Sitting of 21 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Elections during Recess.
2° Militia Ballots Suspension; Court of Common Pleas (Officer for Acknowledgment of Deeds); Mutual Surrender of Criminals (Denmark).
3° Lunacy Regulation; Turnpike Acts Continuance.

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

SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcalled attention to the enormous amount to which the superannuations had of late years run up. It is true that they were asked to Vote this year only £185,000; but it appeared, by a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that the real amount which the House was paying away under the head of pensions and superannuations
  588
  in the public offices was £874,000; but that did not include all the superannuations; for by account No. 56 it appeared there were heavy items for retiring allowances, compensations, &c., amongst which there was £10,000 for the Woods and Forest Departments; £447,000 under the head of Excise, Customs, Stamps, and Taxes; £687,000 for Civil Allowances; £121,000 for the Probate Act, &c.; being in the whole about £1,200,000. To this was to be added the charge for non-effectives for the army and navy, and it would be found there were altogether granted out of the revenue for non-effective services no less a sum than £5,500,000. He was quite sure that the time must come when Parliament would have to take the question up with a view to put some check on the enormous expenditure which was now going on from year to year under the head of superannuations.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYbelieved, that the amount would be found to reach nearer £7,000,000 than £6,000,000. The truth was, law reform was a frightful subject to promote, inasmuch as it involved always an enormous burden upon the country for compensation and allowances. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain how the last China Vote, extending to about £1,000,000 differed from the other Votes of Credit passed in the years 1859, 1860, and 1861. It appeared to him that a considerable expenditure had taken place without the direct authority of this House. Where, he asked, would be the objection to place on the table Estimates of the extraordinary expenses of the naval and military armaments in China up to the Treaty of Pekin, so that the House would have a clear view of the extent of the burden thrown upon the country? He further wished to know up to what date the Indian accounts for that war had been balanced.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the system of accounting for the Indian army would be changed this year. A new arrangement had been made, by which the system of making advances without the authority of Parliament, which was previously practised, would be changed. With regard to the precise point up to which the accounts had been balanced, he was unable to say without inquiry.
  MR. PEELsaid, he was not aware that a different principle had been acted on this year in respect to Votes of Credit for China than had been previously pursued.

  IRON-PLATED SHIPS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHwished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the reply of Rear Admiral R. S. Robinson to question No. 629, put to him by the Commissioners on the National Defences on the 28th of April; and to ask him, whether any experiments had been made to ascertain the power of resistance of 5½ inches of iron backed by 9 inches of teak to the heaviest guns. He wished also to ask the noble Lord whether the attention of the Admiralty had been called to the fact that the French were plating their iron ships with thicker metal at the water-line?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that experiments had been made of the nature in question, and in a few days the Iron Plate Committee would make a Report, giving the result. When that Report was received, he should be better able to answer the question of his hon. and gallant Friend. The Admiralty were alive to the fact that some of the French vessels were being constructed of thicker metal at the water-line than elsewhere, and the Admiralty were, to a certain extent, adopting the same plan.

UNITED STATES—THE CIVIL WAR. BRITISH INTERESTS AT NEW ORLEANS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDwished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the unprotected state of British Interests at New Orleans. While the Spaniards, the French, and almost every other maritime nation, had a frigate or vessel of War at New Orleans, no British frigate was to be found there, and the Government of this country was the only Government that was unable to give protection to the life and property of its subjects at New Orleans at the present moment. It unfortunately happened, also, that there was no British Consul at New Orleans at present, Mr. Mure, Her Majesty's Consul, being now in this country and suffering from ill health, and his duties were being performed by Mr. Coppell, who was, no doubt, a very respectable gentleman, but who did not appear to be armed with the credentials necessary to render his efforts as Vice Consul effective. During his absence General Butler issued a very extraordinary general order requiring every
  590
  foreigner who had resided five years and upwards in Louisiana, and who had not within the term of sixty days taken out what he called the "protection" of his Government, to proceed forthwith to take the oath of allegiance to the United States Government, under the penalty of being debarred from every protection that would be given by the United States Government, with the single exception of protection from personal violence. Mr. Coppell, the acting British Consul, thereupon addressed the following letter to General Butler:—
  "British Consulate, New Orleans, La.
  "June 14, 1862.
  "Sir,—I beg to inform you that great doubt exists in the minds of British subjects, who, under the provisions of your Order No. 41, are called upon to subscribe the oaths therein set forth, as to the consequence of compliance with the behests of that order. I would therefore respectfully request that you will inform me whether the oats prescribed in the first instance is intended, or in your understanding can be construed to affect the natural allegiance they owe to the Government of their nativity. Objections have also been very generally urged against the oath prescribed to duly registered aliens on the ground that it imposes on them (in words, at least) the office of spy, and forces them to acts inconsistent with the ordinary obligations of probity, honour, and neutrality. Hoping that I may receive such explanations as may obviate the difficulties suggested, I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
  "GEORGE COPPELL,
  "Her British Majesty's Acting Consul."
  Mr. G. Coppell received the following answer:—
  "Head-quarters, Department of the Gulf,
  "New Orleans, La., June 14, 1862.
  "Sir,—I am directed by the Major General Commanding to inform you that no answer is to be given to the note of George Coppell, Esq., of this date, until his credentials and pretensions are recognised by his own Government and the Government of the United States. All attempts at official action on Mr. Coppell's part must cease. His credentials have been sought for, but not exhibited.
  "I have the honour to be your obedient servant,
  "P. HAGGERTY, Capt. and A. A. G."
  It was therefore assumed that the acting British Consul had no credentials from his own Government, and that he was not recognised by the Government of the United States. The British residents were thus not only left without the protection of a ship of war, but there was no person of recognised official status who was permitted to represent them in communications to the Federal General. The amount of British capital at stake in the city of New Orleans was greater than that in almost every other city in the United States, and in the existing state of things

  591
  serious events might arise which might bring the two Governments into direct collision. It was therefore most important that the Government should take immediate steps either to restore Mr. Mure to his post, or, by direct communication with the United States Government, to take care that English interests were re-represented in New Orleans, so that the representations of British subjects should not be treated as they had been by General Butler.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that last autumn the representatives of British interests at three of the most important cities of the Confederate States, New Orleans, Richmond, and Savannah, were absent from their posts. As the manner in which the Federal generals had treated British subjects had been adverted to, he trusted that the House would not forget the very different mode in which the Confederate Government had behaved to British subjects. Her Majesty's Government had refused to recognise the independence of the South; yet the Confederate Government had extended every possible protection to British subjects, while the Government of the United States, when it regained its authority in any part of the territory of the South, refused to give any redress or protection to Her Majesty's subjects.
  MR. LAYARDregretted he was not able to furnish the right hon. Gentleman with as much information on the subject as he should have been able to do if he had received timely notice of his intention to put the question. He (Mr. Layard) had come down to the House that morning upon the understanding that they were at once to go into Committee of Supply, and to discuss the remaining Votes of the Civil Service Estimates. He could not, however, admit what the hon. Gentleman seemed to assume, that Her Majesty's Government had neglected the interests of British subjects in the United States, because not only had the Government in England given a careful consideration to this subject, but it had also occupied the attention of Lord Lyons at Washington. An order had been given at an early period for a British vessel of war to go to New Orleans; but from causes which it was unnecessary to mention, that order had not been carried out. A French vessel of war had, however, rendered every assistance to British subjects. Mr. Seward had expressed his regret at what had taken
  592
  place, and pending the return of Mr. Mure, who had been extremely ill, the position of Mr. Coppell, who appeared to have acted very judiciously, had been recognised by the United States Government, and his credentials as Vice Consul had been forwarded to him. He could assure his hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government would continue to give the most anxious consideration to the protection of British interests in the United States.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Supply considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. MASSEY Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
The following Votes were agreed to:—

(1.) £184,706, Superannuations, Allowances, &c.

(2.) £812, Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, &c.

(3.) £325, Refuge for the Destitute.

(4.) £3,062, Polish Refugees and Distressed Spaniards.

(5.) £58,700, Pensions to Masters and Seamen, Merchant Service.

(6.) £20,400, Distressed British Seamen Abroad.

(7.) £3,726, Miscellaneous Allowances.

(8.) £2,539, Treasurers of Public Infirmaries (Ireland).

(9.) £2,600, Westmoreland Lock Hospital (Dublin).

MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to the ratepayers of this country being taxed to support an institution of this character in Ireland. We had hospitals all over England, but for the support of none of them was any demand made on the public purse.
COLONEL DUNNEthought the complaint of the hon. Member could scarcely be sustained, when £5,000,000 were voted for the fortifications, from which Ireland was to get no benefit whatever.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—

(10.) £700, Rotunda Lying-in Hospital (Dublin).

(11.) £200, Coombe Lying-in Hospital (Dublin).

(12.) £7,600, Hospitals of the House of Industry (Dublin).

(13.) £2,500, Fever Hospital, Cork Street (Dublin).

(14.) £600, Meath Hospital (Dublin).

593

(15.) £100, St. Mark's Ophthalmic Hospital (Dublin).

(16.) £1,300, Dr. Steevens' Hospital (Dublin).

(17.) £245, Board of Superintendence of Hospitals (Dublin).

(18.) £9,034, Charitable Allowances on Concordatum Fund.

(19.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £39,747, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland."
MR. HADFIELD MR. HADFIELD moved to reduce the Vote to £366, being the sum paid since 1804 to the fund for supporting the widows and orphans of ministers of the Synod of Ulster. The hon. Member proceeded to address the House in favour of the voluntary system.
MR. DAWSONsupported the Vote, and contended that there was a comparative cessation of agrarian and other crimes where Presbyterians preponderated. This Vote was a very ancient one, and was given as a substitute for the tithes, in which the Presbyterians had a share, on the settlement of Ulster. He trusted therefore that the Committee would not be guilty of the injustice of withdrawing the Vote.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYregarded this grant as worse than useless to the parties to whom it was given, as it induced them to rely upon the State to do that which they were well qualified, and with better profit, to do for themselves. It was a wrong also to the people of this country that they should be taxed to support a ministry with whom they had no connection whatever; and, in fact, the grant could not be justified on any ground whatever, the Presbyterians of Ireland being the most wealthy part of the community.
SIR ROBERT PEELwas ready to admit that the Presbyterians of Ireland were a wealthy body, and they contributed largely to their religious charities; but he believed that this Vote had rather a political tendency than a religious one. The Presbyterians were a most loyal and meritorious body, and there was no doubt that these grants had been made to them for their loyalty to the Sovereigns of this realm. It would be unnecessary to enter into a political discussion upon the
594
Vote; but he felt satisfied that the Committee would adhere to the Resolution which had been adopted from year to year, and that this sum, which for a vast number of years had been given to the Presbyterian body in Ireland, would not be withdrawn. His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield was a consistent advocate of the voluntary system: but he trusted he would not press his Motion to a division.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had used no arguments in favour of his proposition, except those which he had so repeatedly urged against the principle of the Government in any way interfering in giving any religious instruction at all to the subjects of Her Majesty. He regretted to hear the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland say that this was a political question. He (Sir H. Bruce) denied that assertion, and insisted that it was purely a religious question.
MR. W. WILLIAMSconsidered that the right hon. Baronet had put the question on its true basis. This was a grant for bribing the Presbyterians of Ireland. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I did not say that]. That was the meaning of what the right hon. Baronet said. The Presbyterians were paid for being loyal; but there was not, he believed, a disloyal man in England; and if the Vote were granted to the Presbyterians for their loyalty, it was time it should cease.
LORD FERMOYdrew a contrast between the Presbyterians and the Roman Catholics in Ireland—the former being a rich, powerful, and, excepting so far as this grant was concerned, an independent body; the latter the poorest classes in the country, although the great majority of the population, maintaining a large and expensive hierarchy, building their own churches and cathedrals upon the purely voluntary system. If the Amendment raised the whole question of the Church endowments in Ireland, he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for Sheffield. But the fact was, that so long as the State established one Church in Ireland, and that of the minority, it would be necessary to maintain the Regium donum in Ireland in order to bribe the loyalty of the Presbyterians of Ulster. Sooner or later the whole question regarding this anomalous state of things must be raised, and a more just and equitable arrangement arrived at.
COLONEL FRENCHthought that the hon. Member for Sheffield, himself a Dissenter, who had proposed to withdraw this Vote from the Irish Presbyterians, might have left them to judge for themselves. They did not object to the Vote.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £366, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland."
The Committee divided: — Ayes 16; Noes 58: Majority 42.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Vote was then agreed to:—

(20.) £3,750, Ecclesiastical Commission.

(21.) £15,788, Temporary Commissions.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITEwanted to know what were the duties of the Fine Arts Commission, for which £880 was proposed to be voted. He moved the reduction of the Vote by that amount.
COLONEL FRENCHasked for information respecting the purchase of the portrait of Mrs. Siddons for 1,000 guineas.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the portrait referred to had not been purchased by the Fine Arts Commission, but by the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery. With regard to the Fine Arts Commission, it was due to this Commission that a school of fresco painting had been established in this country which did not before exist. The frescoes in the Houses of Parliament might not be all that could be wished, but they were a great improvement on any previous works of this kind produced by English artists. The spaces to be occupied by works of art were now nearly filled; and as the labours of the Commission were rapidly approaching a close, the Commission would soon cease to exist.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that there were nine or ten lancet windows just opposite Mr. Maclise's fine picture of the meeting of the Allied Generals, which windows were filled with red, yellow, and green glass. The consequence was that at one moment the Duke of Wellington appeared to have been indulging in strong potations, while at another the illustrious hero seemed to have just returned from a sea voyage in very rough weather.
MR. COWPERsaid, that a blind had been placed outside this painted window to mitigate the intensity of the light passing through the coloured glass; and which would, he believed, to some extent effect that purpose. This blind had not, it appeared, been used for the last two or three days; but he would give directions which would obviate the well-founded complaint of the noble Lord.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the Commission were wound up, it was not on the ground of their labours being undervalued, but of the Commission having really terminated the business for which they were appointed.
MR. HADFIELDwished to know what had been determined upon in regard to two statues in which he felt interested—the statues of John Bunyan and Oliver Cromwell.
MR. COWPERtrusted that his hon. Friend would not revive a discussion as to the merits of Oliver Cromwell, since they were not involved in the Vote before the House. The Estimates this year already voted included a statue of William III. and another of Queen Anne, and beyond that nothing had been done or proposed to the House. Any further decisions in regard to these statues had been postponed to next year.
MR. SPOONERprotested against the public money being voted in statues of this kind. The funds for such purposes ought to be raised, if at all, by private contributions.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcomplained that the Secretary of the Mines Inquiry Commission had practically been appointed by the noble Lord at the head of that Commission, and wished to know why he had not been nominated, as usual, by the Home Office.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no complaints of the inefficiency of the Secretary had reached him. It was not unusual to leave the members of a Royal Commission to nominate their Secretary.
LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL moved to reduce the Vote for the West India Encumbered Estates Commission (£2,037) to the sum voted last year—£750.
MR. PEELsaid, that several additional West India colonies had applied to have the Act extended to them, and that the salary of the Chief Commissioner had therefore been increased from £500 to £1,000. It was in contemplation to charge

597
a commission on the sale of estates, so as to reduce the burden of this Vote.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
(22.) £29,088, Patent Law Amendment Act.
MR. W. WILLIAMSdrew attention to the fact that the sum of £9,166 10 s. was paid in fees to the Attorney and Solicitor General for signing certain documents connected with patents.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDcalled attention to certain items, under Schedule E, by which it seemed that £12,000 a year was paid to the Attorney General for Ireland, and £800 a year to the Solicitor General for Ireland as compensations, and said he thought the large sums set down justified a call on the Government for some explanation.
MR. PEELstated, that the whole question of the Patent Laws was now under the consideration of the Government. He was not acquainted with the origin of those cases of compensation alluded to; but would make inquiry into the subject.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that the item pointed out by the hon. Member for Lambeth was a flagrant abuse of an indefensible source of revenue to the Law Officers of the Crown. There was no reason why the salary of the Attorney General, derived from such sources, should be double that of the Lord Chancellor. As guardians of the public purse, they were bound to require explanation of the large sums paid to these Law Officers for merely nominal duties.
SIR DAVID DUNDASsaid, that since he had the honour to be Solicitor General the Patent Laws had been altered. He did not know the present duties of the Law Officers of the Crown in this respect, but they had no more onerous or anxious duties at the time of which he spoke than those connected with patents. They had not merely to sign their names, as was sometimes represented, but had often to deal with matters of great delicacy and difficulty.
Vote agreed to.
(23.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £15,764, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863,
598
for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scotland."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had authorities to show that the herring fishery in Scotland was never in a more prosperous position than it was at present, and therefore thought it high time to get rid of this expense to the country. He should move to reduce the Vote by £12,555 13 s. 4d., the remainder being an item for pensions of officers employed in the Fishery Board—a sum he should not oppose, believing it would be a great hardship to those officers to withhold it.
MR. FINLAYdefended the Vote. If the present superintendence of the fisheries were abandoned, the French seamen would come over and drive our own fishermen away, at the risk of collision and disturbance. The inspectors and officers of the Board rendered great services, and the amount of the Vote was inconsiderable when the magnitude of the interests concerned was taken into account.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,208 6s. 8d., be granted to pier Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scotland."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 66: Majority 50.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock; Committee to sit again this day, at Six of the clock.

THE WAR IN CHINA AND THE CAPE MAILS.—QUESTION.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to ask, Whether a report which was generally current in the City, that a request has been made for 8,000 troops to be sent from India to China, is true; and also what the Lords of the Treasury are doing with respect to the Contract for the Mails to the Cape of Good Hope?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could only say, in reply to the first Question, that he had not even heard of the rumour referred to by the hon. Member.
MR. PEELsaid, with respect to the second Question, the Treasury were of opinion the Contract ought not to be renewed unless the colony, like that of Australia, agreed to defray one-half of the net loss.

BRITISH TROOPS IN CANADA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any provision has been made for the wives and families of the soldiers sent out to Canada?
  SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he wished to inquire, Whether, in consequence of the rejection of the Militia Bill by the Canadian Parliament, Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are prepared to take, any steps either to support the 12,000 British troops sent to Canada, or to withdraw them?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, with respect to the first Question, arrangements had been made to allow lodging-money to the wives and families of the British soldiers in Canada. They were expected there, and he understood that provision would be made for them on their arrival. In reference to the second Question, he had to state that, as the hon. Baronet was aware, reinforcements had been sent out to Canada in consequence of the condition of the relations between this country and the United States during the winter, and it was not the intention of the Government to withdraw any of those troops at present, or to take any steps to carry such a proceeding into effect. On the other hand, there was no immediate intention of sending out any further reinforcements.

  THE ARMSTRONG GUNS.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to ask, When the Returns which he had moved for five months back, and respecting which he had inquired twice since, relative to the expense of Armstrong Guns, will be laid upon the table?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, that a Committee was sitting on the subject, and they were obtaining full information as to the expense of the Armstrong and other guns. Under these circumstances, he had not thought it necessary to make any specific return to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, as he felt the Report of the Committee would furnish all the information required by his hon. Friend.

DISTURBANCES IN SERVIA.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as stated by the
600
Pays, the Turkish Government is preparing to march Troops into the Servian territory; and also whether a Turkish war vessel has ascended the Danube bound for Belgrade, and towed and assisted by an Austrian Steamer; and, if so, whether such proceedings meet with the support and encouragement of Her Majesty's Government; and whether it is the case, that on the evening of the 16th day of June the Pacha of the Fortress of Belgrade, the Servian Prime Minister, and the Consuls of England, France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, signed an agreement for the suspension of hostilities then occurring, and that, nevertheless, the fortress bombarded the town for four hours, at nine o'clock on the morning of the 17th day of June; and that the English and other European Consuls had formally protested against that act as a breach of good faith?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We have no information on the first point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, namely, the entrance of Turkish troops into Servian territory; but I apprehend that if the Turkish Government thought proper to send troops into Servia, they have a perfect right to do so. With regard to the transactions at Belgrade, there was an arrangement made by the consuls which it was hoped would have put an end to hostilities between the citadel and the town; but acts of aggression on the part of the people of the town, such as shooting an officer bearing a flag of truce, and a fire of musketry on the works, had led to a resumption of the fighting.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he must complain that the noble Lord had not answered his Question, which was, whether the protest stated to have been signed by the Consuls was genuine.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We do not make ourselves answerable for reports in public newspapers, but we have had from time to time reports from the Consuls there. Still we are not in possession of all the circumstances which took place and the causes which led to hostilities. No doubt the Consuls did their best to interpose and restore peace.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he must repeat that his Question was unanswered, which was, whether the English Consul had not entered a protest against the proceedings.
Afterwards, on going into Committee of Supply,
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would now answer the Question which he had put to him at an earlier period of the evening, namely, whether our Consul had formally protested against the bombardment of the town of Belgrade on the 17th of June. The hon. Member read the following protest presented to the Turkish Governor Pacha of Belgrade by the Consuls General of England, France, Russia, and Prussia:—
"The Governor Pacha of Belgrade having ordered the bombardment of the city without previous warning, after having, it is true, convoked the consular corps, but without having heard them, and when every one had the right to confide in the convention passed with the Servian Government in the presence of all the members of the consular corps—the undersigned leave to him the responsibility of an act so contrary to the principles of the law of nations; and, after having protested in the most formal manner, they can but await, in the bombarded city, the fate which may overtake their countrymen, until the moment when the orders of their respective Governments arrive."
He wished to know whether this document was genuine.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONrose to answer; but
MR. SPEAKERreminded the noble Lord that he had already spoken on the Main Question.

THE WAR IN CHINA.—QUESTION.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any truth in the painful rumour current to-day that the Government are in receipt of information that our troops have sustained some serious reverse in China?
SIR CHARLES WOODreplied, that nothing had been received in his Department, nor, as far as he was aware, in any other Department of the Government, on the subject.

THE CHANNEL MAILS.—QUESTION.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the contract with Mr. A. G. Churchward for carrying the Continental Mails between Dover and Calais and Dover and Ostend has been transferred by that gentleman to any other person or Company; and whether such transfer, if made, has received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government?
MR. PEELreplied that he was not aware of any such transfer having been made, and the contract expressly provided that none such should be made.

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

NATIONAL GALLERY.

  COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
  LORD ELCHOrose, pursuant to notice, to move an Address to Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the present position of the Royal Academy in relation to the Fine Arts, and the circumstances under which it occupies a portion of the National Gallery. He did so because he looked upon the subject as of very considerable importance, and because, in the absence of more exciting topics, the present time seemed well fitted for its consideration. The question of the accommodation of the national collection of pictures was one which had frequently occupied the attention of Parliament. The combination of the national collection with the Royal Academy in the same building had led to a great want of space, and there had been frequent Votes of the House to remedy the deficiency; but, notwithstanding, there still remained a lack of accommodation for the national collection of pictures. With the money so voted the pictures might have remained well hung in the present buildings, had it not been for the recent legal opinion given relative to the Turner bequest. The late Mr. Turner left a collection of pictures, his own works, to the nation, upon condition that they were to form a distinct portion of the national collection. The pictures had been exhibited at Kensington, and in Marlborough House; but it had recently been said that unless those pictures were removed and hung in accordance with the terms of Turner's will in the National Gallery, the bequest to the nation would be invalid. In consequence, this large collection of pictures had been suddenly thrown into the National Gallery, and had been hung without attention to propriety. Next year, consequently, Parliament must decide what was to be done with the National Gallery. Great difference of opinion existed as to where the National Gallery

  603
  should be situated. Some years ago no less than thirteen different sites were suggested. A Royal Commission was appointed on the matter, and they reported in favour of its remaining in London, and in the present building. Next year the House would have to determine one of two things—whether the pictures in the National Gallery should be removed elsewhere, or whether the Royal Academy should leave the National Gallery to make room for them. Now, although strongly in favour of retaining the National Gallery in London, he doubted whether the best course, in the interest of the pictures, would not be to remove them from the present building to Burlington House—whether that would not be preferable even to removing the Royal Academy. That, he thought, would be the most economical course, while the situation would have all the advantages of being central. With regard to Burlington House, they could build it back from the present front without running into what the right hon. Gentleman might call "bloated Art Estimates," and thus be able to accommodate the national collection. As to the question of space, he found that the present area of the National Gallery was 13,000 feet, exclusive of the new rooms. There was a similar amount of space in the Royal Academy, so that there would be together 26,000 feet of space, and the new rooms would augment the area to from 30,000 feet to 40,000 feet. If they could get the workhouse at the back and the barracks—though it was questionable whether they would be able to get the barracks—there would be 165,000 feet of ground. But it must be borne in mind that the purchase of the workhouse and barracks, and the consequent enlargement of the present building, would involve an excessive outlay; while at Burlington House there was already a large building and a space of 150,000 feet at once available for the national collection of pictures. He could not, then, help thinking that it might be best to leave the Royal Academy where it was, with a condition that they should improve the building, and perhaps also the fountains in Trafalgar Square. The Royal Academy were first located in Somerset House, and afterwards removed to the present building, the National Gallery; and in 1839 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring Rice, now Lord Monteagle, distinctly stated that the Royal
  604
  Academy occupied the building without any legal right of property, and subject to the risk of being removed whenever public convenience might render such removal expedient. He further said, that though their occupation of Somerset House had given them a moral right to accommodation, it would not do to convert that moral into a legal right. With reference to Academies in general, many persons were of opinion that these institutions, instead of being beneficial to Art, were very injurious. Such was rather the opinion expressed by the Committee of 1836, who said that Academies rather tended to fetter genius by introducing a sort of mannerism in Art. The Royal Academy had practically a monopoly of Art in this country, and it would be something Quixotic to attempt to break it down. He therefore treated the Academy as a great fact, and it was in that spirit that he approached it with a view to its improvement, and to make it generally useful in the promotion of Art. The Academy originated about a century ago out of a split amongst the artists of that day, and it was incorporated by George III. under a Royal instrument. It originally consisted of forty Academicians and nineteen Associates, and five Honorary Associates. The exhibition of their pictures was originally intended to be free; but shortly after its establishment a shilling admission was charged, in order, it was said, to exclude improper persons; and that fee had continued to be charged. The sums received since 1769 to 1859 amounted to £267,583; and the receipts from all sources amounted to £384,680. The sums spent in instruction, in the purchase of books, prints, pictures, &c. amounted to £218,469, and in relief of distressed artists and their families to £61,511, leaving a balance in favour of the Academy of £104,000. That was up to 1859. In the last three years probably a sum of £11,000 a year had been added to that amount. So that the Academy should have a balance of £130,000 or £140,000 at its banker's. The number of students between 1769 and 1859 was 2,774, or an average of thirty per annum; and during that time there had been twenty-two travelling students, at a cost of £78 per annum each student. The Royal Academy, therefore, combined four things—it was an academy of honour, an academy of exhibition, a charitable institution, and a school. There had been great complaints as to the ma-

  605
  nagement and conduct of the institution. Such men as Martin and Haydon formerly, and Watts and Holman Hunt in the present day, were not members; and great favouritism and cliquism had always been manifested in connection with the association. It had in addition very generally been complained of that the instruction was deficient in quality and in quantity; and with regard to the charity, it was said that the artists did not receive their proportion. There had always been a strong feeling in the profession with regard to the Academy, and these complaints had sometimes been urged in language of extreme bitterness. One artist examined before the Commission of 1836 described the Academicians as despots, and the Associates as sycophants; another declared that the Academy possessed every power to do evil. Haydon, in his evidence before the Commission, said, "the Holy Inquisition was controlled by the Pope, but this is an Inquisition without a Pope." They had been called a den of thieves, and on one occasion a caricature was published in which the President figured as an animal with very long ears. But the Academicians were well able to defend themselves. Sir Martin Shee compared the late Mr. Hume to a Red Indian covered with paint and flourishing his tomahawk, simply because he endeavoured to improve the constitution of the Academy, and speeches in that House had been described as "a farrago of folly, vanity, and egotism." He did not mention these things to cast ridicule upon the Academy, but to show that there was ground for inquiry. If on such inquiry grievances were found to exist, let them be removed: if there were no such grievances, then the charges would recoil on the heads of those that made them. No one could doubt that the present mode of election was defective, and it might be a question whether in future the elections should take place on the direct nomination of the Crown, or whether, as the outside artists themselves desired, there should be a constituency formed of those who had exhibited for a certain number of years. Nor was the instruction given in the school exactly what it ought to be. The lectures were too few in number, and were not of the best quality, and the whole system of teaching, conducted, not by well-paid men who devoted their whole time to the duty, but by relays of what were called "visitors," was manifestly wrong. The "visi-
  606
  tors" each took a month in turn; so that sometimes the visitor was an animal painter, sometimes a landscape painter, and sometimes an historical painter. That could not be a good system of instruction. Now, he did not say that all the complaints urged against the Academy were well-founded, but he thought there was sufficient ground for them to justify inquiry. Some believed that remedy would be found in having an Academy of Teaching and an Academy of Exhibition as perfectly distinct institutions; but, perhaps, a more practicable reform would be to add effective non-professional members to the Academy. At present there were five honorary members of the Academy,—the Bishop of Oxford, who was Chaplain; Mr. Grote, Professor of Ancient History; Dean Milman, Professor of Ancient Literature; Earl Stanhope, Professor of Antiquities; and Sir Henry Holland, who was Secretary and Foreign Correspondent. He did not believe that any of these Professors ever gave a lecture, or that the Bishop of Oxford ever acted as chaplain, unless it was in saying grace at the Academy dinner given on the opening of the Exhibition; but here was the principle already established for the extension of which he contended. He believed the addition of non-professional members to the Council would give them an active interest in the institution, and afford security to the artists outside that the elections were properly conducted, that the best men got "the blue riband" of their profession, and that no pictures were rejected which were entitled to a place in the Exhibition. The system was adopted in Paris, and also in Berlin. There was another branch of the subject to which he wished for a moment to direct the attention of the House—whether the Royal Academy could not also be made useful in improving and developing public taste. If there was one thing more generally admitted than another in this country, it was that our public monuments and statues were egregious failures. It might be said that these statues were erected many years ago; but he need not go far back to prove the fact. Havelock was no improvement; Jenner was so little of an improvement that the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to find for it some retreat, he did not know where, but happily remote from Trafalgar Square. This was really a serious question. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War knew well what importance the ancient Greeks

  607
  attached to their public statues, which were always placed in the most public places, and challenging the admiration of their wives in order that they might have beautiful children. But whether or not the character of our public statues would have any effect on the symmetry of the next generation, he thought it very desirable, if possible, to establish some better system with regard to our public monuments. His belief was, the evil arose from the want of an artistic or architectural control in these matters. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Lennox), who in an earlier part of the Session made a very excellent speech on this subject, suggested that the Minister of Public Works should be responsible in these matters. But he very much doubted whether that alone would be sufficient to effect the object. The Minister appointed to the Department of Works was not selected for that office because of any special qualification for its duties. He was the creature of a political necessity or convenience; and even supposing the best man was appointed, a change of Government removed him from the office, bringing with it also a change of system—Gothic succeeding Palladian plans, and monuments raised by one Minister being pulled down by his successor. But he thought that in the Royal Academy, reformed, enlarged, reconstituted, as he proposed, by the extension of the nonprofessional element, they might find a Committee of Advice, which would be of immense use in all questions of art and public monuments. This was no novelty with the Royal Academy. At the beginning of the present century three public monuments, proposed to be raised to Lord Nelson, Lord Cornwallis, and Mr. Pitt, were referred to the Royal Academy, and the only reason why this system broke down was that they appeared rather inclined to job and keep the work entirely in their own hands. But the larger infusion of the non-professional element would be a complete check and bar to anything like jobbing. This system also prevailed abroad. He brought forward this Motion in no spirit of hostility to the Royal Academy. Far from it. He only wished to extend its usefulness. He hoped this inquiry would be granted. It might indeed be opposed on two grounds—first, that the Royal Academy was a private body with which they had no right to interfere; and in the second place, it might be said that Commissions never led
  608
  to any result. It was absurd to call the Academy a private body. Sir Charles Eastlake, in consequence of his position as President of the Royal Academy, had been appointed to many important posts in reference to art in this country. The Royal Academy was certainly not regarded as a private body by the Committee of 1836; and he had yet to learn that that which was lawful and right in that year was ultra vires in 1862. The annual dinner which they gave on the 1st of May, on the opening of their Exhibition, and which was usually attended by the magnates of the land of all shades of politics, also showed that they were not a private body. It had been said that when they wanted anything from the State, they claimed to be public; and when the public asked anything from them, they claimed to be private. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the appointment of Royal Commissions led to no result; but an examination of the records in the library, so far from supporting that assertion, would prove that during the last twenty years between twenty and thirty Commissions had sat which had all led to important legislative enactments. Those Commissions had inquired into the Poor Law of England and Scotland, the rural constabulary, the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament, episcopal and capitular estates, the Universities, popular education, the reconstruction of Westminster Bridge, the manning of the navy, the national defences, and various other questions. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would grant the Commission for which he asked. Many of the most important names connected with the Royal Academy were in favour of its appointment, among them being Mr. Grant, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Maclise, Mr. Herbert, and others. He believed that its appointment would be the means of doing much for art. It had been said by foreigners that in England, from its foggy atmosphere, and the constitutional temperament of its people, art could never flourish as it did in sunnier and happier climes; but in the days of our Edwards and Henrys art was further advanced in this country than it was at the same period in Italy. No doubt it fell to a very low ebb at the time of the Reformation, and again in the days of the Puritans; but in the last century it attained a new life under a Hogarth and a Sir Joshua Reynolds; while the present century had also produced a Turner, an Etty, and many

  609
  other distinguished artists. In following the course which he now ventured to suggest, they would, he thought, further promote the progress of art in this country, give a proper turn to that taste which certainly existed, but which, perhaps, wanted developing, and thus take care that those Estimates which were so freely voted by Parliament were not wasted, as they were in a great measure at present.
  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 issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the present position of the Royal Academy in relation to the Fine Arts, and into the circumstances and conditions under which it occupies a portion of the National Gallery, and to suggest such measures as may be required to render it more useful in promoting Art, and in improving and developing Public Taste,"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. COWPERsaid, that his noble Friend had disclaimed all hostility to the Royal Academy and professed to have a desire only to render it still more useful than it now was for the purposes for which it had been founded; and his noble Friend had stated reasons in favour of his Motion which would certainly indispose him from offering any opposition to its adoption. Undoubtedly it would not be a tenable proposition to say that the Royal Academy was to such an extent a private institution as not to be liable to the inquiry of a Royal Commission. That body had the freedom of a voluntary association, but it had also the responsibility of a public corporation. It was founded by the Sovereign for public purposes—for the promotion of art and the diffusion of taste among the community at large; and it had received from the State the benefit of the galleries and apartments which it had occupied for the last ninety years. He was sure the Royal Academy would disdain to claim any exemption from public inquiry, knowing that they could submit their proceedings to the most searching examination without apprehension, and that the results of an investigation would not be in any way to their detriment, but would show that in the main they had attained the objects for which they were originally established. His noble Friend had alluded to the oppo-
  610
  sition which had on many occasions been made to the Royal Academy. But although he did not agree with the severe strictures on the Academy that had been quoted by his noble Friend, he did not mean to say that their proceedings had attained such a degree of perfection that no good could result from the proposed inquiry. He understood that the Commissioners would have to inquire, not as to the propriety of the existence of the Academy, but as to the means of making the Royal Academy most efficient for the important purposes for which it was instituted. He would not discuss whether the Academy should be abolished, and complete free trade in art established, because the effect of free trade in art could only be to lower art to the level of a trade. If we were to trust to the effect of private demand for paintings and sculpture, we should obtain that which might be produced cheaply and sold cheaply, but we should soon lose the higher excellences of art. The Royal Academy was intended to provide schools for the instruction of students, to exhibit deserving works of art, and to confer honorary titles and rewards of merit. Those purposes could only, in the present state of affairs, be carried out by means of a corporate body. In former times great sculptors and painters were accustomed to surround themselves with young men who learnt of them the technical details of the art, and imbibed the spirit of their masters, the students in return aiding in the production of the master's works. In the present day it would be impossible to renew these relations between mature artists and young men who were commencing a career of art. Experienced artists were busily engaged in the production of works for which they found a ready sale, and were unwilling to devote their time to the instruction of students; and young men would not now be content to imitate artists even of the highest genius, but were eager to set up for themselves, and to be original. If art was to be taught at all, it must be in schools, and he should regret to see those schools dependent upon private enterprise. The demand for such instruction was so limited, that unless gratuitous instruction were afforded in public schools, art must rapidly decline in this country. He admitted that upon some points the schools of the Royal Academy were open to improvement. The Professors were underpaid, and the singular cus-

  611
  tom of having a series of teachers in rotation did not aid systematic teaching, although it might prevent mannerism or conventionality in the works of the students who derived instruction from such different sources. He thought it desirable that there should be more sound, practical elementary teaching in the schools. If in these schools the elementary branches of art were more carefully inculcated, he believed a much sounder foundation would be laid for future progress than had hitherto been the case. With regard to the exhibitions, he must say that he thought the Royal Academy did confer a great benefit upon the public by the manner in which it conducted those exhibitions. The Committee of the Academy which undertook the invidious task of selecting the works to be exhibited might sometimes err; but they did perform a great public service in discharging the invidious duty of limiting the exhibition to works of merit. With regard to the other purpose for which the Royal Academy was established—the rewarding merit and granting honorary titles—he thought the mode at present adopted by the Academy was the best. If honorary titles were to be conferred by a large constituency open to canvassing and accessible to party spirit, there would be less impartiality in the awards than at present; and if those rewards were to be conferred by some branch of the Government, the decisions would produce still greater complaint and discontent. He hoped a Commission might do good in closely investigating the details of the management of the Royal Academy, and might be able to devise some means by which the great purposes for which the Academy was founded might be best carried out. He agreed that the present moment was not inappropriate for appointing a Commission. It was twenty-seven years since the last inquiry was instituted, and it was desirable that whenever the question as to the final arrangements of housing the Royal Academy came before the House, they should have the benefit of any inquiries and report which the Commissioners might make. The temporary arrangement by which the building in Trafalgar Square was jointly occupied by the National Gallery and the Royal Academy could not long continue, as the building was not large enough for both. Very soon a larger space would be required for the national pictures; and if it should be
  612
  determined to erect a National Gallery upon the three and a quarter acres now occupied by Burlington House and gardens, in order to accommodate all the pictures now belonging to the nation, and also those that might be acquired for a considerable number of years to come, then it would be necessary to come to some arrangement with the Royal Academy for their permanent occupation of the premises now in their possession. If, on the other hand, it should be decided to enlarge the building in Trafalgar Square, a site would be given to the Royal Academy, on which to build its own gallery. When those questions came before the House, it would be well to have the results of the inquiries by a Commission before them. He did not anticipate that among the subjects considered by the Commissioners would be included the permanence of the office which he (Mr. Cowper) had the honour to hold. In Prussia, to which his noble Friend had referred, though the director of the gallery was permanent, the head of the public works was a member of a Government dependent upon a vote of the Chambers. The old system of election by the suffrages of exhibitors, which existed in the institution prior to the Royal Academy, was not found to answer, because it led to party spirit and jealousies. He did not think that any advantage would arise from a recurrence to that system, and he was very sceptical of the advantage of introducing non-professional persons into the Council. The action of the Royal Academy had become essential to the development of art, and it was possible that suggestions might emanate from a Commission by which art would be still further promoted, and that taste for painting and sculpture, which was so rapidly increasing in this country, would be still further fostered and encouraged. While assenting to the Motion, he would ask his noble Friend not to press it this evening, so that it might be agreed to without interfering with Supply.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had assented to the appointment of a Commission, and he was also glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman was at some pains to explain that there was no intention of joining in the criticism, which was sometimes of a most unfriendly and unjust character towards the Royal Academy. He thought no hon. Member would manifest such a

  613
  spirit of criticism on this occasion. Their labours were to be judged by the fruit; and when the works of so many distinguished foreign artists were now exhibited in this country, it was gratifying to find that the works of British artists, to say the least of it, held their own by the side of them. His noble Friend said that in point of economy it would be advisable to build a new National Gallery on the site of Burlington House, and leave the Royal Academy in possession of the building in Trafalgar Square; but his noble Friend would remember that in the arrangement that was come to between Lord Derby's Government and the Royal Academy it was expressly stipulated that the Royal Academy should be at the expense of the building themselves, and he was bound to say that the Royal Academy made the offer. That offer was wisely accepted by Lord Derby's Government, and he did not know why it had not been carried out by their successors. He trusted that on the appointment of a Commission there would be a full and satisfactory examination of the various plans which had been proposed for the separation of the National Gallery from the Academy; and if so, he believed that the Commission which his noble Friend now asked for would be attended with very good results. He was afraid, however, that his noble Friend set rather too high a value upon the labours of the Royal Commission, and was disposed to attach too much importance to the system of control over works of art. His noble Friend had found fault with our modern statues, and seemed to be under the impression, that if the Royal Academy were officially intrusted with some power of vetoing the erection of public statues, the taste of the people might be improved. His noble Friend, however, totally overlooked the fact that a great many of our public monuments were the productions of private munificence, and did not come from public grants at all; and probably so long as it was found convenient in this country to erect monuments to public persons by private munificence and liberality, it would be impossible to establish any tribunal which should have the power of vetoing the erection of any statues, whatever might be their deficiency in point of merit as works of art. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he had no intention of proposing that the office which he now held should be a permanent one; and this was the more satisfactory as the
  614
  right hon. Gentleman had, if he remembered rightly, given contrary evidence before the Select Committee. [Mr. COWPER: No!] He was glad that his memory had deceived him upon this point, and should be ready to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in defeating any such proposal. He believed that this Commission would be of the greatest public service, while it would be one more proof of the deep interest his noble Friend took in everything that concerned the department of art.
  MR. COWPER, wished to explain that he had never advocated the permanence of the office, and thought it would be a most absurd proposal.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and gave notice that he should move it as a substantive Motion tomorrow.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH NORTH AMERICA.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he rose to call attention to the Imperial importance and the feasibility of establishing a Postal and Passenger intercourse between Europe and North America, by means of Mail Steamers to call regularly, on alternate days, at the port of Cork, with Telegraphic Communication off Crookhaven or Cape Clear; and to ask the First Lord of the Treasury the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard thereto. He brought the question forward entirely on public grounds, and not simply as an Irish question or a Cork question. There were about 250 steam vessels going every year from ports of the United Kingdom to America, or at the rate of five vessels a week. All he wanted was that they should utilize present means, so that they might have a regular postal communication with America every other day, and that could be done without any extra subsidy whatever, simply by providing that all the regular mail packets should call at Cork for the mails for America. Regularity was, after all, of much more consequence than extreme expedition; and although a passenger in a great hurry might sometimes save four or five hours by going to Galway, greater regularity could be attained by the Cork route. He did not think it necessary to subsidize any companies whatever. What he suggested was that the Treasury should pay a contract price for

615
the carriage of letters and parcels, and that the vessel should be at Cork at a particular hour. He believed that the ordinary steam vessels would be glad to carry the mails for little more than the mere prestige of carrying them; and he assured the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that if he got a favourable reply, he would leave for Ireland tomorrow, and not trouble him any more this Session. In a much more westerly position than Cork were the harbours of Crookhaven and Valentia, but in their present state neither of them could be put in competition with Cork. Crookhaven, however, could be used for telegraphic purposes. He thought it was important to Europe, and especially to the United Kingdom, that there should be as regular a communication as possible with America, and he thought that our present mode of subsidizing placed us at a great disadvantage. His opinion was, that when the present contracts expired, all subsidies should be abolished. He had stated his sentiments on the subject to the noble Lord at the head of the Government a few weeks ago, and he now wished to ask him in what way the Government proposed to deal with the question?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was true that some weeks ago his hon. Friend had honoured him with a communication on this subject, and then went through the general argument he had that evening urged upon the House, as to the advantages possessed by the harbour of Cork over the other Irish harbours which had been mentioned; and his hon. Friend's persuasive eloquence as to the merits of Cork completely explained how it happened, that not having any natural connection with the county of Cork, the hon. Gentleman should, nevertheless, have induced the electors to return him to Parliament as their representative. The impression made upon him had, however, been somewhat modified by what had fallen from his hon. Friend that evening. His hon. Friend had intimated he would go off to-morrow morning, if he only got a favourable answer with respect to this matter. That certainly was no inducement for him to give a favourable answer—he had no wish to get rid of his hon. Friend, who appeared to be perfect master of the subject, and brought to its consideration that humour, and good humour, which belonged to him and to the Members for Ireland in general. There was no
616
doubt of the great advantages possessed by the harbour of Cork for carrying on communication with America, though there might be other harbours which had their special recommendations—the harbour of Galway, for instance, might in some respects be superior, the passage by it being shorter both as respected time and distance. But, without entering into these details; all he could say was, generally, that the subject was under the consideration of the Government, who would give to it the best attention in their power. He believed it was the fact, as indeed appeared from the Return moved for, that almost every steamer that left the United Kingdom for America had taken mails. He understood the drift of his hon. Friend's argument to be that there should be no contract with any company, but that the ocean postage should be regarded as a sufficient remuneration for the carriage of the letters. All he could say was that that subject, together with others, was under the attentive consideration of the Government.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that if the merits of Galway had been impugned, he should have stood forward to re-assert them; but as no attempt of the kind had been made, he should not take further part in the discussion.
LORD FERMOYsaid, that this was not a mere question of the rival claims of Cork and Galway; but he thought it unquestionable that there should be one port of departure from Ireland for the transmission of the Transatlantic mails. He thought that the hon. Member for Cork had mixed up two subjects essentially distinct—the question of a port of call, and the question of a port of departure. As to a port of call for commercial vessels, Queenstown had been established, not by any Government grant or Parliamentary decision, but as a result of the common sense and experience of commercial men, whose sagacity speedily settled the matter; and this question had best be left to the practical good sense of those who invested their capital in commercial enterprise. The question of a port of departure was quite a different matter, but he thought that Ireland was entitled to have one subsidy. He appealed to the Government to preserve an impartial position on the subject of what was commonly called the Galway Company, who had applied for a renewal of their subsidy. He would be ready to ask the Govern-

617
ment to consider the grant of that subsidy, but, at the same time, he would, even in the interest of the poor men who had staked their last pound in the Galway Company, urge the Government, when they granted the subsidy of £70,000, not to burden it with the condition that the company should be compelled to start their vessels from one particular port. Let the company be free to start their ships from any port in Ireland which should appear to them most advantageous in a commercial point of view. Telegraphic communication was undoubtedly very valuable in a commercial point of view, but it must be to the port from which every vessel last set out, and to which every vessel first came back. Crook-haven was not a port of call. Vessels only used it when they were driven in by stress of weather, but they did not go and come there as they did at Cork. After all, the shortest communication between America and Central Europe was not an Irish, or an English, but a European question, and the map would seem to show the best route to be by London to Milford, thence to Waterford, and from Waterford to Cork. It would be only necessary to make about thirty miles of railway to complete that route. There was already an excellent railway from London to Milford, and steam vessels were plying between Milford and Waterford. As to the subsidy for Transatlantic packets from Ireland, the Government ought to give a definite answer, because it was positively cruel to keep the shareholders in suspense. He could assure the noble Lord that the people of Ireland would not grudge the £70,000 to Galway.
MR. BUTTsaid, that in the year 1859 he was in a position which enabled him to call a meeting of Peers and others interested in Irish affairs, to discuss the question of making Cork a port of call, and it was the unanimous feeling of those present that nothing should be done to prevent the Government giving a subsidy to the Galway Company. The meeting thought that the people of Galway, by their superior activity, or it might be by accident, had a claim on the Government which the other portions of the Irish people did not possess, and that it ought not to be interfered with. He (Mr. Butt) thought that nothing would be more unfortunate than to start a question of jealousy between Galway and Cork; and he believed the noble Lord would, if he
618
consulted the wishes of the people of Ireland, seriously consider that the claim of Galway was paramount.

COURT OF CHANCERY—RECENT RULES AND ORDERS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. COXrose to call the attention of the House to the General Rules and Orders of the High Court of Chancery, issued by the Lord High Chancellor, on the 16th day of May, 1862, and to move that in the opinion of this House such Rules and Orders ought not to continue in force. The effect of the Orders to which he sought to draw attention was to substitute printed for written copies of affidavits and depositions in causes where issue had been joined. It might be asked, what had the House of Commons to do with the Rules and Orders issued by the Court of Chancery? The Act of Parliament provided that both Houses of Parliament should have all new rules and orders laid upon the tables of the Houses forthwith in case they were sitting, and in five days after meeting in cas of the Rules being issued during the recess, and that either House might within thirty-six days rescind them and set them aside altogether. The Orders referred to in his Motion were issued on the 16th May, and they were not laid on the table until the 17th June, and would not then have appeared if he had not given notice to put a question to the Attorney General on the subject. He would show the House that these Orders would be of no benefit to the suitors or to any other class of persons, but that they were intended to create a monopoly, for the whole of the printing would be thrown into the hands of one person either by the order of the Lord Chancellor or somebody else. When Bills and Answers were directed to be printed, solicitors got their work done where they liked; but under the recent Orders solicitors would be obliged to take a copy of each affidavit to the office of the Records and Writs Clerk, who would send them to the printer; and this would in effect constitute the monopoly complained of. Under the new system there was not only no saving of expense, but, on the contrary, the charge was increased. For how was the printer to be paid? Why, by a subsequent Order it was directed that the printer should be paid at the rate of 8¾d. a folio, and that would result in a loss of 1¾d. a folio, or of about £4,000 a year, to the Suitors' Fee Fund,

619
that being the fund charged by the new Orders with the cost of printing these affidavits. It might be asked for whose benefit had this alteration been made; and why was the Suitors' Fee Fund to be charged with a loss of between £4,000 and £5,000 a year, if nobody was to be benefited by the change? The answer was the printer would be benefited by it. But hon. Members were sent to that House to prevent monopolies, and the putting of money into the pocket of one man to the great injury of other men. If the suitor would receive no benefit, there could be no necessity for the change. The Orders went on to say that solicitors were to be allowed for affidavits in the taxation of costs the same sum per folio as under the old practice of writing them. Thus it would appear that a large body of men were to be thrown out of employment; that a monopoly was to be established; that a charge was to be thrown on the Suitors' Fee Fund—a fund which the House of Commons would not allow to be touched when it was proposed to apply the fund to the building of the new law courts—and that the same charges as at present were to be made to the suitors. He was at a loss to know what answer the Solicitor General would give to these questions, but in truth the hon. and learned Gentleman could know very little of the matter. Bills and answers were printed by a stationer selected by the solicitor, and it was free trade in that respect; but the printing of affidavits would be a complete monopoly, and would cause a great deal of mischief to a large body of honest and industrious men. Although the operation of printing Bills and answers in Chancery might have had a good effect, the printing of affidavits must have quite a contrary effect. Believing the new Orders would benefit no one, he must ask the House to consent to the terms of his Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the General Rules and Orders of the High Court of Chancery, issued by the Lord High Chancellor on the 16th day of May 1862, ought not to continue in force,"
—instead thereof.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALallowed that it was perfectly competent for the House to interfere, if it thought fit, with the Rules which the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the other judges of the Court, might draw up for the re-
620
gulation of the business; but if it were to interfere, except under great necessity, it would run the risk of lending itself to private rather than public interests, and of paralysing important reforms in the administration of justices. It was quite clear that in a matter like this the House of Commons was not the most competent body to pronounce a decision. It must be obvious that the Lord Chancellor and the other Judges, in substituting printed for written papers, could have had no possible motive but the public advantage in laying down the rule; and though every one must be sorry when a measure of public improvement damaged private interests, yet it could not be argued for a moment, that because under the present mode of conducting the business of the Court a certain branch of the business had fallen into the hands of a very respectable body of men, such as the law stationers, therefore any interference with that particular branch should not be permitted, though it might be of great benefit to the public. The complainants in this case only came forward for the purpose of securing personal objects, and the House would necessarily receive with considerable caution any statements proceeding from persons occupying such a position. For some time past proceedings in Chancery had been partly printed and partly written. In 1852 the practice of printing bills was introduced, and incidentally a considerable benefit was conferred on the law stationers, for copies which were formerly furnished by the Court were thrown open to the trade, to the amount of £25,000 a year, and he was informed that the present change was not likely to withdraw anything like that sum from the trade. But, whether they gained or lost by the change, the House would not allow the suggestions of private interest to prevail against a public improvement. If the House were asked to set the opinion of the law stationers against that of the Lord Chancellor and the other Judges, they could not but give the greatest weight to the judgment of those who were so thoroughly experienced in the business of the Court, and who had only the public interest to look to. In the administration of justice great benefit had been found to arise from having all the papers in a suit printed instead of written, and this rule had been long in practice in the House of Lords and the Privy Council. The arrangement which had been made in the

621
Court of Chancery, so far from causing a loss to the Suitors' Fund, would, on the contrary, have the effect either of preserving the present equilibrium or of leading to a prospective gain. It was a totally erroneous way of putting the matter to call the arrangement a monopoly. The Court undertook to discharge its own business, and to furnish the suitors with copies of the documents necessary for the suit. These copies had been habitually made in manuscript by the Court; and now it was found that arrangements might be made under which printed copies would be delivered at a much less expense. The hon. Gentleman suggested that printers might be found who would supply the copies at a less charge than 8¾d. per folio of seventy-two words; but he was informed that the charges made now by the law stationers—who had established themselves as middlemen in this branch of the business—for printing documents ranged from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per folio, and that the average was about 1s. 7½d.
MR. COX: That is for a folio page—4½ folios of seventy-two words.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALdid not so understand the information which had been furnished to him; but, without pledging himself to any specific sum, he felt certain that a considerable amount of saving would be secured by this arrangement. The effect upon the Suitors' Fee Fund had been carefully considered by the Judges, with the assistance of some of the most experienced officers of the Court of Chancery. There could be no more experienced persons than Mr. Follett, Mr. Monro, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Johnson, and these gentlemen were satisfied that there would be a trifling gain to the Suitors' Fee Fund, leaving a safe margin for the operation of the scheme. The suitors would also be gainers, because the number of copies which it would be necessary to furnish to them would be reduced, and that would affect materially the total cost of the proceedings. It was the belief not only of the Lord Chancellor, but of that just, upright, and impartial man, the Master of the Rolls, that the measure was an important improvement, and under these circumstances he trusted that the House would not interfere for the purpose of preventing its adoption.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 26: Majority 5.

INDIAN BALANCES.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. AYRTONrose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to a question of considerable importance connected with the finance of India—namely, the large balances held in India and in England on account of the Government of India, and to the manner in which the Finance Accounts for India laid before the House are made up; and to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether any part of the balances will be applied towards the repayment of the Loans by means of which the balances have been increased; and, whether the Finance Accounts will be made up in a clearer manner? The hon. and learned Member said, that be far back as 1853 the statesmen who administered the financial affairs of India had departed from the good and homely system of finance by which the expenditure of the year was met by its income. The Government of India then embarked on a much more comprehensive idea of its duties, increasing its expenditure beyond its income. This went on till 1857, when the expenditure was once more brought down to the level of the income. In that year, however, in consequence of the mutiny, the expenditure increased beyond the income no less than £13,000,000. Efforts had, indeed, been made to bring down that excess; but even in the present year there was an excess of expenditure of no less than £500,000, and the total excess from 1854 to 1862 amounted to no less than £41,500,000. This excess was, in the first instance, when moderate, easily met by appealing to credit in India; it was sustained by a system of open loans, and there was no real check; but when the demands of the mutiny were to be met, England had to come to the rescue, and the results were manifest in a paper which had been laid on the table of the House. The result was that the registered debt in India had increased from £46,000,000 in 1857, to no less than £62,000,000, and the increase of the debt in England represented an addition of £36,000,000, against a debt in 1857 of £4,000,000. But, while indebtedness went on increasing at such an enormous rate, there had been an apparent prosperity in India by the increase of the cash balances, to the credit of the Government in India and in England. Before the mutiny the balances

623
amounted to £16,000,000, but these were enhanced by the sum of £3,000,000 belonging to the railway companies—so that the actual balances were not more than £13,000,000. But, with the facility of credit which the Indian Government enjoyed in this country, the balances in England and India amounted to £23,300,000, while the sum belonging to the railways was only £2,500,000. The Great Mogul never had such balances. These enormous balances were represented by some as a sign of the great prosperity of our Indian administration; but, in reality, they only represented an excess of debt contracted under an apprehension that there would be a very large expenditure and a deficiency of revenue, which happily had not occurred, the people of India having to pay 5 or 6 per cent on the excess. It appeared, according to Mr. Laing, that only a balance of £10,000,000 was requisite in India, while the actual balance was £17,000,000. He was anxious that the Secretary of State should make some distinct declaration, either by means of a statement in that House, or by means of a despatch to be addressed to India, which would place before the Government of India the true character of these balances, and secure their appropriation in reduction of that debt which they really represented. He had also to state to the House that, owing to the mode in which the accounts were prepared, it was difficult to ascertain the exact condition of Indian finances. The Secretary of State had stated that the day of keeping open a loan for registered debt was past; but it was desirable that the day of all open loans should be past. There was an extrordinary item in the account of the debt given in the Return on the table called "Deposits and Miscellaneous," the total amount of which was no less than £10,220,000. That item had increased in the last few years from £8,000,000. But there were other sources by which the debt had been increased, such as deposits for the service funds, Treasury notes, and the like. With respect to all these matters, it was desirable that an account more easy to understand should be furnished, and the entire system of accounts remodelled, so that there might be no ground hereafter for supposing that there was an increase of prosperity in India, merely because the balances in favour of the Government had increased. Indian accounts had always been complicated in their form; but it was cer-
624
tainly a startling evidence of their obscurity that a man of Mr. Laing's experience should have been unable to comprehend them, and should have fallen into such a grave error as to believe that the repayment of a debt due to the Government was an item of revenue which ought to be placed against the expenditure for the year. Whatever might be the excellence of these accounts in the eyes of a clever accountant, they ought to be laid on the table in as clear and simple a shape as would enable any ordinary person to understand them. Apart from the voluminous and detailed account, the House ought to be furnished with such a succinct summary as would give them a knowledge of the exact state of affairs. They ought to have clear, combined accounts of the expenditure both in India and in England, together with better accounts of the balances in the Home and the Indian Treasuries. Such information would prevent the erroneous impressions on these matters which were now created. He hoped, also, that the Secretary of State would get rid of the pretensions of such an officer as the so-called Indian Chancellor of the Exchequer. If individual members of the Indian Government took distinctive positions before the public, and presumed to deal with the finances of India, this result followed—that they were unable to restrain themselves under the influence of the flattery they received in India, and they gave themselves out as the protectors of the people of that country, even against what they termed the oppressive taxation of the Queen's Government in England. Such a mode of holding up the Home Government to opprobrium was most dangerous, and calculated to injure the stability of our rule in India. He therefore trusted that the Secretary of State and his Council would keep Indian finance under their strong control, and also discourage these appeals to the Indian public.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not think it necessary on that occasion to enter into the general question of Indian finance. His hon. Friend had called attention to the present form of the Indian accounts, and in reply to his observations he had to say that those accounts were kept now in the form which was settled some years ago by a Committee of that House. Like all such documents they required a good deal of study before one could tell exactly where to find what he wanted. His hon. Friend had referred to the debt

625
incurred by temporary loans and the issue of Treasury notes, and said it was difficult to tell how the debt stood; but if he would turn to the printed accounts at page 86 he would find the figures given both of the debt incurred and the debt discharged in respect of the temporary loans and bills issued. As to the military charges at page 48, they would find the amount of the Indian and home military charges specified. It was impossible to prevent hon. Members from being misled if they did not turn to the right column or the right page of the accounts. All he could say was, that there were one or two points upon which he was anxious to amend the form of the accounts; but the form of the account had been recommended by a Committee of the House, and he was unwilling to make any alteration unless sufficient reason could be shown for it.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Supply considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. MASSEY Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
The following Votes were agreed to:—

(24.) £2,000, Board of Manufactures (Scotland).

(25.) £115,877, Local Dues under Treaties.

(26.) £3,500, Inspectors of Corn Returns.

(27.) £1,000, Boundary Survey (Ireland).

(28.) £34,550, Census of the Population.

(29.) £3,030, Telegraph Companies' Subsidies.

(30.) £2,647, Malta and Alexandria Telegraph.

(31.) £4,645, Civil Contingencies.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked whether the item in this Vote referred to all the Orders, including that of the Star; and whether it relieved the recipients from all charge for badges, collars, and decorations?
MR. PEELexplained that the Vote referred to the robes and collars of the different Orders; but that the decorations themselves were always returned upon the death of the Knight, and that therefore there was no charge upon the public for them.
Vote agreed to; as were also—

(32.) £6,500, Volunteer Corps (Yeomanry).

626

(33.) £750,980, Disembodied Militia.

(34.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,827, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Salaries of certain of the Junior Attachés to Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
MR. DODSONobjected to the Vote. He thought that if new expenditure for the diplomatic service were necessary, the Secretary of State should give the House an opportunity of considering the whole question of diplomatic expenditure. He did not intend to disparage the diplomatic service, but he objected to the Vote as opening a new channel of expenditure which might next year be largely increased; and therefore he wished to know upon what grounds this new Vote was asked for. This Vote, he understood, was proposed in consequence of the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Diplomatic Service; but many other Votes would be necessary if all their recommendations were adopted. They did not give a single reason, good, bad, or indifferent, for this increase of diplomatic expenditure; and though out of the twenty-three witnesses examined twelve were in favour of this proposal, nine coupled it with the restriction that the number of attachés should be limited according to the requirements of the service, and should not be fixed according to the will of the Secretary of State. The Vote was entirely novel in its character. The diplomatic service, as far as he knew, had made no complaint; and as there were already thirty-five attachés in the receipt of pay, he did not see why Parliament should be asked to vote this sum in addition. He therefore moved that the Vote be disallowed.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought that this subject had been exhausted by the discussion which took place a short time ago, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. B. Cochrane). The facts of the case were these:—The Select Committee which sat last year recommended, amongst other things, that attachés should be paid after a certain period of gratuitous service, and the Foreign Office had thought it advisable to adopt that recommendation. The Committee which considered this subject last year made several recommendations, of which the Foreign Office only proposed to carry out one—one which had been very strongly recommended by

627
every witness who had been examined before the Committee—and that was, to pay the attachés after four years of gratuitous public service. His own opinion was, that they should be paid at an earlier period. It was a hard thing that a man should be called upon to serve his country without remuneration; and he did not think the Liberal party were acting wisely in trying to cut down the salaries of public servants. On the one hand, it was made a complaint that none but the relatives of the aristocracy and rich persons were appointed to the diplomatic service; and on the other, by keeping down the salaries of those who were appointed, they made it impossible for any but comparatively rich persons to enter the service. Now, he thought that they ought to do either one thing or the other—either to pay the young men who undertook these posts, or else exclude all who could not afford to serve for nothing. His opinion, however, was, that the profession should be open, to all who by their abilities were able to serve their country. There were at present two classes of attachés—the paid and the unpaid, and the object of the Vote was to pay after four years' service all the attachés. The sum charged on the Consolidated Fund out of which diplomatic salaries were paid amounted to £180,000. That sum was fixed about thirty years ago; and while almost every other branch of the service had doubled, and sometimes more than doubled in cost, this alone had not increased; but, on the contrary, considerable additions had been made to those who were paid out of the fund. For instance, the Consuls General in South America had been paid out of that sum. It was true that a surplus of £10,000 had been paid back to the Foreign Office. There were two reasons why the present Vote was asked. In the first place, because it was considered necessary always to have a balance in hand in order to pay certain diplomatic pensions, and therefore it was not advisable to run the £180,000 charged on the Consolidated Fund too close; and, secondly, because a new principle was to a certain extent involved in the Vote; and it was thought fair that the matter should be brought fully before the House, and that the assent of the House should be asked. The sum asked was not a large one. There was no increase in the expense of the diplomatic service, and there was no prospect of the number of attachés being increased: on the contrary, some re-
628
ductions had been made in the number. Almost every one in the service was underpaid, while the expense of living in foreign capitals had greatly increased; and therefore he trusted that the Committee would pass this very moderate Vote, not only on account of the smallness of the sum, but of the principle that was involved.
MR. THOMSON HANKEY, as a Member of the Committee that sat on the subject, wished to say, that if there was one point upon which every Member of the Committee had been agreed, it was that it was not desirable to continue the present system, which they considered to be most inconvenient and objectionable. Instead of the system proposed having a tendency to promote jobbery, he believed that its real tendency would be to counteract it, for at present none but persons who had a good position and a considerable income could be appointed to the position of unpaid attachés. The former system was that the Foreign Minister might take almost any number of young men as attachés. They were not paid; and the result was that any number of young gentlemen who had a desire to see foreign life to advantage, and who had a private income of £400 or £500 a year, were nominated unpaid attachés. In the course of time these persons became claimants on the Government for services rendered. That system was considered by every Member of the Committee most objectionable. ["No, no!"] He repeated most positively that such was the case. Every gentleman who had been in the service for some years and had been examined before the Committee considered the system objectionable. It was but fair when men had learned their business that they should be put on pay, and then the public would have a hold on them. What would be thought of admitting ensigns into the army without pay? Plenty of persons would be found to offer themselves if such were the system; but it would be considered a very unwise one. It was considered there should not be an unlimited number of young men admitted into the service. The number would be more likely to be limited if the young men were paid, because the Foreign Minister would be more cautious in admitting them when he knew that after four years they would entail a certain charge upon the public.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he could not admit the accuracy of all the state-

629
ments made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Lord Russell and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire differed from many of the opinions which the hon. Gentleman had expressed. It was not unjust that after a certain number of years' service persons should receive some payment; but it was not at all desirable that the number of attachés should be increased, and that young men should be invited to enter the service for whom it would be afterwards impossible to provide. The service was a close service, and always must be, and it was not right that the taxpayers of the country should be burdened in order to pay a greater number of diplomatic servants than was necessary. Earl Russell stated in the Committee that he thought it desirable that a number of persons should enter the service as unpaid attachés. Some years ago it was not a profession at all, and Earl Russell and the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire both held that it ought not to be made a profession; because, if it were, a number of persons would be induced to become dependent on the public, and the expense would become intolerable. He did not object to the sum proposed, but he did object to any general system of attracting young men to the service who might afterwards become burdens upon the public.
MR. WHITEsaid, that this was not a mere question of £2,800 per annum—there was a very large and important principle involved in the Vote. Since 1832 a sum of £180,000 had sufficed for the purpose to which it was now proposed to apply a sum of £2,800 in excess of that large amount. Did any hon. Gentleman think that a payment of £150 a year would induce any young gentleman of the class of which attachés were composed to enter the diplomatic service? Why £150 would only suffice to keep one of those young gentlemen in cigars. He knew several young gentlemen who waltzed and spoke French fluently, and who would be glad to enter the diplomatic service without payment. Now that there was the Zollverein, and that there were so many lines of railway, in addition to telegraphic connection, we did not want so many diplomatic agents in Germany. He should vote for the Amendment.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, it was not denied that there was no difficulty at the present time in getting young men
630
to act as attachés without pay. It followed, conclusively, that to pay them was a waste of public money; and though a small waste in itself, it was likely to lead to a larger waste in future years, and he should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. DODSONsaid, he should certainly press his Motion to a division.
MR. FREELANDsupported the Amendment; and as this was an attempt to introduce a new principle, he hoped that before the House consented to any change, as regarded the diplomatic service, it would insist that all charges for that service should be annually submitted to Parliament in the shape of Estimates, and that the system of qualification for persons intending to enter that service should undergo revision. The Committee appointed to inquire into, and to report upon the consular and diplomatic services, had recommended that candidates should pass six months at the Foreign Office. He thought that period somewhat short. He thought, also, that as members of the diplomatic service were required to send home reports upon the trade of the countries to which they were accredited, it would be desirable that they should undergo a preliminary training for a certain period at the Board of Trade and receive certificates of competency.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It seems to me that sometimes this House treats its Committees not very well. A Motion is made for inquiry into a certain part of the public service; allegations are put forward that it is overpaid, of that the staff is too large, and that the particular branch ought to be reduced either in amount or allowances. The Committee inquire into the matter, and find, when they examine the facts, that the previous impression was erroneous, that the numbers are not too great, and, perhaps, ought to be increased, or, as in the case of the diplomatic and consular services, that the allowances are too small. Then the hon. Gentlemen who moved for the Committee turn round on the Committee, and say that the conclusion at which the Committee has arrived is quite wrong. It is exactly like the old story of the sailor who was going to be married, and was told he must take his wife for better, for worse. "No," he said, "she may become as much better as she likes; but if she becomes worse, I will have nothing to do with her." So with the Committee. If the Committee recommend reductions, and

631
say that we who moved for the Committee are right, and that the amount is too great, then we say the Committee is a wise one; but if the Committee differs from us, and on mature examination make a Report adverse to our previously conceived opinions, then we turn round on the Committee and say they are either official men, or men who have been in office—men, in fact, who know something of the matter, and are competent to judge—and therefore, because they know something about the matter, and are competent to judge, we will throw their Report over, and have nothing whatever to do with it. In the present instance I think the Committee were perfectly right. It has been a great grievance for a long time that in the diplomatic service a considerable number of young men did their duty admirably, but without any pay whatever—a circumstance which, I think, was a reflection on the public service. It is all very well to say, as my noble Friend (Lord Harry Vane) says, that there is no want of candidates, and that the service has always been full of these young men. But that is not an answer which ought to be given to the public or to this House of Commons. No doubt you might get persons to do anything without payment; but you would not have your service well performed. When you employ gentlemen to discharge a public duty you ought to have that hold upon them which consists in giving fair remuneration for services performed. It has been said that we shall have an unlimited number of persons in the profession if once we sanctioned this principle of payment. Does the hon. Gentleman (Mr. White) imagine, if this Vote passes—as I trust it will do—that the House of Commons will abrogate its functions of revising and determining the amounts which ought to be proposed? Does my hon. Friend imagine that it will rest within the mere discretion of the Government to increase this Vote annually to any extent they please? On the contrary, it will be equally open to my hon. Friend next year to criticise and to take the sense of the House upon any increase for which no adequate reason is given. It should be recollected that these attachés are now upon a different footing from that on which they formerly stood. Formerly the Secretary of State might oblige a friend, a constituent, or a relation by appointing this or that young man; but now the system is altered. A man must
632
undergo an examination—a very strict examination—and, consequently, there is no longer that arbitary discretion of appointing young men who might be unfit for the high stations to which they are expected to rise; or who, having risen to those higher stations by the favour of the persons intrusted with their disposal, would be unfit to discharge the further duties devolving upon them. You have now a security against any such occurrence. I really think the smallness of the sum which is asked for proves that there is no disposition unnecessarily to swell the cost of the diplomatic service. My hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) has shown that the £180,000 are not entirely spent, because part is returned every year to the Exchequer. There is, consequently, a saving more than equivalent to the sum asked for. If you compare the diplomatic service as it now exists with what it has been, you will find that it used to cost a great deal more, and my own experience enables me to assert that it is much more efficient. I venture to say that no diplomatic service is better performed — I will even say as well performed—as that of the British Govern-Government. Its Members get better information, they keep their Government better informed of what is passing and what is likely to take place than those of any other country. The Government, therefore, are better able to look well to the interests of the country than any other country in the world. I hope the House will not be run away with by the apprehensions excited by my hon. Friend, but that they will adopt the only one of the recommendations of the Committee which the Government have thought fit to propose. As that recommendation emanates from men perfectly competent to exercise an impartial judgment, I hope the House will not refuse the small amount that is asked for.
MR. HENLEYthought the noble Lord hardly treated the House fairly. He accused them of want of respect for the recommendations of Committees, whereas the Government had shown still less respect. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs shook his head; but the House merely doubted the propriety of one of the recommendations of the Committee, whereas the Government, with this single exception, had thrown over all the recommendations contained in their Report—and this, he supposed, was brought forward to save some

633
credit to the Committee. If the Government mistrusted them in the many, surely it was open to the House to mistrust them in a single instance. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark, as one reason for seeking this grant, said, "We get more than we want already, and we pay back a great deal into the Treasury." Then why come and ask the Committee for more? Another reason which the hon. Member assigned rather staggered him. He said it was necessary to put these gentlemen on the permanent list, in order that they might be entitled to pensions. If there were a number of gentlemen who were not wanted, and who could never be employed, why should they be entitled to pensions? The noble Lord stated quite truly that gentlemen were now obliged to undergo very strict examinations; but he did not state that these examinations had caused any diminution in the number of candidates. No Member who had spoken in favour of the Motion had declared that there was any difficulty in getting an abundance of able men for the diplomatic service on the present terms. He therefore did not think it right to pledge the country to this increased expense.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman could not have been present the other night when this question was originally discussed, or he must have heard his explanation of the intentions of the Government, which were gradually to carry out all the recommendations arrived at by the Committee after mature deliberation. It was true that a Report going very much further than those recommendations had not been received; but those recommendations, some of which were proposed by Earl Russell and acceded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) were the very lowest that could have been framed after the evidence given before the Committee. In proof of the difficult nature of the examination, if it were not invidious to do so, he could mention names of young men who were unable to pass the examination who had the highest claims to be admitted to the diplomatic profession on account of the services of members of their family. There was no intention whatever to increase the diplomatic service; and there had likewise been some misrepresentation with regard to his statement about pensions. What he had urged was that in all other Departments of the public service a man was en-
634
titled, after a certain number of years, to a pension; while in diplomacy, although a man might have served ten or fifteen years, he was not entitled to count them towards a pension till he attained the post of Secretary. When a man served the public, it was only reasonable that he should be paid. The "cigar and white kid glove gentlemen" had been spoken of. He ventured to tell hon. Gentlemen that this class of attaché was rapidly passing away. [Laughter.] He repeated the statement. He begged to say that he was as well acquainted with the profession as other Gentlemen, and that it was passing away. He wanted that class to pass away; and one of the recommendations of the Committee was, that there should be a stringent examination at the outset in order that they might obtain really first-class men. The hon. Member who stated that the profession was being overstocked could not have looked into the matter. If he had taken the trouble to glance over the Foreign Office List, he would have seen that the strength of a diplomatic corps was regulated entirely by the amount of work to be done. These young men were not idle. ["Oh, oh!"] There was scarcely a large embassy in Europe which did not complain of being overworked, and which did not call out for more attachés. The amount required might have been paid out of the surplus which was annually handed over to the Exchequer; but it was thought that it would be fairer and more straightforward to submit to the House the question whether or not these young men should be paid after four years' service.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped, that the hon. Member would press his Motion to a division. If it was intended to make a thorough change of the system, why should not these young men be paid at once without waiting for the completion of four years' service?
MR. CLAYsaid, that the unfortunate class of attachés seemed to be that night in a position of which he had frequently heard—that of receiving "more kicks than half-pence;" for not only did hon. Gentlemen refuse to give them any remuneration, but they laughed at the assertion of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State that they really had duties to discharge. From his own experience he could state that there was no class of gentlemen who were paid so little and worked so much.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 73; Noes 60: Majority 13.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
(35.) £28,934 4s. 7d., Revenue Departments (Post Office Services).
(36.) £25,587, Post Office (Packet Service).
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL NO. 207.]

  CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th July],
  "That the words 'Provided always, That it shall not be lawful to apply any of such sums to any work not specifically named in the Schedule, nor to apply to any work any greater sum than that which is set down in the Schedule as the total estimated cost of the work, nor for Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department to enter into any contract involving the expenditure in any district of a greater sum than is hereby and by the Act of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of Victoria, chapter one hundred and nine, authorized to be expended during the period ending on the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, without inserting in such contract a condition that the same shall not be binding on the said Principal Secretary until it has lain for one month upon the Table of the House of Commons without disapproval; and the said contract shall have no force or validity until it shall have lain for one month upon the Table of the House of Commons without disapproval, unless previous to the lapse of that period such contract shall have been approved by a Resolution of the said House,' be added instead of the Proviso to Clause 2."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS SIR GEORGE LEWIS moved the addition of the following proviso at the end of Clause 2:—
  "Provided always, That it shall not be lawful to apply any of such sums to any work not specifically named in the Schedule, nor to apply to any work any greater sum than that which is set down in the Schedule as the total estimated cost of the work; nor for Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department to enter into any contract involving the expenditure in any district of a greater sum than is hereby and by the Act of the 23rd and 24th years of Victoria, chap. 109, authorized to be expended during the period ending on the 1st day of August, 1863, without inserting in such contract a condition that the same shall not be binding on the said Principal Secretary until it has lain for
  636
  one month upon the table of the House of Commons without disapproval; and the said contract shall have no force or validity until it shall have lain for one month upon the table of the House of Commons without disapproval, unless previous to the lapse of that period such contract shall have been approved by a resolution of the said House."
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYopposed the Amendment, as it was of a very arbitrary character. It would give the Government power to appropriate the amount of the entire annual Vote for fortifications to any single work which formed an item of it. It would nullify the Schedule.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), was responsible for the proviso. It appeared in the form in which the hon. Baronet assented to it during a recent debate, some ambiguities only being removed. If it appeared to be unsatisfactory, he had no wish to insist upon it. He had agreed to it merely because he believed the Committee desired to have it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Accounts to be laid before Parliament).
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY moved, that "April" should be substituted for "July."
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS SIR GEORGE LEWIS moved, that "August" should be substituted for "July."
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYcould not consent to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. It was notorious that accounts rendered in July or August were perfectly useless. They were of no service unless supplied in the early part of the Session.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had no objection to adopt the hon. Baronet's suggestion.
  Amendment agreed to. The word "April" substituted instead of "July."
  Schedule disagreed to.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISproposed an amended Schedule, which he said was substantially the same as the one in the Bill.
  Amended Schedule brought up, and read 1°; 2°.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, that many items did not now stand at the amount at which they stood before; this showed the loose manner in which these Estimates were made. Some of the items

  637
  he must object to. The Puckpool and St Helen's batteries, in the Isle of Wight, were put down for an expenditure of £12,000 during the present year; but that expenditure involved the laying-out of £75,000 more to complete the works. These were to be mortar batteries, to be used against vessels passing at a considerable distance at the rate of fifteen or sixteen knots the hour. They could be of little or no use in such a position, and the money would be thrown away. The same might be said of the works on Portsdown Hill and at Plymouth. He believed that fire from mortars on ships in motion, except under special circumstances, would produce no great result; and, with regard to the batteries now in question, he did not think that they would have the least effect in deterring an enemy's fleet from forcing their way through Spithead. He proposed, as an Amendment, to strike out of the Schedule the sum of £12,000 for Puckpool and St. Helen's batteries.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£12,000" (being the amount of proposed works, 1862–3, at Puckpool and St. Helen's Batteries, Isle of Wight).
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that not being an artillery officer, he could offer no opinion on the probable effect of these batteries; but, having had practical experience of mortar fire, he could state that it was so disagreeable that no person, who had once been exposed to it, could avoid feeling a wholesome dread of it for the future. He believed the evidence before the Commission proved that by means of the improved fusees these batteries would be able to produce a most important effect on any squadron approaching Spit-head.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that it was well known that at Sebastopol the effect of bombardment by mortars was very trifling indeed. He believed that mortar firing was ineffectual at the distance of 1,000 yards.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcomplained of the Government commencing so many works at once. Those commenced ought to be completed before new works were begun.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it might be very easy to find fault with any one particular work taken by itself; but it should be remembered that all these works formed a connected system, which had been
  638
  arranged by competent authority, so that one work should bear upon and support another. The entire plan had been carefully considered, and, taken as a whole, was worthy of the support of the House.
  Question put, "That '£12,000' stand part of the amended Schedule."
  The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 44: Majority 29.
  MR. C. BERKELEYsaid, there was an arithmetical discrepancy in the schedule. The Government had either taken £70,000 too much or £80,000 too little. In two columns two sums were given of £3,200,000 and £3,580,000, together £6,780,000; and the sum which should correspond in the fourth column was £6,860,000. He did not know whether the difference arose upon the sum for the central arsenal. Another apparent error was in the amounts stated for land. In one place there appeared £430,000, and in another £670,000, together £1,100,000; but in the column which should correspond it was stated at £1,030,000. The sum for Cork, recommended by the Commission, was £120,000, but the sum in the schedule was £ 159,000. What was the cause of the increase?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that what the hon. Gentleman called a discrepancy was explained by the fact that the Estimates of the Commissioners were not followed. This was a distinct estimate, and therefore there could be no inconsistency. Although alterations had been made in the schedule by stating £50,000 separately which had before been mixed up in different items, there was no substantial change. The columns were correctly stated. They added up, and they added across. He was unable to follow the hon. Gentleman's computation, by which he seemed to think that they were either too large or too small.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEasked whether there was no one on the Treasury Bench who could give them an explanation. They had heard the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and they were much in the same position as before. The right hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told a meeting in Willis's Rooms on Wednesday last that there never was a time when peace was upon a more solid foundation. The evening passed very pleasantly in consequence of those assurances from two Cabinet Ministers; yet the Government came to the House for

  639
  enormous sums of money for fortifications, and could give no explanation of a very confused account.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthought the confusion was that of the hon. Member for Gloucester. The hon. Gentleman had utterly failed to explain what he called the discrepancy. The hon. Gentleman paused, hesitated, and did not know whether it was an increase or a diminution. The statement was so perfectly confused that he defied any man to know what it was about. His right hon. Friend had given the true account, that the amount was just right. Therefore the observations of the hon. Member entirely fell to the ground. As to his hon. Friend who spoke last, he had a sort of monomania on this subject, and did not seem any more satisfied after repeated defeats than before he entered the lists in this matter; but he thought the House, and he was sure the country, would justly appreciate the force of his hon. Friend's argument. Sincerely anxious that the country should have a powerful fleet, and feeling—because he presumed he must feel so after having reflected—that they could not have a fleet without dockyards, his hon. Friend came to the strange conclusion that the best way to have a strong fleet and to secure its possession was to leave the dockyards totally undefended. He left his hon. Friend to settle that argument with the country.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYdid not think that this was a question to be got rid of entirely by jokes. There were, so far as he could see, nineteen palpable errors in the schedule. A doubt was, therefore, thrown upon all the calculations of the Government, which ought, he thought, to be, as far as possible, explained.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIScontended that those hon. Members who argued that the schedule contained particular errors were bound to point out in what those errors consisted, and also the manner in which they proposed that they should be rectified. It was impossible for him to explain away difficulties which he was incapable of apprehending. There never was such a schedule as that under discussion annexed to a Bill before. It was so annexed in obedience to the wish of hon. Members on both sides, and now that they had got it they did not seem to understand it. With respect to the site of the central arsenal, it was asked why the sum
  640
  taken for it was not repeated? It was voted under the original Act; the money was still in the power of the Government, and no new sum having been taken for the purpose in the present year, it did not re-appear in the schedule.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHwas ready to point out the numerous errors in the schedule; in fact, there was hardly a single item that was not palpably wrong. There was, for instance, in the first column a sum of £6,860,000, in the second column one of £3,200,000; and if the latter were deducted from the former sum, it ought to give the exact amount in the last column, which was not the case. The first sum represented the total estimated cost; the second sum the amount required for the present year, and the sum in the last column was the further amount which would have to be voted. But some blunder had been committed, so that the figures given in the last column were almost all erroneous. He had, upon a late occasion, found fault with the War Office clerks, who, according to ordinary practice, should have made out the estimates; but he now felt bound to apologize to them, inasmuch as he was informed they had not made out the accounts. He thought, however, the right hon. Baronet was bound to see that those accounts were correct. He might add, that inasmuch as he believed the expense for the construction of the proposed forts at Hilsea could be spared, seeing the number of forts that were to be constructed at Portsdown Hill, he should move a reduction of £20,000 in connection with the outlay for the former.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£20,000" (being the amount proposed for works for 1862–3 at Hilsea Lines, Portsmouth).
  MR. AYRTONmaintained that the schedule as it stood was palpably erroneous. The total in the first column was £6,860,000. In the second column the sum set down was £2,000,000, in the third column £1,200,000, and in the fourth column £3,580,000, the total of which was £6,780,000—leaving a discrepancy of £80,000. The discrepancy, he believed, arose in this way. The right hon. Baronet had introduced an item of £150,000 for the site of a central arsenal, which must be taken as an abandoned estimate, and which formed no part of the present calculation. But then there was

  641
  a further error. The estimated cost of land was put down at £1,030,000; but the actual expenditure for land was put down at £1,100,000. This left an excess of £70,000; and if that were subtracted from the £150,000, it would give the sum of £80,000, and thus, by a compensation of errors, the discrepancy which had been pointed out was accounted for.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISrepeated that the schedule was perfectly correct.
  Question, "That '£20,000' stand part of the amended Schedule," put, and agreed to.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHnext moved the omission of the item of £50,000 for the north-east defences at Plymouth—works which, he contended, were not considered of first-rate importance by Sir John Burgoyne and other high military authorities.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£50,000" (being the amount proposed for works for 1862–3 at the North Eastern Defences, Plymouth).
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the course which had been adopted was very inconvenient—first to discuss all these items in Committee, and then to re-discuss them all over again on bringing up the Report.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the works at Plymouth had not been discussed in Committee.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that certainly there had been a great deal of discussion about the works at Portsmouth, and he thought at Plymouth also. He was not able to discuss the scheme critically, and he must leave the question to the decision of the Committee. It certainly had happened that in some instances the estimate for the purchase of lands by Government had been exceeded.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, that the right hon. Baronet himself had urged that the details of this Bill might be considered in Committee. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government did not treat those who opposed these fortifications with fairness when he said they did not want a navy. What they said was that they ought to have an efficient navy, and not to expend the money on useless fortifications.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONopposed the Amendment, believing that it was necessary to protect our arsenals, and that the
  642
  proposed forts would enable a small military force to do the work of a larger one. He had no doubt that the country would appreciate the motives of the House in supporting the Government on the fortification question.
  Question, "That '£50,000' stand part of the amended Schedule," put, and agreed to.
  Amended Schedule added.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 215.] CONSIDERATION.
  MR. BUTT MR. BUTT moved that the Bill should be recommitted for the purpose of inserting clauses empowering grand juries to give compensation to dismissed Inspectors of weights and measures.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was admitted that these charges could not be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. Then, how could they justly be thrown upon the county cess, when it was clear that the Inspectors were removable at the pleasure of the grand juries? He hoped the House would not consent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the understanding was, that if these parties had any claim to compensation, it should come out of the Consolidated Fund. He opposed the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That the Bill be re-committed, for the purpose of inserting the following Clause (Compensation of dismissed Inspectors, and stamping of Weights and Measures),"
  —put, and negatived.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Parochial Assessments; Charity Commissioners Jurisdiction; County Surveyors (Ireland); Excise Duties; Recovery of Poor Rates, &c.
2a Companies, &c,
3a Harbors Transfer; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); Poor Relief (Ireland); Petroleum; Elections (Ireland); Gunpowder Act Amendment.

KENT COAST RAILWAY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  LORD CHELMSFORDcalled attention to the powers conferred by this Bill, and inquired whether their Lordships considered that the Board of Trade were entitled to exercise such authority, under a private Bill, as would issue in the granting of a complete monopoly, with respect to the harbour of Ramsgate, to a private company. The attention of the Steam Shipowners' Association had been called to the subject, and the Board of Trade had expunged the 6th clause, which especially bore upon this question, but
  582
  by the 4th clause powers of a more extensive character were conferred than could have been exercised under the abandoned clause. Under the powers granted by this Bill the Kent Coast Railway Company would be entitled to run a tramway on to the pier at Ramsgate, and would practically obtain a monopoly of the harbour traffic. As the Bill was first introduced this clause was in the Bill, and in consequence the second reading was opposed by the Steamship Owners' Association; but upon a written undertaking being given by the Member who had charge of the Bill in the House of Commons that the clause should be expunged, the opposition was withdrawn. Subsequently, however, by an arrangement with the Board of Trade the same powers were given by the eleventh clause, upon the ground, he believed, that the proposed works were necessary, and that that Department had not funds to execute them. That, however, was no justification for a public Department handing over its functions to a private company, even were it the case; but that was not so—the Board had ample means from the rents, tolls, and accumulated capital derived from the late Harbor Commissioners. Two reports had been made to the Government on the subject; from the first of which, made by Sir John Rennie, it appeared that £7,000 a year would be sufficient to maintain the harbour in repair; but desires being expressed for further inquiry, Sir William Cubitt prosecuted one, and reported that the annual expenditure of £7,500 would be amply sufficient for the proper maintenance of the harbour, while the annual revenue derivable from various sources applicable to the keeping up of the harbor was £9,000. Under all the circumstances of the case he thought that their Lordships ought to pause before they agreed to pass the Bill as it stood. There was no ground whatever why the Board of Trade should transfer the powers it possessed over Ramsgate harbour to a private railway company, and he objected to the mode in which it was attempted to be done—namely, by the insertion of a clause in a private Bill instead of by bringing in a Bill for that purpose, which must needs attract the attention of Parliament. He was of opinion that the 11th clause ought not to stand part of the Bill, and therefore he should move that it be struck out.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that all the Board of Trade undertook to

  583
  do was to oppose any clause which transferred the harbour to the railway company, and the Bill merely gave power to the Board of Trade and the railway company to construct such a tramway as the Board of Trade might think convenient for the public in coming down to the harbour. The opposition was chiefly got up by a steam-packet company, who desired to deprive the public of the advantage of going to Ramsgate by railway, in the hope that they would continue to go by water. That company appeared before the Committee, and were declared to have no locus standi, and he trusted their Lordships would affirm the decision of the Committee. To show that the Board of Trade had not the ample funds mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, he would state that the harbour had been a losing concern, and that it had coat the public £3,000 a year. There were, in truth, no funds available for making a tramway or other works. It would be doing great injustice if their Lordships rejected this clause, which the town council of Ramsgate had approved of, and to which no opposition at all had been raised. He would appeal to their Lordships to stand by their Select Committee and to retain the clause.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE, as Chairman of the Committee, wished to say a few words on the subject. He entirely disagreed with the remark of the noble and learned Lord that the clause would transfer the harbour to a private company and create a monopoly. The Board of Trade was answerable to Parliament if it did anything detrimental to the public interests. Could any one say that enabling railway passengers to ride in their carriages to the pier was an act contrary to the public interests? Public steamers only could use the pier. The railway company possessed no steamers. The town was greatly in favour of the scheme, and the whole question resolved itself into thia:—Should the Board of Trade put down this tramway themselves, or allow this railway company or any other company to do so? As regarded a breach of faith, he did not think that any had been committed.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that being a shareholder in the company, he should be unable to vote on the question. He might, however, observe that the clause would only enable the Board of Trade to enter into an arrangement with this company
  584
  or any other company for the laying down of a tramway.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that the Board of Trade, as trustees for the public, had no right to transfer their powers over any public property without coming to Parliament for such a purpose, and it was most objectionable that they should have done so by a clause in a private Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEexpressed a hope that the House would give its assent to the clause, and support the unanimous decision at which the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred had arrived.
  LORD REDESDALEalso recommended that the House should not overrule the decision of the Committee.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he knew nothing more of the Bill than he had heard in the course of the debate; but having listened attentively to the discussion which had taken place, he was of opinion that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) was fully justified in bringing the matter before the House. A Bill containing such extensive powers ought to have been brought forward as a public measure. He hoped that his noble and learned Friend would not give their Lordships the trouble of dividing, and that the noble Lord opposite would consent to the addition of a proviso for the more effectual protection of the public.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he would not press the Motion for the rejection of the clause; but he thought that they ought to add to it a proviso for the purpose of protecting the right of the public in that matter.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that it would be a special duty of the Board of Trade to take the necessary steps for protecting the rights and interests of the public.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.—PETITION.
LORD EBURYsaid, he rose to present a petition to which their Lordships' House would, he was sure, pay due respect, not only on account of the high position of the individuals who had signed it, but also from their being peculiarly well qualified to understand and appreciate the grievance they complained of. It was a petition from

585
Fellows and Tutors of Colleges at the University of Cambridge, stating that in their opinion the provisions of the Act of Uniformity of Charles II., requiring a declaration of conformity to the Liturgy before admission to a fellowship, was injurious and ought to be repealed. The petition was signed by seventy-four Fellows and Tutors of Colleges. The petitioners respectfully called attention to the provision of the Act of Uniformity of 1662, which required all Fellows of Colleges to make a declaration of conformity to the Liturgy. Up to the year 1856 a University statute, passed as long ago as the reign of James I., compelled every graduate to make a declaration of membership; but in the year 1856 the Universities Act was passed, which broke down the barriers to the education of Nonconformists in these ancient foundations, permitting all degrees, except those in theology, to be granted without any religious test, and scholarships to be held. It appeared as if the framers of the Universities Act had made an oversight in not repealing this provision of the Act of Uniformity, because in those colleges where, by their college statutes, a declaration of conformity was required (and there are some in which no such declaration is required), that Act gave power to the college to relax that restriction. A willingness to enter into a declaration of conformity was, no doubt, a passport to a social position and to the emoluments of those wealthy foundations; but it did not appear to be by any means a Royal road to academical distinctions, inasmuch as, out of proportionably a small number of Undergraduates, the senior wranglership was won both in 1860 and 1861 by a Nonconformist; and the House could not be surprised if the tutors who had instructed and prepared them, entertaining a respect both for their conduct and abilities, regretted that these distinguished young men could not be retained for the ornament and advantage of the University. The House would remark that this was no attempt on the part of Nonconformists to obtain additional privileges, but a spontaneous act of a distinguished body of Churchmen, who felt and declared the injury produced by the present restrictions. He was happy to say that a right hon. Friend of his, who had presented a similar petition in the House of Commons, had given notice of his intention to propose legislation upon the subject.

COMPANIES, &c. BILL— [BILL NO. 132.]

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that similar measures had been introduced in 1858, 1859, 1860, and 1861, but from various causes had not passed the Commons, although they had been agreed to by their Lordships. This year, however, he had thought it more desirable to commence in the House of Commons, where the measure had been maturely considered before coming up to their Lordships. The great difficulty hitherto had been to provide facilities for the formation of companies, combined with proper safeguards, and another difficulty was to provide in a satisfactory manner for winding-up and dissolution. Another circumstance was that there were many statutes upon the subject, some of which were found difficult of construction and even conflicting, and with the whole of the matters to which he had referred this Bill dealt.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PARKHURST PRISON.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose, according to notice, to call attention to certain recent Occurrences at Parkhurst Prison; and to inquire whether full Information has been received on the Matter by Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, what Course has in consequence been adopted? The facts were shortly these. Some time ago one of the warders was assaulted in Parkhurst by one of the convicts, and he remained for some time in a dangerous state in consequence of the injuries he received. As far as he could ascertain, no punishment had been inflicted on the man for that assault. About six months ago another warder was assaulted by several convicts, in consequence of which he had to resign his situation, and soon afterwards died, leaving a widow and children. No steps had been taken to punish these men; and when the period of their sentence had expired, they were let loose upon society. Application was made on behalf of the widow and children of the warder to the directors of the prison for compensation; but that application was made in vain. He thought this was a state of things which required to be amended, and he

587
hoped the noble Earl would give a satisfactory answer on the subject.
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say, that he was not then in a position to give the noble Lord such an answer as would be satisfactory to him, but would make further inquiry on the subject.

WORKS ON THE SHANNON.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked, If it is the Intention of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to advance Money to the Board of Public Works in Ireland, to enable the Board to finish the Works on the Upper Shannon, which were omitted, or were only partly executed, by the Shannon Commissioners?
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say, that it was the intention of the Government to appoint some competent gentleman to inquire into the circumstances of the case, but upon the distinct understanding that Her Majesty's Government did not thereby pledge themselves to advance any money to the Board of Public Works in Ireland.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.