Sitting of 8 March 1861

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of last Session on Miscellaneous Expenditure are being attended to in the present preparation of Civil Service Estimates, especially the abolition of the Miscellaneous Number 7, and the statement in the Estimates of unexpended balances; and the preparation of Estimates for new works under Number 1?
  MR. PEELsaid, that the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of last Session on Miscellaneous Expenditure had been attended to, but the Committee did not recommend the abolition of the Miscellaneous No. 7 contained in the Estimates, though as many of the Votes as could be conveniently transferred would be placed under other heads of expenditure.

  THE FORTIFICATIONS AT PORTSMOUTH.—QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, in building the Fortifications at Portsmouth, any defects have been discovered in the piling or other works executed by the contractors?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that some piles without their proper iron-shoeing had been driven by contractors at Portsmouth. Measures would be taken to deal with the case, and, of course, to remedy the defect.

  POOR LAW BOARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. BEECROFTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Why the Poor Law Board does not cause to be carried out by Boards of Guardians their instructions to remunerate Poor Law Medical Officers?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he had some difficulty in answering the Question, because the hon. Member assumed as a fact that which he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) did not know to be the fact. The remuneration of Poor Law Medical Officers proceeded on the same principle as the Government Salaries in all other offices, or, at any rate, he was not aware of any difference. He was not aware of any correspondence which had taken place between Poor Law Guardians and the Poor Law Board on the subject.

  RAILROADS IN CEYLON.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether instructions have been issued to the Governor of Ceylon to form into a Special Fund, distinct from the general Revenue of the Colony, any sum accrued or accruing from the Duty on the Export of Coffee, imposed for the purpose of guaranteeing the cost of the Railroad to Kandy; and whether such fund is to be reserved exclusively for the defrayal of engagements in connection with the original Contract for that Railroad, or for the formation of any other Railroad which may be undertaken in substitution for it?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEbegged to say that instructions had been issued to the Governor of Ceylon to form a special fund for the purpose adverted to by the hon. Member, and since that time sums of money had been paid into the Oriental Bank on account of that fund.

AFFAIRS OF NEW ZEALAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would make an appeal to the hon. Member for Tavistock, with regard to his Motion on New Zealand. The fact was, the papers giving full information as to

  1631
  the late events were now in the printer's hands, and were being pressed forward. They were, however, very voluminous, and had been delayed for the purpose of adding important matter which had arrived by the last mail. He would, therefore, put it to the hon. Baronet, whether it would not be advisable to postpone his Motion until the papers were in the hands of Members.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYreplied that he was willing to postpone the Motion for a short time.

  NAVY—THE ADMIRALTY—SIR BALDWIN WALKER.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I rise to put a Question to the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, of which I have given him private notice. I have this morning received a letter from a gentleman at Devonport, who is well known to me, and who, I think I may venture to say, would not have made me any statement which he did not believe to be strictly accurate. My object in putting the Question is to ascertain from the noble Lord whether the statement which I have received is true; and, as I think it necessary that it should be understood with the utmost precision, if the House will permit me, I will read it—
  "Devonport, March 7.
  "Dear Sir,—It appears the Admiralty telegraphed to the authorities here to despatch the Avon to intercept the Narcissus, with a view to recall Sir Baldwin Walker.
  "The Port-Admiral replied that the Himalaya was under steam, and being a very fast vessel, whether it would not be better to send her out to look after the Narcissus.
  "The Admiralty answered 'No, send the Avon;' showing they have no wish to recall Sir Baldwin Walker. The Avon is a mere tub."
  I merely wish to ask my noble Friend is that statement true?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, in reply to the question of my right hon. Friend, perhaps the best thing I can do is to quote the telegrams that have passed on this subject between the Admiralty and the Port-Admiral at Plymouth. I must, however, premise these by saying that the Himalaya has been under repairs in the Dockyard of Devonport; that her cylinders have been very defective, and that it was very doubtful whether she might not require new ones. This explanation will make the telegrams more intelligible—
  "March 5.
  "From Plymouth to the Admiralty.—The Himalaya has gone out on her trial.—(Received at 11.42 a.m.)
  1632
  "To Plymouth.—Send the Avon to the southward of the Eddystone to endeavour to intercept the Narcissus. Make the officer the bearer of an order to Sir Baldwin Walker to repair to Devonport.—(Sent 11.52 a.m.)
  "From Plymouth.—The Himalaya is just returning into the Sound. Shall she also proceed in search of the Narcissus?—(Received 1.21 p.m.)
  "To Plymouth.—Why does she return so soon? What is the state of the weather?—(Sent at 1.38 p.m.)
  "From Plymouth.—I have signalized to the Himalaya to know why she has returned. In answer to a question previously asked whether trial was satisfactory, she has signalized, 'Cannot report until to-morrow morning.' Weather, moderate and overcast; wind, west by south.—(Received 2.21 p.m.)
  "From Plymouth.—The Himalaya's trial is concluded, but officers cannot report until cylinders have been examined inside.—(Received 2,44 p.m.)
  "To Plymouth.—The Himalaya need not be sent in search of the Narcissus in addition to the Avon.—(Sent 3 p.m.)
  "From Plymouth.—The Avon proceeded under steam at 3 p.m.—(Received 3.30 p.m.)"
  Those were the telegrams received on that day. On the day following this telegram was received:—
  "March 6.
  "From Plymouth.—Examination of the Himalaya concluded. The hull appears perfectly sound; the after cylinder is so defective that the ship could not proceed to sea without incurring serious risk. Written report will be sent by post.—(Received 11.27 a.m.)"
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish now to put the question which I asked yesterday, and which the noble Lord said he could not answer without notice. I want to know whether there were not other steamers—fast and powerful steamers, one of them being the Jason—in Plymouth harbour, at the disposal of the Admiralty, at the time they sent out the Avon to bring back Sir Baldwin Walker?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could only say that, under all the circumstances, the Admiralty considered that the best vessel that could be sent was the vessel which could be sent to sea at the shortest notice, and that vessel was the Avon. He regretted those constant and unremitting attacks on the Admiralty made it necessary for him to go particularly into the circumstances of the case. The Avon was ordered to go out into the Channel to cut off the Narcissus, not to follow her. No vessel lying at Devonport could possibly have followed, with a chance of catching her, a smart-going steam-frigate like the Narcissus. The order given to the Avon was to cut her off, and she had

  1633
  endeavoured to do so. If the right hon. Gentleman wished for further information he could inform him that he had seen the log of the Penguin, tender to the Narcissus, who had started with that ship, and had put into Plymouth for shelter, and it appears from that log that the Avon must have been very close to her, but the weather being overcast she failed to make her out.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to know whether the Government admitted that it was impossible to bring back Sir Baldwin Walker?
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he looked upon this as a matter of very great importance. On Friday night several Members called upon the Government to recall Sir Baldwin Walker. (Cries of "Order!") He would conclude with a Motion, in order that he might be in order. Sir Baldwin Walker was then in Yarmouth Roads, where the Narcissus lay till 10.30 on Monday morning, when she proceeded to sea. The weather was then such that he was satisfied no man would have proceeded to sea of his own free will, especially with a new ship, a fresh ship's company, and new rigging; and the inference he drew was that Sir Baldwin Walker had been forced to go to sea, and with orders not to be caught.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he rose to order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's statements were totally unfounded. Sir Baldwin Walker had no such orders from the Admiralty.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wanted to get at the bottom of this transaction. He wished for more information.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he rose to order. The time for asking questions had not passed, and till then no statement could be made by any hon. Member.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he intended to conclude his remarks by moving the adjournment of the House. The question was very important, and it behoved the Admiralty to clear the question up. The House were about to appoint a Committee to inquire into the doings of the Admiralty. Sir Baldwin Walker had been Surveyor of the Navy for something like twenty years, he had been concerned in two reconstructions of the navy, and he knew more of that branch and of the working of the Admiralty than any other man, and yet he had been sent out
  1634
  to the Cape of Good Hope just before that Committee began their inquiries. The labours of that Committee would, in his opinion, be perfectly futile without the assistance of Sir Baldwin Walker. He would ask whether Sir Baldwin Walker had not been forced to sea on this occasion at a time when a ship would not naturally have proceeded to sea during the late heavy gales of wind, and whether the ordinary means of getting Sir Baldwin Walker back had not been neglected. If the Himalaya had one of her cylinders defective that would not disqualify her from proceeding to sea for a day or two, though it was a reason why she should not start on a long voyage. The Avon was an old paddle-wheel tub, one of the slowest vessels in the navy, and in very heavy weather all she could do would be to get a little southward of the Eddystone, off the Lizard, and there stop. The House was also entitled to know why the Narcissus was allowed to pass Hurst Castle after Friday, when it was understood distinctly that Sir Baldwin Walker was to remain. Until Monday morning the Narcissus lay in Yarmouth Roads, and it would have been easy to communicate with Sir Baldwin Walker, without whose evidence the labours of the Committee would be useless. Moreover, if the Admiralty were really anxious on the subject they might yet succeed in bringing back Sir Baldwin Walker by sending a vessel to Madeira. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. CONINGHAMseconded the Motion.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth had on Friday expressed a desire that Sir Baldwin Walker should be kept at home. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty then said that the Government had no objection to that course. The only person, however, whom the noble Lord could consult was the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Duncombe), who had moved for the appointment of the Committee, and that hon. and gallant Member distinctly stated that he did not think the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker would be required before the Committee. The noble Lord, having no other one to consult, did not then take any steps to detain Sir Baldwin Walker; but two nights afterwards the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) expressed a strong opinion that Sir Baldwin Walker should be detained, and even went so far

  1635
  as to say that the Committee would be a total failure unless he was detained. Other hon. Members spoke to the same effect, and then the Government adopted every means in their power to stop Sir Baldwin Walker. He must say he was surprised at the number of telegrams that had passed to and fro on the subject, and he doubted whether even the Himalaya could have overtaken the Narcissus. The Admiralty, he believed, took the only course that was practicable, and he could tell Gentlemen that it was not so easy a matter to intercept a vessel at sea. Looking at the matter in an impartial spirit he was of opinion that the Admiralty had done everything in their power to carry out the wishes of the House, and the reflection which had been cast upon the noble Lord was not in the slightest degree warranted.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to put a question to the gallant Admiral (Admiral Duncombe) who had moved for the Committee. Now that the House had been informed of the fact that Sir Baldwin Walker had escaped he asked whether his hon. and gallant Friend would be kind enough to postpone the nomination of the Committee till Monday or Tuesday? He had agreed to serve on the Committee, but he wished to have time to consider whether he ought now to serve on it or not, having great doubts whether the Committee could be of any public utility. They must remember that this was no ordinary Committee, but one which would have to undergo great and lengthened labour; and the question with him was, whether, in the absence of Sir Baldwin Walker, its labours would be of any use?
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, that he had not the slightest objection to postpone the appointment of the Committee for the convenience of hon. Members. His desire, however, was that as the House had decided to have a Committee, no unnecessary delay in its nomination should take place. Some delay had already taken place in consequence of the Motion brought forward the other evening by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth. He was in doubt whether his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) having carried his Motion for a Committee on another subject, would be able to serve on the Admiralty Committee. He found that his hon. and gallant Friend would still be able to serve on the Committee, and he was desirous that as little further delay should take place as possible. He should be sorry
  1636
  if anything prevented his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) from serving on the Committee, as his presence upon it would be of the greatest possible importance. He must say that he thought a great stalking-horse had been made of this matter of Sir Baldwin Walker. He had already stated, and he was still of the same opinion, that the presence of Sir Baldwin Walker before the Committee was not necessary. Sir Baldwin Walker had been fully examined before the Dockyard Commission, and the Report of that Committee, comprising Sir Baldwin Walker's evidence, would be laid before the House immediately; and nothing would be easier than to refer that Report to the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the Admiralty. That Report contained every tittle of evidence Sir Baldwin Walker could give upon the matter. Every one who had heard his gallant Friend examined before the Committee knew that he did not make a very good witness. Sir Baldwin Walker was so very anxious and so over careful of every word he uttered, that he was not so good a witness as people might suppose. The evidence which the gallant officer gave was in print, and, therefore, much more valuable to the Committee than his re-examination would be. It was evident that the Admiralty had made one mistake—in not putting the Avon under the command of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, for his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) said nothing would have been easier than to have cut off the Narcissus—naval officers sent on special orders were, however, he thought, usually active and diligent, and he felt satisfied that if it had been possible the duty would have been accomplished. When he understood that the Government acceded to his Commission, and that Sir Baldwin Walker would be detained to give evidence before it, if the Committee thought it necessary, he expressed an opinion that the public service demanded that the gallant Admiral should leave this country and repair to his station as rapidly as possible. Sir Baldwin was appointed to his command before the Committee was thought of, and, as the Cape of Good Hope station had been without a commander for six or eight months, he could not allow the public service to suffer from any supposed necessity for the presence of that individual.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I am only going to say one word in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone).

  1637
  I stated distinctly that the Admiralty had not either publicly or privately given any order to Sir Baldwin Walker to get away as soon as he could, so as to avoid any chance of being stopped. Sir Baldwin's orders were sent to him on Wednesday, 27th February, and he did not leave until Saturday the 2nd March. There has been no further communication with him, and the first knowledge of his whereabouts was a letter from him received at the Admiralty on Tuesday last, stating that he was under way, and had left Yarmouth Roads within the Needles on the morning of the 4th. It is a totally inaccurate assertion that the Admiralty desired to force him off. It is equally inaccurate to state that the Admiralty, when they had the opportunity of stopping him in Yarmouth Roads, failed to do so.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I should not have taken any part in this discussion but for the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) who seems to have an inaccurate recollection of what has taken place in connection with this matter. I would remind him of these facts—as long ago as the 15th of February I spoke to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and also to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, and expressed my strong opinion that the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker was necessary for the Committee, and that I hoped he would receive the earliest possible intimation that it was necessary for him to stay and be examined. When I explained to the House the reason why I had given up the intention of moving for the Committee, I also explained to the House why, in my opinion, it was of importance that Sir Baldwin Walker should be examined. Nothing further occurred until Thursday in last week, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, in moving his Resolutions relative to the Admiralty, made a strong statement of the importance of Sir Baldwin Walker's evidence. I followed, and repeated my opinion to the same effect. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty then gave a pledge that if it were the wish of the House of Commons Sir Baldwin Walker should be detained.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I really must correct the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have stated nothing that is not correct. The next night my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) repeated his strong opinion that Sir Baldwin Walker ought to give evi-
  1638
  dence. On both occasions these opinions were received by the House in the manner in which it is the habit of hon. Members to express their concurrence. There was the wish of the hon. Gentleman (Sir James Elphinstone), that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), and my own, all strongly declared, against which no strong opinion was expressed, except by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Buncombe) who told the noble Lord he did not wish to detain Sir Baldwin Walker. This occurred on Friday night, and on Saturday morning Sir Baldwin Walker went to sea. Late on Monday evening I felt it my duty to call the attention of the Government and of the House to the circumstances under which Sir Baldwin Walker was sent to sea, and what occurred then? The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, in answer to an appeal made to him by myself and others, pledged himself that night to take steps which should secure the recall of Sir Baldwin Walker. The noble Lord the Prime Minister followed, and his expression was "immediate steps shall be taken." We have now heard from the noble Lord the manner in which that twofold pledge was redeemed. Nothing was done that night. At nearly twelve o'clock next day a telegram was sent down to Devonport, and an order was given that the Avon, notoriously the slowest vessel in the service—at least one of the slowest—should be sent after the Admiral, while two or three of the most powerful vessels in the service were at the disposal of the Admiralty. This the noble Lord forgot or he would never have said that the Government had done all they could to secure the return of Sir Baldwin Walker.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that occasional discussions of this kind were very good things, and no doubt were very refreshing; but it appeared to him, at all events, that fair play should not be lost sight of, and that a proper understanding of the case should be arrived at. He confessed it appeared to him that a great misconception existed in the minds of several hon. Members in respect to this matter. In the first place, his noble and gallant Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty was distinctly charged then and had been charged on a former occasion with having broken a pledge he had given to that House. Now, he (Mr. Bentinck), having been present at all the discussions that took place on this subject—having attended to them carefully, and having been one of those nominated to serve

  1639
  on the Committee—felt, perhaps, a special interest in the matter; and he was bound to say, so far as his opinion went, he thought that the charge against his noble and gallant Friend was totally unfounded.—[An hon. MEMBER: There was no such charge.]—He begged the hon. Member's pardon. A charge was distinctly made, unless his ears deceived him, that his noble and gallant Friend had broken his pledge to that House. He again repeated, as far as he was able to understand the facts of the case, that such a charge was without foundation. He would tell the House why he thought so. It was true that an appeal had been made to his noble and gallant Friend on the subject of the Admiralty detaining Sir Baldwin Walker; and, as he understood, his noble and gallant Friend said he would assent to that appeal if it were the wish of the House. But his noble and gallant Friend afterwards consulted the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for the East Biding of Yorkshire (Admiral Duncombe) on the subject, and it was the opinion of that gallant officer that the presence of Sir Baldwin Walker before the Committee was not necessary. Now the suggestion made from that (the Opposition) side of the House was not followed up by any distinct Motion or recommendation on the subject; and it, therefore, appeared to him that his noble and gallant Friend was entirely exonerated from the charge of having violated any pledge. But there was another point upon which he thought a misconception had arisen. Hon. Members supposed that Boards of Admiralty were not as cognizant of sea-going matters as they ought to be. His noble and gallant Friend had been charged, and the Board of Admiralty likewise, with having trifled with the House, after having undertaken to recall Sir Baldwin Walker. ("Hear, hear!") He had no doubt but that the hon. Gentleman who had just cheered so loudly was fully acquainted with the details of a chase of this kind down the Channel. But the case was simply this. Hon. Members had gone on harping on the fact that the Himalaya had not been sent after the Narcissus. The reason, however, for not having done so had, he thought, been distinctly shown by his noble and gallant Friend. It was true as had been stated that the Avon was a very slow steamer. But he believed that any man who was commonly acquainted with he subject was aware of the fact stated by his noble and gallant Friend—namely, that as the object of sending out the Avon
  1640
  was not to chase the Narcissus, but to cut her off, if only three knots an hour could begot out of her, she would be just as competent to do that duty as the fastest vessel in Her Majesty's Navy. ("No, no!") He hoped that the hon. Member who differed from him in that opinion would distinctly show that what he said was wrong. He again repeated that the slowest tub that ever left the shores of Great Britain was just as competent to the discharge of the duty assigned to the Avon as the fastest-steamer that ever swam. It appeared, too, from the log of the Avon, that so far from her not having been fast enough, she was actually dodging in the track of the Narcissus at the time the Narcissus passed Plymouth, but from the state of the weather she was unable to sight her. He asked what would be the use of sending out a vessel that steamed twelve knots an hour if a vessel that only steamed seven knots was fully able to arrive at her destination in time to effect her purpose. That entirely disposed of any suspicion that the Admiralty had not done all that could have been done under the circumstances. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire that there was no necessity for Sir Baldwin Walker's examination. He did not, however, think it necessary to go into that question. He was of opinion there was a total misconception of the whole question, and he should be glad to hear any hon. Member attempt to show that he was wrong in his impressions of the facts of the case.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that it was very important that the House should not lose sight of the real question, which was whether it was necessary that Sir Baldwin Walker should appear before the Committee, and whether the House expressed a desire the other evening that that gallant officer should be detained. He had heard the whole discussion, and went home with the conviction that Sir Baldwin Walker's progress to his station would be stopped. When the position which Sir Baldwin Walker had held was considered, it seemed like trifling with the common sense of the House to send abroad on the eve of an important investigation respecting the navy the man who by his practical knowledge could give the most important evidence to clear up disputed points, and he was of opinion that the Government were bound to produce him as a witness.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid, he felt himself

  1641
  incompetent to speak upon the qualities of I steam-vessels. He could not, however, but express his regret that at the very time when a Committee of inquiry was being appointed, the hon. Member for Portsmouth should have made observations tending to raise doubts as to the veracity of the Admiralty.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he could not but express his surprise that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty should require the opinion of the House of Commons upon what his sense of duty ought to have instructed him. Recollecting how eager a reformer of abuses at the Admiralty the present noble Secretary to that Board used to be, he should have thought that the noble Lord would have made every effort to bring all the evidence possible before the Committee. He was convinced that the opinion out of doors would be that fair play had not been exhibited towards that House, and that the Admiralty had managed to get rid of one who might have proved a very inconvenient witness for them.
  MR. PAULLremarked, that the House ought to receive a distinct intimation from the Government whether or not they really intended to recall Sir Baldwin Walker.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to say a few words in explanation. The gallant Admiral (Admiral Duncombe) had made a statement which seemed to impute to him (Sir James Elphinstone), in his observations that evening, an intention of reflecting upon the character of the commander of the Avon as an efficient seaman. He begged to say that he bad intended nothing of the sort. On the contrary, he thought if it were possible for the Avon to have intercepted the Narcissus she would have done so under the guidance of her commander.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Put and negatived.
  On Motion "That the House at rising do adjourn till Monday next"

MRDICAL SERVICE IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a Memorial from Surgeon Major Hochin, of the Bombay Presidency, complaining of the discrepancy in the date of the two Royal
  1642
  Warrants for the Royal and the Indian branches of the Medical Service respectively, whereby two Surgeon Majors of the Royal Army, Messrs. Inglis and Fraser, have been placed above twenty Medical Officers on the Bombay Establishment of much older standing in the Service than themselves: and whether he proposes to take steps for rectifying this inadvertence?
  SIR CHARLES WOODwas understood to say that no such document had been received.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to ask a question in reference to the order of business on Monday, in consequence of the appeal made by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government to hon. Members who had given notices of Motion on going into Committee of Supply. The noble Viscount expressed a hope that the number of men for the marine service and the army would be taken on Monday. Now he (General Peel) had given notice of a question on going into Committee of Supply upon the Army Estimates. Although the question might appear at first sight a simple one it, nevertheless, involved a most important point in reference to our army expenditure. He, therefore, felt it absolutely necessary to submit his question before going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates. He wished to ask, Whether the Government would take the Army Estimates on Monday or Thursday?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the Vote for the number of men for the army would be taken on Thursday, and the similar Vote for the navy on Monday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was given to understand that it might probably be necessary to take some Votes on account for the naval service on Monday.

  THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, What arrangement is being made for the medical charge of Her Majesty's Native Troops in India, regular and irregular, to ensure the language of the patients in hospital being understood by the European Medical Officer prescribing for them; and what number of European Officers were for the future to be attached to each of Her Majesty's Native Regiments in India, regular and ir-

  1643
  regular? Under any arrangement there would still be a large number of Native troops in India, and he regarded it as of the utmost importance that the hospitals provided for their accommodation should be placed in charge of competent and experienced medical men. Every Sepoy officer knew that the most ludicrous and even dangerous prescriptions had been given to native soldiers in hospital from utter ignorance of the native languages by the European doctor. But not only did native patients suffer from the inexperience of surgeons recently from Europe, but so did the European soldiers. Everybody knew that all tropical climates had peculiar diseases, which required a peculiar treatment, and which could only be learned from a lengthened residence in the country. To place European troops, therefore, in the hands of medical men who had not local experience, was not less impolitic than wanting in humanity. He trusted, therefore, there would be maintained a local Medical Service for India, where there must always be an army of 200,000 men, European and Native; but he entertained grave doubts whether this would be done, for a plan, it was said, was about to be adopted, which he could only characterize as a lust for centralization for the sake of power and patronage. The second part of his question was also of great importance. It was proposed, he believed, that in future there should never be more than six European officers in a Native regiment. Now all officers who had served with Native troops on field service, in a line of battle or the storm of a breach, knew that their efficiency and amenability to control was in the ratio of the number of European officers with them. The reduction, therefore, of the number of European officers with a Native regiment to six would, in his opinion, be attended with lamentable results.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question he wished to put to him one of a kindred nature. The House was aware that there was a considerable number of Natives of India residing in this country for the purpose of going through a medical education, with the hope of getting introduced into the medical service in India by the process of open competition. Great consternation had been produced among those persons by a statement made by the right hon. Secretary for India some days ago. They were apprehensive that,
  1644
  whatever their attainments might be, they would in future be debarred from entering the medical service in India. He hoped that the impression which prevailed among them was without foundation, and that the right hon. Secretary of State would inform the House that in future all the services in India would be open to all the Natives of India without distinction of cast or creed.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he would also beg to ask the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for India, whether, in future, upon the appointment of Officers of the Local or Line Regiments in India to the new Staff Corps, or any Civil employment, they will be struck off the strength of their Regiments, and whether the vacancies so caused will be filled by the Officers next in succession in their respective Regiments; and whether there is to be any distinction between the Services in this respect? It appeared from a letter which he had received from India, that the general impression there was, that when an officer was appointed to the new staff, promotion would go in the regiment. He was afraid, therefore, that a statement recently made in "another place"—pointing, as it did, to a different conclusion—would cause much dissatisfaction in India. Hitherto the great complaint had been that officers wore constantly detached on civil and staff appointments, and that their regiments had suffered in consequence. It was evident from what had been said in "another place," that the same practice was to be continued. The result must inevitably be great inconvenience in regiments, and a serious injury to the whole service. He wished to know, whether the two armies were to be placed upon the same footing in this respect?
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he also wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for India, whether it is his intention to introduce any Bills relating to India during the present Session; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the nature and objects of such Bills? He hoped the House would permit him to offer a few very brief remarks. It would be in the recollection of the right hon. Baronet that, on the 9th of February, 1860, he did himself the honour to submit a string of Resolutions relative to India, which embraced the opening up of the Legislative Council by increasing its numbers and powers; the abolition of the Supreme Councils at the different Presi-

  1645
  dency towns; and the amalgamation of the Supreme and Sudder Courts. These last two measures had been strongly recommended by successive Committees, and by the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). His Motion led to a debate, which was brought to a close by the right hon. Baronet replying—
  "The three subjects which were referred to by the hon. Member—the Civil Service, the Supreme and Sudder Courts, and the question of the Legislative Council—are now under consideration by three different Committees of the Indian Council; and I hope before long to lay before the House such measures as may become necessary for carrying out the decisions which may ultimately be adopted. Under these circumstances I do not see what advantage would be gained by referring them for investigation to a Committee."—[3 Hansard, clvi.,751.]
  A twelvemonth, however, having elapsed since the right hon. Baronet gave that reply, and as it would be convenient to those who took an interest in Indian affairs to be made acquainted with the nature of the Bills to be introduced, be begged to draw his attention to the subject.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: In reply to the first Question put to mo by my hon. and gallant Friend behind (Colonel Sykes) as to the organization of the medical service in India, all I have to say is that the whole question is under the consideration of the Indian Council, and I am not prepared to say what resolution they are likely to arrive at; but this I may state, that every pains will be taken to obviate the evils which have been so strongly felt in India of putting medical officers in charge of the hospitals who may be unable to converse with the Natives under their charge.
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) I may say that the statement to which he has referred was made, not by me, but by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War, and related to the competition for surgeons in the general army of the Queen. What was said was that there were many cases in which Natives of India and Africa, subjects of the Queen, could not be held to be fitted for general service as surgeons in the general army. I do not consider that Natives of India and Africa whether capable of performing the duties or not, have a right to enter by competition generally into the army of the Queen.
  With regard to the hon. and gallant Officer's second question, he is aware that the number of European officers which hitherto has been usually attached to an irregular regiment is three or four. The
  1646
  Government of India recommended that there should be six; and that recommendation, substantially, will be carried out. With regard to regular regiments no change has at present taken place. My own belief is that regiments would be more efficient, on the irregular system, with six officers, and certainly it would lead to the economy of the service.
  With regard to the question of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Minto Farquhar), I have to state that it is not intended to place both services on identically the same footing. It is necessary to insure to every Indian officer precisely the promotion he has a right to expect. That arrangement must be strictly maintained. When an officer is taken from a local regiment and put into the Staff corps the result to the officers of his regiment will be precisely the same as if he had been placed under present regulations on Staff employment, and the effect of the arrangement will be this, that every Indian officer not transferred to the staff corps will attain his promotion precisely as soon—neither sooner nor later than he would have done if no change whatever had been made in the Indian service. With regard to officers going from the Line to the Staff corps, the Commander-in-Chief has submitted to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty has approved an arrangement which will be eminently for the benefit of the Indian army. If a captain in the Line, for instance, goes into the staff corps his position must be filled up or the regiment would not be efficient; and the arrangement is that whenever a vacancy occurs in a Line regiment by an officer going into the Indian Staff corps an officer of the Indian army will be placed in the Line regiment, such Indian officer being a person of good character, recommended by the Governor General and approved by the Commander-in-Chief. That will clearly be to the advantage of the Indian army, and must tend to obliterate all distinctions between them and the Line.
  In regard to the question of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart), he has stated quite correctly what I said last year, that it had been my intention to introduce a Bill for the amalgamation of the Supreme and Sudder Courts. In fact, I had a Bill in draft for the purpose; but he will remember that about the month of May there was great indisposition exhibited by the House to deal with these Indian subjects, and I was unwillingly obliged to

  1647
  postpone the introduction of the Bill to carry out the intention of the Government in 1853, when I was President of the Board of Control. I have since consulted the Governor General of India, thinking it desirable to avail myself of any information I could procure on the subject, and I had hoped before now to have received his observations. I have again prepared the Bill, but have rather delayed its introduction, expecting to receive information from India. The Bill is ready in draft, and will be introduced, I hope, at an early period.
  With regard to the other question, which is of still greater importance, as to alteration in the Legislative Council of India, the subject, as I stated last Session, was under the consideration of the members of the Indian Council. What had occurred in India, and the different opinions held on the subject of taxation in India, have rendered this a matter of more grave consideration than it was at the early period of last Session. I have communicated with the Governor General of India on the subject, and it is only to-day that I have received his opinions. No time shall be lost in introducing measures on these subjects into the House.
  MR. VANSITTART: Are there any other Bills beside these?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: There is certainly no other Bill of any great importance.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.—SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNES: I rise to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution and efficiency of the present Diplomatic Service of this country. Although I entertain some hope that the Government will not refuse the Committee for which I am about to ask, I do not think it would be respectful to the House if I did not explain the grounds on which I make this Motion on so important a subject. It will be recollected that some years ago a Select Committee to investigate the state of our Consular Service was moved for by an hon. Gentleman now, I regret to say, no longer a Member of this House. The late Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) was one of those who, although ardent Reformers, never injure the character of feel-
  1648
  ings of private men in their advocacy of public measures, nor ever impute unworthy motives to public servants. I am glad to have an opportunity of paying him this slight tribute, because to him we are indebted for the appointment of the Consular Committee. Any part which I myself took in its labours was of a comparatively secondary nature, and although as chairman I was interested both in its examination and its Report, yet to the ex-Member for Stafford that investigation, and I think the settlement of that question were mainly due. During the progress of that inquiry we were continually coming upon subjects connected with the diplomatic service; and I left the Committee with the conviction that the latter branch of the public service could only be put upon a sound and satisfactory basis by the appointment of a Committee to inquire into its condition, as the necessary corollary to the investigation into the consular department. This question is not altogether new to this House. In 1850 there was a Committee on official salaries, which embraced within its scope a great variety of subjects, including the diplomatic service. Before that Committee the noble Lord now at the head of the Government and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were examined as witnesses. The Committee reported that they had carefully considered the subject of our diplomatic expenditure, and arrived at the conclusion that our diplomatic establishment should undergo a complete revision. With this view they came to a series of recommendations, the first of which was that arrangements should be made for converting the British Embassies at Paris and Constantinople into first-class missions. Now not only have our embassies at Paris and Constantinople not been abolished, but embassies on the same scale have been abolished at St. Petersburg and Vienna. The Committee next recommended that a single mission at some central point in Germany should be substituted for the separate missions existing at Dresden, Stuttgardt, Frankfort, and other cities. That recommendation has not been complied with either. The Committee, in the third place, suggested that the mission to Florence should be consolidated with one of the other Italian missions. That recommendation has been complied with—thanks not to the Foreign Office, but to the course of historical events which have tended to merge the mission to Florence in the mission to united Italy.

  1649
  The fourth recommendation was that no diplomatic salary should exceed £5,000 per per annum, including an allowance for a residence. I believe that has not been complied with. The fifth recommendation of the Committee was that there should be a general revision of the whole scale of diplomatic salaries, and that in many instances consular agencies should be substituted for the missions. Since that period of 1850 many alterations greatly increasing the efficiency and usefulness of the service have, I believe, taken place, but it is very desirable that the country should know the exact nature and extent of those changes, and whether they have followed the path marked out by the Committee. The Committee whoso appointment I now venture to suggest would investigate these matters, would enable the heads of departments at the Foreign Office to describe the reforms which have already been made, and to explain why they have not been carried out more generally and effectually. I will not now seek to prejudge what may be the result of the deliberations of the Committee if granted, but simply content myself with indicating some of the grounds which render its appointment at this moment advisable. Of late years the extension of the electric telegraph has undoubtedly tended greatly to alter the relation between our foreign embassies and missions and the Foreign Office, bringing them, as it were, into instantaneous communication. Indeed, it may now almost be said that the despatches of the Foreign Secretary are written quite as much in order to be laid before Parliament as to give special instructions to our diplomatic agents. Another point that will require the attention of the Committee is the anomalous position of the unpaid portion of our diplomatic service. You have a very large number of young men passing hardly less than four or five, and sometimes as much as ten or twelve years in the service of their country without receiving any salary or emolument for their exertions. The Committee might fairly consider whether the continuance of that system is desirable either for the public interests or for the career of these gentlemen themselves. Without wishing to prejudge the question, I think it doubtful whether you can get any good out of any man by unpaid service for any length of time. The tendency of public opinion is rather to connect responsibility with remuneration, and to question whether any man will give you the best
  1650
  of his mind and the whole of his abilities unless he receives for them some solid equivalent. Having travelled over a great portion of Europe I am bound to say my experience induces me to believe that the present system is neither wholly convenient to the heads of missions nor beneficial to the younger men who compose them. Heads of missions have more than once expressed to me how difficult it is to preserve due discipline and exact the amount of labour demanded by the public interests from men who do their work gratuitously. I have known some missions where the younger members received not only hospitality but guidance and care. I may mention the name of one now gone from us—the late Earl of Westmoreland—who was regarded by all who were attached to his mission as a friend and almost as a father. It may be said that the means of many heads of missions are not largo enough to enable them to perform those duties upon a sufficiently extended scale, and the Committee may well consider whether it may not be advisable to place the younger members of missions in a more satisfactory and independent position. Another point which the Committee may usefully consider is, whether it is possible to devise some method for a more intimate and frequent communication between the Foreign Office and missions abroad, I think it would be advantageous to the younger members if they were occasionally to have a change of duties in the Foreign Office at home; and it certainly would be a great advantage to the heads of missions to be able to communicate personally, more freely, and more frequently with the Foreign Office at home. I do not desire to impugn the conduct of any of our Ministers, but I must say it appears to me that by living many years abroad a man runs the risk of losing somewhat of his estimate of the English public opinion and his appreciation of English character. There are also other matters which could come under the consideration of the Committee, and which are well worthy of being considered; but I feel assured that the inquiry will exhibit the conduct of the Foreign Office in the matter in a light which will be pleasing to the country generally. I believe the general staff of the Foreign Office is most efficient, and the Report of the Committee will, I have no doubt, show that successive Foreign Ministers, of all parties, have laboured to improve and advance the diplomatic service of the country. I think, too, the Committee

  1651
  will be able to confirm in the principles of just economy the Ministers who are responsible for the administration of public affairs, and to assist them in doing that which they have begun to do—namely, to place the diplomatic service in a more satisfactory position. I know that Reports of Committees are not always treated with all the respect of which we may think them deserving, and I do think it is hardly respectful, after a Committee of the House has carefully investigated a subject and made a deliberately considered Report, that a public office should appoint another Committee to revise the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee. I think it would be more becoming if the Minister at the head of the public office were to act upon his own judgment and responsibility in carrying out the Resolutions of the Committee appointed by this House as far as he thought was desirable. I have no doubt that, whatever Resolutions the Committee may adopt, the Government will act in their spirit, if they do not carry them out in their full extent, but that they will adopt every suggestion that may tend to improve the diplomatic service of the country.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he rose to second the Motion, and explained his reasons for resigning his right to bring forward this subject to the hon. Member for Pontefract. In addition to what had fallen from his hon. Friend, it appeared to him that there were several German Courts where diplomatic agents might be appointed of the rank which was so use fully filled by our agent at Rome. In that way a field of exertion would be opened for younger men, which would enable the Foreign Minister the more readily to judge of their merits, and their ability for higher functions. He thought an officer should be attached to each of the embassies, who might be called a travelling attaché, whose duty should be every year to make a circuit of the country in which he resided, visiting the larger towns, and more especially those in which consuls or vice-consuls were stationed. In Turkey, especially, he believed there was often very great difference between consular and ambassadorial opinion, between metropolitan views and local views. Such differences must sometimes cause considerable embarrassment to the Foreign Office; but if the two branches were enabled to compare their opinions it might lead to useful results. It was well known that the younger members
  1652
  of the diplomatic service lived almost entirely in the fashionable society of the capitalists in which they were stationed. This exclusiveness might be carried too far. It often happened that there existed a society without the pale of the fashionable world in which much could be learned of which an attaché who confined himself to that world must remain in ignorance. In making this remark, he was thinkly chiefly of Berlin, of which he could speak from his own knowledge, but he believed the case was still stronger with regard to Vienna, and perhaps St. Petershurgh. The most important matter of all, however, was, that there should be some change in the mode of recruiting for the diplomatic service. Last year he proposed, by way of experiment only, that one single appointment should be given to open competition, and although the general opinion seemed to be against this proposition, he could see no force in the arguments. If they were afraid of any bad result, let them limit the area of competition, so as to make it utterly impossible any bad consequences could arise. They might limit the candidates to members of the universities and public schools. The style of examination which he should wish to see instituted in this case was precisely the kind of examination which the great Lord Chesterfield would have, he felt confident, advocated, if he were now alive. Nowhere was there so much wise advice with regard to the course of reading which a young man who meant to enter the diplomatic service should pursue as in Lord Chesterfield's Letters to his Son. The only other matter which he wished to call attention to was the very slender acquaintance with law which was usual amongst the members of the diplomatic service. In all other countries means were taken to ensure a greater knowledge of law in the diplomatic body, and he thought the same principle might be very usefully applied in this country.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he hoped the Government would grant the Committee for two reasons. In the first place, great changes had been made in the diplomatic service in consequence of the state of affairs on the Continent. Two missions, those at Naples and Florence, had ceased to exist, and the Ministers at the Courts of Vienna and St. Petersburg had been made ambassadors. He hoped the salaries of these appointments would be made sufficient to sup-

  1653
  port their dignity. It bad always struck him that the English Ministers and Ambassadors were not paid in the same proportion as those of other countries. It was very important that these high officers of State should have salaries sufficient to enable them to fill their posts with dignity. The other reason for granting the Committee was the total change of the diplomatic service by the introduction of the system of examination. Formerly young men of family and fortune entered the diplomatic service as an agreeable means of passing their time, visiting foreign countries, and being introduced into the best society. He believed there wore many qualities requisite for efficiency in the diplomatic service that could not be tested by any examination at all. But as the system of examinations had been introduced it must bring a different class of men into the service, and it would become still more necessary to have no unpaid attachés. The argument that formerly applied to the case of the young attachés, that they had great incidental advantages, would not apply to the young men who looked to the service for their professional existence. No country had been better served by its diplomatic corps than England; and by none had it been so ill paid.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I cannot assent to the appointment of the Committee without stating that I do so entirely unpledged as to what the course of the Government may be with regard to the results of the inquiry. The hon. Gentlemen who support the Motion for a Committee seem to think it desirable that there should be a larger expenditure on the diplomatic service. In that opinion I do not share. I am sorry to say the House of Commons is getting more and more into the practice of suggesting how the public expenditure can be increased, instead of leaving it to the Ministers of the Crown to consider how those employed in the public service should be paid. The Government cannot be bound in any way by the appointment of the Committee, and might well appeal to the House against the tendency to increase the public expenditure. The diplomatic corps has always been a distinguished one; the information it gives the Government is most reliable, and the Crown has been well represented by it. My hon. Friend has alluded to the increased facility the electric wire gives for the transmission of messages in a short time to our Ministers. But that facility does not do away
  1654
  with the necessity of fuller communications; that necessity is even greater now than it ever was before. With regard to the unpaid attachés the question is important; but, on inquiry, I think it will be found that their position is not so bad as it has been represented. It has been stated that they may remain for eight or nine years on the unpaid list. But I find from an examination of the list of last year that there are not more than three or four who have been on it more than five years. I believe my hon. Friend and the members of the Committee will find the arrangements of the Foreign Office very complete, and that the manner in which its business is carried on is perfectly satisfactory; that it is done with great order, and without any confusion. In agreeing to the appointment of the Committee I do not assent, in any way, on the ground that there are abuses in this department which require investigation; but I will concede that improvements may, no doubt, be made from time to time, and I should be glad if the Committee suggest any. Apart, however, from the new service in China and Japan the payments to the diplomatic servants of the Crown are made out of the Consolidated Fund and not out of the Estimates voted yearly by this House, and to this it is owing that the increase on this department has been much less than in any other. The Committee will, doubtless, find that Ministers and attachés, paid and unpaid, can give very good reasons why they should be paid salaries, or why their salaries should be increased. Reference has been made to the Report of the Committee of 1850, but I do not agree that the Report of that Committee is an authority on this subject, or, indeed, on any other; I think it went very hastily to work.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to warn the House of the difficulty in which it would find itself if it countenanced Motions of this description. That was the third branch of the public service which was being placed in a kind of trust. The Admiralty had got two nursing mothers in the shape of Committees, and another was about to inquire into the military expenditure by the Colonial Department in our colonies. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER; There is the income tax.] The right hon. Gentleman mentions another Committee, but he (Mr. Henley) did not think that its inquiries were on all fours with the question of considering the effi-

  1655
  ciency of a particular branch of the public service. It would be difficult to find any one year in which three branches of the public service had been inquired into by a Committee with the consent of the executive Government. He sincerely hoped the public service would be benefited by the proposed inquiry, but he had his doubts as to such result, the more especially as regarded the case of servants of the Crown who brought their complaints before the Committee instead of before the Ministers of the Crown. He did not think such inquiries contributed to the efficiency of either army or navy, or any other branch of the public service; but as the Government consented to the Motion he should not offer any opposition to it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "To inquire into the constitution and efficiency of the present Diplomatic Service of this Country."
  Committee nominated:—
  Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. DISRAELI, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, Lord STANLEY, Lord HARRY VANE, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. LAYARD, Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Sir JOHN ACTON, Sir MINTO FARQUHAR, Mr. HANKEY, Mr. HOPE, Mr. GRANT DUFF, Mr. MONCKTON MILNES, and LORD CLAUD HAMILTON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  FIRE INSURANCE.—LEAVE.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to move for leave to bring in a Bill to reduce the duty on fire insurance. He would remind the House that he had submitted a Motion on this subject last Session, and having then gone fully into the question, he should not now attempt any detailed statement. Indeed, it was not necessary for him to trouble the House at the same length, for he thought the subject was never so well understood as at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other night that he anticipated, if a certain tax were repealed, that other hon. Members would follow the example and come down to the House with propositions of an abstract kind. The proposition, however, which he (Mr. Sheridan) was about to move was no abstract Resolution. His proposal was precise and definite, and in favour of that proposal, authorities of worldwide reputation were arrayed. Moreover the appeal was not one made ad miseri-cordiam, but one, the effect of which he believed would ultimately benefit, instead of diminishing, the revenue. The country
  1656
  was getting quite tired of this tax. The public press had attacked it, and a powerful association had been established to bring about its abolition. His proposal was to reduce the duty on fire insurance from 3s. to Is., and by that means to satisfy the demands of the country, at the same time that he hoped the measure in its effect would be found to satisfy any deficiency in the revenue which might be anticipated from the reduction of the duty. How stood the case with reference to the duty? The income at present arising from the duty on fire insurance was £1,400,000, representing in round numbers a sum assured of £1,000,000,000. Bearing in mind that the duty charged in Ireland was 6d. less than in England, the duty would be reduced by about two-thirds. At present, speaking generally, the property insured which furnished this gross revenue was subjected to more than the ordinary risks, and insurance offices would describe it as affected by extreme hazards. On the other hand, the uninsured property came under the head of prudental insurance, consisting, for the most part, of household goods, houses, ships, their cargoes, and uninsured stocks-in-trade. Then again, it was well known that merchants and others now insured only a portion of their stocks. In all these cases there would be a great increase of insurance, and he believed that the deficiency in the revenue, which might be estimated at £800,000, would be soon made up by the inducement which a reduction would hold out to persons to insure. Last year the right hon. Gentleman argued against the proposed year's postponement of the reduction; but he believed that that would have been of the greatest value to the revenue, since it would have given time to the companies to communicate with their agents, and to procure a large additional amount of insurances. The Motion had now been submitted for some years past. Thousands of persons possessing insurable property held back from insuring, expecting the reduction of the duty, and if this reduction were made the deficiency of the revenue would, he believed, be almost immediately repaired. At all events, two years would not pass before three times the present amount of insurance would be effected. To show how these reductions of duty were replaced, he would refer to the post-office order system. In 1841 a considerable reduction took place in the amount charged for post-

  1657
  office orders. In the year previous, as he learned from an interesting pamphlet written by Mr. Sharman, the number of orders issued was 188,921, and their amount was £313,124. In 1842 the number was 1,562,845, and their amount was £3,127,507, while in 1859, 7,000,000 of orders were issued, the money value being £13,250,930. It might be asked whether, in the event of this reduction taking place, there was sufficient margin to allow of the deficiency being made up. That was a natural question, but his reply was that there was ample margin. In 1845 the personal property of the nation was estimated in Porter's Progress of the Nation, at £2,200,000,000, and allowing for an increase on the average of the preceding years it would amount to £3,800,000,000, inclusive of railway property. Reducing that by £800,000,000, as representing the National Debt, there would be £3,000,000,000 left as representing the personal property of the country. The real property of the country, according to Mr. Porter, could not be very accurately ascertained. But it was estimated from the assessment for the income tax that the value of the real property in 1842 was £2,382,000.000 exclusive of Ireland, and if they added for the eighteen years which had since elapsed £600,000,000, it would bring up the actual value of the real property of the country to £3,000,000,000. A little work called the Financial Register fully confirmed that view of the case, Then taking the personal property into consideration, he found that there was about £4,000,000,000 which might he fairly termed insurable property. The increase in the value of that property had been chiefly in the shape of buildings upon land; but, besides, there had been a great deal of additional property created by the reclamation of land. In Ireland alone, of late years, there had been an increase in the value of property from that source to the extent of £3,000,000, and a great deal of land had also been reclaimed in England. It would be idle for him to attempt to give anything like an accurate representation of the value of the national property of this country, all that he could do was to give some approximation drawn from Mr. Porter's able work upon that subject. Perhaps, so far as regarded the increase in personal property, one criterion would be the vast increase in the exports and imports within the last few years. From the figures in a valuable little work
  1658
  upon that subject by Mr. Leone Levi, he found that the whole amount of exports in 1855 was £260,000,000, whereas in 1857 they were no less than £334,000,000, being an increase of no less thmi£74,000,000. The number of vessels which cleared out that year were no less than 97,500, with a tonnage of 22,300,000 tons; and if they estimated the value of the tonnage on the basis which Mr. M'Culloch had given, namely, £13, it would give a gross value of no less than £289.900,000, and he would add to that the £600,000,000 which he estimated was the increase in personal property. They must remember that that was almost all of it insurable property. The practice had hitherto been, with reference to ships, to insure them during the time they were loading and unloading, and to charge so much per month on the insurance. He was prepared to say that if the duty was reduced it would very materially increase the insurance of that particular class of property. At present a great many shipowners were their own insurers, including most of the shipping companies, and he attributed that fact almost entirely to the heavy duty now charged upon fire insurances. The amount of national wealth, which he had estimated at £6,000,000,000 was small, however, when compared with the national wealth of France. There existed in France 180 milliards of insurable property, amounting to £7,200,000,000 of English money. That was exclusive of real property. In this country a proportionate increase of insurance was by no means equal to that of Franco. In 1835 the amount insured in this country was £500,000,000. In 1855, it had increased to only £800,000,000. The revenue derived from fire insurance in 1845 was £1,062,000. In 1860 it was £1,400,000 or thereabouts. In England the habit of insuring had existed for 180 years. In Franco it had existed for only thirty-four or thirty-five years. But whilst we had only insured £1,000,000,000 out of 4,000,000,000 France had insured 2,200,000,000. That was a most unsatisfactory state of things, either as compared with the amount insured in France, or with the marvellous increase which had taken place in the value of our national property within the last few years; and it might be fairly assumed that it was caused mainly by the impolitic duty which was levied on fire insurances. Last Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer employed an argument based on the report of Mr. Coode to

  1659
  show that it was not probable any great increase in fire insurances would take place, as the result of the exemptions of agricultural produce had not been as favourable as was expected. But the opinion of an eminent actuary, Mr. Samuel Browne, was directly opposed to that conclusion, for he went into a calculation for the purpose of showing that in the two years which followed the granting of the exemption the insurance of farming stock was more than doubled; in the next ten years there was an increase of 80 per cent; in the next five, of 20 per cent; and it was only when the impulse given by the remission had been exhausted that the amount became stationary. To show the unjust character of the tax it was only necessary to suppose the case of an insurance society consisting of 1,000 members, who contributed a sufficient sum to insure each member for £1,000. In the event of a loss happening, before the society could hand over the £1,000 so insured it was requisite to pay £2,000 as a fine to the Government. That amounted to a bonus to those who did not insure, and was a penalty imposed on those who dared to take care of what they had earned by their labour. On what principle did the Government claim this 200 per cent? Had it taken any share in the risk, or had it superintended the transaction in any way? The principle would be the same if the Government in addition to the 1d. now charged for the postage of each letter were to demand 2d. for sending it. The profits of the fire insurance companies did not exceed 20 per cent on the returns; yet the demand made by the Government was at the rate of 1,000 per cent on their profits. If it were the desire of the Government to destroy the national property they were going the right way to work. The official Returns showed that insured property to the amount of £1,000,000 was annually destroyed by fire, while the total amount destroyed could not be less than £5,000,000, the balance remaining uninsured from what he must call the stupidity which actuated legislative proceedings on this subject. Were prudence and virtue matters so constantly to be met with that it was necessary to restrain them by taxation? Did not the House think it would be better to tax our vices and indulgences, than virtues such as forethought and economy? If the tax were to be regarded as a property tax he could understand its retention, though it ought to be fairly assessed. Why should a man who insured
  1660
  his property he liable to pay property tax, from which a man was exempt who had property sufficient to become his own insurer? Why, too, was it always thought necessary to fasten a property tax on trade, while agricultural products were allowed to go free? He could not help saying, that as a property tax it was dishonestly administered. In the leading newspapers articles had appeared in favour of the reduction of this impost, but he should content himself with quoting from The Times of the 6th of April 1860. The hon. Gentleman read as follows:—
  "Let us now consider the character of the tax itself. Of course, in some sense, it is a direct tax, and also in some sense a tax upon property; but we venture to say that never yet was a property tax so levied. Mr. Bright proposed the other day to place a tax upon property. His scheme did not find much favour with the public, but its principles were at least more reasonable than those of the insurance duty. He would have taxed all property alike, without allowing imprudence to bring in a right of exemption; but he would not have treated a tradesman's stock as property, or levied his tax upon goods obtained merely for the purposes of sale. In the insurance duty no cognizance whatever is taken of property until its owner wishes to secure it against the risk of fire. A man with £5,000 worth of plate or furniture in his house is not called upon for a penny, provided he chooses to remain uninsured; whereas his neighbour, with a stock in trade worth £500, must pay 15 s. yearly to the Government, besides 7s. 6d. to the insurance office, if he wishes to be guaranteed against ruinous loss. The tax, therefore, is levied, not upon property, but upon the act of securing it. If a man chooses to run the risk of being beggared Government will encourage him in his recklessness by exempting him from a tax; if he is too cautious to incur this peril, he must pay for his wisdom. It is in vain to argue that the duty does not really operate in this manner, and that the amount is too small to deter anybody from insuring his goods. The duty turns a payment of £1 into £3, and it would be preposterous to suppose that the latter obligation would be accepted as freely as the former. If a reduction of £200 per cent upon the cost of a thing will not bring it into more common use, what becomes of all the speculations on which Mr. Gladstone founds his Budget? What is the good of cheap silk or cheap claret unless cheapness means increased custom in the article? If there is truth, as assuredly there is, in the relations traced between price and consumption, it follows necessarily and directly that the heavy duty upon insurance discourages the practice of insuring, and that a premium is thus placed by legislative enactment upon culpable imprudence."
  Hon. Gentleman seemed to hear with impatience the quotation which he had read from so influential an organ of public opinion, but he begged to remind the House that these were arguments in favour of the amelioration of the condition of their fellow-countrymen. Comments had been

  1661
  made on the absence of petitions and remonstrances from insurance companies, but a petition had been presented that evening from the leading insurance companies of London protesting against this tax. The fire insurance companies were allowed a discount of 4 or 5 per cent for the collection of the duty. What was it that made those companies willing to give up that advantage and to ask for a repeal of the tax? The fact that they were in precisely the same position as the country at large with respect to this subject. He had heard a rumour of an intention to make an attempt to count out the House in order to get rid of this subject; but he could hardly believe that such treatment would be accorded to so important a matter, though so few Members were present. If it were a personal question affecting a Minister, the benches would be crowded, and the greatest interest be excited; but as it was merely a question of general policy, and affected more or less every household in the kingdom, of course it could hardly be expected that the representatives of the people would be in their places. It would be a very unusual thing if it were so. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would object to the repeal of this duty on two grounds: first, that the Motion for its abolition was not brought forward by a member of the Government; and, secondly, that he had not the means of assenting to his proposal. He (Mr. Sheridan) was a very insignificant Member of the House; but his excuse for bringing the subject forward would be found in the fact that the Government had taken no step in that direction. A French company had proposed a scheme for insuring property in this country without duty. When the Government of the day discovered it they came down to that House, and the Act 19–20th of Victoria, preventing any company from stepping in to do that was the result of their appeal to hon. Members. That fact was sufficient to show that the repeal of the duty was not likely to be achieved by the spontaneous action of the Executive. As for the objection on the ground of want of means, the right hon. Gentleman himself, when bringing forward his proposal for the repeal of certain duties last year, laid down the doctrine that even a deficiency in the Exchequer did not afford a reason for continuing an unjust or impolitic tax, seeing that the consequence of a reduction of it might be to increase the
  1662
  revenue. What he proposed was to reduce the fire insurance duty from 3s. to 1s., and he believed that the sum actually obtained from the tax would, in the event of the change, not be less than at present. He I was convinced that no other tax had a; prior claim; and trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assent to the Motion, and thus increase the confidence which the public reposed in his wisdom, and in his desire to legislate in a just and worthy manner for the advantage of the entire community. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to reduce the duty on fire insurance.
  MR. CONINGHAMseconded the Motion.
  MR. NORRISsaid, it was usual, when hon. Gentlemen came forward in that House with a proposal for the reduction or abolition of a tax, to appear as the advocates and representatives of some distressed class of the community, who complained of the oppressiveness of a tax, or of the inequality of its incidence, But they had that night the novel exhibition of the hon. Member for Dudley asking the House to fetter its independence by pledging itself to the remission of a tax which was petitioned against by certain insurance offices alone. The whole scope and drift of the hon. Gentleman's speech was to embrace, not those who were oppressed with the weight of taxation, but those who paid no taxes whatever in respect of insurance. If night after night the House took up in this way one branch of revenue after another such a course would tend to unsettle their financial system and embarrass the Government. The tea and coffee duties had been continued for fifteen months with the express view that all the taxes bearing on the masses of the people should then be taken into consideration. It was forestalling the question to propose that a large source of income should be abolished now without taking in connection with it all the other sources of income. For these reasons he hoped the House would disregard the application that had been made for the removal of this tax, until they had before them the Estimate of the expenditure and income for the year. When they knew what these were to he they could, if the finances admitted of any reduction of taxation being made, decide in what direction that reduction should take place. None of the insurance companies had announced that they would give the public the advantage of any reduction of the duty that might be made.

  1663
  The question, indeed, was one in which the insurers, rather than the insured, were interested, and he had little hesitation in saying that if Government were to propose the establishment of an insurance department the profits of which should go to the State, every insurance company, notwithstanding the desire they professed to encourage habits of providence among the people, would he up in arms against it.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he had often heard it laid down in that House that reduction of taxation did not impair the revenue. The proposition of the hon. Member for Dudley did not go to the destruction of the revenue, but simply asked for a reduction of a tax which probably would not at the same time bring about the reduction of the revenue. He believed if the fire duty were reduced from 3s. to 1s. per cent, the public would be benefited and the revenue not endangered; and although it might be said that this was not the year in which the alteration could be well made, yet he thought it would display a want of courtesy on the part of the Government on that ground not to allow the introduction of the Bill. The tax was a tax on the provident habits of the people, and he was surprised that the Government should oppose its abolition. Allusion had been made to France, and in stating that there personal property was insured to three times the extent it was in England, he believed the hon. Member for Dudley had not overstated his case. The measure was a wise and simple one, and he believed that, though the Government might successfully oppose its introduction, the sense of the country was in its favour.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated that he never knew a more simple proposition than this submitted to the House, and yet it seems impossible for its mover to bring it forward in speeches of less than one, two, or three hours in length. However that may be, I must apologize to the House, because I frankly own my opinion that, as far as argument goes, this is an exhausted subject. I do the hon. Member for Dudley this justice, that I think he has upon every occasion argued this question with the utmost ingenuity; but his ingenuity is totally at fault; he is compelled to resort to the most extraordinary expedients; he is obliged to read to us in full detail a leading article from a newspaper, and certainly if
  1664
  it had been possible to avert that necessity the hon. Member would have discovered the means of doing so. Far be it from me to deny that the sentiments of that leading article were admirably put; at the same time it appears to me that leading articles are written to be read in silence rather than aloud as part of a speech. After delivering his own speech the hon. Member went on to deliver mine. I shall make a comment on that by and by. I only notice it now as a proof of the straits to which the hon. Member found himself reduced; but I make this observation, that, having delivered my speech, he also delivered his own answer to it, and I take the liberty of noting that, as far at least as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman has already exercised his right of reply, and will not be in a condition to claim it a second time. It appears to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Norris) has, in his reference to the mode, to the principles, and to the order in which financial subjects should be treated by this House, given reasons for the rejection of this Motion. Nevertheless, my respect for this subject, exhausted though it is, obliges me, as the hon. Member has thought fit to state in full detail the important but very familiar points on which the argument for the repeal of the tax turns, briefly to advert to them. The hon. Gentleman says that he proposes to reduce the fire insurance duty from 3s. to 1s., and as that primâ facie removes from the revenue about two-thirds of the amount received from that source—namely, £1,400,000, what he asks the House to do on the present occasion is to vote the condemnation of £900,000 of the public revenue. [Mr. SHEBIDAN: £800,000.] It appears to me that £900,000 is a fairer statement of two-thirds of £1,400,000 than £800,000. The hon. Member who last sat down appeared to think that it was a matter of courtesy to allow the introduction of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. I respectfully dissent from that proposition. If it were a matter of courtesy and nothing else, I am quite sure that I am speaking for my Colleagues as well as myself when I say that we should be most happy to accord to the hon. Gentleman that courtesy. But when the nature of a Bill does not in any degree turn upon its structure or form of expression, when the whole effect and purport of the measure is distinctly avowed in the title which appears upon the notice paper, and in the speech of the hon. Mem-

  1665
  ber who asks leave to introduce it, it is the ingenous and straightforward course for the Government to adopt to state at the earliest moment its opinion upon the mea sure. £900,000, then, is the sum which the hon. Gentleman asks us now, upon the 8th of March, to determine to deduct from the revenue of the coming year. He does not make this demand without holding out to us the most alluring prospect, for he assures us, upon his word, that he has a comfortable belief that in the course of two or three years the whole of this sum would be replaced. Nay, more, the hon. Gentleman goes the length of asserting that if we do but accede to his Motion the ultimate effect will be that the tax will realize three times its present amount. [Mr. SHERIDAN: I said it would produce three times the amount of the revenue reduced.] No doubt, the hon. Member intended to say that the whole revenue would be replaced. This astonishing position is one of those specious computations which one man is as free to make as another. It is difficult to apply a test to such computations. I heard, however, the hon. Member calculate the value of the shipping of the country. He said there were 22,000,000 tons of shipping in this country, and that its value might be placed at £13 a ton. That being so, I will give the House a specimen of the trustworthiness of the calculations on which the hon. Gentleman expects that this £900,000 a year will be replaced. The 22,000,000 tons of shipping exist nowhere but in his own imagination. That is not the amount of the shipping of this country, but the tonnage that passes in and out of the ports of this country. [Mr. SHERIDAN: I said so.] The same vessels may go in and out from five to fifty times in the course of the year. There are not 22,000,000 tons of shipping in this country, but 4,600,000 tons. Here is the book, and the hon. Gentleman may make his own calculation of the value of the shipping at £13 a ton. The difference, however, is astounding, and it is not a bad specimen of the computations or conjectures of the hon. Member. The hon. Member quotes the Post Office, and especially the Money Order Office. But this is no example, and has nothing to do with the present case. That was never a tax at all, but a charge for the transaction of business, and it is a gratuitous assumption that the reduction of that charge was the cause of the increase of the system. The money order system was a perfect novelty.
  1666
  It spread with wonderful rapidity, and it was a discovery almost equally honourable with the original system of penny postage. But that reduction of charge was only one of the improvements that produced this effect. But what is the case of the penny postage in relation to the public revenue? You made in 1839 an immense reduction in the postage of letters. The number of letters was stimulated by a variety of means, but you reduced the postage on letters far more in proportion than the hon. Gentleman proposes to reduce the duty on fire insurance. We have had that new postal system with its reductions in use for twenty-two years, and we have not yet made up the revenue we lost in 1839. The hon. Alderman has stated that he has heard it said in this House that the reduction of duties does not impair the revenue. But can there be a grosser mistake or more dangerous error than to assert as a universal proposition what is only true in particular cases? Make your selection with judgment, take the proper case, and then the reduction of a duty, nay, I will add the abolition of the duty, will not always reduce the revenue. Each case, however, must be judged on its own merits. I will take the hon. Member's own parallel of the Post Office, and I will say here was a clear proof that while the change was admirable, while the reduction was enormous, and while the new system was worked out by the very man who introduced it, we have not yet replaced the revenue that was taken away twenty-two years ago, although I admit that it was revenue well sacrificed, and that the benefit was ten times greater than the money lost. Still, we are now on fiscal grounds; and that is an issue that must not be changed or evaded. The hon. Member objects to the exemption of farming stock from the duty on fire insurance. The hon. Member, however, does not come down with an Address to the Crown, or a Resolution of this House, affirming that it is unjust to establish a distinction between farming and other stock not entitled to take advantage of that exemption. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to make the experiment and try to get that distinction abolished. But if the Legislature acted wrongly and rashly in giving away £200,000 by the exemption of farming stock from duty, is that any reason why we should give away £900,000 more? The hon. Member says there has been a greater increase in the property assured in France

  1667
  than in this country. Well, no wonder. The introduction of fire insurance into France is recent. Here it is 200 years old. As well might the hon. Member suppose that because 12,000 miles of railway were made in this country last year, the same extent will be made every year for the next twenty-five years. A grosser fallacy cannot be conceived. The state of the law relative to fire insurance is, however, very different in France. If a particular person has a house in a block of twelve, and if a firebreaks out in his house and extends to the other eleven, the losses of the other eleven are charged on the man in whose house the fire arises. In this country the risks are not so large, and the proportion between the amount of property and the insurance is entirely different in the two countries. The hon. Gentleman may, from the analogy of the Post Office, have fair ground for expecting that a gradual and moderate increase will take place in the event of the reduction of the duty, but he has no ground for expecting that we can avert a heavy fiscal loss that may indeed continue for a number of years. I do not quarrel with the hon. Member on the general question whether a reduction in this tax may not be desirable, but let it be considered on its own merits, and not on expectations not grounded on experience. I admit with him that in a certain state of our finances it might be just, wise, and expedient to afford a reduction in the duty on fire insurances. But that is not the question now before us. The hon. Member says I shall object to the interference of a private Member of Parliament in such a matter. No word has ever fallen from me approaching to such presumption. It is the duty of every Member of Parliament to propose the removal of any tax that he may consider burdensome to the people. But there is a mode and time of proposing such reductions, both for independent Members and the Government. If the hon. Member asks "when ought we to object?" I say let him make his objection when his claim can be put in competition with other claims, and not when he is in ignorance as he now is of the expenditure of the country for the year, and the means of meeting that expenditure. When the Government make their proposition to the House it will be seen whether, if there be a surplus, the mode of giving it away proposed by the hon. Member is wiser than that proposed by the Government. I know it is a popu-
  1668
  lar saying in the House, that if a remission of a tax is suggested before the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is too soon, and if after the Budget that it is too late. I do not know who ever said that—certainly I never did. I will cite a case which appears to me to have been perfectly legitimate and perfectly fair to all parties. In 1853 my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) moved the repeal of the advertisement duty; and after the Budget was produced we found that the prevailing feeling on the subject was such that, although it was only the proposition of a private Member, and although we ourselves had proposed entirely different plans, we gave way and adopted the abolition of the duty. Now this is the course which the hon. Gentleman should pursue. To demand £900,000 of annual revenue from the Finance Minister of the country, before we know anything about the probable balance of income and expenditure, is certainly, to use the hon. Gentleman's own words, a proposal of a "stern and unflinching character." It is really too much for my nerves; and I hope it will prove too much, also, for the nerves of the House. What right, in justice, reason, or policy, has the hon. Gentleman to take the reduction of this tax out of the category of other claims? Does he mean to say that it is a claim of such a nature that we ought to grant it whether we have a surplus or not? If so, I hope the House will beware of committing itself to a deficiency in the revenue. If the hon. Gentleman says we have the means to dispose of in this way, I tell him that he does not know. Till the close of the year, and till I know what the Estimates are to be, I myself cannot presume to lay before the House any statement which would warrant that allegation. But then the hon. Gentleman asserts that this claim is prior to all others. I shall be much surprised if the House proceeds, prematurely and in the dark, to affirm that proposition. I am glad to have got from the hon. Gentleman the meaning of his Motion. It is that neither the income tax, nor the paper duty, nor the duty on tea, nor the duty on sugar, which are the chief claimants on the public revenue when the time of revision comes, are to be put in competition with the duty on fire insurance. While I think it most objectionable, except under very extraordinary and peculiar circumstances, to accept any proposal for a financial reduction with-

  1669
  out knowing what claims there may be on our liberality and justice, I hold it to be especially objectionable in a case like the present. The real fact is that the demand for the reduction of this tax, though favoured by public opinion, is mainly supported by a powerful and well organized combination of wealthy bodies. The House should, therefore, observe especial caution in such a case. Let us contrast this claim with, for instance, that for the reduction of the duty on tea. That is a duty which interests every human being down to the lowest class of the community. There is not a single old woman, I mean old women of the species which nature produces, not that numerous class which on artificial but very substantial grounds receive that appellation; and I say that the real old woman is the just object of our consideration; there is not one of that class living on 2s. or 3s. a week doled out by the Board of Guardians who has not a direct and sensible interest in the reduction of the duty on tea; but there are no powerful companies, no great wealthy bodies of capitalists to besiege the doors of this House and the dwellings of its Members with a demand for the repeal of the duty on tea. That repeal will be urged on the ground of public interest alone. I do not wish you to pledge yourselves to any question of priority. I object to taking up one claim before the others. I object to your taking any step until you know the state of the probable income and expenditure. I object to your spending what you do not yet know that you have got. But above all I object to your selecting for special favour the claim for the reduction of a duty which already competes, at too great an advantage, with other claims of a similar nature, being supported by those organized means of agitation which wealth has always at command. I hope that the House will refuse the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It is our obligation as a Government to bear in mind the condition of all the tax-payers of the kingdom, and to endeavour so to regulate the taxation of the country as to strike a fair balance between their interests and claims. But it would be impossible to accomplish that task if the House of Commons were, as I am thankful it is not their practice to do, to make a precipitate and premature decision at the bidding of a powerful interest in favour of a claim which is rather for the benefit of a class than of the public, to the disadvantage of other claims
  1670
  which are of more general interest and may be found to be of greater weight. To take such a course would involve a substantial betrayal of public duty, and would inflict a substantial injury on the people at large.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Dudley in thinking this was a bad tax, and he thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was opposed in spirit to the speech in which he introduced the Budget last year. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the duty on fire insurances was to be maintained in all its integrity. [The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER: I never said that.] He should be sorry to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but he certainly understood him to maintain that principle. However, it was perfectly clear that it was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that, for protecting his property against fire, which was a duty every man owed to himself and his neighbour, he ought to pay to the Government just twice as much as he paid to the insurance company, insuring at the ordinary risks. He bad no sympathy with the great insurance companies; but the right hon. Gentleman was not correct in considering this a mere question of insurance companies. On the contrary, it was because he believed it was a question which deeply affected the middle and poorer classes, who were most unjustly taxed in the matter, that he dissented entirely from the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the first to argue for the removal of the wine duty, which really did not press heavily on the classes to whom he referred, and he did so on the ground that if they reduced the duty to 6d., there would be a very great consumption, and their other revenues would not be less. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman apply the same principle to the reduction of duty on fire insurances as the wine duty? It was of much greater interest to the people that they should be allowed to insure their homes against fire without having to pay twice as much to the Government as to the insurance office, than that the rich man should get his bottle of wine a little cheaper. He quite admitted the force of the argument that they ought to wait and see by the Budget what the Government could afford to part with, for he admitted that there were considerations higher even than relieving the people from the burden of taxation, and be for one

  1671
  would consent to pay the insurance tax, or any other tax, for the purpose of promoting the greatness of the country. But was he, because he held that principle, to be told year after year that a tax could not be reduced, which outraged all principles of justice and transgressed all rules of taxation? After what the right hon. Gentleman had stated last year, was he now to tell them that that was a tax in which there was to be no modification.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not repeat a misrepresentation, which is very gross. I stated nothing of the kind. I stated that, in certain conditions of finance, such a reduction might have many claims; hut I asked the House to suspend its judgment.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he had stated that he was quite willing to wait until the financial statement had been made, and therefore he should, though voting for the introduction of the Bill, ask the hon. Member to postpone the second reading until after the Budget, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained the exact amount of surplus. And when they knew the amount of that surplus he was sure the voice of the country would urge on this reduction, rather than those which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to impose upon them last year. The fact was the tax was most oppressive. On an insurance of £100 it was 200 per cent. It was besides objectionable in principle, because it operated to prevent a man doing that which, as a matter of precaution and safety, he ought to do. The high amount of duty had induced him to run a great risk by insuring his property at much less than otherwise he would have done. There was no reason to suppose that if the tax was reduced fire insurances would not greatly increase, so that if the proposition of the hon. Member for Dudley were agreed to at once, and the duty reduced to one shilling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lose, as he stated, £1,000,000, but a portion of the loss of revenue would be made up by the increased amount of property which would be immediately insured. If the right hon. Gentleman had only admitted that the time might come when it would be expedient to modify the tax there would be then something to hope for; but so far from that he did not say this was a tax which ought to be considered at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that, considering the finances of the
  1672
  country, he could not hold out any hope of the reduction of these taxes at all. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I did not say so.] At all events the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not hold out any hope.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be very inconvenient if any misapprehension should go forth with respect to matters of finance. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not and did not hold out any expectation whatever of the reduction of any duty whatever.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that there was no doubt about that; hut he thought that as the duty was not defensible in its nature, the right hon. Gentleman might have said that, having regard to the general finances of the country, he would consider it. On the contrary, they had the right hon. Gentleman saying it was a question of public companies. If he (Mr. Malins) entertained that view he would not urge the reduction of the duty one farthing; but considering, as he did, that the reduction of this duty would most materially benefit a very large class of the public he should vote for the introduction of the measure, on the understanding that it should not be proceeded with until after the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he wished to explain the reason of an apparent inconsistency in the vote which he was about to give. He had the day before presented a petition from the merchants of Edinburgh against the tax, and on looking into the petition he found that he had signed it himself. It might appear inconsistent that he should pray for a particular measure and yet vote against its introduction. But when he considered the state of the finances, he thought there was good reason for opposing the Motion. At the same time he considered the tax not only a bad one, but one of the worst at present existing. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to take the tax into consideration at all; be (Mr. Black) did not so understand him, but only that he asked to wait until there should be a surplus, and he could gather from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not expect that at present. The hop growers came forward the other night with a very strong case, but he opposed them because he

  1673
  thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made out a stronger case against remission; and, therefore, though he was himself greatly affected by this tax and would save a considerable sum by its repeal, he could not now vote for the introduction of the Bill, because it might, be said that he voted for the repeal of this tax because it affected himself, and supported the retention of another tax by which he was not affected. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into his consideration this duty on fire insurance, and that when he had a fair chance he would bring it forward as one of the first which called for repeal, or at all events for reduction. Under that expectation he should vote against the introduction of this Bill.
  MR. SPOONERobserved, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the question before the House was an insurance companies' question. Granting that it was—and he would not say whether it was or was not—what then? The insurance companies alleged that if the duty were reduced their business must increase, and as their business increased so would the revenue be increased likewise. Admitting it to be a companies' case, granting them this concession, the reduction of the tax would lead to an increase of revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a fiscal question; hut it was also a social one. Great risks were run by those who neglected to insure at present, but who might be led to do so if the duty were repealed, and thus a great benefit would be bestowed on the country at large.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, it was with much reluctance that he had made up his mind to vote for the Motion, but when a great principle was brought forward, it was desirable that Members should express their opinions with regard to it. He had on former occasions voted for a similar Bill to the present one, but merely with the view of making a declaration of what he conceived to be right. While voting for the introduction of the Bill, he would, after the Budget was brought forward, determine the course he would take on the second reading, as the financial circumstances of the country might justify.
  MR. GREGSONintimated, that it was with reluctance that he found himself compelled to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Dudley, and stated that
  1674
  when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward his Budget he would take an early opportunity to state the case of those old women to whom the right hon. Gentleman had alluded.
  MR. CONINGHAMcharacterized the tax as perfectly indefensible in principle, and monstrous in amount, and expressed a hope that the decision of the House that night would have some influence upon the forthcoming Budget.
  MR. HENLEYremarked, that they seemed now to have come to this position—that one hon. Member after another found fault with some particular tax, which was one of the easiest things in the world to do; but if the principle of conceding one tax after another were carried out, there would soon be no taxes in the Exchequer, and he did not know in that case how the national credit could be maintained. The case of the hop duties was brought before them the other night, but with respect to that, as to other taxes, he would not consent to rob the Exchequer till he saw where the money necessary for keeping up the national establishments was to come from. He did not understand hon. Gentlemen saying they would vote for the first reading, but would leave it open to consider whether they should support the second reading. That was not business to his mind. If they wanted to knock a thing on the head they should do so at once.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I hope the House will carefully consider the vote into which it is about to be hurried by the hon. Member for Dudley. I never heard anything more illogical than the argument which some hon. Gentlemen have used in support of this Motion. We are told that the country requires a revenue, that it is impossible to determine upon the repeal of any particular tax until my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has stated his views of income and expenditure; that those who are going to vote for the introduction of this Bill do not mean to bring on the second reading until after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated whether he has any surplus to dispose of; and, if he has, how that surplus can best be applied. If there is any reason in that line of argument it leads directly to that result which we recommend to the House; namely, not to sanction the introduction of the Bill when we do not see our way to carrying it through all its stages. Every argument which was used

  1675
  by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) tended directly to the reverse of the decision which he announced, to my utter astonishment, that he was himself prepared to join in. This is much too serious a matter to be treated with the levity with which some hon. Gentlemen are disposed to treat it. In the first place we are told that the abolition of this duty will be a great relief, and that the whole amount will go to the insurers. Will anybody insure me that a great portion will not go to the insurance offices? When the tax was taken off beer we were told that instead of its being any relief to the consumers it would only be a fair compensation to the brewers for the expenses they had incurred without any remuneration. So the charges of the insurance offices may be increased; but, be that as it may, I say we are not in a condition at present to determine with regard to any particular tax whether or not we can afford to repeal it. The country is bent upon being put into a state of security with respect to external defence. The people have raised 150,000 Volunteers at great trouble and expense to themselves in order to secure the country; and, under these circumstances, it is trifling with the great interests of the country to pronounce a decision upon any particular tax before we know whether there are any taxes which we can reduce, and, if we have such taxes, whether the tax now under consideration is the one which ought to be selected. I hope the House will not listen to the arguments of those who are in favour of this Motion, but will give to my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that fair opportunity which he is en titled to have to take a large and general view of the whole financial state of the country, and will suspend its judgment upon any particular portion of our finances until that view shall have been laid before it.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDAN,in reply, denied that the insurance offices would derive an immediate benefit from the passing of his Bill. They would, on the contrary, suffer an immediate loss, because they gained something from the collection of the tax. He was willing, if the Motion were agreed to, to defer the second reading until after the Budget had been brought.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the Duty on Fire Insurance."
  The House divided:—'Ayes 49, Noes 138: Majority 89.

GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (IRELAND).

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he founded the Motion of which he had given notice upon the fact that there was upwards of £1,000,000 raised in the counties in Ireland and administered by the grand juries of the country without any representation or control of the ratepayers. In fact the whole of the fiscal administration of the counties of Ireland was in the hands exclusively of an irresponsible body, under the same obligations as were imposed upon them relative to the transaction of criminal business. In 1836 a change was made in the law on the subject which effected several improvements in the system. In the first place it gave publicity to those proceedings which were before then conducted in secrecy. In the next place it deprived the sheriff of that unlimited discretion in selecting grand juries which those officers had previously possessed; and, lastly, it enacted that no presentment could in future be passed until it had been previously adopted at the Presentment Sessions. The magistrates, however, of the whole county could attend those Presentment Sessions, and with them a small number of the associated ratepayers could control the expenditure of those enormous sums levied off the county. But, under the circumstances in which those ratepayers were selected it could not be said that the body was at all properly represented. The names of one hundred ratepayers were returned for each barony or hundred, and they were thrown into a box, and the first six that were drawn out were expected to act. The persons supposed to be controlled by the ratepayers had the selection of those names, and, therefore, there was no security whatever against misapplication of the funds at their disposal. The expenditure of the counties might be divided into ten heads, all of which were under the control of the grand juries. They were, with the amounts expended, in 1859 as follows:—The making of new roads, bridges, &c, connected with public highways, £85,000; repairs of roads, £493,000; erection and repairs of county buildings, £10,000; prison expenses, £79,000; police and witnesses, £19,000; salaries and county fees, £102,000; public charities, £72,000; repayment to Government for advances made, £102,000; miscellaneous items, £92,000; making in the whole an ex-

  1677
  penditure exceeding £1,000,000. The Royal Commission which inquired into this system in 1842, and which was composed of some of the most eminent men of the day, had placed it on record that while it was the intention of the law to give the right of representation to the taxpayers, the law was ineffectual for accomplishing that object. They then recommended certain changes in regard to the Presentment Sessions. Now, he (Mr. Butt) did not rest his case upon any charges of jobbery or impropriety of conduct on the part of the grand juries in Ireland. He believed that, generally speaking, they were actuated by as high and honourable motives as any similar class of Gentlemen in this or any other country. Nevertheless, under the existing system, there was every temptation afforded them for the application of those monies to the making of new roads or other improvements in such places as would considerably increase their own properties without conferring any proportionate advantages upon the country generally. Throughout the whole of the evidence of the Commission of 1842 comments were made upon the inefficiency of the existing system. No attempt, however, had been made to carry out any one of the recommendations of that Commission. But in the year 1849 a Bill had been introduced bearing upon its back the names of Sir William Somerville and Sir George Grey. It had been introduced in June, and then it was ordered to be postponed to the next Session. That "next Session" was a favourite period for considering all Irish matters. Nothing, however, was done; and again in 1855 Sir Denham Norrys attempted to introduce a Bill but without success. It was again deferred until "next Session," and again in 1856, and again in 1857. And now, once more, there were Gentlemen in the House exceedingly anxious for a reform in the law, who advised him to follow the example of his predecessors, and leave the matter in the hands of the Chief Secretary, and expect that "next Session" something would be done. But if he did so, he had no doubt whatever that "next Session" the reform sought for would be as far off as ever. He was not prepared to present a Bill for the acceptance of the House, but he felt that so many interests were involved in the question, that a Committee was the proper tribunal in which to consider them. He believed also, if a Committee were appointed impartially to
  1678
  collect opinions, and if men of widely different ideas on the subject were to meet and hear each other's arguments, that the result would be suggestions which would carry with them the general opinion of Ireland. He valued the principle of local self-government; but local self-government was not half carried out by the higher classes, and not at all encouraged by the sheriffs. It was desirable to establish an independent public opinion in Ireland; but how could it be established without institutions that would create it. Give the people of Ireland the institutions which had made the Saxon character so independent and strong, and they would exhibit the same characteristics.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he would second the Motion. He was far from finding fault, however, with the manner in which the grand juries had administered the finances. He believed they had done it as well as persons in their circumstances could do, but that ought not to be an obstacle to carrying out the principle advocated by his hon. and learned Friend. He was quite certain that those who were in the habit of attending boards of poor law guardians must have noticed the improvement in the habits of the middle order of Irish, and that any tendency to jobbery or local favoritism which used to exist had disappeared, and he was quite sure that the Government could not do better than carry out and extend that system of education of the Irish people in the management of their own local affairs.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee tie appointed to inquire into and report upon the effect and operation of the laws which regulate the raising of money by public assessment for the making, maintaining, and repairing of the public highways, and for the other purposes now provided for by Grand Jury presentment in Ireland, and of the system by which, under those laws, the fiscal business of the several counties in that country is administered, with a view of ascertaining whether any and what amendments may be advantageously made in the laws regulating the administration of that business, and more especially whether, and to what extent, it may be expedient to introduce into such administrations the principle of representative bodies and popular election."
  COLONEL DUNNEobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion at a time when nearly all the Irish Members were absent from the House attending the assize in their respective counties. I The hon. and learned Gentleman had given

  1679
  a description of what he conceived grand juries were, but the grand juries were a much more popular body than he imagined. The jurors were the highest ratepayers, interested on their own part, as well as on behalf of their tenants, in a proper levy and administration of the county cess. It was objected that Peers could not be members of the grand juries who imposed the local taxation; but the same objection applied to the House of Commons taxing the House of Lords. Besides the taxing presentment of Irish grand juries was subject to appeal before a judge and jury. There was no fund administered so economically in the whole of the United Kingdom as that managed by the grand Junes. The grand jury system, however, was not perfect; and, although he objected to a Select Committee, he would not object to an inquiry into its constitution before a Committee on a Bill if one were introduced.
  MR. KERopposed the appointment of a Committee as unnecessary.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, if he thought the appointment of a Committee was likely to lead to any practical result he should not oppose it, but he believed that a Committee would lead to no practical result. Already there had been a Commission, which had fully inquired into the subject, and Bills upon Bills had been introduced, not one of which had received the support of the House. If a Committee were appointed, at the end of its labours the same hopeless course of bringing in Bills would be gone through, with the inevitable result as indicated by former proceedings. He confessed that the present system was not to his liking, but as the appointment of a Committee could not possibly better it, he trusted his right hon. Friend would not agree to the Motion.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he could not but condemn the present grand jury system in Ireland. In the city of Waterford there had been but one Roman Catholic sheriff since the time of James II. The appointment of the sheriffs rested with the Lord Lieutenant, upon the recommendation of the Judge of Assize, and as the grand jurors were appointed by the sheriffs the grand jurors were practically appointed by the Government.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, the picture of the grand jury system in Ireland drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Butt) was not only highly coloured but grossly exaggerated. It was hardly pos-
  1680
  sible that a more untrue statement of the constitution of the grand jury could be presented to the House. The barony constable who was appointed by the grand jury and responsible to them, selected one hundred of the highest ratepayers for the grand jury, who were bound to select not less than twelve and not more than twenty. In answer to another misstatement of the hon. Member he would say that the grand jury had not the power to raise one single penny, but the Act of Parliament expressly stated that it should be voted and approved by the ratepayers. Then with regard to the appointment of grand juries, the sheriff was bound to appoint one grand juror for each barony, and it was possible that he might so far forget himself as to appoint one whom he thought might not attend, but he (Mr. George) was of opinion that scarcely any sheriff could be found who would so far forget his duty. The merits of the grand jury system had already been borne testimony to. He believed that a better system of high-roads and bye-roads was nowhere to be found than in those that were ordered by them; and although he was not there to deny that a job might not here and there be found, he believed they were exceedingly rare, and did not affect the general system of the grand jury laws. If the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland would, instead of granting this Committee, which would lead to interminable discussion, bring in a Bill to reform the points to which he had adverted, he would do far more good to Ireland.
  LORD DUNKELLINsaid, he had found in every speech which had been made since the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butt) proposed his Motion a reason why the Committee should be conceded. The only tangible objection he had heard was from his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Gregory) who said the Committee, if chosen, would occupy a great deal of time without arriving at any definite result. That was just what they wanted to test; and the result could not he known unless the Committee was granted. He admitted that the grand juries discharged their duties with impartiality, but it must be remembered that the grand juries did not initiate any work, they only sanctioned contracts that were sent up to them; and the question was whether it would not be better to introduce into them by the principle of popular election the men who did initiate that work. That he understood to be the ob-

  1681
  ject of his hon. and learned Friend in proposing this Committee, and he thought it was a fit subject for a Committee to inquire into. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would not oppose the Motion.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the question was not whether the grand jury system should be retained, for to that everybody agreed, or that it was without its difficulties, for that everybody acknowledged; the question was, whether the proposal made was that which was best adapted to the wishes and convenience of the House. If it were so, he should have the greatest reason for supporting the Motion, as he had most to learn from an inquiry of the kind. His hon. and learned Friend who opened this discussion used a very cogent argument. He said, give us those institutions of local government that you possess, in order that we may be trained in the same school. But was his hon. and learned Friend aware of what was the case with regard to the county finance in England? Was it a system of popular representation, and was it only in Ireland that taxation and representation with regard to local management did not go together? In England the county magistrates had the whole management of the county finance, without any control from elected members, either of their own class or of any other. The justices of the peace had the management solely, by being placed by the Crown in the commission of the peace. The power in Ireland was granted by legislation. Having got the power by a lawful title, and by the wish of Parliament, had they the whole control? What was the case? In the first place his hon. and learned Friend somewhat alarmed the House by stating the amount at £1,000,000 of money. But when he (Mr. Cardwell) came to analyze that amount, he found it comprised many sums which had been repaid for advances made to Ireland in times of emergency, frequently without interest. It also comprised payments which had been already appropriated by Parliament. As to a very-large part of the roads the control no doubt was vested in the magistrates, with an intermixture of popular representation. They were controlled at a subsequent Session, and subject to the review of the grand jury, who had not the power to lay a single sixpence on the ratepayers. The largest amount dealt with was in respect of the roads. The whole expense of making new roads and maintaining old
  1682
  roads and bridges did not exceed £579,000 for about 50,000 miles of road. In 1842 a most elaborate Report was laid on the table, and there was no want of evidence on the subject. He had always observed that if small measure was introduced, it was opposed because it left parts of the subject untouched: if the measure was a large one, numerous objections immediately arose from those who disliked the changes proposed. The difficulty was not the want of information, and he would suggest that, instead of pressing for a Committee, his hon. and learned Friend should introduce a Bill dealing with those parts of the subject which were most likely to receive the sanction of Parliament. If such a Bill was introduced, he would give it his support; or if the House wished he would undertake, on the part of the Government, to prepare such a measure.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he was at a loss to understand what were the precise views of the executive on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) seemed to be fishing for a Bill. It seemed to be admitted that the fiscal arrangements under the Grand Jury system were imperfect. The Government were, therefore, bound to bring in a Bill themselves. It was all very well to ask a private Member to bring in a measure himself. The fate usually attending such measures was too obvious. They seldom reached second readings, and he should recommend his hon. and learned Friend not to accede to the proposal of the Government. The feeling in Ireland was generally against the fiscal system as managed by the grand juries. The grand juries did not initiate the taxation, but they initiated the men who carried it out. The controllers of the taxation were the mere nominees of the grand juries. A million of money was expended annually by grand juries without any check derived from representation. He could not help saying that when no advocate appeared in favour of the present system, it was rather hard that there should be opposition to the appointment of such a Committee as that asked for by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt). He hoped that hon. Gentleman would press the Motion to a division.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had never held out the slightest hope that he would bring in a sweeping measure to remodel the grand jury system in Ireland. On the other

  1683
  hand he was free to say that if a moderate practical measure were prepared by some private Member, be would take such a Bill into his own hands. He (Mr. Forteccue) admitted that there were two points on which the Grand Jury system might undergo amendment; one of these had reference to the qualifications of grand jurors, and the other to the mode of appointing cess-payers. Gentlemen of but a very small fee-simple estate, might be nominated upon the Grand Jury, while gentlemen who had a much greater stake in the country, but whose interest in land was not fee-simple, were excluded from it. As regarded the cess-payers, they ought to be elected by the same machinery by means of which the Poor-law Guardians were elected. At the same time he could not agree that the cess-payers had no control at present over the county rate. His right hon. Friend had opposed the Motion on the ground that legislation on the subject had been prevented, not through want of information, but through want of sufficient agreement amongst such gentlemen, and because it was felt that there was really no great abuse to correct. He quite concurred in that view, and, therefore, he should oppose the Motion.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, the Government did not understand the feelings of the people of Ireland. The landlord interest had been sufficiently well represented in the debate, but such was not the case with respect to the ratepayers. The present system was one of taxation without representation. It was the tenant paid the county cess, and not the landlord. He hoped that every kind of agitation would be pursued until a radical reform was obtained.
  MR. BEAMISHasked, whether the Government had any intention of dealing with the question during the present Session, for if so he for one should not vote in favour of the Motion?
  MR. BUTTin reply, said he felt bound to press his Motion to a division, but if the Motion were carried he would not nominate the Committee until after Easter, so as to give the Government an opportunity of dealing with the matter if they really desired to do so.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 25: Noes 119; Majority 94.
  House adjourned at half-after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Charitable Uses; Qualification for Offices.
3a Statute Law Revision.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS —DISPLACEMENT OF POPULATION.

  QUESTION.—NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid that he called their Lordships' attention a few nights ago to the displacements which the metropolitan railways now projected would introduce among the labouring classes. His noble Friend, the President of the Council, objected to referring this question to a general Committee, as he thought it might interfere with the position of those measures, irrespective of their merits. He now found that two Select Committees had been appointed for Monday next to take into consideration two several groups of metropolitan railway schemes, and he hoped there would be no objection to direct those ordinary Committees, if not by a formal Instruction, at least by an intimation, to inquire into and report upon the number of houses inhabited by working men likely to be displaced by them, and whether there had been any attempt made to provide other habitations instead. If there were no Instructions necessary he hoped the Committees would attend to the feelings expressed in their Lordships' House.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that his noble Friend the President of the Council thought that there was no necessity for any such Instruction, because, under a Standing Order, passed some years ago, a return containing the information desired by the noble Earl was always presented to these Committees. If, however, it was thought necessary that a special Instruction should be given, it would be better that the noble Earl should give notice of his intention to make that Motion on a future day.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that it was true that such a return as the noble Duke had mentioned was presented to these Committees; but they had no power to act upon that return, or to require the railway companies to raise money to erect houses in the place of those which might be displaced.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYremarked that it was not easy for the Committee to entertain the question, and it would be better to give notice if the noble Earl intended to move for such Instruction.
  THE EARL OF DERBYunderstood that in former cases Instructions had been given to Committees to report as to the amount of displacement, and the provision

  1629
  that had been made for it. He now gave notice that on Monday next he would move that an Instruction should be given to the Committees to the effect he had mentioned.
  THE EARL OF SHELBURNEobserved that it would be unjust to require the metropolitan railway companies to make provision for the displacement caused by their lines unless they required the provincial companies to do the same.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the best provision the railways could make would be to carry the labouring classes at a low rate to the outskirts of the town; and the Committees could enforce such a clause without any Instruction from their Lordships.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.