these often repeated pledges, it was to be found in the promotion of education, and especially of medical education and science in India. Nothing had done more to remove the prejudices of caste and advance the cause of civilization in India than: the establishment of the Medical College at Calcutta. This was among the many obligations which India owed to that most excellent man, Lord William Bentinck, who so long back as May 30, 1829, had by his minute announced that—
  "The degree to which the Natives have conquered prejudices that without instruction would have been the most inveterate, is shown in the Hindoo College of Dr. Tytler, arid the Medical School of Dr. Breton, in which there are pupils Of high caste said to dissect animals, and even handle the bones of human skeletons."
  The Natives had a remarkable aptitude for medical science, and it was acknowledged by the high authority of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Ellenborough) that Native practitioners were frequently able to save lives that would be lost under the treatment of Europeans, Students of the Medical College at Calcutta came over to this country to mature their instruction, and entered successfully into full competition with their English fellow-students in our Universities and other training establishments; Nineteen of these Native gentlemen now held appointments in India with honour and credit to themselves. No doubt arose in their minds that the obligations which had been incurred by England would be fulfilled; In one instance a Native student who had obtained the second place among forty-two candidates; having completed his medical course here, went to pursue his studies on the Continent,
  1398
  and being anxious to acquire as much knowledge as he could, in addition to his medical and surgical acquirements had made himself master of three European languages. He thought that whilst it was impossible to overrate the importance of the visits of men whose minds had been highly cultivated and matured, as in the case of Dwarkanauth Tajore and Rammohun Roy, the claims of younger students should not be passed over. The education in our best British medical schools of diligent and well-instructed pupils of the Hindoo College, or of students brought up in the Grant and Elphinstone Institutions, men who had distinguished themselves as his Parsee petitioners had done, and who coming amongst us have obtained knowledge and profited by the opportunity of seeing with their own eyes, judging for themselves of all that Was in progress in England, and being thus enabled to report to their Indian brethren the results of their own experience and observation, this was the true way of spreading throughout India not only intellectual acquirements but respect and reverence for our land and its institutions. He alluded to the case in which two excellent friends of his own, Sir Edward Ryan and Mr. Charles Cameron, unfailing advocates of the rights of the Natives of India, had given their high authority to the force and effect of sect. 87, as establishing the eligibility of Natives to civil, military, and medical appointments. Of all the classes in India there was hardly one more interesting in itself, from the character of the race, their great intelligence, diligence, and superior mercantile habits, than the Parsees whose grievances were represented in this petition. Several of these had come over to this country, prepared by scientific education in India for pursuing the medical profession; and after having gone through a regular course of instruction and taken their degrees, passed the College of Surgeons, obtained other marks of honour, they made application to the Army Medical Department to be permitted to compete for admission to the competitive examination as preliminary to an appointment. They then learnt, for the first time, that the army of India had ceased to exist; that only one army now existed—the Queen's army—and that, therefore, there could no longer be a separate examination for Indian appointments, and but one examination for the united services. From the terms of the

  1399
  official letter from the Army Medical Department, the applicants were justified in entertaining the belief that there would be as free an admission to the combined examination, as there had previously been to the separate examination for India.
  "East India Army Surgeons.
  [Circular.]
  "November 14th, 1860.
  "Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acquaint you, in reference to your recent inquiry, that no separate competitive examination for the Indian Medical Service will take place in January next, but that at the next examination for Assistant Surgeons for Her Majesty's Army such additional number of appointments will be open to competition as will be sufficient to provide for the medical service of India also.
  "All candidates at that examination will be subject to the Regulations issued by the War Office with regard to qualifications and examinations.
  "I am, &c,
  "W. E. BAKER, Col."
  It would scarcely have been possible to convey to the Parsee petitioners a more clear intimation that, though the separate examinations had ceased, yet one united examination would be established, and that to such united competitive examination the Natives of India would be freely admitted. But their Lordships would learn with no slight degree of surprise and regret (he might, perhaps, have used a stronger word), that when the time of examination appointed came, the answer obtained was not an admission to that competitive examination, but a statement that, in consequence of the varied climates which medical officers of Her Majesty's army had to encounter in the European and Colonial possessions of the British Crown, it was not thought advisable to subject Natives of India to the chances of service, out of their own country, and that in consequence it had been decided that such Native gentlemen should not be permitted to compete for appointments in the general military service. Here was an exclusion imposed where the statement of Earl Granville; the pledge of the Government contained in the law of the land in 1853; and last, but greatest of all assurances, the declaration given in Her Majesty's Proclamation had created perfect equality and eligibility. This was not all. The disqualification of all persons of Indian birth or parentage effected by Colonel Baker's Circular assigned no reason of policy, still less suggested any incompetency in the applicants. The motive put forward was as strange as the act was indefensible. An af-
  1400
  fectionate regard was forsooth professed for the health of those gentlemen, while depriving them of that which they had a right to expect; and they were invited, as an alternative for service in Europe or our Colonies, to betake themselves to the more inhospitable climate of Africa. This was a whimsical proof of regard for the health of these gentlemen, which he could not very well understand. The answer which these gentlemen returned was that where the law gave them equal eligibility they would not accept a qualified appointment. On their behalf he now took the liberty of claiming what he believed to be their strict legal right. If the law was objectionable, let it be altered; but where the law was clear, let it not be perverted by official prerogative. "Where the obligations of the Crown had been distinctly contracted, let not the administrators of the law take on themselves either to deny the equal rights secured by law, or to intercept the promised favour of the Sovereign. He believed their Lordships felt the deepest regret that the Natives of a distant possession should have so just a cause of complaint. He asked for nothing but what the law, the Ministers of the Crown, and the Sovereign had granted. He felt confident that so just a claim could not be refused. The noble Lord concluded by presenting the Petition, and moving an Address for
  "Copies of all Rules and Regulations in force on the passing of the 21st and 22nd Victoria, Cap. 106, in any respect touching the Nomination or Examination for Medical and Surgical Military and Naval Officers in India; and Copies of any additional Regulations subsequently made on the same Subject under the Section 27 of the said Act:
  "Names of Persons being Natives of India or of mixed Races appointed as Medical or Surgical Officers in the several Presidencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, from the 1st January, 185f, to the present Time; distinguishing the Date of every such Appointment:
  "Copies of any Applications to the Secretary of State for India or Army Medical Department made by Natives of India or of mixed Blood, from the passing of the 21st and 22nd Victoria, Cap. 106, praying for Admission to the competitive Examination for Army Medical Appointments in India, together with all Replies made thereto:
  "Copies of Circular Letter, 14th November, 1860, from the India Office, communicating the Cessation of separate medical competitive Examinations for India."
  LORD HERBERT: My Lords, there will be no objection to give the Correspondence which the noble Lord has moved for. I rejoice even at this late hour that I have an opportunity of answering the speech which the noble Lord has addressed

  1401
  to your Lordships, and in which—whether felicitously or infelicitously I, do not undertake to say—he has confounded two things which are perfectly distinct. The noble Lord ended by saying that the claim of these gentlemen is founded upon law, which gives them a right to all these appointments; but in a previous part of his speech he admitted that the appointments which were promised to Natives of India were appointments in India. The promise was made before the recent transfer of the Government of India to the Crown, and the appointments in question were then in the gift of the Company. The words of the Act are conclusive upon that point, because they express distinctly that the intention was to throw open to all persons, without distinction of creed or colour, "all appointments in the gift of the said Company." Natives of India were not to compete for English appointments—it was "India for the Indians," and the right which they had guaranteed to them by the Act was a right to compete for all appointments of a certain class in India. What do the petitioners now ask? They do not ask for local appointments in India, but they ask for appointments in the general service of the Crown, and they claim to be appointed as surgeons and assistant-surgeons to our Line regiments stationed all over the world. I admit at once and fully the acquirements, the skill, the knowledge, and the high character of these gentlemen. The delicacy of their hand is recognized in operations; but it is said they are deficient in some of the most valuable qualities which characterize the practitioners of this country. What is the business of an army surgeon? It is very different from that of a civil doctor. In the case of an army surgeon everything depends upon the degree of confidence which the men have in his skill. Recollect the men have no choice; they cannot go where they like for medical advice; a surgeon is imposed upon them, and it is of the very first importance that he should be possessed of their confidence. The army surgeon now is in a very different position from what he was when Sir Benjamin Brodie recommended his pupils never to go into the army. For a long time in our service the medical profession was not much regarded, but now we have the best skill which can be found; all the best men are coming to us. What is the result? It is that the recommendations of our army surgeons are treated with the greatest re-
  1402
  spect by our officers, and that the men have that confidence in their skill which is so essential to the success of their services. A doctor cannot cure a man who does not believe in him. The noble Lord may say that science has neither creed nor colour. That is quite true; but we know that Englishmen have not the same confidence in an Italian or a German doctor—to say nothing of an Indian doctor—which they have in an English one. When the petitioners first applied to me I consulted Dr. Gibson, who is at the head of the Army Medical Department, on the subject. He said he thought they were physically incompetent to bear, not the cold of England or the heat of any other country, but the constant vicissitudes and changes of climate to which they would be exposed in our service. I was not content with that. I thought I could not do better than take the opinion of some great authorities. Accordingly, I referred the question to three gentlemen—Dr. Gibson, Director General of the Army Medical Department, Sir John Liddell, Director General of the Naval Medical Department, and Sir R. Martin, a gentleman of great Indian experience. I asked them to go into the whole subject and report to me their joint opinion whether the petitioners were physically qualified to stand the exposure to the various climates in which they would be called upon to serve were they admitted into the medical department of Her Majesty's army. They reported as follows—
  "It is our deliberate opinion, founded on experience, that the Native and mixed race of India and other tropical countries will never be able to sustain, for any length of time, the climate of our Northern regions, and that they can only be employed advantageously to the public service in climates similar to those in which their races exist."
  I thought that conclusive. In the face of such an opinion I could not comply with the request of these gentlemen from India, they having no claim by Act of Parliament for admission into the general service of the Queen. But we have never questioned their right to appointments in India; on the contrary, we have urged their employment in civil, police, and, possibly, military capacities in that country. I noticed that a smile was caused by the reference which the noble Lord made to the proposal of Dr. Gibson, that these gentlemen might be employed on the coast of Africa. Your Lordships have been told that the petititioners refused the offer made to them. They had a perfect right to do so; but I

  1403
  can only say that the appointments in question have since been filled by Englishmen, though the climate of Africa must be more trying to white men than to Indians. I regret that I should have been obliged to come to a decision which has given so much pain to the petitioners; but appointments are open to them in their own country, where, perhaps, they might be employed in many instances with more advantage and success than English practitioners. I object to the insinuation that I have overridden the Act of Parliament. It is my duty to secure the best men I can for Her Majesty's service, and that duty I have endeavoured to discharge to the best of my judgment. I again protest against the assumption that admission to the general service of the Crown was guaranteed to Natives of India by law. The guarantee was confined to India only.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I confess I cannot understand on what principle a distinction is made in this matter between a Native of India and a native of Canada or Australia. I wish to state my opinion with regard to the general character of the Native doctors of India. While in that country I had an opportunity of seeing them in contrast with European doctors after the battles near Gwalior. Every morning and evening I visited the hospitals, both Native and European, and I must candidly say that I consider the management of the Native hospitals was superior to the management of the European hospitals. And the reason was obvious. In the Native hospitals there was the most perfect ventilation; while in the European there was none. I visited the European hospitals early, long before the doctor, and found the patients almost suffocated with the offensive air and the closeness of the rooms in which they were placed. It was thought that the best had been done for them because they were placed in a bungalow and were treated like gentlemen. The Native troops, on the contrary, were in hospitals as beautiful as those which I saw years ago in Florence, or as any that are to be found now in London. The conduct of the Native doctors was beyond all praise. I never saw men under such circumstances in greater comfort or better taken care of. There every advantage was taken to obtain ventilation. Instead of being in houses they were under canvas, and the best ventilation is that from the air which percolates through the canvas—it is
  1404
  ventilation without a rush of air. During the time I was in India I never needed the service of a doctor; but had I done so, and placed myself under the care of an European practitioner, the chances are that I should not now be addressing your Lordships. The Native doctors would meet the wants of the service if a fair chance is afforded to them. According to the reduced establishment, the Native army will in future consist of 110,000 men, divided into 240 regiments, who would afford ample occupation for 480 Native medical officers, and I am quite sure that they will be, under the general direction of Europeans, infinitely the best persons for the duty, because they know the effect of climate, which Europeans obstinately will never learn. The same thing which in this country would produce no ill effects, there, by the influence of climate, may become fatal, and that the Natives know, while the Europeans will not know it. As to the general employment of Natives, I have, and have always had, two opinions. One is, that every country must primarily be governed for the benefit of its own people; and the other is, that it is impossible to give good government to any country without availing yourself of the services of the people of that country. But, although I know many persons have a different opinion, I must say I think the course which, the Government, urged on by public opinion here, is obstinately pursuing in India in the way of education, must militate against the objects which all have in view. We are persevering in giving the highest education to the lowest class; but we take no pains to reach the higher classes. The consequence will be an over-educated and discontented people, with a body of persons possessed of property whose ignorance would prevent them from giving a useful support to the Government; and that will produce a state of society in which anarchy-will be inevitable and good government impossible. This has always been my opinion. I had intended when I was in India to take measures to promote the education of the higher classes of the Natives. I thought that the promotion of knowledge and civilization by education might descend from the higher classes; but I did not believe, nor do I now, that it could ascend from the lower classes to the higher. I know it is useless to speak this language here, when people are determined to have a certain number of persons, no matter whom, educated in the highest degree;

  1405
  but I am confident such a course involves much mischief and danger, and if it is persevered in, the object which all of us very properly desire to attain—the employment of a large portion of the respectable Native population in the government the country—will become impossible.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary for War had stated that the law referred to by the noble Lord who introduced the discussion related solely to employment in India. Was that the answer he gave to the petitioners? According to the law the army was for all parts of Her Majesty's dominions—the answer given to those gentlemen was that no separate competitive examination for the Indian Army was to be field in November. Was that an answer, to their case? What did they apply for? They applied, not for examination for the Indian Army—they applied to be admitted into the military service of the Crown, And the answer was most unfair. Why were they not admitted to the competitive examinations? The law said they were to be open; find were the Natives of India to find that this was a mere juggle, and that they were not to be employed? They were first told that a competitive examination was necessary; and when, they presented themselves they were told they were not to be admitted, And why? On account of their country, colour, caste—on account of matters which they had been distinctly told were not to be taken into consideration. An Indian, whether a Parsee or Hindoo, was not to be permitted to serve the Crown, Here was a population of 150,000,000 of men, some of them of the most warlike tribes; and we were laying down a rule depriving ourselves of the use of their services whenever the wants of the empire might require them—because if the ground of health was set up as a bar to the employment of Natives out of India it affected the services of the whole Indian Army, who, if properly trained, would be available for general service in any future war. The noble Lord stated that the petitioners had refused to go to Africa. They refused nothing. They said they were prepared to go anywhere in the ordinary course, of service, but they objected to be sent specifically to "the white man's grave." As to capacity to bear the variations of climate he thought the noble Earl was inerror, for it was well known that the Persians and Parsees were capable of en-
  1406
  during cold at least as well as Englishmen. He hoped that this matter would be well considered by the Government with a view to the removal of the grounds of those complaints. It was intended by the Act that the Asiatic subjects of Her Majesty should be put on an equality with all others of Her Majesty's subjects; and why should not the Natives of India be placed upon the same footing as the Canadians or inhabitants of other countries? It was absurd to think of governing India in defiance of the feelings or interests of the people.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONregretted the tone which the discussion had taken, for there was no act of the Government, whether of the Secretary for India or of the Secretary for War, which could justify the language of the noble Marquess, the was certainly very much surprised that it should be implied that there was any inclination on the part of the Government to deprive the Natives of India of their just claim to employment in the service of the Crown. At the present moment there were two Bills before Parliament making the Natives of India admissible to seats in the Legislative Council and on the Bench. The noble Marquess complained that these gentlemen having applied to be admitted to a competitive examination to the Indian medical service were refused, but the fact was that the examination was not for the Indian medical service, but for the general medical service o-f the Crown.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid it was distinctly stated in the despatches that it was an examination for India.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONassured the noble Marquess that he was under a misapprehension; it was not an examination for the Indian medical service, but for the general medical service. Under these circumstances, for the reasons he had stated, the Secretary for War did not think that these gentlemen were eligible. But with respect to their eligibility for other employment in India the case stood just as before. They were equally admissible to the Civil Service, and any Natives who might come home to qualify themselves and win distinction here would be admitted to the covenanted Service just in the same way as any other subjects of the Crown. With regard to the special case of these gentlemen the attention of the Governor General had been directed to it, and it might safely be left in his hands.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid he had confined his remarks entirely to the conduct of the War Office, and his information was taken from a letter signed by Colonel Baker, in which he said—
  "At the next examination for assistants for Her Majesty's Army such additional number of appointments will be open to competition as will be sufficient to provide for the requirements of the service in India."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONexplained that since the amalgamation of the two armies the only mode by which a medical officer could get to India was by being admitted to one of the Line regiments, and whether he went to India or not would depend entirely on the requirements of the service. He might be sent there, or he might be sent to Canada, or to the west coast of Africa.
  LORD MONTEAGLEwas glad to find the question referred to the very authority in whom he had most confidence.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.