Sitting of 14 February 1862

Preamble
MINUTES.—NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Lincoln City, John Bramley Moore, esquire.
PUBLIC BILLS.—lc Church Rates Commutation; Markets and Fairs (Ireland); Poor Relief (Ireland) (No. 2); Church Rates Voluntary Commutation.
2o Highways.

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—COMPETITION OF COLOURED PERSONS— THE ARMY (INDIA).—QUESTIONS.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to an advertisement in the public papers headed "Army Medical Department," stating that there would be a competitive examination for thirty Military Assistant Surgeons, Whether Her Majesty's subjects in India and coloured British subjects in Canada and the Colonies, would be allowed to compete? Why 1,824 recruits, for the Bengal Presidency alone, were sent out at the end of last year, the fixed establishment of European Troops of all arms for India—namely, 71,000 men, being at the time exceeded by 9,770 men? And why the Queen's Bays, ordered home from India, were stopped at Cawnpore on their march to embark for England?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the hon. and gallant Member moved for a return last Session which contained the materials for an answer to the chief part of the question which he had put. It was not intended that the Natives of India should compete for the office of army surgeons in the British army. In the returns to which he alluded there would be found a report from the Medical Board appointed last Session by the late Secretary of the War Department, in which the members of the Board gave it as their deliberate opinion that the native and mixed races of India and other tropical countries would never be able to sustain for any time the climate of northern regions, and therefore could not be employed with advantage to the public service in climates not similar to the is own. The consequence was, that it was not thought possible or advisable to open the office of army surgeon in the general army to Natives of India. With regard to the coloured British subjects in Canada, he hardly knew to whom the hon. and gallant Member referred—whether he referred to the red men in Canada, the aborigines, or the free blacks. He was not aware of any of those classes being in a position to be admitted to the rank of army surgeon.
[The hon. and gallant Member repeated his Questions on Motion for going into Committee of Supply.—See post.]

BARRACKS AND MILITIA STORES.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that on behalf of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Knox) he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the advertisement in The Times, in which the War Office asking for tenders for the repairs of barracks and militia stores was correct; and if it is the intention of the Government to take the militia stores and barracks out of the hands of the county magistrates, and relieve the counties from all future expense for repairs, &c.?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the question was founded upon the apparent misapprehension—namely, that barracks and militia stores were, in respect to the law, in the same position. It was the duty of the county to provide stores for the militia, but it was not their duty to provide barracks. It was a decision of Lord Panmure that in consequence of its being merely a voluntary act on the part of counties to provide barracks for the militia, the expense of repairs should be borne by the War Department. The advertisement, accordingly, referred merely to the repairs of county barracks, and not to militia stores.

STATE OF IRELAND.

  QUESTION AND EXPLANATION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he had made inquiry in respect to the alleged attempts on the part of certain persons in Skull and Skibbereen to stir up a spirit of discontent amongst the people against the landlords; and if he could say on what occasion the attempts were made, and by whom and in what manner?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, the hon. Gentleman has not given notice of the exact terms of the Question that he intended to ask, but I have no objection to answer it as far as I am able. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman has asked the question with a view of endeavouring to throw doubts on the accuracy of a statement which I made the other night. In the zeal which he manifests for the interests of the landlords and tenants of Ireland he wishes to know the authority from which I derived the information which formed the substance of my reply to his own criticisms. It would take some time to read the letters in my possession; but if the House would permit me, I could answer the question fully. I am quite sure the House, and particu-
  268
  larly Irish Gentlemen in the House, have accepted the statements I made as emanating, on my part, from the most loyal desire to state what really was the condition and the wants of the poorer classes in Ireland. It will be quite evident that I can have no wish and no desire whatever to conceal or exaggerate the real condition of those classes. Indeed, I should be really ashamed to be a party to any appearance even of such concealment; and, if even now, after anxiously considering the matter, I thought or had reason to believe that in any way I had been misled or was mistaken, I would, at once, frankly acknowledge it, and do my best to correct the erroneous impression which I had been the instrument of creating. But I am bound to say that the statement which I made the other night, and which the hon. Gentleman impugns, is literally correct. I do not wish to enter into a discussion of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, but I can assure him, and I believe I speak what every Irish Member in the House at this moment will endorse, that it is an unsatisfactory thing that we should have a repetition of the hon. Gentleman dragging before the public and the House of Commons the purely imaginary sufferings of the majority of the people of Ireland.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I rise to order. I beg leave to state that I never alluded to sufferings either imaginary or real. I asked a certain question in reference to a certain district, and I now request an answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not rising to order.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: If I answer the question, I am bound to express an opinion as to the subject to which particular reference is made. The hon. Gentleman evidently assumes by the notice he has given that what I stated in reference to the relative positions of the landlords and tenants in Ireland was not true. He referred to the district of Kanturk. I have received a letter this morning from Kanturk, which, if the House will permit me, I will read, because it is a complete refutation of the—I may almost say—calumnies on the state and condition of the country.
  MR. MAGUIRE: Sir, I again rise to order. I beg to ask whether, inasmuch as new matter has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall be entitled to reply?
  MR. SPEAKER: The whole course of this proceeding is verging on irregularity. The notice of the hon. Member as it stands on the paper would have been irregular, for it is founded on a reference to a past debate. I pointed out that to the hon. Member, who at once altered the form of his Question to meet the rules of the House. I must now, inform the right hon. Gentleman that in his reply it will be his duty to avoid all reference to what has taken place in this House on a past occasion, and suggest that he should be as concise in his answer as justice to the subject-matter will permit
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I will make it as concise as possible. The hon. Gentleman asked me for a specific reply as to the districts of Skull and Skibbereen. I would observe that I not only referred to these two districts, but also to the Roman Catholic diocese of Tuam. If the House will permit me. I will read a letter I have received from Kanturk this morning. The writer says—
  "Sir,—I think it only right your hands should be strengthened"—
  This is from an ex officio guardian of the Kanturk Union. [Mr. SCULLY: Name.] I decline to name the writer. The House, I suppose, will take my word that the letter is authentic.
  "Sir,—I think it only right your hands should be strengthened with reliable information while dealing with professional agitators who are trying to make political capital out of the present partial distress in certain parts of Ireland. The accuracy of Mr. Maguire's statements as to Kanturk Union will be estimated by the following facts: The workhouse accommodation—
  MR. SPEAKER: To read a document commenting on debates in this House, and referring to a Member by name, is irregular.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, continuing to read—
  "The workhouse accommodation there is fixed by sealed order for 1,111 persons. On the 1st of February there were only 579 paupers therein, of whom 199 were in hospital, and 98 children under five years of age. Yesterday the numbers were reduced to 553. These numbers are really not extravagantly high, as the union is very large, contains 104,000 acres, is poor, remote, for a great part mountain, with a small resident proprietary, and contains several villages in addition to the chief town of Kanturk. In 1850 and 1851 there were about 5,000 in the workhouse and its several auxiliaries, and 24,000 receiving out-door relief."
  The hon. Gentleman has asked me whe-
  270
  ther I have received any information with reference to the unions of Skull and Skibbereen, and parts of the diocese of Tuam. If the House will permit me, I would also read a letter I have received with reference to what has taken place in that far district of Ireland, and which, I feel sure, will confirm what I stated was the real state of things there. I said there was an attempt unfortunately to set the tenants against their landlords. In confirmation of what I then stated, I must ask the permission of the House to read this one letter. I think it will convince the House that I was thoroughly justified in the statement I made the other evening.
  "There was a meeting held at Castletown, Berehaven, with regard to the suffering there. A gentleman got up and stated that the greatest distress prevailed in that part of Ireland, worse than in 1847. Another gentleman got up at a very excited meeting and made use of these extraordinary expressions. He said:—' You have heard that property has its claims and duties as well as its rights, but the landlords of Ireland have ever been the curse of Ireland. They have taken particular care of their rights, while they have shamefully neglected their duties, retiring at night to rest to dream how they may harass and oppress the unfortunate people whose lives are in their keeping, and add a shilling or two to each pound of their rent-roll.'"
  Is not that a proof of an attempt to set the tenants against their landlords? I shall not now enter more fully into the matter, as the hon. Gentleman has to-night given notice that he will bring forward the whole question, but I do venture to say that when that debate comes on, the statements I have made will be corroborated by hon. Gentlemen in this House who are conversant with the real state of the case. For myself, I shall certainly not hesitate to express my opinion upon that subject, in spite of the attacks and the insults which for the last three months have been heaped upon me by interested and dissatisfied agitators.

IRON PLATE COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he desired to ask the Secretary of State for War, When he expects to receive the Report of the Iron Plate Committee; and whether he intends to lay it upon the table of the House?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, that the question should have been properly addressed to his noble Friend the Secretary to the Board of Admiralty. He be-

  271
  lieved the report of the Committee would be shortly presented to the Board of Admiralty, and it would then be for that Board to decide whether they would lay it upon the table of the House.

THE CHANNEL FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure in this House, or to take any steps for the purpose of putting a stop to the present manner of dealing, in this country and in Ireland, with British and French fishing boats captured for infringements of the convention of 1843?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, he had only to say that there had been no complaints as to the mode in which vessels infringing the convention were dealt with in this country. It had, no doubt, been the duty of the authorities in the various parts of the country to enforce the Convention Act upon our fishermen, but the Government had not heard that any persons had complained of the way in which that had been done. There had been complaints as to the procedure in France in carrying out the provisions of the treaty, and representations had been made to the French Government, setting forth the complaints. Those representations had been favourably received, and were under the consideration of the French Government.

DEFENCE OF THE BRISTOL CHANNEL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the report that it is the intention of Government to construct fortifications on the islands of the steep and flat Holmes and the adjacent coasts, for the protection of the upper part of the Bristol Channel?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that lately, during the alarm of hostilities with the United States, many very pressing and urgent applications had been made to the Government with respect to the undefended state of the Bristol Channel, and in consequence of those representations it had been decided to erect some batteries—he could hardly dignify them with the name of fortifications—upon the islands to
  272
  which the question of his hon. Friend referred, and in the estimate which he would shortly lay upon the table, there would be included a sum applicable to that service.

CONVENTION BETWEEN SPAIN AND MOROCCO.—QUESTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government are in possession of a copy of any convention which has been concluded between the Government of Spain and that of Morocco, whereby one-half of the receipts of the Moorish custom-houses has been pledged to the Government of Spain; and, if so, whether they will lay the same before this House?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the hon. Gentleman would see by the papers that had been laid upon the table of the House, that Her Majesty's Government were in possession of information with regard to the convention. He (Mr. Layard) believed it was the practice not to lay upon the table of the House treaties between Foreign Powers which had not been officially communicated. As this treaty had not been so communicated, it would not be laid on the table.

THE APPROACHES TO THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works what steps Government propose to take for rendering the International Exhibition more accessible; and whether any of them will require the approval of Parliament?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that he was afraid the approaches to the Exhibition were not likely to be altogether satisfactory. The approaches to the Exhibition from the east, south, and the west, would be through streets, some portions of which were not adequate for the ordinary traffic in summer, and he was afraid much inconvenience from the narrowness of those streets would be experienced by the multitudes who would throng to the Exhibition. He alluded particularly to the Brompton Road, the Kensington Road, and that very narrow portion of Park Lane, near its junction with Piccadilly. But it did not appear that the inconvenience was likely to be so great as to demand any special interference on the part of the Government.

  273
  The widening of streets seemed rather to "be a matter of parochial and municipal management, and he was not prepared to state that the Government had any intentions with regard to those streets. With respect to the northern approach to the Exhibition, there was this peculiarity, that there was, properly speaking, no northern approach at all. Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens imposed a barrier of two miles in extent to the approach of carriages from the north to the Exhibition. Every vehicle proceeding to Kensington Gore from the north must pass through Park Lane on the east, or Church Lane, Kensington, on the west. The attention of the Government had naturally been directed to this subject, and, on behalf of the Crown, he would not oppose any remedy for this inconvenience that would not interfere with the recreation and enjoyment of the Park, which were the primary objects to which that royal domain had been devoted by the Sovereign. The fund most applicable to the purpose was the surplus that had accumulated in past years from the coal duties, and was intended by Act of Parliament to be devoted to metropolitan improvements, and he should shortly bring in a Bill appropriating a portion of this surplus from the coal duties to make that northern approach which appeared an urgent want.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any truth in the report that plans for a new National Gallery, to be erected on the Burlington House site, have been prepared, and that a vote for its erection is to be proposed to Parliament in the present Session; whether, in the event of such being the intentions of Government, the plans and elevation of the proposed building will be exhibited before any vote is proposed to Parliament; and whether any decision has been come to as to the purpose to which the present National Gallery is to be devoted.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the enlargement of the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square had enabled the trustees to receive within the existing building the Turner Gallery, in strict fulfilment of the bequest of the late Mr. Turner, The consequence, however, was that the buildings in Trafalgar Square were so full that some arrange-
  274
  ment must shortly be made to give increased accommodation to the national pictures. The subject had been very much under the attention of his department, and all possible means of accommodating those paintings had been considered, but at present the Government had not come to any decision in the matter.
  LORD ELCHOasked, Whether in the event of any decision being come to, the plans would be laid on the table of the House before any steps were taken towards carrying them into execution.
  MR. COWPER: That forms part of the subject on which the Government have not yet come to a decision.

TRADE MARKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BASSsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he proposed to refer the Bill on the subject of trade marks, which he had promised last Session, to a Select Committee or to introduce it himself.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was understood at the close of the last Session of Parliament that, from the difficulty of the subject, it would be desirable to refer any measure that might be introduced to a Select Committee. The Government had prepared a Bill, and were quite willing that it should go to a Select Committee; but the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was desirous of submitting his view, in the form of a Bill, to the House. The Government, therefore, saw no objection to refer both measures to the same Committee.

CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIB COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for the King's County, Whether he would be willing to postpone his motion for throwing open to competition the junior appointments of the Civil Service till a later period of the Session? The House was not yet in possession of the report for last year of the Civil Service Commissioners; and the postponement would like wise be convenient to several hon. Members.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to express his willingness to postpone his motion, not only for the reasons stated by the hon. Gentleman, but because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he understood to be a supporter of his motion, could

  275
  not be present on the day when he had intended that it should come on.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."

THE KING OF DAHOMEY AND THE SLAVE TRADE.—QUESTION.
LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, that in rising to put the question of which he had given notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it would be unnecessary to remind the House of the painful feeling excited by the horrible massacres which had taken place in Dahomey. Reports of similar cruelties continued to be received, though not on so extensive a scale, some twenty or thirty miserable captives being killed every two or three nights. A letter which he had received represented the King as being friendly to France, Spain, and Portugal, but hostile to England; and, being completely in the hands of the mulatto slave-dealers, it was easy to discover their motive for instigating the King to acts of barbarity. Their object was to drive away Englishmen, as they knew that if once they gained any influence in the country, the unlawful gains arising from the slave trade would be at an end. There was some ground for the belief that the present would be a favourable time for sending a British commissioner to Dahomey, and in any such mission he thought it would be well that commissioners from France, Spain, and Portugal should be invited to join, in order that he might see he could not really count on the support of civilized nations. The question was one of importance in a commercial sense. In the present distress arising from dearth of cotton, India was naturally looked to for supplies; but the shortness of the staple was such that, as compared with American cotton, our operatives sustained a loss in manufacturing it equal to 25 per cent. The African cotton approximated much more closely to the American than that which was obtained from India; some said it was even superior, but that could only be when superior cultivation had made it so. But, at any rate, by getting a supply from Africa, the wages of the operatives would virtually be increased to the extent of 25 per cent. The entire country from Dahomey to the Niger was one vast cotton field. The cotton plant was indigenous and perennial: consequently it did
276
not require replanting year by year as in America; the crop had only to be picked and sent home. Of the sugar crop the same might be said, so that in considering the question the House would not be dealing with it purely from a sentimental point of view. They would naturally be animated by such high principles as the desire to arrest cruel practices, and, if possible, to put an end to the slave trade altogether, but they might at the same time feel that they would be conferring great and direct commercial advantages on this country if they could establish in Dahomey a better state of things. The King was at present completely in the hands of the slave dealers; but if he saw that his resources would he increased and his own position secured by legitimate commerce, there was reason to believe that he would be willing to listen to representations urged by responsible commissioners. He, therefore, wished to ask the noble Lord, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to send a Commissioner to Dahomey to treat with the King for the entire abolition of his barbarous sacrifices of human beings, and for the discontinuance of the slave trade in his dominions; and further, whether there was any objection to lay upon the table of the House any correspondence or memorials that may have been addressed to the Government on this subject?
MR. CAVEconcurred with the objects advocated by the noble Lord, but feared that a barbarian like the King of Dahomey would not understand any argument except force, and would not be bound by any treaty, however carefully drawn. He had received information that even our new settlement of Lagos, the importance of which, as a cotton-producing country, could not be overestimated, was in great danger from its proximity to Dahomey, and that its only safety lay in the presence of Captain Bedingfield, who had great influence with the natives, and who had anchored the Prometheus sloop-of-war off the town. He (Mr. Cave) wished to take the opportunity of bringing an important point connected with this subject before the Government. He had intended making it a specific question, but thinking that, in our present relations with America, it would be better not to do so, he determined to take advantage of some occasion like the present merely to mention it, and express a hope that it

277
would receive the serious attention of her Majesty's Government. He had heard from a highly intelligent correspondent on the West Coast of Africa that the whole American slave squadron had been withdrawn except one sailing corvette; that in consequence every slaver carried American colours, and our cruisers had not even their former miserable expedient of towing a suspected vessel to an American ship of-war in order that she might be overhauled. Unless, therefore, some counter-expedient were devised, a large increase in the slave trade must be expected, which had only been delayed by a commercial crisis in Cuba. The same writer enlarged on the absurdity of sending recaptured Africans to St. Helena and Sierra Leone, for the benefit of the Mixed Commission Courts and no one else; instead of direct to the West Indies; but as he (Mr. Cave) intended bringing this subject more fully before the House, when the expenditure caused thereby came before them in the Estimates, he would say no more then; but he begged to remind Her Majesty's Government that the authorities of the Federal States had lately expressed in the most marked manner their determination to put down the slave trade, and had even condemned one Gordon, a slave captain, to death in New York, so that it was possible they might consent to some, if only temporary, measure, such as a relaxation of their rules respecting right of search, in order to prevent the mischief which would, otherwise, arise from the withdrawal of their squadron.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the House might recollect that at the close of last Session he asked the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could inform them whether it was the intention of Belgium to enter into a commercial treaty with this country similar to that which had recently been entered into between Belgium and France. The reply of the noble Earl was that he had been assured by the Belgian Government they intended to do so; but that it was too late to bring the matter before their Chambers until the next Session. The delay was not satisfactory to the mercantile interests of this country; but they had no reason to think that the Government of Belgium was unfavourably disposed towards England. However, since then the Belgian Chamber had met again, and in the speech of
278
the King at the opening of the Session it was stated that it was the intention of the Government to recommend that England should be put on the same footing as France. He was sorry to say that that very satisfactory announcement had not been followed by any action; and great doubt was now felt in the manufacturing districts, as to whether there was a negotiation going on, or whether, if there were, some hitch had not occurred. A statement had appeared both in continental and English newspapers, to the effect that there was a hitch, in consequence of the Belgian Government wishing to sell us a commercial treaty and make the price of it the capitalization or redemption of the Scheldt tolls. The Belgian Government had not levied the tolls to which they were entitled on that river, and they had not done so because they did not wish to injure Antwerp. He did not complain that they should wish to get as much money as they could in lieu of those tolls, but what he complained of was this—that they should ask England to capitalize or redeem the tolls on the Scheldt when they had made a commercial treaty with France without demanding any such price for it. He did not regret the part which this country and the noble Lord at the head of the present Government had taken in securing for Belgium the independence which she now enjoyed, but he did regret that that independence had not been attended with more satisfactory results for the commercial interests of England. He was glad that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was in office at a time when this treaty was being negotiated. He did not wish the House to misunderstand him. He was a free trader; but he did not complain of free trade not being extended to us by Belgium. He, however, did think that we had a right to expect that a country which was on such friendly terms with us should deal with us on less friendly terms than those which regulated its negotiations with other nations. At one time, indeed, we succeeded in getting a commercial treaty with Belgium; but we failed in securing the clause which had become a matter of custom and almost of courtesy between friendly nations—a favoured nation clause, though such a clause had since been given by Belgium to many other countries, and among them to Russia. Even since the making of the commercial treaty between Belgium and France the former had made a treaty with Turkey,

279
in which a favoured nation clause was inserted. It was not generous of Belgium to treat an old and faithful friend in the way she had done; and although he was not one of those who thought that our political relations with other countries ought to be guided solely by our material interests, it was hardly prudent of Belgium to create the feeling in many Englishmen that it would be to their material interest if Belgium were part of France. Now, with respect to Prussia. It had been matter of notoriety ever since the making of the commercial treaty between this, country and France that the latter had been negotiating with Prussia for a new treaty with the Zollverein. If so, he trusted that opportunity would be taken to obtain a revision of the Zollverein tariff. He, could not exaggerate the importance of our trade with Germany, nor of the obstruction and impediments to it occasioned by the vexatious, and absurd arrangement of the present Zollverein tariff. Not only did it contain duties much higher than they were Originally intended to be, but specific duties, levied by weight, instead of value, so that we paid increased duties for results effected by improvements in machinery. Happily a strong feeling was beginning to prevail in Germany in favour of free trade among the manufacturers, who rightly were coming to the conclusion that they had little or no reason to fear it; and it was to be regretted that the Foreign Office did not promptly take advantage of this improving sentiment in the interest of the British manufacturers. The passing of the French Treaty with this country was a golden opportunity that ought to have been seized for that purpose. All commercial men in this country were agreed on the advantages of the French Treaty, which indeed could scarcely be overstated. It was the one bright spot in the present gloomy state of the commercial horizon, and if there were a town in Yorkshire which at the present moment enjoyed a good trade, it was owing to the French Treaty. In negotiating that treaty with the aid of the Board of Trade the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) rendered the greatest official service ever bestowed on any country by an unofficial man. There was a strong opinion in the north that if the hon. Gentleman had gone on from Paris to Brussels and Berlin we might have made a treaty with Belgium and the Zollverein also. But he did not
280
go, and the Foreign Office did nothing. The noble Lord at the head of the Government being always anxious to protect the interest of Englishmen, it could not be charged against him that he did not care for the welfare of the British manufacturers, and consequently the apathy of the Foreign Office must be ascribed rather to ignorance of the way in which it could be secured. It was his own impression that there was a want of proper administrative arrangements at the Foreign Office for the promotion of commercial interests. In the autumn of 1860, after our treaty with France, negotiations were set on foot by France for a commercial treaty between France and Belgium. Two months elapsed, during which representations were made to the English Foreign Office from several Chambers of Commerce at Bradford and elsewhere; but nothing was done, and the opportunity was lost. Of course the Foreign Office must conduct commercial as well as political negotiations, but they could only do so upon information obtained from abroad as to the desires of foreign countries, and here at home as to the wishes and interests of Englishmen. The information from abroad was obtained directly by the agents of the Foreign Office, but at home it was obtained indirectly through the Board of Trade; and it was believed that this system of one office obtaining information from another was clumsy and inefficient. Commercial men thought that their interests had been neglected at the Foreign Office, though he was glad to say that of late there had been manifest improvement; but, in fact, the real evil lay deeper: if commercial interests were neglected at the Foreign Office, it was because commercial men had not looked after their interests themselves. He would therefore strongly urge upon the Government to take advantage of the present state of commercial feeling not only in Prussia, but also in other countries, and especially in Italy, where he understood that the French were taking the initiative, and to endeavour to obtain from them, as well as from Belgium, the same advantages for our trade as France was seeking to secure for herself. In conclusion he would beg leave to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House of the present position of the negotiation with Belgium for a new commercial treaty with that country; and if, in consequence of the commercial negotiations between

281
Prussia and France, there is a probability of a revision of the duties levied in the Zollverein on British manufactures.
MR. BAINES: Sir, 1 can assure the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford are strongly held by the Chambers of Commerce in the north of England. This is not only a question, however, as to Belgium and the Zollverein, but a question as to the practicability of some new machinery being introduced in the Foreign Office, having reference particularly to the interests of trade. The unfair treatment of England by Belgium is an old grievance, because as far back as 1855 a deputation from the Leeds Chamber of Commerce sent a deputation to the Belgian Government, and also made a representation to our Foreign Office of the extreme unfairness with which British goods were treated in Belgium; they showed that even then Belgium imposed differential duties of between 33 and 150 per cent in favour of the goods of France. Now the case is made much worse in consequence of the recent treaty between France and Belgium, for that has lowered the duties on French goods, whilst the duties on English goods remain the same as before. I have just looked at the state of commerce between Belgium and England for the last five years, and I find that the imports from Belgium have been greatly on the increase, while the exports of English and Irish produce to Belgium have actually been on the decline. The figures are as follows:—In 1856 we imported from Belgium to the amount of £2,936,000, and in 1860 £4,070,000, being an increase of 38 per cent. The exports in 1856 were £1,689,000 and in 1860 they had declined to £1,610,000, being a decrease of 5 per cent. It would seem, therefore, that the unfavourable tariff of Belgium has the effect of continually reducing the exports from this country. The real effect, however, is greater than that which is apparent, because a considerable part of our exports to Belgium are not for consumption in that country, but for transit to Germany; and we feel that we have a right to the best exertions of the Foreign Office to obtain justice and fair treatment for our manufactures on the part of the Government of Belgium, because, to use the words used by the then Foreign Secretary, Earl Russell, this was a question of good faith on the part of Belgium. I consider that we have now a right to put as
282
much pressure as can be used towards a friendly Government on the Belgian Government to make their tariff a fair one as between England and the most favoured nations which deal with Belgium.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he entirely joined with the hon. Member for Bradford in urging upon the Government, that if any question was pending between this and foreign nations in relation to commercial treaties, or if there was any prospect of such treaties being contracted, the provisions of those treaties should be most carefully supervised, and that they should not be hurried so rapidly, as they were told by Earl Cowley, in his despatch of last year, that the provisions of the French Treaty had been; for in that case the official representative of this country in France had stated that he was unable to follow the details before the whole negotiation was completed. Every detail of a commercial treaty ought, on the contrary, to be well weighed, not only in reference to one or two interests to be affected by it, but in reference to all the interests of the country. It was only natural that he should take a different view of the operation of the French Treaty from that taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He scarcely thought that this question would have arisen, or he would have laid before the House details of suffering and distress, extending over two years, which had afflicted Coventry and the district adjoining—sufferings which had enlisted the benevolent consideration of Her Majesty, of many hon. Members of that House, and of the public, whom he sincerely thanked for their benevolence. It was very painful to see a prosperous trade struck down, and thousands of industrious men living from year to year upon the charity of the public. During several months of last winter 22,000 persons were depending for subsistence upon the bounty of the public. It was hoped that the pressure would cease, but for several months past as many as 14,000 had been so dependent, and were so still. It might be thought that the suffering was confined to the operative class; but of the manufacturers fifty out of eighty had been in the Gazette, that fifty not including those who had made compositions with their creditors. The number of houses now vacant in Coventry was 2,000, and the sum withdrawn from the deposits in the savings-banks for the last two years was £17,000. It would be needless to go into further illustrations of

283
that which was notorious throughout the country; but why did he allude to those matters? It was that that House might not sanction the infliction of such another sudden blow as had been inflicted with its permission by the late commercial treaty upon the trade of Coventry and the adjacent district. It was perfectly true that the trade both in this country, in France, in Switzerland, and on the Rhine might have been depressed by a change of fashion and the consequent slackness of demand for ribbons. But what was the effect, under those circumstances, upon us? It was that, while the trade was depressed on the Rhine, in France, and in Switzerland, and when the demand of the United States of America was closed by the unhappy strife which prevailed in that once united republic, the whole of the supplies from France, from the Rhine, and from Switzerland, which could not find a market anywhere else, were pressed into the market of England, and the proof of that was the fact—he spoke from memory, but he knew that he was strictly accurate—that the quantity of ribands imported in the first eleven months of 1861—and that was the last account they had—exceeded by 60 to 70 per cent the quantity imported in the same months of the two preceding years. Taking the position of the watch and clock trade which prevailed s in Coventry, the same circumstances to a great degree existed; and he was sure that the House would feel that he was only doing his duty, when he saw the prospect of new commercial treaties being contracted between this and other countries, if he prayed the House to aid him in urging upon Her Majesty's Government that the important provisions of those treaties should be so well considered as to protect the trade of this country, whether in large or small departments, from such grievous evils as afflicted the district which he had the honour to represent
MR. TURNERsaid, that he wished, as being connected with another district the centre of an extensive trade, to state that the same feelings as those which the hon. Gentleman had just expressed existed in the cotton districts of South Lancashire. They were suffering great distress, and they were not without grievous fear that before many months that distress would be greatly heightened. They did not wish, however, that the Government should interfere in that lamentable contest which
284
was going on between the States of America; they wished those States to see the folly of their conduct, and to become amicably united once more, or, if not, to separate as friends; but he thought that everything should be done by the Government of this country to alleviate the distress which prevailed in the cotton districts. They were pressed not only by the want of cotton, but by the want of demand for their manufactures. Their immense trade to India was interfered with by a monstrous import duty imposed upon cotton goods. While trying with the one hand to get cotton from India, the Government with the other were trying to prevent the best of that cotton from reaching this country. They themselves had imposed that duty, and they had allowed, or at least not much protested against, the imposition of grievous duties in their colonies on goods manufactured in this country. At all events, they had a right to expect that, in any negotiations with European nations with whom we were said to be on terms of amity, the Executive Government should see that justice was done to this country. France had obtained great advantages in Belgium, and was supposed to have done so in the Zollverein. Why should those advantages be withheld from this country? No doubt, good diplomatists were sent out; but good diplomatists were not always good commercial men. All they claimed was that men competent to the subject should be united with diplomatic men, and that commercial as well as political interests should be extended between foreign countries and Great Britain without any undue advantage being given to other countries more active in those negotiations than ourselves.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in regard to the question put by my noble Friend (Lord A. Churchill) with respect to Dahomey and the slave trade on the coast of Africa, the House knows very well that measures for the suppression of that traffic have occupied the most anxious and active attention of Her Majesty's Government for a great number of years. My noble Friend probably knows that two missions have been sent out at different times to the late King of Dahomey for the purpose of endeavouring to persuade him to abandon that barbarous practice of human sacrifice, and to assist us in suppressing the slave trade. I am sorry to say that they were not attended with success. Per-

285
sons, however anxious they may be for the attainment of their objects, must recollect what obstacles the passions and habits of mankind sometimes oppose even to the most beneficial reforms. This practice of human sacrifices has prevailed extensively over the whole of that part of Africa, and when you go to a barbarian (like the King of Dahomey for the time being) and ask him to forego these practices, to which he has attached a value as symbols of authority and power, and as being tokens of respect for those who have gone before him, it is just as if you had asked the ancient Romans to forego the murders which were committed in the amphitheatres, or were to ask the Spaniards of the present day to give up those bullfights which would disgust an Englishman, but which afford great delight to spectators in Spain. Mr. Duncan was sent some time ago to the King of Dahomey, and spent some days at his capital, and the account he gave was utterly disgusting. The palace was surrounded by a large and extensive wall, which was decorated with human skulls on spikes. He (Mr. Duncan) was compelled to be a witness to one of those human sacrifices, where the unhappy captives were put into things like canoes and thrown over a parapet from forty to fifty feet high; and if not killed by the fall, they were despatched by people standing below. Nothing was accomplished by the mission, and I very much doubt whether any persuasion would induce the present King of Dahomey, who seems, if possible, less imbued with feelings of humanity than his father, to abandon this practice. At the same time I can assure my noble Friend and the House that no opportunity will be lost which appears to Her Majesty's Government calculated to open an opportunity with the King of Dahomey for effecting our object.
With regard to the slave trade, I fear persuasion will not induce him, any more than other African chiefs, to abandon it. They will only be induced to abandon it when convinced that it would be more to their advantage and more easy for them to carry on legitimate trade. The fact is, that the chief derives greater profit from the slave trade, while the people under him derive more profit from legitimate trade. The occupation of Lagos has proved a great instrument in impeding the slave trade in that quarter. Arrangements have been made at Porto Nuovo and Badagry which have had the same effect; and if we could
286
shut up Whydah, which is the only other port through which the King of Dahomey can carry on the trade, we should have done much to drive the slave trade from that part of the coast. But, as stated by my noble Friend, the slave trade is carried on by Spaniards, Portuguese, and Brazilians; and, though their Governments have, as Governments, abandoned the practice of the slave trade, yet habits which are once engrained in a people are very difficult to be eradicated, and there will be found renegades who will take advantage of the facility which the habits of Africa give them to carry on the abominable traffic. At the same time much progress has been made, and my noble Friend is right in saying that, if this slave trade from the West Coast of Africa could be stopped, there are sources there of legitimate trade of infinite value, not only to that country itself, but to England and a great part of Europe. Cotton plants have been seen growing naturally, within a great zone, in great abundance, and shedding the cotton on the ground; and it is evident that this is a matter of great importance to the manufacturers of this country. I can assure my noble Friend that no exertions will be omitted on the part of the Government, first of all to endeavour to eradicate the abominable system of human sacrifice, and in the next place to put a stop, as far as possible, to the slave trade.
It is quite true that, owing to the civil war in America, the Federal Government has withdrawn the greater part of their cruisers from the coast of Africa, and I cannot say, offhand, whether there still remains that number of guns which the United States are bound by treaty to maintain on that coast for the suppression of the slave trade, but it is quite true that the Federal Government have shown a sincere desire to put in force their laws against the slave trade. The condemnations which have taken place at New York are a convincing proof of their sincerity, and it may be expected that when the present unfortunate dispute in America terminates, whether in the establishment of one or of two Governments, the American authorities will concur with Great Britain in some arrangement by which more effectual assistance may be given by American cruisers to check a crime which is a capital offence by the laws of the United States. With respect, therefore, to the African coast, I hope my noble

287
Friend will believe that we are anxious to carry out those views which he has so properly expressed.
With regard to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), it will be satisfactory to him to be informed that negotiations are now going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government, which are conducted in a most amicable and friendly spirit, and which I trust will terminate in a treaty giving to Great Britain the footing of the most friendly nation with respect to commerce with Belgium, and unaccompanied by any condition with respect to the other question of the commutation or capitalization of the dues on the Scheldt. It is quite true, as has been stated, that England bore a very prominent part in those negotiations which resulted in establishing the independence of Belgium, and therefore if the Belgian nation were to form an exception to all national character, and to be inspired in its acts by a sense of gratitude, which, I am afraid, is not to be expected from collective bodies, they ought to have been anxious to give England every advantage possible, either equal or superior to those given to any other country. But one of our objects—and in that we succeeded—was to give to Belgium a national representation and a free constitution. Now, if you give to a people a free constitution, by which the passions and prejudices of the population are actively represented, you must make up your mind to endure inconveniences which national and local passions and prejudices are sure to entail; and this has been the case not only in Belgium, but in Portugal and Spain, where also greatly by the influence of the British Government constitutional institutions were established. We in this country were a long time before we were taught to believe that freedom of trade is an advantage to all parties concerned, and we clung for a lengthened period to the notion that protection to native industry, or particular branches of native industry, was a benefit to the country at large. Luckily, we have been undeceived; but the Belgians have not yet advanced so far in political education, and the Belgian Government have had to overcome great local prejudices and the resistance of particular interests in Belgium, and they pay us the compliment—for a compliment it is—of being much more afraid of competition with English industry than with French industry. Therefore they are more
288
easily led to extend to France indulgences which they would not be disposed equally to extend to England. But I trust that all difficulty on this score is over, and that by the treaty to be concluded we shall be put in all respects on the footing of the most favoured nation. With respect to the question of the Scheldt dues, I may observe that when the treaty was negotiated by which the independence of Belgium was acknowledged by the five great Powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia most reluctantly agreed to the conclusion, and clung step by step, and point by point, throughout the long and tedious negotiation to everything that might be advantageous to Holland rather than to Belgium, and made a point that a toll should be levied on vessels passing through Dutch waters up to Antwerp. The object of this was to assert the territorial rights of Holland, and, no doubt, to put some check on the commercial prosperity of Belgium. This toll was to be levied at Terneuse, in the Dutch territory; but afterwards, by agreement between the Belgian and Dutch Governments, it was levied at Antwerp, in order that the vessels might not be stopped in their passage up the river. Subsequently, the Belgian Government, feeling sensible that this toll would operate as a discouragement to vessels going to Antwerp, threw by a law the payment of the whole of the toll on Belgium itself, and from that time vessels coming up to Antwerp were free from toll. That was a voluntary engagement on the part of Belgium, depending on a law passed by the Belgian Chambers, and liable to be revoked; and if revoked, and if, in consequence, Belgium ceased to take the payment on itself, the toll would be levied by Holland, and the nations to whom the vessels belonged would be subject to the inconvenience, whatever it may be, of the payment of the toll. However, it will be matter of negotiation, after the treaty of commerce is concluded, to deal with the question as between Belgium and Great Britain. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the Belgian Government have acted throughout with the greatest desire to do all that fairness and justice would require. As they have, however, to deal with a popular assembly, which represents, as all popular assemblies do, the passions and prejudices of the nation represented, they have had difficulties to encounter which would not have been felt in countries of a more despotic constitution.

289
It is said that the Foreign Office is not a department sufficiently well constituted to represent and give effect to the commercial interests of the country. Having had the honour of being in that Department for a long time, I can assure my hon. Friend that he is mistaken in that opinion. It is quite true that for information bearing on the commercial interests of the country the Foreign Office has to refer to the best authority—the Board of Trade; and the only result of creating in the Foreign Office a department of trade would be that the Foreign Office would then have to rely on an authority inferior to that which it now depends on. The Board of Trade is in constant communication with all the trading interests of the country, and is the depository of a vast mass of information in reference to them, and a department of trade in the Foreign Office would not have the same information, and the same means of giving advice, unless it established the same organization; and in that case there would be two similar departments—one perpetually employed in its general duties, and the other only occasionally consulted when a commercial treaty might be discussed. But the opinion of foreign nations is not at all that which has been stated this evening. Hon. Members think that the Foreign Office neglects the commercial interests of the country, and looks only to political objects. What, however, is the reproach made against England by foreign nations? It is that our political relations are conducted mainly with a view to our commercial interests. Foreign nations regard England as a selfish Power—a Power which looks only to its own trading advantages, and that is made a reproach against us.
I now come to the Zollverein. It is true that the duties imposed by the tariff of the Zollverein are very heavy, but what has been the feeling of Germany for some time past? It has been that England was advocating the principles of free trade for the purpose of ruining Germany, that our object was to inundate Germany with British commodities, and so to extinguish and destroy German industry in all its branches. Foreign nations have a notion that we give our commodities without taking anything in exchange; that we overwhelm them with presents, forgetting that they take nothing from us which they do not pay for by articles of their own production. They cannot see that trade is a system of barter, and that by admitting an unlimited supply
290
of British commodities they impose upon themselves the necessity of producing an equal value of commodities of some kind or other to pay for what they receive from us. Their apprehensions are perfectly chimerical, and are founded upon a narrow and short-sighted view of their real interests. Nevertheless, that fear has existed, though I trust it is now about to be dispelled. It is disappearing gradually, and the treaty we concluded with France will have a material effect in disabusing Europe upon that point. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has paid a deserved compliment to the hon. Member for Rochdale—Mr. Cobden—I may name him as a Commissioner on that occasion and not as a Member of this House—for his invaluable services in the negotiation of the French treaty. I am glad to take this opportunity of saying, in justification of Her Majesty's Government, that it is not our fault, but arose from what I think is an overstrained and too refined delicacy of mind, that Mr. Cobden has not received for his services on that occasion some signal mark of the favour of the Crown. An honour was offered to him. He declined it, from motives which do him great credit; but, nevertheless, his refusal caused much regret to myself as the organ of communicating the pleasure of the Crown to him. I can assure my hon. Friends that the Government is not likely to fall into the error of neglecting the commercial interests of the country, and that the arrangement which now exists—by which, on the one hand, we have the Board of Trade full of all the requisite information for commercial negotiations, and, on the other, we have the Foreign Office in friendly and daily communication with that department—is, in my opinion, the best and indeed the only arrangement which, by division of labour, could produce any good results.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) lamented the fate of the Coventry riband weavers, and ascribed the distress which they have suffered to the French treaty. I believe my hon. Friend is entirely mistaken as to the cause of that distress, which arises chiefly, not from the French treaty, not from any inundation of French ribands, but from a change of fancy and fashion in this country. Our manufacturers are in one respect in the condition so well described in the well-known prologue—
"Hard is their lot who here by fortune placed
Must watch the wild vicissitudes of taste."

291
It is the vicissitudes of taste which from time to time lead either to an increase or a cessation of demand for particular manufactures. The ladies, who exercise so great a sway in all human affairs, by changing their style of dress, inflict distress upon one set of manufacturers, or give abundant occupation to another. The Coventry riband makers are suffering from the absence of ribands upon the dresses of their fair countrywomen; but, on the other hand, the steel manufacturers of Sheffield are driving a flourishing trade in those implements of destruction which have become so fashionable of late. They have left off, by cessation of American demand, making some articles dangerous to human life, but they have taken to the manufacture of engines which, unfortunately, though not in an equal degree, are fatal in another way. It is not, then, the French Treaty which has caused the distress in Coventry. That distress arises from the conditions of human society, by which those persons who occupy themselves in the manufacture of luxuries are liable to have great employment in one year and less employment in another. I hope, Sir, I have been able to give satisfactory answers to the questions put to me, and, in conclusion, I can assure my hon. Friends that the commercial interests of the country will never be neglected by Her Majesty's Government.

ELECTION LAW AMENDMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will name a day on which he would bring forward the Election Law Amendment Bill sufficiently early to secure a full opportunity of passing some Bill on that subject through both Houses of Parliament during the present Session?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that having regard to the exigencies of public business, he was unable to name a day, but he would take care that it should be one sufficiently early to enable a full consideration to be given to the subject.

TRANSPORT OF TROOPS TO CANADA.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether troops had been sent to America in the vessels Adelaide and Victoria, which were
  292
  lately nearly lost; and to move an Address for copy of any Report made by the commandant of the troops on board, the Admiralty agents at Cork, and the captains of these vessels; and further, to ask if either or both of these captains had retired or been removed from their command, and the reasons for such removal; and also to move for any correspondence between Major-General Lord Frederick Paulet and the War Office as to the Adriatic troop-ship conveying the Grenadier Guards to America, or any correspondence on the same subject with any Government department. He would first deal with the case of the Victoria. That vessel sailed from Cork on the 4th of January, with twenty-two officers and 505 men of the 96th Regiment on board. Before she left the harbour, indeed from the moment the regiment went aboard, she was found so leaky, and it was considered necessary to hurry her off so rapidly, that neither bedding nor rations were served out to the men until they were under weigh and sea-sick. The accoutrements and arms were not even hung up and stowed away, and they were, as well as the officers' cabins, completely wet through. During the first five days at sea she made some progress, but it then began to blow, and the defects of the ship were speedily discovered. It blew very hard, and the vessel pitched and rolled so much that the men on board were exposed to the danger of loss of limb and life, and were saturated with water. Neither with the aid of steam nor sail was she able to make head against the storm; she scarcely made twenty-four knots in twenty-four hours, while she fell forty-eight knots to leeward, though burning forty tons of coal in that period. The horses which she carried, belonging to the officers, and which he was informed they were obliged to take at their own risk, were destroyed. The spars of the ship, moreover, were snapped asunder, her life-boats were carried away, the long-boat stove in, the bridge torn up. She rolled so that neither tea, coffee, nor soup could be served to the men. Her sails were torn to pieces; and in short, she was exposed to all those disasters which attended a vessel not in a state to make head against a storm. Now, the question he wished to ask was, were twenty-two officers and 505 men, after all that had taken place, to be called upon again to embark in the same ship? He should also like to know whether the Admiralty agent who had inspect-

  293
  ed her when she put back, had or had not pronounced her to be unfit to cross the Atlantic? He was the more particular in desiring to have an answer to that inquiry, because it was currently reported that the captain and officers had expressed it to be their opinion that she could never perform the voyage except in fine weather. He might also add that he had been told the conduct of the captain and officers was beyond all praise, while it was said that the crew, with the exception of about six men, were not so efficient as they ought to be for the purpose of navigating the vessel. That which, however, he complained of most of all was, that a ship which had proved herself so unworthy of being trusted should be again sent out to sea. He, under these circumstances, trusted the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would furnish him with the Returns for which he asked, and would not refuse to produce them on the ground that they were of a confidential nature, so that the House might know whether the agent who had reported the ship to be fit for the transport of troops across the Atlantic had or had not been punished for making a false report. So far as the Adelaide was concerned, he understood that she was a sister ship to the Victoria; that she had been built for the Australian trade, and was never intended to contend against the storms of the North Atlantic. He was also led to believe that the price paid for the services of those ships for three months was very nearly equal to their value, while there prevailed an impression among ship-owners and naval men with whom he had had communications on the subject that they were totally unfit for the service on which they were engaged. As to the Adelaide, he need only say that, so far as he had ascertained, the disasters which had befallen her were nearly as great as those which the Victoria had encountered. The Government had assumed to themselves great credit for the promptitude with which they had despatched troops to Canada, but he did not think it was right they should obtain a greater amount of it than they were entitled to receive, and in the case of the Parana and the Adriatic, as well as of the vessels to which he had more especially called the attention of the House, complaints, he believed, had been made, owing to overcrowding and other causes; and it seemed that the Admiralty itself was not without some misgivings on the subject of the unfitness of these vessels to
  294
  encounter the storms of the North Atlantic Ocean, because he (Colonel Dunne) had heard that they were told to proceed to Madeira, thence to Bermuda, and thus to America, by which route they would be in less danger of storms which swept the Northern Ocean, but which would ensure to these regiments which had been so lately nearly lost, a residence on ship-board of at least six weeks' duration. Why could not the Government employ transports like the Himalaya, as he was informed she had performed the voyage to America in twelve days, and, it was said, had saved the country an enormous sum of money? He should like to know from the Government whether that was not so, and whether they were not in possession of Reports from Colonel Lord W. Paulet and other officers in which those complaints were embodied? He should not, however, enter further into the subject, but should content himself, while moving for the Returns, with the expression of a hope that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to contradict the statements, especially that with reference to the re-embarkation of the troops when no pressure for their immediate despatch existed, to which he had called his attention.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of any Report made by the Commandant of the Troops on board the vessels Adelaide and Victoria, the Admiralty Agents at Cork, and the Captains of those vessels; and also of any Correspondence between Major General Lord Frederick Paulett and the War Office as to the Adriatic troop-ship conveying the Grenadier Guards to America, or any Correspondence on the same subject with any Government Department,"—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was willing to admit that if the rumours to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded were in general circulation—a fact of which he was not aware—he had done perfectly right in bringing them under the notice of the House. He must, however, demur to the production of confidential reports of officers to the War Office and the Admiralty with regard to transports. Those two departments encouraged all their officers and agents, and also the military officers on board such vessels, to find fault with them whenever they had occasion to

  295
  do so, and he felt assured that if the reports which were in consequence sent in were made public the Government would not receive that full, frank, and free information which it was desirable they should possess. So far as the official report—that was to say, the report of the Admiralty officer as to the fitness of those vessels for the service imposed on them—was concerned, he would have no objection to lay it on the table in the cases both of the Adelaide and Victoria. That the troops on board those vessels had been subjected to very great inconvenience and discomfort he was not prepared to deny, but then it should be borne in mind that all the reports on the subject received by the Admiralty concurred in pronouncing the gale with which they had to contend as a perfect hurricane. Indeed—as the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be well aware—bad weather must in the month of January be expected to await vessels crossing the North Atlantic by the Northern passage, and that which the Victoria and Adelaide encountered was, he believed, more than usually severe. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, seemed to maintain that those ships were utterly unfit to cope with the storms of the Atlantic, but he must not forget that they had been employed in conveying troops to China, a circumstance which in itself showed that they might not unfairly be deemed capable of successfully contending with the weather which they would be likely to meet in going to the coast of America. The Adelaide, he might add, left Queenstown on the 4th of January, and put back on the 24th, not because she was leaky or deemed unseaworthy, but because she had been so unfortunate as to have the lid carried off one of her cylinders. When she came back to Devonport, she had been set thoroughly to rights in the dockyard; and from a report which, if the hon. and gallant Colonel would like to move for it, he should be happy to produce, it would be found that, having been tried in bad weather outside the Eddystone, she had been pronounced by the dockyard officers to be perfectly fit for sea. As to the Victoria, he had to state that she had left Queenstown on the 6th of January, and that she had put back. The cause, however, of her having put back was that she had attempted to force a passage against a tremendous gale, and had consumed so much coal that there was no prospect of her being able to make the voyage in any
  296
  reasonable time. It was quite true that many of the officers referred to were very good sailors, and could give a very fair opinion as to the qualities of vessels, but his gallant Friend would admit that the Admiralty authorities were the proper parties to judge as to the fitness of ships. He had carefully read the reports both of Admiral Smart at Queenstown and of Sir Thomas Pasley at Devonport, and there could be no doubt that both vessels inspected by them were perfectly fit to undertake the voyage; and it was only because there was now not so much occasion for haste that they were directed to take what is called the Southern passage, having permission to touch at Bermuda only in the event of their coal falling short. His hon. and gallant Friend had referred to a report of Lord Frederick Paulett with regard to the Adriatic. That gallant officer had stated, undoubtedly, that there was not full accommodation for the troops in the Adriatic, but that was to be attributed in great measure to the haste with which the internal arrangements had been completed, He could assure his gallant Friend that the complaints of Lord Frederick Paulett had reference to matters of detail of no very great importance; and the upshot of all was, that he could confidently state that the gallant soldiers now on board the Adelaide and Victoria were embarked in thoroughly good vessels, and incurred no further risk than any men crossing the Atlantic at this time of year. He should be happy to give the returns sought, relative to the fitness of these vessels. It was true that both the captains had left the vessels, but of course the Admiralty had nothing to do with their removal. That depended upon the owners, and they had a report from the owners stating that one of the captains had left his vessel from private circumstances, which had no reference to the vessel itself, and the other left from ill-health, having been suffering for some time, and being therefore quite unfit to go on that voyage. He was not aware that any censure had been passed on the agent.
  MR. G. W. BENTINCKsaid, there was one part of the noble Lord's answer which he did not quite understand—namely, that in which a distinction was attempted to be drawn between the propriety of laying on the table reports of the performances of these vessels, and what were called confidential Reports. It appeared to him (Mr. Bentinck) that when, as in the pre-

  297
  sent case, the object was to ascertain the fitness of transports, all Reports ought to be given to the House which it was in the power of the Government to furnish. It was perfectly true that there would always be storms in the Atlantic in the month of January, but the question was, whether it was not desirable, both on the score of economy and for the safety of the troops, that we should have a larger number of troop-ships in commission, which would always serve as a school for seamen, and which might be employed as transports, rather than incur the enormous cost of hiring transports. He would revert for a moment to another subject. His attention had been called by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to what had fallen that evening from the noble Lord at the head of the Government respecting the distress at Coventry. The noble Lord, with his usual hilarity of spirits, had attributed that distress to a change of fashion on the part of the ladies with reference to the patterns of ribands. But the figures which he (Mr. Bentinck) held in his hand would tend to show that the noble Lord was mistaken on that subject, and that the distress in Coventry was solely attributable to the operation of the commercial Treaty with France. In 1860, before the treaty came into active operation, the number of pounds of ribands imported was 442,000; and in 1861, when the treaty was in full operation, the number of pounds imported was 746,000; in other words, there was an increased importation of ribands to the extent of 70 per cent. That was the real cause of the distress at Coventry, and it could only be ascribed to the operation of the commercial treaty. He would remind the noble Lord of another fact; not only was there no duty on the importation of French ribands, but there was a duty on the import into France of ribands from this country. That duty, to be sure, was only a small one, but France retained the power of increasing it at pleasure. Yet that was called free trade.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I wish to state that the part of the hon. and gallant Member's Motion which relates to the correspondence between Major-General Lord F. Paulett and the War Office as to the Adriatic is nugatory, inasmuch, as no such correspondence exists. It is the practice for commanding officers who go out in transports to address to the Admiralty any confidential letter they may
  298
  think expedient with respect to the accommodation of the troops, and the practice manifestly tends to the advantage of the troops; because there may be matters which the Admiralty has it in its power to correct, which are, nevertheless, not of sufficient importance to be made the subject of a public despatch. Now, if the House thinks it right to call for confidential letters of this kind, the obvious result will be that they will not be written. No doubt, they may call for this particular letter, but it will be the last that will ever be written. The practice will cease, for it only exists on the faith that Parliament will not call for the production of private documents of this kind, written in the expectation that they will be treated as confidential. I hope, therefore, the House will respect the practice which has grown up, for the convenience and advantage of the troops, and that my noble Friend will not think it his duty to concede that part of the Motion.
  COLONEL DUNNEdiffered from the noble Lord and his colleague as to the propriety of withholding reports of complaints because they were deemed confidential, while he was sure no officer making them would shrink from their publication. On the contrary, he felt assured that more reports would be made by officers if they were made public, for in that case they might expect to obtain redress. If they did not wish publicity, why was he furnished with the information which he now brought before the House? At the same time, after the statements which had been made, and the refusal of the noble Lord and the Secretary at War to give the papers he moved for, and consent only to give the Reports of the Admiralty agents as to the state of the vessels when they last sailed, he would not press his motion, because he put no faith in the reports of men who must have deceived the Admiralty on the state of these ships when proceeding on their first voyage. If the noble Lord pledged his professional reputation and word that he was convinced that these vessels were in a fit state to carry out Her Majesty's regiments, and to risk the lives of so many brave men in them, he would himself prefer the word of his noble Friend to that of these Admiralty agents, and he thought the public would do so likewise.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETassented to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—COMPETITION OF COLOURED PERSONS— THE ARMY—INDIA).—QUESTIONS.
COLONEL SYKESstated, that with a view to afford explanations of his motives for putting the questions, he had intended they should appear upon the paper on the motion for going into Committee of Supply; but, inadvertently, they were printed amongst the ordinary questions of the day, and he was disabled by the forms of the House from giving explanations. He now, therefore, begged to repeat his questions, Whether Her Majesty's subjects in India, and coloured British subjects in Canada and the Colonies, would be allowed to compete; why 1,824 recruits, for the Bengal Presidency alone, were sent out at the end of last year, the fixed establishment of European troops of all arms for India—namely, 71,000 men—being at the time exceeded by 9,770 men; and why the Queen's Bays, ordered home from India, were stopped at Cawnpore on their march to embark for England? The reason alleged last Session, as stated by the Secretary for War, for refusing to allow natives of India to compete for medical commissions in the Royal army was, that their constitutions would not bear exposure in northern climates. But admitting this to be the fact, which it was not, there was always an army of 200,000 men in India, Europeans and Natives; and if it had been desired to give natives of India the full rights of British subjects, provision could always have been made for any number of coloured medical men in India. But the argument of birth failed entirely with respect to coloured British subjects in Canada. There were at least 10,000 coloured persons, either born in Africa or descended from fugitive slaves, who had formed communities in Upper Canada, and passed unscathed many Canadian winters: many of them had gone through the curriculum of the Toronto University and become members of the liberal professions, and in London the year before last, at the meeting of the International Statistical Association, a Dr. Delany, a pure negro, took a distinguished part. The inference, therefore, was that a lamentable prejudice against colour deprived one class of British subjects of their rights. But if the colour of the skin were to exclude, what shade was to be the standard—black, yellow, brown, or whitey-brown? With respect to sending to India
300
European recruits unnecessarily, as the European force in India already exceeded the fixed establishment, he must remind the House that it was stated in the Calcutta papers that the European force cost £110 per head per annum, while a veteran sepoy cost only £10. Since 1857 the native army of 232,224 has been reduced by 121,824, saving therefore, at £10 per head, £1,218,240; but the European troops are now in excess of the strength of 1857 by 27,778, and the increased charge therefore is £3,055,580; and Mr. Laing had stated to the Chamber of Commerce, at Calcutta, that he could not diminish taxation while the military charges continued at their present amount. With respect to the Queen's Bays he would simply ask why they were not permitted to return to England?
SIR CHARLES WOOD: I am very glad that my hon. and gallant friend has put these questions to me. He implies rather than makes a charge against the Home Government, which has been made directly against us elsewhere, and it gives me an opportunity of stating what has been the conduct of the Home Government and of removing a fallacious impression which I know prevails with regard to it. I will not enter into a discussion as to what should be the European force in India, further than to remark that an overgrown Native army has cost the finances of India much more than the sum of £10 per man, which my hon. and gallant Friend calculates as the cost of a Native soldier. I think, therefore, that the Indian Government, with the entire concurrence of the Government at home, and of every man of sense, both here and on the spot, wisely determined upon reducing, very largely, the Native army and maintaining such a force of European troops in India as will insure us, as far as human precautions can insure us, against a recurrence of such a calamity as, unhappily, we have had to deplore. The charge is that we have forced upon India a larger number of European troops than the authorities of India thought necessary, and thereby thrown upon the finances of India a burden which ought not to have been imposed. I might content myself by simply stating that the charge is totally incorrect, and that it is not true that the fixed establishment of troops in India is exceeded by 9,000 men. But I do not think I should do justice if I did not state rather more fully what the conduct of the Government in India and of the Go-

301
vernment at home has been, and how far the charge made is foreign to the truth. I quite admit that the amount of European force in India must entirely depend upon Indian considerations, and that there is no justification for saddling upon India a larger force than is necessary for the safety and protection of the country. The immediate charge against the Home Government is that we sent out last summer a larger number of recruits than was necessary, and thereby imposed an unnecessary burden upon the Indian finances. In the summer of 1860 the Government of India sent home an estimate that the force required would be 92,000 men. The Home Government thought it excessive, and I took upon myself materially to reduce it. The Military Committee of the Indian Council had reported that in their opinion the force ought to be 80,000 men. I could not pretend to give orders on my own authority in opposition to the opinion of the Government in India, and of persons who were far better acquainted with the position of India than myself; but I did suggest privately to Lord Canning that he might reduce the number to a little above 70,000 men, and the number which I recommended to him as quite sufficient was 73,000. The whole question was brought under the consideration of the Home Government in the summer and autumn of 1860, when, in consequence of the conversion of the local forces into regiments of the line, we had to determine how many regiments should be formed in the Queen's army out of the local troops. In the spring of 1861 we had to determine what number of recruits should be sent to India. The House is aware that recruits are only sent out once a year—in June or July—in order that they may arrive at the commencement of the cold season. In 1861 the Home Government took upon themselves to reduce the establishment of Queen's regiments in India from 1,000 to 850 men, and the depots in this country nearly one-half. A calculation was made in the India Office as to the number of recruits which ought to be sent out. We took the number of men in India according to the last return, and such a number of recruits was to be sent out as with a fair allowance for casualties would keep up the regiments to the reduced strength. The calculation was made in the spring of 1861, and the second arrival of recruits would be twenty months afterwards. The rate of casualties
302
in Indian regiments, including men who have served their time, is 10 per cent; and as twenty mouths would elapse without any fresh supply, recruits were to be sent to make up the number of the regiments to 15 per cent above the reduced strength; but where the regiments were more than 15 per cent above the reduced strength, no recruits were to be sent. There were and there are regiments which are above 15 per cent beyond the reduced strength, but any one will see that it could not be desirable to discharge men and send them home, and that it was far better to leave the reduction to be effected gradually by casualties. That was the principle upon which the calculation was made; but we did not send anything like the number of men which we should have been justified in sending upon that basis. It was only in the month of June, 1861, that a general estimate was sent from India, showing that a less number of men would be required. We were not in possession of it when the recruits were sent out, and therefore, when I show, as I shall, that we kept the number below the calculation even for this less number, I shall prove more than is needed to justify the Government in the course which they pursued. The recruiting had been carried on on the basis of the previous establishment; but when we had to send out a body of men proportioned to the reduced establishment there was a considerable number of men who had been recruited for Indian regiments whom we did not send out. These men were thrown upon the home Government, to their great inconvenience. In June, 1861, the Government of India, which may be regarded as the best authority on such a question, sent home a proposal that the strength of the army in India should be 73,577—that is to say, their estimate in that year was within 500 of the suggestion I had made the year before. The casualties in India are 10 per cent per annum. If, therefore, we had sent out such a number as would have maintained to the end of the year the force which the Government of India requires, we should have despatched upon their reduced estimate (which, however, we had not then received) 7,300. The minimum number we were justified in sending out on their estimate was 5 per cent on the strength required, or 3,650, which would have kept up the average strength throughout the year. The number we actually did send was 2,844, or, in

303
other words, 800 less than the minimum necessary to maintain the average strength on the reduced demand. Can it then he said that we have so overdone the sending out recruits that there are a great many more men in India than the Government require? On the 1st of October in Bengal, and the 1st of November in Madras and Bombay, the total number of European troops in India was 73,286. If the recruits had arrived, the number in India was below the requirements of the Government of India. But I will assume that they had not arrived; that is the view most unfavourable to my argument. If we add the 5 per cent (or 3,650 men) for the numbers weought, at the least, to have sent out, that brings the total up to 76,936. The numbers of the actual force on the 1st of December, as near as I can ascertain, were 74,015, or nearly 3,000 below the number required, with the proper allowance to make up casualties, according to the calculation of the Indian Government. 1,000 Artillery recruits were despatched later than the others, and it is possible they may not have arrived; but, after deducting them, there is still a deficiency of 2,000. The House will, therefore, see how groundless is the assertion that the proper strength of the Indian army has been exceeded by 9,000 men. The hon. and gallant Gentleman states, I do not know on what authority, the fixed establishment of European troops in India at 71,000 men. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that his figures are correct. Ten per cent on that number would be 7,100, the addition of which would raise the strength to 78,100. An addition at the rate of 5 per cent, or 3,550, would make the total number 74,550. But we sent out only 2,844, instead of 3,550; and, while the actual strength ought to be 74,550, it is only 74,015. I think I have shown completely that the Indian Government has asked for more men than we have given them; that even on the reduced establishment we have not sent out a sufficient number to keep it up; and that from the first the Home Government has been far below the Indian Government in its estimate of the force required to maintain British power in India. Then, so far from the finances of this country having been relieved at the expense of India, to a small extent the reverse has happened, for we have had to take, on the charge of this country, a number of men whom the Indian Government threw upon our hands.
304
As to the other questions of my hon. and gallant Friend, I would observe that in 1858 the Government of India made a calculation of the force required for the garrisons of that country, and that after two years' consideration they adhered to their former estimate, Lord Canning, however, differing from Lord Clyde, in thinking a large force necessary. The Cavalry force they then requested for Bengal was ten local and three Queen's regiments, with an aggregate strength of 6,600, two regiments for Madras, and two for Bombay. The Home Government, after communicating with the Secretary for War, the Commander-in-Chief, and the military Members of the Indian Council, determined to allow for Bengal only eight instead of thirteen regiments, with a strength of 5,000 men instead of 6,600, to be further reduced on the new establishment to 4,000. There were at the time in Bengal four Queen's regiments and five local regiments, to be made into three; in Madras two, and in Bombay three regiments. In order to provide the required force for Bengal the Home Government proposed to retain the four Queen's regiments which were already stationed there, and the three regiments to be formed out of the locals, and one regiment to transfer from Bombay. The Bengal Government, however, declined to receive the regiment from Bombay. We took one regiment of cavalry on the Home establishment more than we calculated on; and the force in Bengal was thus reduced to seven regiments. Recently they have determined that they only want six regiments, and proposed to send the Queen's Bays home. They intended to keep the new regiments which had been made out of the locals, and to send home one of the old English regiments which was not wanted at home, and would have to be reduced if it came here. It seemed to us hard that an old regiment should thus be sacrificed to a new one which had never seen any service. We wrote out, "We are not prepared to say that a single regiment shall be retained in India which you do not think necessary, but we cannot receive more cavalry regiments at home, because we do not want them. If you have made up your minds that six regiments are all that are required in Bengal, instead of thirteen for which you asked, or eight which we sanctioned, you may reduce the youngest regiment,"—that being the universal practice in the Queen's service.

305
"Therefore," we said, "don't send home the Queen's Bays, but if you think it safe that six regiments only should be retained in Bengal, the last and youngest regiment must be reduced, and you have our authority to reduce it." I hope, therefore, that I have satisfied my hon. and gallant Friend and other hon. Members that the Government are not responsible for imposing any unnecessary military charge upon India; but that, on the contrary, we have done our utmost to keep that charge as low as possible.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND). APPOINTMENT OF SUB-INSPECTORS.
MR. HENNESSYhoped that the House would allow him to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a matter of some importance and urgency. Within the last day or two an advertisement had appeared in all the principal Irish newspapers, stating that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were about to nominate four candidates to compete by examination for a vacant place in the class of sub-inspectors of national schools, and adding that none but members of the Roman Catholic Church "are eligible to compete for the present vacancy." Now, as a friend and admirer of competitive examinations, he objected to this introduction of sectarian questions into the Civil Service examinations. They had been told that the national system in Ireland was established to bring men together regardless of their religious opinions; yet here was an attempt to nominate exclusively Roman Catholic Inspectors. He could hardly believe that the Secretary for Ireland was the author of the change proposed. He rather attributed it to the traditions of the Irish Office and the Irish Government, who endeavoured to become popular by holding out, he would not say bribes, but inducements to a class in the shape of Government appointments. A striking instance of this had recently occurred in the appointment to a seat at the Education Board of Lord Dunraven, who had always doubted the policy of the system of National Education in Ireland, but who had accepted the office without changing his opinions, and was now protesting against the policy of the Chief Secretary as to mixed education. Against the conduct of the National Commissioners, he (Mr. Hennessy) ventured to protest, and he trusted that through the intervention of
306
the Chief Secretary they would be compelled to rescind the Order to which he had called attention.
MR. VANCEthought the hon. Member for the King's County deserved credit for bringing this subject, though a Roman Catholic, under the notice of the House. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not, as an ex officio Commissioner of the National Education Board, consider it necessary to defend all the acts of that Board. Lord Derby was the author of the National Education system in Ireland, but it had been so altered since the period of its first introduction that the noble Lord could now hardly recognise his own bantling. The Board consisted of twenty members, every one of whom was a strong supporter of the principles of the present Government. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not, however, responsible for that state of things, as all those gentlemen had received their appointments before his accession to office. The constitution and the administration of the Board were condemned by the universal voice of public opinion in Ireland. He believed that there was not one member of the Board who had ever been distinguished in any literary capacity, or by his devotion to the education of youth. The members of the Established Church in Ireland had special reasons for complaining of the constitution of the Board, for out of the twenty Members only six were of that religious persuasion. He hoped the constitution of the Board would be altered, and the recurrence of such an event prevented, as had been brought under their notice by the hon. Member for the King's County.
SIR ROBERT PEELcomplained, that this subject had been introduced without notice, and admitted that he was not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman categorically. He could state, however, that he was not an ex officio member of the Board of National Education, that the Board was an entirely independent body, and that the Government had no control, direct or indirect, over its proceedings. With respect to the point which had been raised by his hon. Friend, he could only state upon that occasion that he believed it was the practice that there should be among the Inspectors under the Board a certain proportion of Roman Catholics, of Churchmen, and of Presbyterians; and if vacancies had occurred among the Roman Catholic Inspectors, he saw nothing extra-

307
ordinary in the notice that had been given. He could not, however, upon that occasion offer any precise information in reference to the special case which had been brought under their notice, and he could only give a pledge that he would take care to make it the subject of inquiry.
MR. HENNESSY: The advertisement says that any person can compete, with this proviso, that no one can do so except Roman Catholics.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I will inquire into the subject, and let the hon. Gentleman know the result.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Supply considered in Committee.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

HIGHWAYS BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BARROW, in rising" to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, expressed his surprise that no strong grounds had been given to the House for such an extraordinary interference with the rights of property. Before taking away from the owners and occupiers of property the right of managing their own affairs, it ought to be shown that they had so grievously neglected their duties as to deserve this severe punishment. The Bill was uncalled for and unnecessary. For several years similar Bills had been submitted to Parliament, but scarcely a single petition had been presented in favour of them, while, on the other hand, there had been a large number of petitions, from large and small parishes, presented against them. What the parishes ask was that they may be permitted to manage their own affairs in the most economical way they could. He objected to the Bill, because it was an extension of that principle of centralization and bureaucracy to which the people of this country were so much opposed, and he felt sure that if that system were pushed much further they would not remain so patient as many hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate. The exercise of the right of parishes to meet in vestry and manage their own affairs was essential to fostering a spirit of independence in the people, and ought not to be interfered with. The Bill, he believed, would not effect the object which it professed to aim at. He would remind the House that the principle
308
of connecting parishes into districts for the more convenient repair of their roads had been in existence for a great many years. Parishes already had the power, under the 5 & 6 Will. IV., so to accumulate themselves into districts. If this could be done with advantage, he had not so mean an opinion of his countrymen as to think they would not have availed themselves of this power; but the fact that that Act had not been carried out showed that this Bill was entirely uncalled for. He was informed that the power had been used in only one county —the instances, at any rate, were very few. The only argument used for the Bill— that the repair of the roads under the present system was everybody's business, and therefore nobody's business—was a very weak one. If it could be shown that the powers of the present law had not been put into force, or that its provisions had been found inefficient and imperfect, there would have been some reason for an application for a change; but, even then, the change ought to have been made in a different manner from this extreme provision for confiscating the rights of property. He believed that many hon. Members were not aware of the present condition of the law upon this subject. It was this—every parish met in vestry once a year, and elected an officer to perform the duty of seeing to the repairs of the roads—they appointed their own surveyor for their own parish, to look after their own expenditure. If the roads were not kept in proper repair, anybody might go to any justice of the peace and get a summons against the surveyor under whose care they were; the charge, however, must be heard before the justices at special sessions for the highways. The justices might then either inspect the roads themselves, or send a competent person to view them; and if his report were that the roads were not properly kept, they might fine the surveyor for neglect, and make an order for the repair. A preliminary inquiry had to be made whether the parish admitted that the highway, the non-repair of which was complained of, was within their limits. They might deny it altogether, or defend themselves by stating that some private person was liable to repair ratione tenure. In case they disputed their liability, the question would be raised by indictment at the next assizes; and the House, he thought, would hardly be in a hurry to deprive them of the privilege of having the question determined

309
before a judicial tribunal by the verdict of a jury. It was difficult to master the extremely complicated details of the Bill, which had been in the hands of Members little more than twenty-four hours; for, instead of stating precisely what its object was, there were references to innumerable Acts of Parliament. But if it did not take away this privilege from the parishes, at least it threw great difficulties in the way of its exercise. If the liability of the parish were not disputed, the magistrates, having satisfied themselves that the road was really out of repair, had the power of fining the surveyor £5, of ordering him to repair the road immediately, and in default might inflict a further forfeiture of a sum sufficient to put the road in repair. Nothing was easier under the present law than for a person to procure a summons, and have any grievance redressed. The surveyor is to keep a weekly account of his receipts and expenditure, and his account is to be at all reasonable times open to the inspection of any ratepayer without fee or reward. At the end of the year the surveyor must lay his accounts before the vestry, and before the justices of the peace at the special sessions for the highways; and the justices are required to examine him as to the truth of the accounts, and to hear any complaints against them. From personal experience, he could testify to the simplicity and satisfactory nature of the process. If the decision of the justices at petty sessions gave dissatisfaction, an appeal lay to the whole body at quarter sessions. It seemed strange that alteration should be needed in a system so simple as this; and if change was required, it certainly was not in the direction of an extension of taxation without responsibility, But if difficulty was experienced in getting roads repaired under the present law, he wanted to know what would be the case under the new Bill? All the duties, liabilities, and responsibilities of the surveyors, were to be transferred to the new District Boards; but he looked in vain for any provisions by which these Boards could be compelled to repair. One clause in the Bill expressly repealed the penalty leviable on the surveyor for neglect of duty; and another clause declared that no member of the Board should be responsible in any shape or way. If the object of the Bill were to secure the better repair of the roads, would hon. Gentlemen be good enough to point out the clauses in which compulsory powers were given? The pub-
310
lic ought also to know something of the way in which waywardens were dealt with. They got no gratuity whatever, but were liable to a penalty of not more than £5 or less than £1 for every meeting of the Board they failed to attend, although the meetings might be held at five, six, or ten miles from their own residence. It might be supposed that under the new law, which gave to the minority uncontrolled dominion over the property of the majority, great care would be exercised with regard to financial operations. But the new Bill proposed that, instead of producing their books annually, the Board should audit their own accounts; they were not to produce them anywhere, or to subject them to any examination, beyond publishing a copy in one of the county newspapers, and sending another copy to the Secretary of State, who would lay an abstract of them before Parliament. Supposing that one of his constituents had reason to complain of gross jobbery on the part of the Board—and Boards were liable now and then to gross jobbery, the only remedy would probably be to request him to move in Parliament for a copy of the account in extenso, in order that he might point out some item peculiarly open to objection. This would furnish employment to Members on Fridays, when they were at liberty to bring forward grievances. Unfortunately, they usually did so to empty benches, and it was not difficult to foresee the result of a discussion raised on a local highway grievance. In conclusion, he had to express his hope that the House would reject the Bill; and he begged to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
MR. HODGKINSON, in seconding the Motion, said, that when this subject was before the House two Sessions ago he ventured to state his objections to the Bill then brought in by the Government, many of which he perceived to be continued in the present Bill. He should not, therefore, trouble them with a repetition of his opinions in detail, especially as he had not seen any reason to change his mind since that time. He was free to admit that some objectionable features of the former Bill were not to be found in the present; but still he believed there was fault sufficient to be found with the measure now before the House. He could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment as to the feeling which existed against

311
this Bill on the part of the constituencies of the country. Indeed, the matter was placed beyond a doubt by the number of petitions which had been presented during the last and the preceding Session against the Bills now before the House. The question was not whether the roads and highways of this country were in as good a state as they could wish them to be. Neither was it one as to whether the parsimony sometimes displayed on this subject was economy or not. He quite admitted that it would be desirable to have our highways in a better state, even though that object were to be accomplished by an increased expenditure; but he denied that the remedy was to be found in legislation such as that proposed by this Bill. It was contrary to all experience to find a divided responsibility—or, he should rather say, irresponsibility—in public Boards result in an efficient management of the duties intrusted to their charge. He regretted that the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) had not made an explanatory statement in moving the second reading, for, under present circumstances, the House was rather left to guess at the arguments by which they were called on to support it. On all former occasions they had the Boards of South Wales paraded before them. In a Committee on which he served last Session he had an opportunity of hearing something of roads in South Wales; and what was stated showed that they were in anything but a satisfactory state, and that there was anything but a unanimous opinion that these Welsh Boards were successful. Besides this, the case of the Welsh roads had always been treated as an exceptional one. Then they had been told to look at the turnpike roads of England. He had taken the trouble to look into the expense of the turnpike system. He was perfectly astonished at the cost; and he had arrived at the conclusion that the system was utterly inapplicable to the highways of this country. The district plan had also been recommended to them; but the fact that the districts formed in the early stages of the working of the present law had not been adopted as a model, was sufficient to show that the district system had not answered. He hoped the House would pause before they destroyed a system which was theoretically right because it was said to have been badly administered. Had it in reality been badly administered through the fault of those intrusted with its administration?
312
Within a comparatively short time after the present Act came into operation there was a tremendous onslaught made on it by the authorities of the Home Office, and from that time to the present these attacks had been continued. Could it be wondered at, under such a state of things, that the law had not been well carried out? What set of men were likely to incur the odium of putting a large expense on a parish when there was good reason for supposing that the law was about to be altered? It would be as reasonable to expect improvements by an agricultural tenant who was kept under a perpetual notice to quit. But assuming that the present system would not work satisfactorily as it stood, would it not be much wiser to add a plan of supervision instead of deparochializing the system? An inspector might be appointed to look after the highways, and to advise the road surveyors in case of neglect. If his advice was not attended to, he might be afforded the means of compelling the fulfilment of his requirements by appeal to a magistrate. The accounts might be audited by such inspector or by the present auditor of Poor Law accounts. By the 37th clause of the Bill now before the House justices of the peace would have power to perform judicial functions with respect to cases in which they had acted as way-wardens. That was a very objectionable principle, and one repugnant to English usage. This was not so much a question of good roads as preferable to bad; the great question was, whether they would annihilate their present parochial system, and take one step more in the policy of centralization that was diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Constitution, and the feelings and inclinations of the country. He seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
MR. BASSsaid, that, as a resident in the country and conversant with country matters, he must say that his experience of the condition of the highways brought him to a conclusion the very opposite of those stated by the hon. Members who had spoken on each side of him. The parish roads were mostly in very bad condition; and he had never found an overseer or waywarden, as he was called, who knew more of making a high road than he knew of the way to the moon. He knew the

313
hon. Member for Nottinghamshire represented the opinions of his constituents, but on this subject he doubted if he represented their interests, for he knew that in his hon. Friend's county, as well as in his own, the roads were generally in a very bad state, and he was convinced that the change pro-posed by the Bill would not only greatly improve the roads, but at the same time materially reduce the rates. He would take the liberty of mentioning the case in which he had found himself. Some time ago he occupied 400 acres of land; it was in four different parishes, and there were four overseers of the roads. It was difficult to find out who they were, for the most intelligent farmers would not accept the office, and it was generally taken by the smaller occupiers. In one of these parishes a bridge was destroyed—swept away by a torrent. It was rebuilt; but, in the first place it was constructed diagonally to the stream, instead of straight across it; and the work was so imperfect that it had to be done over again. Such instances were occurring every day. Only last week he had been compelled to threaten an indictment to obtain the repair of a piece of road that could not be passed without danger to the carriage and passengers. It was true that, to escape the indictment, the repairs were made. Yes, but consider the difference between a high road in an indictable condition, and one in good repair. The subject had excited more interest than he had supposed; and of this they might be certain, that without some change in the persons charged with the duty of overseers it would be impossible to keep the roads in good repair, or secure an economical and effective system of management.
COLONEL BARTTELOTthought, that whether the high roads of the country were in a proper state of repair or not, was a very important question. There were many parts of England where the old parochial system had been well carried out, and where the roads were still in a good state of repair: but it would be found that this was where enterprising landlords and tenants had expended capital on the land, and they had taken care that the roads so necessary to their welfare and comfort should be properly attended to. But what was the state of the roads in districts where farming was backward, under small holders and needy landlords? In some of these districts the repair of the high roads had been lamentably neglected. The
314
question for the House to consider was, whether the repair of these high roads was not an important object, and whether the present Bill was a measure that met the case. He thought that, with some alterations and amendments in Committee, the Bill might be so framed as to be made a very useful measure. In the poorer districts, where the repair of the roads had not been carried out, there it would be found that, by a want of management, persons not qualified had been employed in the work, and that material had been carted on to the roads at improper seasons of the year. Where the amount of the high-way-rate was worked out by the farmers, when the team could not be employed on the farm it was sent to work on the roads; and probably the amount of a shilling in damage was done for every eighteenpence spent in carting stone at that time. He did not think he overstated the case in setting down one-third of the roads throughout the country as in good repair, one-third in a moderately good condition, and one third in a decidedly bad state. He gave every credit to those efficient way-wardens who had done their duty well and honestly; but, taking the whole of the country into consideration, he thought something more must be done. The question was, would the Bill effect that object? It had been stated that there was already an Act under which parishes might be amalgamated together, and a paid surveyor of the roads appointed. In the few cases he knew of a paid surveyor having been so employed the system had worked admirably; the highway rates that had risen to 2s. 6d. in the pound had, in more than one instance, been reduced to 1s. He ventured to think that, if a Bill of that kind could be applied to the districts that required it, it would be no detriment either to landlords or tenants, and of vast benefit to the community at large. He would therefore give his cordial assent to the second reading.
MR. DODSONsaid, he had voted against two previous Bills on this subject, but in the present measure what he most had objected to was removed. The present Bill allowed a part of a county to be formed into a district. He did not think the Bill involved such a confiscation or such centralization as the hon. Member for Nottingham then apprehended. The adoption of the Bill would rest with the local magistracy, and the working of it with the rate-payers. In fact, it applied to

315
the management of the highways the same principle that had been applied to the administration of the Poor Law. The area of management was to be extended from the parish to the district, as under the Poor Law the area was extended from the parish to the Union. But the landowners and the rate-payers would still have the management of their own affairs. The evil of the present system of road management was its inequality. In a distance of six miles five might be tolerably good, and the sixth very bad indeed. The larger area could make larger contracts, give better work, and pay a good surveyor—a person not to be found in every parish. At present the management of the roads was generally handed over by one farmer to the other, who knew very little of roadmaking; and there was a tendency to give the work on the roads to the worst men— the incapable, the idle, and the vagabond. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire said parishes had the power to unite into districts under an existing Act; yes, but under it one parish could defeat the good intentions of several adjoining it. He said, "You have power enough already, if you will put in force the present law." But how was the difficulty of the poor parishes and the small area to be dealt with? Owing to the existence of this small area, the necessary expenditure could not be afforded, and it was here that you wanted some such arrangement as was provided by the Bill. Then it was said that the bad roads were the result of the terror which had been excited throughout the country from the introduction of these Highway Bills. But, if there was any truth in this statement, not one-third of the roads only would be bad, for this cause would operate universally. In his county the roads were in general exceedingly well managed; but there were other parts of the county in which this was not the case, and it was in these bad districts such a bill was required. A short time ago he had occasion to drive from a country town to a railway station, a distance of five miles and a half; and the roads ran through seven different jurisdictions for repair. The first half mile was a turnpike road No. 1; then came two miles of a parish road No. 1; next a bridge and 200 yards kept by hundred rate No. 1; then half a mile of parish road No. 1; next a bridge and 400 yards kept by twelve tenants ratione tenurœ; then a mile of parish road No. 2; then half a mile of turnpike road No. 2; then a bridge and
316
200 yards kept by hundred rate No. 2; and the rest of the way was turnpike road No. 2. The turnpike road No. 1 was not had, No. 2 being better. Parish road No. 1 was very good, but No. 2 was execrable. The hundred rates cost £6 or £8 to make, and therefore were seldom raised. The ratione tenurœ tenants did nothing for twenty years and then appealed to the public for help, because there was so much to be done. Surely it would be highly beneficial to have in force a system which would get rid of some of these small and different jurisdictions, and place the roads under one good management. It would also be desirable in some cases to afford facilities by which an obnoxious toll-bar might be got rid of. But those were matters for consideration in Committee rather than in a discussion of principle. No doubt, the Bill was a complicated one, and perhaps the best course under the circumstances would be to read it a second time and to refer it to a Select Committee.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that two Sessions ago he joined his hon. Friend (Mr. Barrow) in opposing the second reading of the Highway Bill then introduced; but the opinion of the House was so strongly expressed in favour of some such measure that he should not himself have thought it necessary to trouble the House by asking them to go to a division at this stage, more especially as the changes introduced into this measure were all an approach to the principle which he had ventured to advocate. The Bill was, however, still objectionable in this respect—that it really introduced compulsory government by Boards. True, it was at the option of the magistrates to constitute a Board of Highways or not. But his constituents did not like that such a system should be forced upon them at the option of any persons. They had no faith in the economy of Boards, however efficient; and they feared not only that a Board of Management would be attended with great expense, but that it would lead to some ulterior measure—some central Board in London on the pretence of maintaining uniform legislation throughout the country. He believed there was a good deal of reason in these objections; and, at any rate, he thought that so great a legislative change ought not to be made if the same result could be secured by some more simple measure. Believing that this might be done, he should at a future stage try to accomplish the end in view in a more

317
direct and less expensive way. The defects of the present highway system were very simple. He differed from his hon. Friend in thinking that there were no defects. The great blot in the present system was that the public had no sufficient voice in looking after their own interest, and that the managers generally misapprehended their duties. The general impression among the surveyors seemed to be that if the roads of the district were sufficient for the requirements of the district, this was all that could be looked for. But the public were just as much interested in these roads as the district itself was, and were equally entitled to expect that they should be in good condition. The public, however, might be protected by simpler means than were proposed. It had been suggested that a district surveyor should be appointed, with power to inspect and report to some higher authority. Now, the ratepayers would not, he believed, object to some greater power being exercised on the part of the public if they were allowed to make the repairs ordered in their own way. He would therefore merely divide the counties into districts, appointing a surveyor to look after each, and in this way a remedy would be applied to all the defects of the present highway system. The law, would then, he thought, have to be enforced in very rare cases, and when the public had a voice in the matter all the roads would be much better looked to. He was aware that this proposal was liable to the objection of his hon. Friend, that it would take more power out of the hands of the ratepayers. But he believed that the ratepayers would not object to the authority he had suggested. After the strong opinion which bad been expressed in favour of some such Bill, he would advise his hon. Friend not to divide the House against the second reading. Perhaps the best mode of dealing with the Bill would be to refer it to a Select Committee, as had just been suggested. He should not himself offer any opposition to the second reading, but should take the opportunity upon future stages of the Bill of endeavouring to make it more conformable with his views.
MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the roads of South Wales had been mentioned somewhat disparagingly, and he thought rather unfairly. He recollected when those roads were in a really bad state, but he wished to bear testimony to the improvement that had been made under the operation of Lord
318
Cawdor's Act. Not many years ago a Welsh clerk of the peace, being asked by a committee of the House of Commons "what was the state of the highways in Wales?" replied, "There are none." He was asked, "How do you travel, then?" to which he answered, "In ditches." He had himself ridden many score miles in roads which wore more truly the beds of brooks. He (Mr. Bruce) lived in a parish of 18,000 acres, and in it there were four hamlets. The surveyors used to be farmers, who in many instances celebrated their year of office by making good roads up to their own farm-houses. Each hamlet had its own unpaid surveyor. Availing themselves of the powers given them by the Highways Act, the parishioners appointed one paid surveyor for the four hamlets, at a salary of £40, and in a very short time he reduced the highway rates to half their former amount, while the roads were four times as good. The highways of South Wales were now managed on a system almost identical with that proposed by the Bill before the House. The adoption of that system was not due, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hodgkinson) supposed, to the Rebecca riots, which affected only turnpike roads, but was the work of a nobleman of great ability and administrative powers—the late Lord Cawdor. At the request of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) he had written to clerks of several districts in Glamorganshire to inquire into the relative efficiency of the old and new systems. He had received very full and satisfactory returns, making out, he believed, in every instance, a case of reduced expenditure and increased efficiency. The measure worked well, and without any of those evil consequences threatened by the Member for Notts.
MR. DEEDESsaid, that having for many years felt great interest in every measure of this kind, and being desirous of seeing something done to remedy the defects of the present administration of highway law, he could not but support the second reading of this Bill. In doing so he must not be taken as agreeing to all the clauses, or even all the principles in the Bill. In the first place, he thought it was unnecessarily complicated. He could not see upon what principle the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to be drawn in as an active party in carrying out the provisions of this Bill. He believed it would be better if it were left to the magistrates of the

319
county in the first instance to set the new system in motion, and that they should have the power, if they thought fit, upon representations being made to them, to sub-divide the county into districts in such manner as would best enable them to administer the law. Having done that, he did not see why the Secretary of State should be called upon to confirm such arrangement. The Secretary of State would be placed in the predicament of deciding between contending parties upon matters of which he could have no positive knowledge, and concerning which he could only derive his information from the magistrates on the one hand or the parishes on the other. There were other parts of the Bill to which he objected; but, as they were matters that could be better discussed in Committee, he should not enter upon them on the present occasion; he should therefore confine himself to the general principle of the measure and the reasons why he thought the House would adopt and the country would accept something, although, perhaps, not this Bill in its present shape. His experience led him to think that a large amount of money was now thrown away upon the management of highways. Some hon. Gentlemen were afraid that the new system of way-wardens and what had been called irresponsible boards, would necessarily cause increased expense. He had a firm conviction that if the waywardens did their duty a large diminution in the present rate of expenditure would follow. The public had a right to expect when travelling over eight or ten miles of roads that they should not be subject for one-half the distance to journey over execrable roads, when, by simple management, the road might be made equally good throughout its length. He was sure that a larger area of management under proper control would lighten the expense upon all, and greatly tend to the advantage of the public. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) had used a hard word—"confiscation," but neither he nor the hon. Seconder had given any definition of the term to justify its use in reference to this Bill. Whore could be the confiscation of property when the management was to be in the hands of the parties interested—the ratepayers and the waywardens? The hon. Gentleman had said that, under the present law, the ratepayers met in vestry to elect officers; but that was really not a correct description of what took place. True, the vestries elected
320
officers, as they were compelled to name some one to be surveyor; but it was notorious that one man after another sought to evade it or to get out of it as soon as possible, and, when obliged to serve, the surveyor was incompetent to perform his duties because he was ignorant and uninstructed in them. That state of things demanded a remedy, and he knew none so good as the appointment of a district surveyor—a man with specific duties, who would be paid for the discharge of them and responsible to some authority for their due performance. Such a remedy would, he believed, tend to improve the parish roads, and at the same time to diminish the expense. It was said that the vestries might give salaries now; but who would expect them to do so when the person elected knew nothing of the duties he had to discharge, and who only accepted the office because he could not avoid it? Some such system as that now proposed was necessary. The hon. Seconder of the amendment had alluded to clause 37, giving the magistrates certain powers which he thought they ought not to possess, but upon reference to the clause it would be seen that it only applied to magistrates at quarter sessions who happened to be way-wardens and who were not therefore to be precluded from acting as magistrates. A hint had been thrown out about referring the Bill to a Select Committee. If he believed that such a reference would shelve the Bill, he should oppose it, because he thought the measure was based upon a principle laid down by a Committee; but, assuming the principle to be adopted, and with the distinct understanding that the Committee should entertain nothing but the Bill in order to put it into working shape, without taking evidence, he should not object to the suggested reference. Looking at the diversity of opinions upon the subject and the complicated nature of the Bill, he was disposed to think that would be the most practicable mode of getting some measure passed this Session.
MR. WALTERsaid, that feeling a deep interest in this subject, he was anxious to bear his testimony as to the necessity of passing some measure of the kind. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Hodgkinson) had said that it was not a question whether there should be good roads or bad roads, but whether the parishes should he interfered with. He (Mr. Walter) thought the House would agree that in a Bill for the better management of highways, the

321
state of those highways had something to do with the question. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Barrow) had given the House a minute description of the legal remedies available for the enforcement of the present system; but from his experience he (Mr. Walter) could conscientiously say that he should never dream of attempting to resort to those remedies, because there was no machinery to carry them out. Any one riding along a country road, and seeing the way in which road-mending was carried on—a cartload of large stones tumbled down and merely strewed over the road—the side, which should be left turfed for the benefit of riders, being broken up and destroyed -could come to no other conclusion than that those who were employed in carrying out the repairs were incompetent to the performance of their duties. Let any one consider what the parochial system was upon a matter of this kind. He believed the average area of the parishes in this country was 3,000 acres. No one would say that such an area was sufficient to employ a competent staff to manage the repairs of the roads. Then again, there were in many districts in the South of England what were called "drift ways," which were being gradually brought into use—roads which until within a few years had been merely sand roads or turf roads, but which, in consequence of increased population, were being gradually put into a proper state of repair and made passable for carriages. Suppose three parishes— and he knew of such a case; that the parish at one end, which he would call A, put its road in perfectly good repair; the parish C, at the other end, did the same thing; but the parish B, between the two, left its road utterly impassable, for carriages. Would any one tell him that was a proper state for the roads of the country to be kept in, or that any Hill which deprived the parish of the power of leaving its roads in this disgraceful condition should be charged with centralization and confiscation, and he knew not what other terms? There were certainly some clauses in this Bill which he should wish to see dispensed with. He did not know why the Secretary of State should trouble himself with the accounts about those roads, overburdened as he was already with other business. He considered that that was really the centralizing element of the Bill. There was no more reason that accounts should be sent into the Secretary of State
322
for those districts roads, than that the accounts for county bridges and roads in general should be referred to the Secretary of State. He hoped, therefore, that in Committee that clause would be expunged. It appeared to him that roads, being intended for the public benefit, and not for the benefit of the parish merely, should be kept in repair for the benefit of the public. If such roads were merely means to an end, it must be quite evident, he thought, to every one that the public at large were as much interested in the roads at one end of the kingdom as in the roads in their own parishes. That principle he had always supported as an amendment of the present law, and he should cordially support the second reading of the present Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, they had had Highway Bills so often before them, that it would be a curious thing to have a sort of variorum edition of Highway Bills, to see how they agreed or differed one from another. His opinion of the merits of the present Bill would depend very much upon the answer be received from the Home Secretary to the question he wished to ask as to the true interpretation of the 5th clause. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given a very curious illustration of the evils of the present system, when he said—Suppose that parish A and parish C made their drift way good at either end, but that parish B bad an impassable bad road in the midst. Well, under the existing law the remedy was very simple—it was as simple as A B C. Assuming it to be a legal highway—for otherwise neither this Bill nor the existing law would enable it to be done — the remedy was most simple. Let them go before the magistrates at petty sessions, and the thing might be done; it was inexpensive and of no difficulty. But, so far as be had been able to read this Bill, that remedy had been entirely cut from under their feet. He did not see any remedy at all in the Bill. The Bill expressly exempted the Board from all the penalties which fell upon the surveyor now if be did not do his duty, by the express enactment that those penalties were taken away. But it might be said they had the old remedy by indictment for nuisance. Unfortunately the parish might be indicted and the inhabitants amerced by fine; but they would have no power by law, according to the Bill, of abating the nuisance. That was a point which was capable of being remedied in Committee; but it had been

323
said that Boards had neither noses to be polled, nor another part to be kicked, and it did not appear what remedy was given against Boards if they failed to discharge the duties imposed upon them. Boards, however, were very pugnacious, and he ventured to say that country Boards would fight any one who attacked them, to the last breath in their body. They were very pugnacious, because, among other reasons, they did not fight with their own individual money, but with the money of the ratepayers. He was almost induced to call this a pleasant Bill, because there was really a provision in it so very extraordinary that he had not seen anything like it of late years. They would constitute a Board of way-wardens, who were to be elected. Those gentlemen would meet. The right hon Gentleman was evidently afraid that his Boards would not meet, and therefore he imposed a penalty upon them of something between £1 and £5 for non-attendance. But who was to enforce it? Why, the gentlemen themselves. That was a very pleasant arrangement. But if they did not do their duty, who was to fine them and make them meet? Why, they would fine themselves. That was a degree of virtue which he thought it possible that a Board might not always possess. They had heard in times past of churchwardens' dinners and all that sort of thing, which they had hoped was got rid of; but here was a nice machinery set up exactly for the same purpose. Here was a Board which had power to fine from £5 to £1. They might borrow to any extent; there was no limit except the consent of the Secretary of State. And then they were to audit their own accounts; so that the parties whose money was spent were to have no check. But those men were to have the auditing of their own accounts, which was equivalent to saying that there was to be no check at all. Why, they might have turtle dinners put in as items in the road accounts. Who was to know? He thought the right hon. Gentleman Would see that that was a provision which, whether the Bill went upstairs or was dealt With in that House, must have a proper remedy put to it. Where persons were spending other people's money it was right there should be an independent audit. These were some of the prominent objections which appeared to him to exist to the details of the Bill; and, certainly, some rather odd arguments had been used that night in its favour. The hon. Member for
324
Sussex (Mr. Dodson) had given a strong illustration of the inconvenience he suffered in going a distance of five miles and a half through seven different jurisdictions to a railroad. One turnpike road was bad, and one good; there was a parish road very good, and another execrable; there were I two "hundred" bridges, and there were roads ratione tenurœ. But this Bill would not deal with the "hundred" bridges; they would remain untouched— the bad turnpike roads would remain untouched. He might have a chance of amending his bad parish road or of making the good one worse. That was all the hon. Gentleman would gain by the Bill. But this Bill, if he had read the 5th clause aright, relieved him of a good deal of the difficulty he had felt with regard to the other Bills that had been submitted to the House. He did not know whether, under this clause, the magistrates at quarter sessions would have power simply to make one district, and so from time to time to bring other districts into the system, if it ! was thought desirable; or whether, upon the requisition of five magistrates, it would be imperative on the quarter sessions to divide the whole county into districts. The; nature of the information he received would decide his vote. If it was left open to the ' quarter sessions, on the requisition of magistrates in the neighbourhood, to form a; district, it might be generally presumed I that that would not be done without the wishes of the inhabitants, and he for one could see no objection to a system of that kind, because the principle volenti non fitinjuria was a very sound one. If the parties wished for such an arrangement, they would be brought to have a good district surveyor, and no doubt the roads would be: made better and more economically. If they got a good district surveyor, they got better roads. But in a poor district with small farmers they might have a district surveyor job, as Boards would job as well as other people; and if they got a bad surveyor, they would have more expense and worse roads, because there would be less control over him. And therefore it would depend upon the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman would give of the 5th clause, which was by no means clear, whether or not he would support the Motion for the second reading. It was true that these and other points might be amended in a Committee, either upstairs or in that House; and as the Bill had been introduced early in the Session, he hoped something would be made of the subject in time.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he had not addressed the House on moving the second reading, because he felt that he had nothing new to state, the present measure being identical in principle with other previous Bills which had received the sanction of that House. With the exception of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and second ed the Amendment, the Bill appeared to have met with very general assent as far as regards the principle that Highway districts should be formed, and Highway Boards established, to superintend the repair of the roads in those districts by means of paid district surveyors, whose business should be exclusively to attend to that duty. These Highway Boards were to be composed of the representatives of the ratepayers in each of the parishes forming a district. The Bill rested on authority and experience. The House had repeatedly affirmed its principle. The existing Highway Act, as it passed the House of Commons, contained a provision for the compulsory union of parishes as Highway districts, which provision was modified by the House of Lords so as to make it optional on the parishes to form the districts. The result was that that provision was acted upon but in a very few instances, as the assent of every individual parish had to be obtained; but in the districts where the power had been exercised, and the roads placed under the charge of district surveyors, the result had been most beneficial in the improvement of the roads and the economy of expenditure. An hon. Member (Mr. H. Bruce) had referred to South Wales, where it was stated the system adopted was almost identical with that proposed by the present Bill; and he found, by the last accounts, that in 1859 the expense of maintaining the roads there was, on an average, only £6 per mile, while in England it amounted to £11 2s. Thus it appeared that the expenditure on roads in South Wales was very little inure than half the amount spent in England, while, according to the testimony of the hon. Member, the roads in South Wales were kept in a better condition. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) said that the Bill would confiscate the rights of parishes and deparochialize the country. Now, assuming that the high roads of England might he treated as parochial matters (which he denied), did the Bill confiscate the rates of parishes? The rates were to be collected within the parish
326
I and applied within the parish, with the exception of that small portion which was to be appropriated for the expenses of the Board, the district surveyor, and clerk. As to deparochializing the parishes, was it the fact that roads ought to be considered as exclusively local matters to be confided exclusively to the charge of each parish? That, as had been truly stated by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), was not the case, and the public at large had a direct interest in a continuous road passing through several parishes, and would naturally desire that the management should not be broken up into several small jurisdictions, producing different results in respect to the manner in which the road was kept. It was said that there existed means for compelling the present authorities to do their duty. No doubt, that was the case, if the roads should be in an indictable state and not passable; but there were many roads which, though not in an indictable condition, formed a very unfavourable contrast with what was termed a good road; for there was a science in road-making as in other things. An hon. Gentleman had described one manner of road making to consist in the careless throwing down of cartloads of stones, and filling up a hole here and there, without any system. A road so repaired might be passable for carts, but it would not be in such a state as a line of communication between one part of the country and another ought to be in a civilized community. It could not be denied that many of the present surveyors were wholly unfit for the duty. It must be borne in mind that the establishment of railways had made some difference in respect to the public roads. The turnpike roads used to be the great lines of communication; but now other roads, radiating in all quarters from railways, were brought very greatly into use, and he feared that they would never be maintained in an efficient state of repair unless some such system as that proposed by the present Bill were adopted. But it was said by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Col. Wilson patten) that a Board was a most cumbrous mode of obtaining the end in view, and might very well be dispensed with, and that all that was wanted was a district surveyor. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that a district surveyor was essential; but it must be remembered that the Board was a representative body, and he thought

327
the Bill would have been open to greater objection if it dispensed with a representative Board, and merely left the appointment of the district surveyor in the hands of the magistrates. He believed that the Teal difficulty in passing these Bills through Parliament had proceeded from fear on the part of the ratepayers of expense consequent on the adoption of the proposed provisions. He did not deny that, when the roads were bad, there would be some expense in repairing them; but, when once the roads were, under the new system, put into a good state of repair, they would afterwards be kept in a much more efficient condition at much less expense than under the old system. One or two Members had asked why the Home Office interposed in this matter, if the magistrates agreed to divide a county or a portion of a county into a district. The only reason why the assent of the Home Office was made necessary to the final formation of a Highway district was, in case there should be any strong local opposition to the decision of the magistrates, that there might be an appeal to the Secretary of State, and an opportunity for reconsidering the matter. There was no desire on the part of the Home Office to add to its own duties by taking upon itself business of a merely local nature. It had been suggested last year that there should be a formal appeal from the decision of the magistrates. That, however, would clearly have been a cumbrous and inconvenient mode of operation, and a reference to the Secretary of State had been inserted instead. Still that precaution might be an unnecessary one; and if such should be the opinion of the House in Committee, he would be happy to dispense with it. It had been asked why the Home Office should interfere with the accounts. Under the present law, the accounts of turnpike trusts and of highways were sent to the Home Office, principally, he believed, for statistical purposes, that department being thought a convenient channel through which all such information should be obtained for Parliament. That, he believed, was the object of this provision. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had objected to what he called the indefinite power of borrowing given to the Board, subject only to the approval of the Secretary of State. That was a point to be discussed rather in the Committee than on the second reading; and he hoped to be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentle
328
man that this power was not indefinite. There was a limitation in the amount of highway rate itself which might be levied in any parish. The money must be borrowed on the security of the rates, and no one would lend more than the sum the interest of which could be paid out of the rates in addition to the cost of repairing the roads. However, any amendment that might be proposed on this point might be very fairly considered in Committee. So too, with regard to the audit, in respect to which the provision in the Bill was the same as the one in the South Wales Act. If it should be found that that provision had not worked well in South Wales, it would, perhaps, be better to have an independent audit. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the Board would be under no liability that could be enforced to maintain the roads in good repair. The 19th clause, however, declared that the Highway Board should perform the same duties and be subject to the same obligations as those to which the local surveyor is liable. Therefore, the duty being transferred to the Board to be performed by their servant the district surveyor, if that duty were neglected proceedings might be taken against them as a corporate body to enforce the fulfilment of the obligations imposed on them by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman fancied that the 5th clause was ambiguous, and asked whether it was imperative on the justices to divide the whole county into highway districts, or whether they might limit their action to a part of the county. Certainly it was the intention of the Bill—and he thought that intention was clearly expressed — that it should not be incumbent on the magistrates to divide the whole of the county into such districts, because there might be some parts of it in which the management of the roads did not require any alteration, and others where improvement was urgently demanded; and no doubt it would be competent to the justices in such cases to divide a portion of the county, instead of the whole, into districts. He did not know whether he had now sufficiently answered the observations of the right hon. Member for Oxford.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was so far satisfactory, and, no doubt, if the wording of the provisions was not clear, it would be made so in Committee.
SIR GEORGE GREY: Some of the speakers who were friendly to the Bill had

329
proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee; and the lion. Member for Kent (MR. Deedes) had said, no doubt sincerely, that he would not make that suggestion if he thought it would tend to defeat the Bill. On a previous occasion, it might be remembered, a Bill of a similar nature to the present was referred to a Select Committee; and, though the Committee were very unanimous in favour of the measure, the result was that it could not be proceeded with that year. Nevertheless, the present Bill had been introduced very early in the Session; and therefore, if hon. Gentlemen adopting its principle, and being anxious only to consider, and, if possible, improve its details, went into a Select Committee, they would probably report in about three weeks, and no serious delay would arise. On that under standing, and provided that the Committee would merely go through the clauses with out taking evidence or discussing the principle, he should certainly not object to the Bill, after its second reading, being referred to a Select Committee.
LORD FERMOYwas surprised that the right hon. Baronet should have said that nobody who had opposed the Bill that night had objected to its principle. Why, there was scarcely any of those hon. Gentlemen who had not objected to its principle. For himself, he strongly objected to it, and that on the ground of its tendency towards centralization. He did not say that the Bill boldly asserted the principle of centralization, but it took a step in that direction, and as those things always began by small degrees and increased in magnitude, he objected to it. The Bill proceeded practically to sweep away all local control. It was said that in the parochial system they had not uniformity; but if the advocates of uniformity should carry this Bill and create district boards, what means had they of enforcing uniformity? They would have to come to that House and seek to enforce uniformity by the establishment of a Central Board sitting in London. There would happen in this case what had happened in the case of the Poor Law; and he asked the Members for England would their constituents and the people of England be satisfied to place their local rates and roads under the power of a Central Board sitting in London? He thought they would view such a proceeding with the greatest repugnance. He had also a constitutional objection to the Bill, and did not think they should
330
abolish what remained to them of local self-government until at all events a case was made out that it had fairly been tried and failed. Was there, he asked, any case made out to show that the system of parochial control and self-government had failed? The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) who bad made an able speech in favour of the Bill, gave an instance to show that they had not tried their present system sufficiently. Having passed over a road that required repair, he applied to the parochial authorities to repair it, and they repaired it accordingly. The system of centralization which the Bill proposed to extend might render it a very good law for the French, but, in his opinion, it would be a very bad law for England. Not a single petition had been presented to the House calling for a reform of the law in the sense proposed by the Bill.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I voted against a Highways Bill upon a former occasion; since that time I have been in communication with my constituents, but I found they were not agreed upon the question, although they were all desirous that something should be done to improve the present system. Finding this to be the case, I have come to the conclusion of giving my support to the present measure so far as voting for the second reading, in the hope that in Committee the Bill will be so improved as to effect the objects which all have in view.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I object to the formation of these Boards; and, believing that the real requirements of the case are exceedingly simple, I cannot vote for a Bill fraught with the dangers which the noble Lord opposite has described. Under the present system aged and infirm labourers are employed, and thus kept out of the workhouse, and farmers have an opportunity of occasionally employing their men and horses profitably. These are advantages which should not be lightly thrown away. It has been said that this Bill will ensure economy. It may create a saving in pounds, shillings, and pence, but with a waste of means which may effect a more real economy.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 30: Majority 111.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2o, and committed to a Select Committee.

MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND)BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, I rise to move for leave to introduce a Bill for the better regulation of Markets and Fairs in Ireland. The subject is one of considerable importance to the domestic industry of the Irish people. Bills have been introduced into this House intended to deal with this subject in 1858, 1859, and 1861. It will be recollected that the Bills of 1858 and 1859 proposed the appointment of a commissioner and an assistant-commissioner who were to have the whole regulation of fairs and markets in Ireland, who were to prepare a schedule of tolls, and who were to have the power of calling upon the owners of fairs and markets to come forward and prove their titles. It will be recollected that my immediate predecessor thought that this was legislation of too minute a character, and that in the Bill introduced last Session it was proposed to leave a great deal to local management and to Orders in Council. That measure was referred to a Select Committee who went carefully into all its details, and the Bill which I have now the honour to submit to the House is, with certain slight modifications, substantially the same as that reported by the Select Committee last year. I believe that the evils so loudly complained of in Ireland will be corrected by this measure, and that in future the fair dealing of the great majority of the trading and agricultural classes will not be tampered and interfered with by that arbitrary and cumbrous machinery which is distasteful alike to producers, consumers, and exporters. The Bill has met with considerable support in Ireland, and I hope to be able, with the co-operation of the Irish Members, upon whose judgment and local experience I confidently rely, to pass it through both Houses in the present Session. I need hardly say that the subject to which the Bill relates has long and frequently engaged the attention of Parliament. More than 200 years ago there was a Parliamentary inquiry into the grievances connected with fairs and markets in Ireland. There was an inquiry into the subject in 1635; in 1640 a Bill for establishing the certainty of the amount of tolls to be levied was introduced, which, unfortunately, did not pass; and there were inquiries in 1697, 1698, 1703, 1764, and in 1826 by a Committee of the English House of Commons to consider the return
  332
  of tolls in seaports, fairs, and markets in Ireland. In 1830 a Select Committee appointed to take into consideration of the poorer classes in Ireland recommended, among other remedies, a correction of the abuses in respect of tolls and markets; and in 1835 the Committee on Municipal Corporations in Ireland described in their Report the objectionable nature of the tolls levied on fairs and markets, and recommended a thorough revision of the entire system. There have, therefore, been many inquiries and many recommendations on this subject by Commissions and Select Committees. The main object has always been to regulate with certainty the amount of tolls to be levied in fairs and markets, and legislative measures for that purpose have been frequently recommended by Commissions and Committees. Nevertheless, little or nothing has been done, and the inaction of Parliament has been followed by this remarkable result, that in many parts of Ireland a system of force has been organized for the purpose of putting an end to the objectionable tolls. These attempts have been in a great degree successful in the provinces of Ulster, Leinster, and parts of Munster. The agitation commenced in the county of Heath, Kildare, Dublin, King's and Queen's Counties; and the consequence is, that if you were to draw a line from Londonderry to Youghal, you would find that in almost all the fairs and markets to the eastward of that line the tolls have been forcibly abolished, whereas in nearly the whole of those to the westward, with a few exceptions, the tolls still continue to be levied. Of course, that is a very unsatisfactory state of things; because in those places where the tolls have been forcibly abolished worse evils than any which existed before have been created by the want of proper management. About thirty years ago an attempt was made to introduce some improvement, and the result of that attempt has been that since 1836 no patents for fairs or markets have been issued in Ireland; and this is the only recommendation that has been acted on. The history of these fairs and markets is really most entertaining to any one who takes, as I do, an earnest interest in everything that tends to promote the well-being of the industrious classes in that country. There are at this moment 1,297 fairs in different parts of Ireland. Of that very large number there are not one-third held under patent; that

  333
  is to say, as time has gone on the date fixed in the patent for holding the fair has been changed, and at this moment, of 1,297 fairs, only about 488 are held according to the strict letter of the patents. Of markets there are 349, but of that number also only one-third or about 122, are held according to the stipulations of the patents. The House will, therefore, understand how very distressing such a state of things must be for the agricultural and trading interests of Ireland. In that large number of fairs and markets tolls are levied, and other exactions made, utterly opposed to the spirit of the patents under which they were originally granted. The first patent granted was in the time of James I., and the patents were continued under successive Sovereigns till l836. There are only eight fairs held under special Acts of Parliament. These are Athlone, Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Kilkenny, Galway, Limerick, and Londonderry. There is one tiling in connection with these fairs and markets, of very serious import, with which the Bill will deal— I mean the system of tolls. They are sometimes leased away, sometimes let for the lives of patentees, and sometimes appropriated to other than market purposes. By an old Act of Parliament, passed in the reign of George 111,, the owner or lessee of a fair is bound to put up a schedule of tolls. I believe that is almost entirely disregarded in Ireland; and tolls are now levied, I think, in Galway on cattle entering the market whether they are sold or not, contrary to Act of Parliament. It appears by that most interesting volume issued by the Commission which sat in 1852, that tolls are actually levied on sales taking place on Sunday. The House will agree with me that this is a highly objectionable state of things, and it is to the correction of its evils the Government have turned their attention. Three several Governments have endeavoured to deal with the subject, but without success. I trust I may be more fortunate. Although it would be unbecoming in me at this late hour to trespass long on the attention of the House, I may be permitted to allude to the main features of the Bill which I shall lay on the table. One of the clauses gives statutory force to the obligation which the common law imposes on owners of markets and fairs to provide accomodation. Now, owners of fairs in Ireland seem to think that they are not bound to provide accommodation; but, strictly speaking, they are bound by law
  334
  to do so. In 1835 the Judges were consulted by the House of Lords upon an Islington Market Bill, and they gave it as their decided opinion that the owner of the market was bound, in accepting the grant, to provide adequate and convenient accommodation for the people frequenting the market. We endeavour to establish that principle in this Bill. Another evil which gives rise to the greatest possible confusion in Ireland we propose to remedy. I refer to the denominations of weights in Ireland. What is properly called uniformity of weights and measures is already provided for in Ireland by Acts of Parliament, the principal of which are 5 Geo. IV. c. 74, and 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 63. It is the designation or computation of weights by local terms, instead of by the names of the imperial standard weight, that is the remaining mischief now to be got rid of. The House will hardly credit the great variety in the denomination of weights in Ireland. Grain is purchased by the cwt., stone, and barrel, in grain, the stone and cwt. always consist of 141b. and 1121b., but the barrel varies in almost every town. The barrel of oats at Roscrea and Nenagh is 12 stone; at Limerick, Cork, and Dublin, 14 stone; at Newtownlimavady, 18 stone; at Sligo, 24 stone; at Killarney, 32 stone; at Skibbereen and Bandon, 33 stone. A barrel of wheat is 20 stone; a barrel of barley, nearly everywhere, i6 stone; but at Newtownlimavady, 21 stone. Potatoes are purchased in some places by the stone of 141b.; in others, by the stone of i61b.; in some towns "by the weight" of 21 lb.; in others by barrel, in different places, of 15, 20, 21, 24, 32, 40, 48, 64, 72,80, 95, 96 stone of 141b. With such a variety of weights, it was almost impossible that a simple-minded agriculturist should know how to sell his produce. A pound of butter in some places is 16oz., in others 18oz,; a stone of flax in some places 161b., in others 141b.; a cwt. of flax consists in different localities of 1121b., 1201b., and 1241b. Pork in the north is purchased by the long cwt. of 1201b.; in the south, by the cwt. of 1121b. In fact, the whole system of internal traffic in Ireland is unsound. Such a state of things, clearly, is most objectionable. It is quite impossible for the internal trade and the domestic industry of the people of Ireland to go on if the state of things, literally existing at this moment is permitted to continue. The Bill will contain provisions specially for the

  335
  prevention of fraud in the butter trade. The butter trade is most important. In that most flourishing and beautifully situate locality, the city of Cork, the butter trade is most extensively carried on. I have got a return here of the quantity of butter exported from Ireland in 1860. The quantity exported from Cork in that year was 16,103 cwt,, whereas the quantity exported from the other towns and cities of Ireland only amounted to 11,100 cwt. The importance of the butter trade of Cork cannot, therefore, be exaggerated. The hon. Member for Cork will be able to state if I am wrong, but I believe great complaints even now prevail as to the regulation of the market in Cork. Up to 1829 the trade was governed by the 52 Geo. III. c. 134; but the restrictions and regulations were considered by all parties as insupportable, from their partial application, and all the old butter Acts were repealed, and the trade set free from legislative control, by the 10 Geo. IV. c. 41. We propose to make special regulations for the prevention of fraud in the butter trade. There are also provisions for dealing with pretended and irregular fairs and markets. These are the main features of the Bill which I propose to lay on the table, and which I trust will put an end to a system uncertain, undefined, and vexatious to the people of Ireland. I am quite satisfied that great good will result to Ireland if this Bill is passed. Although we know that Ireland has made great strides since 1848 in endeavouring—I will not say under great difficulties, but with very inadequate inducements—to improve the land under culture, any one who travels through the country must see that much remains to be done which Parliament, in many cases, can assist in doing. We hear it said that Irish industry, in comparison with other countries, is backward I do not know whether that is true, but of this I am sure—that if it is true, it is not attributable to natural defects or want of energy in her people. It will not, however, be denied that there is at the present moment a spirit of improvement developed in Ireland which we cannot too highly applaud; and I believe that by passing this Bill, and removing cumbrous machinery which interferes with the operations of all classes, we shall successfully aid that development. I take no credit for this Bill, but I give it where it is due— to the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in my present office (Mr. Cardwell), to the
  336
  noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), and to others who have considered the subject. In conclusion, I will repeat that I am sure by passing this Bill, with such modifications and amendments as may be necessary, we shall assist in rendering Irish enterprise and Irish industry more productive and more profitable than is possible under the evils and restrictions which it is designed to remove. The right hon. Gentleman then moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of markets and fairs in Ireland.
  MR. LONGFIELD, as a Member of the Committee on whose Report the Bill was mainly founded, observed that the existing evils arose chiefly from want of proper accommodation, from frauds by sellers, frauds by buyers, and variations in weights and measures in various parts of the country. He was glad to see that the suggestions of the Committee had been adopted almost without alteration by Government, and that the Bill was introduced at an early period of the Session, whereas, in former years, such measures had fallen to the ground from being introduced at a late period, when the House was occupied with other, perhaps more important, because Imperial matters. He hoped that there would be no opposition to a measure looked forward to with so much hope by the people of Ireland.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, that in his opinion also the subject was one of great importance to the prosperity of Ireland, and expressed his satisfaction that the measure had been brought forward at so early a period. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would meet with every assistance in passing it into law.
  MR. GEORGEhoped, however, that the people of Ireland would be allowed an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the details of the Bill before the next step was taken. If it only removed the discrepancies which existed in the matter of weights and measures, it would be well deserving of attention; but he thought that the machinery might be simplified with advantage. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a sincere desire among all parties to assist in legislating upon the subject in a practical form. Although the present Irish Secretary had had the way smoothed for him, he could not better inaugurate his accession to office than by passing so useful a measure.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYcongratu-

  337
  lated the right hon. Baronet on the excellent tone and temper which characterized his statement in asking for leave to introduce the Bill, and he earnestly trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would in future follow the good example he had get to himself on that occasion. The Select Committee of the House on Irish fairs and markets had framed an entirely new Bill, which he presumed was essentially the Bill proposed for acceptance by the right hon. Baronet. If it differed from that Bill in any important respect, he should like to learn where those differences were and in what degree they existed. The chief points to be considered were, whether there should be a permanent Commissioner and compulsory weighing. The proposal to have a permanent Commissioner was rejected in Committee by a majority of one, but be agreed with the gentlemen of the county of Cork in thinking that the measure could not be advantageously worked unless supervision were exercised by such an officer. It had been suggested that the duty might be given to the Board of Works or to the Registrar General's Office. The principle of compulsory weighing was carried in the Committee also by a majority of one; but, while allowing it to be desirable, he did not believe it was practicable. He had proposed as an intermediate course that a declaration of weight should be made by every seller before receiving the price of any article. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his best attention to those two matters.
  Leave given
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Cardwell, and Mr. CLIVE
  Bill presented, and read 1o,

RELIEF OF THE POOR.

  SELECT COMMITTEE RE-APPOINTED.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the Committee of last Session on the administration of the relief of the poor had, in their last Report, stated that they had not yet comprehended the whole subject of the inquiry, and recommended that it should be continued. Accordingly he begged to move that the Committee be re appointed.
  Select Committee appointed" to inquire into the Administration of the Relief of the Poor."

CURRAGH OF KILDARE.

  PAPER MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL DUNNE, in moving for a copy
  338
  of all Proceedings taken against Persons for trespassing on the Common known as the Curragh of Kildare within the last two years; with certain particulars, said, that his object was to ascertain whether a conviction by a single magistrate was valid. His own belief was that it would not be legal without the concurrence of two magistrates. The Curragh was in old documents, and in some Acts of the reign of George III., spoken of as the Common of Kildare, and the Crown had never established any right to its possession. On the contrary, sheep had by usage been pastured upon it, and races had been held upon it for nearly 200 years. Yet at the race meeting last June Horse Artillery and Cavalry were manœuvring upon the racecourse at the time the races were going on, and seriously interfered with the sport. In the case of Aldershot no roads were stopped up until an Act of Parliament was obtained for the purpose, and he did not see why a different course should be pursued in Ireland. When the Camp was first established, his hon. Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Cole) asked whether it was intended to interfere with the raising and training of horses and the feeding of sheep, and the then Clerk of the Ordnance replied in the negative. He hoped that he should be allowed to have these papers, and should at the same time receive an assurance that the Government had no intention to interfere with the rights of the commoners.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that the Crown had asserted certain illegal rights over the Curragh of Kildare; but he could not see the connection between that allegation and the returns he moved for, which were for the number of persons taken into custody for trespassing on the Common. The question was, whether it was a "common." That would be a question which, in the first instance, would be raised by the Crown. For his own part, he never heard of a trespass on a common, and therefore he could not see what would be proved by this return, supposing it were granted. The return would do nothing whatever towards settling the title of the Crown. That was a civil, not a criminal question, and must be decided by a civil tribunal—perhaps in the Court of Chancery. The number of these convictions averaged about twenty a day, which for two years would give about 12,000; therefore, instead of being a leaf out of a

  339
  petty sessions' book, the return would, when printed, form a very large blue book. If he thought that this information would throw any light upon the question which the hon. and gallant Member had brought before the House, he should be unwilling to refuse him even so voluminous a return, but he did not believe that it would have any such effect. He really was not aware that the title of the Crown was disputed; during his tenure of his present office he had never heard of it. There was certainly a dispute in the matter between the military who were encamped on the Curragh, and the civil authorities, who seemed to be of opinion that the encampment of the troops on the Curragh was a trespass. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Motion; and if he would put his Question on some future day, or make some Motion, he would endeavour to give him some further information.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had no dispute with the military authorities; it was merely the illegal acts of the civil magistrates that he wished to have inquired into. He would withdraw his present Motion and renew it in another form.
  MR. HENLEYthought, that if it were the fact that twenty cases of trespass a day were brought before the magistrates, the matter was too serious to be pooh-poohed simply on the ground that some 2,000 names would have to be given in the return.
  SIR GEORGE GREYpointed out that if the convictions were illegal there must be in Ireland, as in England, some means of bringing them before a superior authority and having them quashed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POOR BELIEF{IRELAND)(No. 2) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in moving for leave to bring in a Rill to amend the Laws in force for the Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland, said that the Irish Poor Law Code consisted at present of the Act 6f 1838, the Amendment Act of 1843 (which related to matters of detail), the Act of 1847, and the Act of 1851, commonly called the Medical Charities Act. In the year 1860 his predecessor in office (Mr. Cardwell) introduced a Bill, which was referred to a Select Committee, consisting of Irish Members, representing the most important borough and county constituencies. The evidence taken before
  340
  that Committee was of great importance in reference to any amendment of the law. The Committee of last year agreed to fourteen Resolutions, of which five were favourable to provisions contained in the Bill of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell), seven suggested new points of legislation, and two related to matters within the province of the Commissioners themselves—namely, moral classification and provision for religious worship—points which had since been dealt with in conformity with the spirit of the reccommendation. The others of these Resolutions had been attended to in the Bill which he now proposed to introduce. The first and most important clause in the Bill proposed the repeal of "the Quarter-acre Clause." In neither England nor Scotland did any similar restriction exist, and the Poor Law Commissioners informed him that the guardians in Ireland now discharged their duties so satisfactorily that such a regulation was no longer necessary. His own limited experience in Ireland led him to believe that great benefits would result from this relaxation of the present system. Another highly important clause provided for the admission of persons not destitute to workhouses for medical and surgical treatment; and the Commissioners declared that this would form "a most valuable addition to the present Poor Law system." It was at one time thought that such a clause, which likewise bore the stamp of previous recommendation, would interfere with the county infirmaries. But Irish gentlemen knew well that the area of these infirmaries, which were mostly situate in towns was supposed not to extend beyond a circuit of ten miles from the establishment itself. This Bill would enable guardians to do for internal patients what the medical charities now did for external patients. A third clause gave power to relieve orphan and destitute children out of the workhouse, in accordance with the recommendation of three successive Governments, confirmed by the resolution of the Select Committee of last year. It was found impossible to rear and educate children of tender age in workhouses; of those under two years of age the mortality in workhouses amounted to 47 per cent, while out of doors in the same class it was only 16 per cent. In a medical as well as a moral point of view, this modification, therefore, was urgently required. The relieving officers would be intrusted with the care of the children, and it had been as-

  341
  certained that the expense of maintaining them out of the workhouse would not exceed £5 a head yearly—about the same amount which would have to be paid for them if they were brought up, at the risk of their lives, within the walls The Government had not altogether decided to what age children ought to be allowed to remain out of the workhouse. The Poor Law Commissioners thought five years the proper limit, whereas the Select Committee fixed the period at twelve.
  The right lion. Baronet then moved for leave to bring in a Bill "to amend the Laws in force for the Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland, and to continue the power of the Commissioners."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, in England the Poor Law Commissioners regarded persons of 15 years of age as children, and the great mistake of their legislation with re spect to Ireland in the Poor Law Department was, that they had for Ireland a code which, in its most important particulars, was the reverse of what prevailed in England, lie thought they ought to take the age of the children in Ireland at 15 years.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that if the time were extended beyond five years, the children would never die. He objected to a measure that would increase the rates, which in his own city amounted to 2s. 6d. in the pound.
  SIR ROBERT PEELproceeded to say that in his opinion he thought the age named by the Poor Law Commissioners would he most suitable, but he did not wish to press on the House a point which could with more advantage be settled in Committee. The only remaining clauses to which he would call attention were those limiting the number of proxies for the election of Poor Law Guardians which might be held by any one person to ten, to be held for a period of ten years; and those which continued the powers of the Commissioners for two years.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, the measures of the right hon. Gentleman so far had merited the approval of Irish Members; but he would be pursuing a retrograde policy if he adopted five years as the limit to which children could he maintained out of the workhouse. In I860, the House, by a majority of 92, declared itself in favour of twelve years as a limit; and he thought, when the Bill which he bad introduced came on for discussion, he could show reasons why fifteen years would be a still better standard. The English Poor Law
  342
  was a generous system, looking mainly to the relief of the poor; but in Ireland those who administered, or rather those who made the law, had ni03t prominently before their eyes the ratepayers who were to be affected by the measure. The result was that in England the Poor Law alleviated and averted distress, and such misery as now existed in Ireland would not be even felt, much less talked of in this country.
  MR. VANCEcould assure the House that the Boards of Guardians in Dublin were averse to the plan of sending children out to be reared. Either living or dead, these children would be charged to the Union during the entire of the term for which they had been sent out. The system would therefore lead to frauds. He should remind his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the King's County that the circumstances of this country were very different from those of Ireland. There were, and had always been, more destitute poor in Ireland; and in Ireland more advantage was taken of the Poor Law, go as to obtain relief from the ratepayers, under circumstances that never would be contemplated or sanctioned in England.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, that the opinion of witnesses from all parts of Ireland, as stated to the Select Committee, was that the existing law gave sufficient power to guardians in Ireland to give outdoor relief in cases where it out to be afforded. The abolition of the quarter-acre clause was, in his opinion, fairly open to discussion; but, whether it was continued or repealed, the guardians must be the best judges as to whether destitution really did exist. He trusted the power of rearing destitute children outside the workhouse was intended to be a discretionary one, and that it would not extend to children beyond the age of five years. The substance of the evidence taken on that point by the Committee was, that the discretionary power should be confined to the cases of children not exceeding that age.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTobserved, that Dr. Phelan, the Most Rev, Dr. Cullen, and other witnesses, had given strong evidence for out-door relief. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Dublin that the people of Ireland were more anxious to avail themselves of Poor Law relief than those of England. Statistics quoted by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) a few nights before showed; the contrary to be the fact the per-

  343
  centage of those receiving poor relief in England was much larger than that of those who received in Ireland.
  MR. LEFROYwas in favour of an extension of medical relief, but would not wish to see the proposed power of rearing destitute children outside the house extended to the cases of children beyond the age of five years.
  Leave given,
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir ROBER PEEL, MR.CARDWELL, and Mr. VILLIERS,
  Bill presented, and read 1o.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

DESTRUCTION OF CHARLESTON HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, he desired to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in reference to a report in the newspapers that a second squadron of ships laden with stone hail been despatched by the Government of the United States to be sunk in the Maffitts Channel of the harbour of Charleston. It was added that a third squadron was in the course of equipment, and was intended for a similar purpose. Now he (Earl Stanhope) desired to know whether the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) had received any information from Washington respecting these rumours, and if so, what course he intended to pursue in regard to them? He had been in hopes that the former despatch of the noble Earl would have settled the question, for it seemed to him (Earl Stanhope) to have laid before the American Government, in so comprehensive a form, and with such unanswerable arguments, the considerations that ought to guide them in regard to such enterprise, that he had hoped it would settle the question. It seemed to him to be a most worthy sequel to the policy with respect to American affairs which all parties were agreed in thinking had done so much credit to the noble Earl and had so fully vindicated the honour of the country, and to the approbation which had already been bestowed on that policy he begged to add his humble meed of praise. It was difficult to see how the sinking of large ships laden with stone on banks of mud at the entrance of a harbour could end in anything else but the permanent destruction of that harbour; and it was on that ground, as far as he could understand, that the measure was originally put forward and afterwards defended. The permanent destruction of a harbour was not justified by the laws of war. War, undoubtedly, sanctioned many grievous acts, but it did not sanction any act of this kind. The permanent destruction of a harbour was not an act of war of man against man, or of nation against nation, but it was an act of war against the bounty of Providence, which had vouchsafed harbours for the advantage of commerce and for the civilizing influences of intercourse between one people and another. On this ground we were well entitled and

259
were bound to enter a protest against such acts. He wished to hear from the noble Earl whether these reports were well founded; and, if so, whether he had taken or designed to take any steps in the matter? He should also wish to know whether the noble Earl had received any communication from the Government of France on the subject, and whether the Government of France, to his official knowledge, had made any similar representations to the Government of the United States with respect to the destruction of the Port of Charleston?
Earl RUSSELL: In answer to the noble Earl, I have to state that I have received no official information beyond that contained in the despatches which have been laid upon the table of the House. This, however, is a matter so important—the sinking of vessels at the mouth of a harbour—that I cannot doubt the reports which have appeared in the newspapers. I am very happy, however, to hear the protest of the noble Earl against the permanent destruction of these harbours. When we consider that they are commercial harbours, and in time of peace and when there is severe weather harbours into which vessels can run, it must be considered a most barbarous act to destroy them. From the reply of the American Government, however, the noble Earl will have seen that these stone vessels are intended as an obstruction to the channel, and to aid the blockade, and are not intended for a permanent destruction of the harbour. In a recent conversation upon this matter with the American Minister at this Court, he told me that he believed it was not intended that there should be a permanent destruction of the harbour of Charleston, and that such a thing would be impossible, for the two rivers which run into the harbour are sure to make a channel, which it will be impossible to destroy. He added that it was only the intention of the American Government to make a temporary obstruction, and that when peace was restored the blockade would be removed. This is the only information which I have received from the American Government. As to the course which the French Government have pursued, I have only to say that I communicated to them as soon as her Majesty's Government had decided to remonstrate against this proceeding, and from M. Thouvenel we have received an assurance that the Government of the Emperor took the same view which we do in reference to this subject; but
260
whether any official representation has been made to the Federal Government I am unable to state.

METROPOLITAN THEATRES IN PASSION WEEK.—OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose, to call Attention to the Licences accorded by the Lord Chamberlain to the various Theatres in the Metropolis having this Year been granted with the Omission of the usual Clause prohibiting their being opened on Ash-Wednesday, and during Passion Week. He trusted that some explanation would be given for this abandonment of a time-honoured custom. As far back as history threw any light on the question, the licences of the Lord Chamberlain had always prohibited the theatres from being open for the performance of plays on Ash-Wednesday and during Passion Week. Ash-Wednesday was the first day of the period set apart by the Church for humiliation and prayer. [Viscount SYDNEY: There is no intention to allow theatres to be opened on Ash-Wednesday.] Then he would confine his observations to Passion Week. It could not be said that the prohibition of performances in that week made any inroad on the amusements of the public; nor could it be said that the lessees and proprietors of theatres had any cause to complain of it, for they took their theatres subject to the prohibition of performances in Passion Week, and no doubt their rent was fixed at a sum in accordance therewith. Neither could it be urged that many persons were thrown out of employment by the restriction; because during the time theatres were closed for performances, persons were employed in preparing them for the Easter amusements. He could see no sufficient ground for this extraordinary change. Perhaps he should be told by the Lord Chamberlain that in the licences granted to provincial theatres a provision that they should be closed during Passion Week did not exist; but surely that could be no reason for allowing the metropolitan theatres to be opened, seeing that in their management an example ought to be set to all other theatres in the country. Was the Crown to set an example of what was right, or descend to the level of that which was wrong? Their Lordships were, about two year ago, told that such was the state of religious feeling among the working classes, that not more than 2 per cent of them ever went inside a place of worship. Now,

261
although he believed that that statement was much exaggerated, yet the feeling existed to a very considerable extent. But could they hope to see that feeling changed for the better toward things sacred in their character, when they saw the responsible advisers of the Crown sanctioning this unwarrantable innovation? He felt bound to state, that in his opinion, if the country was canvassed, the people would, from one end to the other, protest against such an innovation; and he could not help expressing his great surprise that such a step as this should have been taken at a time when their Sovereign was suffering under affliction in the loss of the Royal Consort. He hoped he had said enough to show their Lordships that evil consequences would follow the course which it was proposed by the Lord Chamberlain to pursue. But whether that course should be approved or censured by their Lordships, he felt satisfied in having performed his public duty in bringing it before them.
VISCOUNT SYDNEYsaid, he rejoiced that the noble Viscount had given him an opportunity of stating to their Lordships and the country the nature of the change in the licences to theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain. He further rejoiced that the noble Viscount had done this because he believed that there was generally a great misunderstanding upon the question. The noble Viscount had referred to a late national melancholy event; but the alteration in the licences was made at Michaelmas, and consequently it was long before that calamity occurred that the change was decided upon. The best answer to the question of the noble Viscount would be to describe the present state of the law. Certain theatres in the metropolis were under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, and these were opened by his annual licence. The other theatres in the metropolis were licensed by magistrates, as were also the theatres in Edinburgh and Dublin, and throughout other portions of the United Kingdom. In those theatres there was no restriction as to performance during Passion-Week, or as to the nature of the entertainment. The managers of the theatres which are under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain have long complained of this anomalous state of things —that they are prevented opening their theatres in Passion Week, while adjoining theatres, and also music-halls, casinoes, and dancing-places, are allowed to
262
remain open for even unlicensed performances. As an example, he might mention that the Haymarket Theatre must close during Passion Week, while no such restriction applies to the Alhambra and other places of that description. The managers of the Covent Garden Theatre were unable to open their house, but were to go to Dublin, being at liberty to do in Dublin and Edinburgh what they could not do in this metropolis. He thought that this was an anomalous state of things, and that there was some justice in the complaints made by the managers of these theatres. Another ground which they urged against the restriction was this—that it was a great hardship to the employés—that, in fact, 1,500 people were thrown out of work by the closing of the theatres. These were the grounds on which the change referred to had been made. He was not prepared to argue the question whether all the theatres or the places of amusement in the metropolis should be closed during Passion Week, but this he would say, that even-handed justice should be done to all. If one theatre was compelled to close, all should be subject to the same restriction both in metropolis and provinces; and if the theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain—in which plays could only be acted after being licensed—were to be closed, all other theatres should be closed also; and not only the theatres, but the music-halls, casinoes, and dancing-places. It was, however, for their Lordships and the other House of Parliament, not for him, to deal with that question. He would only add, that nothing could be further from his intention than to do anything that could be considered as repugnant to the religious feeling of the country, and he could assure the right rev. Prelates of his conviction, that if the theatres were opened during Passion Week, they would be conducted with becoming propriety.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was quite sure that the Lord Chamberlain (Viscount Sydney) had expressed his sincere conviction when he said that, in removing the restrictions referred to, he had no intention of doing anything repugnant to the religious feeling of the community. He had had many opportunities of intercourse with the noble Lord in his official capacity, and was satisfied that the sentiments which he had expressed were those he had always felt. At the same time he must say that the

263
reasons given by the noble Viscount struck him as being quite insufficient to justify his course of action. The Lord Chamberlain argued that the theatres under his control in the Metropolis should be under no disabilities and not subject to any disadvantages as compared with theatres in other parts of the country and with other places of amusement. He (the Bishop of London) was glad to hear that Ash Wednesday and Good Friday were excepted days. He was not sure, however, that the theatres not under the control of the Lord Chamberlain were prohibited from opening on those days. He was therefore almost afraid that if this were so, according to the noble Viscount's reasoning, in another year Ash-Wednesday and Good Friday might not continue to be prohibited days for the theatres under his control; that there might from time to time be a pressure on the noble Viscount to extend to them the liberty which the other theatres enjoyed. The entire question was really one of degree. He did not mean to say that the religious community of England would pay less attention to those sacred days whether the theatres were opened or not; but his distinct impression was that changes in that direction were very dangerous. He could not but remember the popular pressure that some time since had been brought to hear on the authorities to throw open on the Lord's day places of amusement which were hitherto closed. For his part he always considered that it was best in these matters to be on the safe side. He regretted that the Lord Chamberlain had not greater control over places of amusement generally, and considered that it would be very desirable that a reasonable and intelligent principle should be established for the regulation of all places of amusement throughout the entire kingdom.
After a few observations from Viscount DUNGANNON.
EARL DELAWARRsaid, that he had no intention of throwing the slightest imputation on the noble Viscount (Viscount Sydney), but having; had the honour of filling the office of Lord Chamberlain, he could not help saying that in his opinion the recent change would have the injurious effect of lessening the respect felt by the community for the sacred season referred to. He hoped that the noble Viscount would reconsider the conclusion at which he had arrived, as he believed that such a performance of duty would carry with it the hearty approval of the public.
The MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsuggested, that the Lord Chamberlain might make an arrangement with the managers of the theatres under his control which would have the effect of soothing the religious feelings of the community. Without entirely recalling his permission for the performance of plays in Passion Week, he might arrange that the theatres should be closed on the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday immediately preceding Easter—these days being considered of a more solemn character than the earlier days of the week. The hardship which was complained of by the theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain was not without precedent elsewhere. As their Lordships were doubtless aware, the theatres in France, which received a subvention from the Government, which were, in fact, the national theatres, were required to close on the three last days in Passion Week, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would feel the obligation to protect the religious observance of those days no less than in other countries. It was well known that of late years the great majority of visitors to theatres were not resident in London, but persons who visited London for a few days. Such persons would not choose Passion Week for their excursions, and therefore managers of theatres could not be so much injured as was supposed by the closing of their theatres in that week. He would also remind their Lordships that both Houses of Parliament adjourned over the last three days of Passion Week, during which time the transaction of public business was suspended. He thought that some such arrangement as he had suggested would be satisfactory, and that managers would find it to their own interest not to shock public feeling by doing that which had never been done before.
In reply to the Marquess of NORMANBY,
VISCOUNT SYDNEYstated, that the scheme of Lord Normanby could not be carried out, inasmuch as the licences for all the theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain were issued annually at Michaelmas; consequently they were issued for this year. Also, that he (Viscount Sydney) had hoped to have had the support of the noble Marquess on this occasion, as it was during the time that his Lordship held the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department that the change was made as to the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, on which days the

265
theatres under the Lord Chamberlain were formerly closed, Lord Normanby having advised the Lord Chamberlain of the day to agree to this change as desired in the House of Commons.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that besides the main question brought that evening before the House, one collateral point had often occurred to him, which he would take the opportunity of stating; namely, whether it was not a great anomaly that theatres should be under the control of the Lord Chamberlain at all? What possible reason could be given for it? It was plain to him that the regulation of the theatres, so far as regulation existed, should be vested, not in the Lord Chamberlain, but in the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and if he wished for testimony on that subject, he would bring as a witness the Lord Chamberlain himself, who, instead of acting on his own unassisted judgment, had gone to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and endeavoured to obtain his concurrence in the step he has taken. The fact of vesting theatrical arrangements in the Lord Chamberlain belonged to a state of things which had entirely passed away. In former days the theatres in question were appendages to the Royal Household, and still the performers styled themselves "Her Majesty's servants." But that system had become obsolete, and the continued jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain was an utter anomaly. The system having passed away, the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain should pass away also. He thought it very desirable that at some future time their Lordships should appoint a Committee to ascertain the state of the law on the subject, and he was sure that the result of such investigation would be to simplify the existing system, and to place the regulation of the theatres as also the licensing of plays in the hands that ought to be responsible for it, and that were already intrusted with every other kindred branch of jurisdiction.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.