Sitting of 4 June 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Thames Conservancy, Mr. Hankey added*.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolution (June 3) reported, and agreed to*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Removal of Irish Poor* [Mr. Villiers] [Bill 140]; Officers of Royal Naval Reserve* [Bill 142], Debate adjourned; Passengers Act Amendment* [Bill 143]; Vaccination (Scotland)* [Bill 139]; Court of Session (Scotland)* [Bill 116].
Select Committee—Report—Local Government Supplemental* [Bill 84, 151].
Committee—Volunteers [Bill 108]; African Slave Trade Treaty* [Bill 144]; Watchmen in Towns (Ireland) [Bill 102]; Execution of Decrees (Ireland)* [Bill 125].
Report—Volunteers [Bill 152]; African Slave Trade Treaty*; Execution of Decrees (Ireland)* [Bill 153]; Watchmen in Towns (Ireland).
Considered as amended—Inland Revenue* [Bill 145], re-committed, and reported; Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) [Bill 106]; District Parochial Churches (Ireland)* [Bill 122].

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.—EXPLANATION
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I beg, Sir, to claim the attention of the House for a few moments, on a personal matter. It will be in the recollection of the House that in a speech which I recently delivered on the affairs of Italy I gave an account of a conversation which took place between Mr. Odo Russell and the French General in command at Rome. It is my duty to inform the House that I have received a letter from Mr. Odo Russell, in which he states that the account I gave of that conversation is inaccurate.
MR. HADFIELDcomplained, that the statement made by the hon. Member was bare and unintelligible. ["Order, order!"]

CHINA—LIEUTENANT TINLING.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESrose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, con-sequent upon the communication made by him to the House on the 1st of June, respecting Captain Dew's Report of the death of Lieutenant Tinling, of Her Majesty's ship Encounter, under the walls of Shou-hing, it is the intention of the Admiralty to call upon the Admiral commanding in the China Seas, for a special Report of the circumstances which led Captain Dew and Lieutenant Tinling to be engaged in
  322
  two unsuccessful assaults upon Shou-hing, and whose authority they were engaged in the siege; whether Captain Dew was held responsible for the 8-inch howitzer lent by General Staveley to aid in the siege of Shou-hing, and generally to report what foundation there is for the statements in the Shanghai newspapers that the Paymaster of the Encounter was dangerously injured by an explosion of gunpowder at Shou-hing, and that after the repulse of the second assault at Shou-hing, Captain Dew visited Shanghai to obtain supplies of siege ammunition, and, by his agency, induced a body of European adventurers of all nations to proceed to Shou-hing as military volunteers, whose indiscipline is inflicting great misery upon the peasantry? The statements embraced in the Question were not his own, but had appeared in a Shanghai newspaper.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should be very happy to give him any information that lay in his power with regard to the matters in question. The Government expected to receive a full Report from the Commander in Chief on the Chinese station—Admiral Kuper—in reference to the circumstances connected with the death of Lieutenant Tinling, who was a young and meritorious officer. He might add, that the Admiralty had no knowledge of an 8-inch howitzer, or any other gun, having been lent to a Chinese force. He might, moreover, state that he had, with the view of giving the hon. and gallant Gentleman every information he could on the subject, applied to the War Office, and that he had been informed by them that they had received no communication whatsoever, either official or private, to the effect that a gun had been lent to a Chinese force. It was not, he might further observe, the intention of the Admiralty to give any orders at present on the subject; they would wait for Admiral Kuper's Report.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether a detailed statement of the expense to be incurred in altering, repairing, completing and rendering beautiful the International Exhibition Building will be printed and laid before the House, previous to a Vote of £485,000 being taken as a first

323
expense connected with the purchase of that Building?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, there is no objection to lay before the House details of the sum named. With regard to the other points, it will be my duty to explain them when I propose the Vote.
MR. GREGORY: Shall we have those details presented before the explanation?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: They will be laid on the table in the course of tomorrow.

INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  EARL JERMYNsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the details of the amalgamation of the Medical Service of the late East India Company with that of the Royal Service are to be published, what is the reason of the delay, and whether any fresh proposals have been originated; and if so, of what nature?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that the papers containing the proposals of the Indian Government had been sent to the War Office some time ago. Until they received an answer from that Office, he could not answer the Question of the noble Lord more definitely.

SEIZURE OF THE "WILL O' THE WISP."

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any claim has been made upon the Government of the United States of America for compensation to the owners of the schooner Will o' the Wisp, seized in Mexican waters at Matamoras, by the United States cruiser Montgomery, on the 3rd day of June, 1862, and afterwards released by decision of the Prize Court at Key West, on the 19th day of July following?
  MR. LAYARD:—In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I beg to point out to him that the Question involves a statement which after all has not been proved, and is liable to great doubt; that is, that the vessel was seized in Mexican waters. The case came before the Prize Court at Key West, and the court decided that the vessel should be released; but they also decided that there were sufficient grounds of suspicion to warrant the seizure, and they consequently refused to give damages or costs. Her Majesty's Govern-
  324
  ment then ordered representations to be made to the United States Government to the effect, that if damages were not given, at least costs should be awarded to the owners of the vessel. The United States Government replied—and he was informed that they were right—that until the owners had exhausted all legal means to obtain costs, the British Government could not fairly make any demand on the United States Government. The usual course is to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that appeal has not yet been made by the owners; who, however, I presume, will make such appeal. When that appeal is decided, it will remain for Her Majesty's Government to say what course shall be taken.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I am informed that the vessel was released because she wag taken in Mexican waters.
  MR. LAYARD: The hon. Member is, I think, mistaken. The vessel was seized because she was suspected of conveying munitions of war; and the Court decided that the gunpowder on board did not, under the circumstances, come under that character.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a Design prepared by Captain Fowke for the alteration or completion of the Exhibition Building; whether Her Majesty's Government approve generally of such Design; and, if so, whether the cost of the same is included in the Estimate now laid upon the Table of the House; and if no design has yet been approved of, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to employ Captain Fowke as the Architect of the new Building?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No design has yet been approved of, and no decision come to as to who will be employed to make the changes in order to adapt the building to the purposes for which it is intended.

HERRING FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate whether he intends to propose a measure for legalizing the use of trawl or seine nets for catching herrings in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, in order that time may be given for the consideration of the Report, it is not proposed to legislate this year on the subject.

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR COMMITTEE.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  MR. TOLLEMACHE: I wish, Sir, to claim the attention of the House while I put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice. In doing so, it is perhaps unnecessary that I should assure the House I am actuated by no party feeling against the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great personal regard; but as the matter is one personal to myself, I trust I may claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments. I was unavoidably absent from the House on Monday evening, when the Select Committee on Holyhead Harbour was nominated, having been compelled to leave town on Friday. I did not return until late on Monday night. Yesterday I was informed, that when the nomination of the Committee was discussed, the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks by no means complimentary to the proposed Committee. I was told that he stated, or, if not, distinctly implied, that the Committee was not fairly constituted—indeed, so unfairly, that its decision, whatever it might be, ought not to have and therefore would not have any weight with the Government. Now, I beg to assure him that he is altogether mistaken, at all events so far as I am concerned. I have no personal interests, nor have, as far as I am aware, any of my constituents an interest in this matter—though it is perfectly true that the Holyhead line passes through Cheshire, as it does through Middlesex. My mind is perfectly free and unbiassed on the subject. I should never have consented to serve on the Committee, did I not feel perfectly satisfied that I could exercise the freest and most impartial judgment on any question which might be brought under its consideration. I now beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in reference to what I have said, I have been correctly informed; whether he is satisfied with the statement I have made; and if not, whether he will take the straightforward course of moving that I be discharged from attendance on the Committee? If he does make that Motion, I promise him I will second him.
  COLONEL PENNANT: Before the right
  326
  hon. Gentleman replies, I wish to make to him a similar application on my own part. When asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Queen's County (Colonel Dunne) whether I would serve on the Committee, my answer was that I would much rather not; but when he represented to me, that being acquainted with the locality in question, it was desirable I should do so, I consented to be nominated one of its members. I may add that I have no interest whatsoever in Holyhead. I own no property in the neighbourhood. I do not possess a single acre of land in the Island of Anglesey, and I have no interest in the line of railway which runs through it. I am as independent, in regard to this question, as anybody can be. I have been Member for Carnarvonshire for twenty-two years, and in any local proceedings in which I have taken a part it has been rather against Holyhead than in its favour.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the hon. Member for Cheshire (Mr. Tollemache) labours under a misapprehension when he refers to the remarks which I made on a former occasion as having been of a personal character. Those hon. Gentlemen who were present on Monday night, when the discussion on the nomination of the Holyhead Committee took place, will bear me out when I say that nothing of a personal nature occurred; or if there did, it consisted in remarks made by two or three hon. Members in censuring myself.
  "Si rixa est ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum."
  I was placed in that predicament. My hon. Friend, I may add, has been informed partly right and partly wrong. What I stated was, that in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, the Committee had not been impartially constituted. I referred to the position occupied by many hon. Members who sit on it; but I at the same time very carefully guarded myself against being supposed to convey that there was a single Member placed upon the Committee against whom, in his individual capacity or on personal grounds, the slightest objection could be urged. It is invidious to draw distinctions; but if there are any two Gentlemen in whose impartiality I feel confidence, they are my two hon. Friends who have addressed the House. If my hon. Friend will himself study the list of the Committee, and likewise the discussion which took place on Holyhead Harbour, he will sufficiently understand why I should hare felt it necessary to

  327
  record that opinion; but I beg to assure him that he was entirely misinformed by any one who stated to him that I ever presumed to say that the decision of that Committee, whatever it might be, would meet with no attention from the Government. I said nothing of the kind. It was a construction put by an hon. Friend near me on what I had said, and so much did I resent it that I felt compelled to interrupt him and say that I had said nothing of the kind and that such an idea had never entered my mind.
  MR. HERBERT: Sir, I happened to be present on the occasion referred to, and I am able to state—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The matter brought before the House is one of personal explanation; and the two hon. Gentlemen having spoken, and the right hon. Gentleman who was personally referred to having given some explanation in reply to their remarks, it is not competent for the hon. Member to continue the discussion.
  MR. HERBERT: I will conclude with a Motion for the adjournment of the House. I do not wish to detain the House long; but having been present on the occasion referred to, and having listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, I must say that never since I have had the honour of a seat in this House have I heard anything said more calculated to wound the personal feelings of the gentlemen concerned, or even, I may say, more insulting to them. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he was obliged, inconsequence of the constitution of the Committee, to make the remarks that be did, I entirely disagree with him in the course he then took; and many hon. Members, of high standing in this House, whom I have consulted, have told me that I am entirely right in that opinion. I believe, that when the Government cannot make those arrangements which are usual with the Member who moves a Committee, it is the universal practice for both sides to give notice of the names of those whom they wish to be on the Committee, and to fight the matter in a fair and open manner in this House. Instead of that, what does the right hon. Gentleman do? He gets up and says that the Government acquiesce in the Committee proposed; and, although he did not actually use the words that the decision of that Committee would not be attended to by the Government, he did state that it was a most unfairly-constituted Committee; and certainly the only inference which any
  328
  hon. Member would draw from the words which the right hon. Gentleman used was that which has been drawn from them. I certainly never listened with greater egret to any words than I did to those which on that occasion fell from my right hon. Friend. I move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. HENNESSYseconded the adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It appears to me that my right hon. Friend uses very strong language when he states that words fell from me which were insulting to hon. Members. I am not aware that that is a phrase which falls within the usual Parliamentary courtesy. If my right hon. Friend did hear me use words insulting to him or to any hon. Gentleman, it was his duty to take notice of them at the time, or else to have remained silent now. Acting, perhaps, under some momentary warmth, he has used expressions which be will regret hereafter. It was also, I think, due to the House, that if words used in a debate were to be described as insulting to hon. Members, those words should be quoted.
  MR. HERBERT: I am ready to quote them. ["Quote them."]
  MR. SPEAKER: It is a well established rule of this House, that if exception be taken to words spoken in debate, that exception must be taken at the time they are uttered. It is now totally past the time at which reference can be made to the general subject of the debate now in question. Two hon. Members expressed a wish, upon grounds of personal explanation, to refer to what had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he felt personally in the matter, in consequence of allusion to words supposed to have then fallen from him, and upon that ground he made an appeal to the House to be heard. But to go back now to the general subject of a debate which took place some evenings ago, upon the Question of Adjournment of the House, would be entirely contrary to the rules of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If these words cannot be quoted, I would say thus much out of respect and deference to my right hon. Friend, notwithstanding what he has said, quite as much as on my own behalf. At this moment I have not the smallest idea what

  329
  they were—not the smallest in the world; but I entirely disclaim the intention of using any words which should be insulting or painful to anybody. I did think it my duty to state, that in the opinion of the Government that Committee was not impartially constituted. That was the whole length to which I desired to go. Into my particular reasons I was careful not to enter further than to point to what is notorious to every man, and discreditable and dishonorable to no man. The intention of giving pain was entirely absent from my mind: if it has been caused, especially to my right hon. Friend, I regret it extremely; but I have not the smallest idea what can be the words alluded to.
  COLONEL FRENCH: The very words which have now fallen from the right hon Gentleman are of themselves offensive. He says that the Committee is not impartially constituted. What does he mean by that? Is it because it is a different Committee from what is generally proposed by the Government, and one which will not be obedient to their orders—a Committee with brains and a knowledge of the subject?
  MR. DISRAELI: I do not wish to enter into the personal controversy, but, in vindication of the proper management of the business of this House I think it right to say that it is not the duty of a Government to consent to the appointment of a Committee which they at the same time announce that they believe is not an impartially constituted Committee. If that was the opinion of the Government, they ought to have opposed the appointment of the Committee so proposed.
  MR. HENNESSY: This is a far more important question than the right hon. Gentleman and the Government seem to imagine. I took the liberty of consulting some experienced Members of the House about calling attention to it as a question of order, and I now beg to do so. The House unanimously decided that a certain Committee was one which the House ought to appoint, and we are now told by a Minister that it is not an impartially-constituted Committee. I believe that it is a well-established rule of the House that no Member may impugn a decision of the House unless he is prepared to make a Motion to rescind it. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman telling us that this is not an impartially-constituted Committee. I put it to you, Sir, as a question of order, whether he is at liberty to make that statement
  330
  without announcing that the Government intend to move to rescind the Resolution for the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. BRIGHT: I suppose it is because this is a question half Welsh and half Irish that so much excitement has been created about it. I do not know much about the Committee or about Holyhead, but from the feeling that has been excited I have a great suspicion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not far wrong. I must ask hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friend below me (Colonel French) not to get warm about a statement such as that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have known Governments—I do not know whether this, but certainly former Governments, and I think this—ask the House to agree to Committees which I thought were fair and impartial, and I have heard Members on both sides of the House get up and protest against their appointment, and tell the Government that they were merely appointing a packed Committee to support some conclusion at which they had already arrived. Well, such things as this are said frequently both from the Treasury Bench and from both sides of the House; and therefore I am, I confess, somewhat astonished at the angry tone which has been taken, especially by the right hon. Gentleman on this side (Mr. H. Herbert). What is meant by a Committee not being strictly impartial is, not that any hon. Member goes into the Committee with the view of doing something wrong, but that a large proportion—a majority it may be—of the Committee have opinions so decided that we know exactly what it will do before it goes up-stairs to discuss the question. I have read what the right hon. Gentleman said as reported in the papers; I was not here to hear it, but I did not gather that he had transgressed any rule of the House, or had done anything more than I have heard and seen done many times since I have had a seat in this House.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS:—I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham has totally misapprehended the point of the objection. He tells us that he remembers Committees proposed to be appointed commented upon as partial in their constitution. I have not the slightest doubt that such has been the case; but what has been the practice is this, that when it occurs to an hon. Member that the proposed constitution of a Committee is partial, he gets up in his place, and expresses that opinion, and divides the House on the Question that

  331
  names shall be rejected and others inserted, which will, in his opinion, make it more impartial.
  MR. SPEAKER: Beyond the explanations on personal grounds of the hon. Members who felt it necessary to make explanations, the whole of this proceeding has been one which is contrary to the rules of this House. If any observations were to be made on the composition of the Committee, or on words spoken with regard to it, that should have been done when the words were spoken and the Committee constituted. What I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say was, that he did at that time make use of the expression that he did not think the Committee impartially constituted. It was competent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to express that opinion with regard to the names which were then placed before the House, with regard either to the balance of parties or to the general constitution of the Committee. I must now request, for the sake of order, that this conversation may not be prolonged.
  LOR ROBERT CECIL: I must rise to order. ["Order!" and "Hear, hear!"] I think, Sir, that you have misunderstood the point of the objection taken by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) who sits behind me. It was not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the occasion of moving the Committee, condemned it as not impartially constituted; but that he has this evening deliberately repeated it as his opinion that this Committee, which has received the sanction of this House, is, notwithstanding, not an impartially-constituted Committee. The point which was submitted respectfully for your decision, Sir, was whether it is competent for a Minister of the Crown, when a Committee has been appointed by the unanimous sanction of the House, to cast a slur upon it, and say that it is not impartially constituted.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not interpret the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the manner in which the noble Lord has done. It does not appear to me that anything which has fallen from him is irregular.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My intention was simply to recite, that I might not appear disingenuous, what I said on a former occasion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

VOLUNTEERS BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. BAGWELLrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is impolitic any longer to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Volunteer system, and unjust, should such exclusion continue, to tax Ireland for the support of English Volunteers."
It was not his intention to offer any opposition to the Bill; the measure was unobjectionable, but a sting lurked in the 52nd clause, under which this Act was not to extend to Ireland. He would endeavour to show that this exclusion of Ireland was unjust as well on social as on political grounds. Every person who had made Ireland his study must feel that the great evil of Ireland was the want of opportunities for social intercourse between the different classes of the people, and that wherever these had been afforded—as in the case of the Poor Law Boards—the happiest results had followed. Englishmen could hardly feel the difficulty. Now, the class of people from whom Volunteers would be taken would, as in the case of England, be the inhabitants of towns and large villages, and no one could question the beneficial influence in England of the intercourse produced by that association. It was idle to say that the people of Ireland were disloyal, for this was the very class of the Irish people who had come forward to express their sympathies with Her Majesty on her recent bereavement, and again sent addresses to their future Sovereign conveying their congratulations on his marriage. Surely, then, this was a class eminently loyal and trustworthy. It was ascertained that the population of Ireland was about 5,798,000, or about the same as Scotland, Wales, and Yorkshire. Now, what would be said if there was a clause to exclude Scotland, Yorkshire, and Wales from the operation of the Bill? No Minister who asked such a thing could keep his place. Then, on political grounds also Ireland had a right to the advantages of the system. Almost the last letter written by Edmund Burke had reference to the condition of Ireland, and contained the following passage—
"There is no hope for the body of the people of Ireland as long as those who are in power with

333
you shall make it the great object of their policy to propagate an opinion on this side of the water that the mass of their countrymen are not to be trusted by their Government."
Further on in the same letter he said—
"My poor opinion is that the closest connection between Great Britain and Ireland is essential to the well-being, I had almost said to the very being, of the two kingdoms."
On the 11th of April 1799, after the death of Burke, the House of Lords, in their Address to the King, stated—
"We entertain a firm persuasion that a complete and entire union between Great Britain and Ireland, founded on equal and liberal principles, on the similarity of laws, constitution, and government, and on a sense of mutual interests and affections, by promoting the security, wealth, and commerce of the respective kingdoms, and by allaying the distractions which have unhappily prevailed in Ireland, must afford fresh means of opposing at all times an effectual resistance to the destructive projects of our foreign and domestic enemies, and must tend to confirm and augment the stability, power, and resources of the nation."
How had these brave, honest words been borne out? As long as a different stamp was put upon Ireland, as long as the differences proposed in the present Bill were maintained, and Ireland was not treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom, so long Ireland would be discontented, and her people unhappy, and, instead of being the right arm of this country in the hour of danger, she would be a source of weakness and uneasiness. Sir Robert Peel, in his speech announcing the resignation of Ministers on the 29th of June 1846, used these remarkable words—
"There should be a real and substantial equality of political and civil rights, so that no person viewing Ireland with an unbiassed eye, and comparing the civil franchises of Ireland with those of England or of Scotland, shall be able to say with truth that a different rule has been adopted towards Ireland, and that on account of hostility, or suspicion, or distrust, civil freedom is there curtailed and mutilated; that is what I mean by equality in legislating for Ireland in respect to civil franchise and political rights." [3 Hansard, lxxxvii. 1044.
The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War (the Marquess of Hartington), who had charge of this Bill, when he went to Chatsworth, could surround himself with friends and dependants; but if he crossed the Channel—and he had good Tipperary blood in his veins—he would find there friends as sincere and adherents as loyal as any that he prized in England, and he would ask whether they were fairly treated by this exclusion. Unfortunately, the system pursued by successive English Governments towards Ireland had been Divide
334
et impera; Protestant had been set against Catholic, North against South, and the worst passions of each inflamed against the other. In March 1829, upon the question of Catholic Emancipation, the following words were used by the noble Lord now at the head of the Government:—
"Under a pure despotism a people may be contented, because all are slaves alike; but those who under a free Government are refused equal participation must be discontented. Everywhere they meet men of the same class, of the same rank, of the same talents, of the same attainments, as themselves, enjoying privileges and advantages from which they are debarred. What must be the inward feelings of such men? and could we be surprised if we found, that while we extorted our oaths of allegiance from their lips, their vows of abjuration should stand recorded on their hearts?" [2 Hansard, xx. 1248.]
These were noble words of the noble Lord; but the words spoken then were equally applicable now. He trusted the noble Lord would recognise his own words, and that the lapse of more than thirty years had not chilled his heart. He trusted, at all events, that the House would force the Government to do this act of justice, and that Ireland would be made what she ought to be, the right arm of England. He begged to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is impolitic any longer to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Volunteer system, and unjust, should such exclusion continue, to tax Ireland for the support of English Volunteers."
COLONEL FRENCHseconded the Amendment.
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, it is impolitic any longer to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Volunteer system, and unjust, should such exclusion continue to tax Ireland for the support of English Volunteers,"—(Mr. Bagwell,)
—instead thereof.
MAJOR KNOXexpressed his surprise that an Irish Member who had held a high place in Her Majesty's Government should have made such a proposition. Without wishing to cast any imputation on the hon. Gentleman, he must say that he looked upon it only as a piece of electioneering tactics. At a time when so much dissatisfaction existed in Ireland, was it fit to make this proposal? Would the hon. Gentleman tell him that the men whom he proposed to arm would take the oath of allegiance to the Queen? [Colonel FRENCH: Yes, they would] He knew the Protestants of the North of Ireland,

335
if wanted, would, as in 1848, come forward to defend their own rights and those of the Queen; but it would not be safe to place arms in the hands in which the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would place them. If that were done, the people of Ireland would be in much the same position as the people of the United States were now; the Protestants of the North and the Catholics of the South would turn their arms against one another. If only the Act would permit the English Volunteers to visit Ireland, the proposition would be warmly received.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he had heard the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Knox) with surprise and regret, for he drew a picture of Ireland for which he (Sir De Lacy Evans) hoped there was no foundation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman represented one part of Ireland as hostile to another as the Northern and Southern States in America; but there was, he believed, no foundation for any such statement. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to forget that nobody could be received as a Volunteer unless he took the oath of allegiance. In the very temperate statement made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Bagwell) it was shown that within a very recent period there had been manifestations of loyalty and respect to the Throne in Ireland; and were they to be told that it would be highly improper and very dangerous to intrust arms to a large portion of the Irish people? His hon. Friend quoted the opinions of great statesmen, and, among others, an opinion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, not at all in accord with the present Bill. But there was another authority not inferior, and, perhaps, by gentlemen on the other side considered superior to the authority of the noble Lord, and that was the authority of the late Duke of Wellington. If any person would look into the official letters of Sir Arthur Wellesley, when Secretary for Ireland in 1807—a time when, unfortunately, in consequence of the recent rebellion, a greater distrust of the feelings of the Irish people prevailed—he would find that Sir Arthur Wellesley spoke thus on this very subject of Volunteers:—"Some people say that the people of Ireland are not to be trusted. Now, I do not know that there is any truth in that statement, and I do not believe it." These were the words of a man who was responsible for the safety of this country and the peace of Ireland, a man of un-
336
doubted sagacity in political matters. Now, this exclusion of Ireland from the Volunteer system was not only insulting—it was inequitable also, because Ireland was called upon to pay a portion of her taxes for the maintenance of the Volunteers in England and Scotland. Surely, there ought to be some positive reason given by Government fur inflicting this wrong. He hoped that the matter would be re-considered and that the House would manifest its feeling on the side of the Irish people.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it would be his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mrs Bagwell), but not upon the grounds given by the hon. and gallant Member for Dungan-non (Major Knox). Three years ago his noble Friend at the head of the Government explained the reasons for which he did not feel justified to recommend Her Majesty to avail herself of the patriotic offers from that country. He said, that it was not by way of insult to the Irish people, nor from want of confidence in their loyalty, that he was disinclined to accept their services as Volunteers; that he had no fear whatever, in case of invasion, that our Irish fellow-subjects, whether Catholics or Protestants, would be wanting in their duty. But a specific reason against raising Volunteers in Ireland was stated by his noble Friend, and it was this—that owing, unfortunately, to strong religious animosities in some parts of Ireland it was very much to be apprehended that the formation of Volunteer corps in that country would assume a religious character, and would not improbably lead to most serious collisions. Nor was that an unfounded supposition. Even in England, where happily religious differences had never reached so great a height, a Volunteer corps in Liverpool had assumed to a certain extent the organization of an Orange Society, and the consequence was that on one occasion a collision, fortunately not attended with loss of life, but in which severe injuries were inflicted, took place between that regiment and a militia regiment in which there were very many Irish Catholics. It was impossible for any man at all acquainted with the state of religious feeling in Ireland not to fear some such result, and it was that which prevented his noble Friend from accepting the services of Volunteers in Ireland. It was not denied that the English Volunteers were available to a certain extent for the defence of Ireland, and that any expenditure upon them was

337
profitable to that country also. ("Oh!") The hon. Member said "Oh!" But, in case of invasion, the presence of so many Volunteer regiments in England would enable the Government to release a certain number of troops of the line for the defence of Ireland. Hitherto the English Volunteers had received almost no assistance from the national exchequer. The expenditure not only of time and labour, but also of money, which had fallen upon private individuals, amounted to a very heavy tax indeed; and instead of a complaint of Irish funds being devoted to the support of English Volunteers, if hon. Members insisted on looking at the matter in that point of view, they ought rather to congratulate themselves that Ireland and Irishmen had been saved from the very heavy tax of the Volunteer movement. It was not on the ground which had been urged by the hon. Member, or because the Government had any fear of want of loyalty on the part of the Irish nation, that he opposed this Amendment, but on account of the religious animosities which unfortunately prevailed in that country. Her Majesty's Government thought it undesirable to place arms in the hands of the people when a law existed under which the Lord Lieutenant, by a proclamation of a county or district might deprive them of those arms next day. On these grounds he must oppose the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he could not accept the quarrel in a regiment at Liverpool as a reason why Irishmen should not be allowed to protect their lives and pro-petty. He believed the noble Marquis would find that there were many more Englishmen than Irishmen engaged in that riot. He believed that upon all ordinary questions Her Majesty's Government were men of sense and wisdom; but it was once remarked by Sydney Smith that John Bull seemed to lose all his senses the moment the word "Ireland" was pronounced, and that it made him act with the ferocity of a savage and the fatuity of an idiot. He would remind the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the Volunteeer movement was no child of his. The executive Government, on the contrary, strongly opposed the formation of these bodies originally—or at any rate they threw cold water upon the movement—until sense of danger and the determination of the people to protect themselves overcame the noble Lord's scruples, and enforced the
338
recognition of the Volunteers; and now the noble Lord seemed disposed, in his speeches in that House and in the country, to take a little more credit than was fairly due either to himself or his Government. In England the Volunteer movement, in the opinion of the noble Lord, was one of the noblest spectacles of prudence and patriotism of the present day; but when he came to Ireland, he seemed to be of opinion that Irishmen had neither prudence, patriotism, nor common sense. The Government would not trust an Irishman with arms, being apparently of opinion that he would shoot his neighbour with them. It was only when there was real danger that the courage and patriotism of Ireland were recognized. It was the worst policy in the world, and one more calculated than anything else to produce discontent, to maintain so broad a distinction as they did in the legislation for England and Ireland. They who knew the country—and unfortunately the noble Lord was not able to consult any one who did—could tell the noble Lord, however, that on the loyalty and discretion of Ireland the Government might implicitly rely. He appealed to the House to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and he trusted it would appear, that if a suspicion of Irishmen prevailed in the Government, it had not gone so far as to affect that House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Really, Sir, I have very little to say after the short but conclusive statement of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington). My hon. Friend who has moved this Resolution seems to be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government have not accepted the offers which have been made from Ireland for the formation of Volunteer corps because they distrust the loyalty of the people. Sir, we feel no such distrust. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bagwell) speaks for the loyalty of Munster. The hon. and gallant officer opposite (Major Knox) did justice to the loyalty of Ulster. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel French) speaks for Con-naught, and I beg leave, so far as my local knowledge goes, to confirm his statement. No doubt some hon. Member will also speak for Leinster; and, putting all these testimonies together, no one need question that the Irish are a very loyal and well-disposed people. I know very well that some months ago some very foolish speeches were made, and were followed by a few very foolish riots; but we quite understand the foolish source in which those proceed-

339
ings originated, and attach no importance to them. I am persuaded that the Irish are as loyal as any nation can be expected to be, and as loyal as most other nations are. I am quite satisfied, that if any occasion should arise which should render it necessary to call upon Irishmen to arm in defence of their country, they would meet that call with the same loyalty and devotion which they have manifested at former periods. Luckily, however, we are not at present in that condition; and I trust that for a long time to come we shall not have occasion to call upon them to arm against a hostile attack. But there is in Ireland one peculiarity which does not equally exist in this country,—namely, that by an unfortunate difference of opinion upon religious questions, there is a tendency to display a national quality which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roscommon thought we imagined we were deficient in—a national pugnacity. My gallant Friend said we appeared to distrust the pugnacious qualities of Irishmen. So far from calling that quality in question, however, we believe it to be exuberant in Ireland, and we are satisfied, from peculiar circumstances which experience has shown us, that this quality is too apt, without adequate necessity to be called into action. We wish to reserve the pugnacity of Irishmen for the time when some more worthy enemy calls for it to be exemplified. We do not wish them, by way of keeping their hand in, to exercise on each other that admirable quality, which ought to be reserved for a better occasion. That is really the whole matter. I cannot say that we have received any very numerous applications from Ireland, because Irishmen, having the quality of prudence as well as pugnacity, must know that the formation of Volunteer corps is a very heavy expense to those who belong to them; and, as has been very properly stated by my noble Friend, so far from the Irish people being taxed for the maintenance of the existing Volunteer corps, the great burden of those corps falls on the people of Great Britain, who contribute largely and most generously—for great expenses are incurred, not only by the Volunteers themselves, but by gentlemen in the neighbourhood in which each corps is formed. I quite enter into the feelings of my hon. and gallant Friend, who wishes to see the same thing done in Ireland, but I do not admit the force of his quotation. He cited an opinion, expressed before Catholic Emancipation was
340
passed, that there ought to be perfect equality between the two religions in Ireland. We have all come to be of that opinion; but the quotation related to a state of things which happily has long ceased to exist, and has no bearing on the Motion before the House. I trust that the House will not believe that in declining to accept the Amendment we are expressing any doubt of the loyalty of the Irish nation. On the contrary, we feel that loyalty as strongly as the hon. Member can do. But we think that there are peculiar social conditions in that country which would make it unwise to place arms in the hands of those who, having opposite and conflicting opinions, might be led to use those arms in a manner for which they are not intended. If the hon. Gentleman would only carry back his recollection a couple of years, he would be aware of a case in which, arms having been obtained, were used very destructively by two bodies of men, one against the other. We wish for peace in Ireland, internally as well as externally, and therefore we are not inclined to adopt a measure the tendency of which would be, I am afraid, to disturb the peace.
MR. MAGUIRE: Sir, before referring to the speech of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, I would say a word in defence of the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell). I do not believe he was actuated by so unworthy a motive as that attributed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon (Major Knox), who accused him of having brought this Motion forward as a kind of claptrap for electioneering purposes. Had he done so, he would, in my mind, have been guilty of an unworthy and dishonourable act; for to bring forward a grave and serious subject with such a motive and for such an object, would, according to my notion of public duty, be an act of that character. But I am certain that the hon. and gallant Member did not desire to convey the charge which his taunt no doubt implied. Sir, when the noble Lord asserted that the Irish were a loyal people, there was a laugh of derision from certain quarters. ["No, no!"] There certainly was from some hon. Gentlemen—not from those who now cry "No, no!" But let me assume, merely for the sake of argument, that disaffection does exist in Ireland—I ask, is not the policy adopted by the Government the very policy most calculated to

341
foster and promote it? That policy is calculated to create, in the mind of a susceptible people, the belief that England regards them with jealousy and distrust, and does not wish to allow them the same rights and privileges which she enjoys herself. I am as anxious as any man in England can be to witness a good feeling existing between the two countries; but I solemnly believe that the policy systematically adopted towards Ireland, of treating her differently from England, does prevent the growth of that feeling of amity which I would desire to see existing, and not only induces discontent, but affords an excuse for disaffection. The noble Lord declares he has confidence in the loyalty of the Irish people, and therefore he will not arm them. The noble Lord is quite ready to accept their services when there is danger, but he will not allow them the means of preparing to meet it. When the enemy are at the gates, or when some hostile ship is in the waters of an Irish harbour, then the noble Lord will rely on the pa triotism of the people of Ireland, although he had distrusted them up to that very moment. But how can a people be ready to repel invasion, unless they have previously acquired some military experience, and have learned the use of arms? If they were armed, as the people of this country are armed, then indeed they would be able to defend the honour of their country; but while England is pre pared, through her Volunteer organization, to repel any attack from a foreign foe, Ireland must rely for her defence upon the police of that country, and, comparatively speaking, a handful of soldiers. This surely is not the state of things which ought to exist in the different portions of the same Empire. But the noble Lord states that Ireland is excluded from the operation of the Volunteer system—in fact, from the right of carrying arms—not because the people are disloyal, but because there exists in Ireland strong feelings arising from religious differences. If that be the case, then there must be something wrong at bottom; and it is the bounden duty of Government to search into the cause of those religious differences, to do away with the evil, and free Ireland from its baneful effects. Is the Established Church this cause of difference?—is it the ulcer which eats into the heart of the country? If so—and I do not now attempt to enter
342
into the question as to whether it is or it is not—I say the Government ought to deal boldly and fearlessly with what, on the showing of the noble Lord, is the cause of a state of things which justifies Her Majesty's Government in dealing differently with Ireland from what they do with England. I, however, do not believe that there exists such a feeling of animosity between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland as would lead them to assail and massacre each other, if they had arms in their hands. In three of the provinces of Ireland no such feeling prevails, though in Belfast and two or three of the counties of Ulster some such feeling, excited by foolish persons, may be found. For my own city, and for the south of Ireland generally, I can answer that the feeling of animosity which is alleged as a reason why the Irish people should not enjoy the right of freemen, has no existence. I believe, on the contrary, that if the Volunteer system were extended to Ireland, Catholics and Protestants would be found to act together harmoniously under the same flag. With respect to loyalty, I conceive that the best way to make men loyal is, first of all, to govern them wisely and well. Now, everybody knows that there is great misery and distress in Ireland—that her people are suffering from a series of calamities; and I have no hesitation in saying that a good deal of ill-feeling has been created in that country by the persistent denial of its terrible extent. Every sympathy has been expressed for the distress of Lancashire; and I myself joined in the expression of that sympathy; there have been enquiries into distress in Lancashire, and this very evening the President of the Poor Law Board has given notice of a proposal for public works in Lancashire. Now, deeper and more terrible distress has existed in Ireland for the last two or three years; but has there been sympathy expressed or it, or inquiry made into it, or has there been any attempt to apply the same means of relief as have been given, or as are offered, to Lancashire? If there be discontent in Ireland, it is not difficult to trace its causes. There is one way, and a sure way, by which you can promote good feeing and banish discontent, and that is, by governing the people of both countries in the same spirit, and by giving them the advantage of the same laws. Another way to make men loyal is to trust them with arms. I do not believe, from what I know of my countrymen, that any man who took

343
the oath of allegiance as a Volunteer would violate that oath; for, besides the religious obligation which an oath imposes, there is that feeling of pride and manliness and chivalry in the Irishman which would prevent him from turning traitor to the flag which he had sworn to defend. If, however, the Government will not intrust arms to the people of Ireland, and thus prepare them to repel invasion, should it ever menace their shores, at least let him, in the name of Heaven, afford them the means, by employment and by wise and; generous legislation, of protecting themselves from what is far worse than the foreign invasion—the wolf of hunger that prowls round the door of every peasant's house in that land.
MAJOR KNOXwished to explain, that in what he had said he did not intend to impute dishonourable motives to the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell).
SIR GEORGE BOWYERobserved, that at the present moment there was in London a distinguished Volunteer Regiment, composed of Irishmen both Protestants and Catholics, and in discipline and in efficiency that regiment was equal to any other regiment of Volunteers. He Was not aware of any very general or urgent desire on the part of the people in Ireland to become Volunteers; but if Ireland wished to have the Volunteer system, it ought to be extended to that country, because the law should be the same for Ireland as for England.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 45: Majority, 111.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7, (Power for Volunteer to quit Corps).
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, that this clause was objected to by many Volunteers as cumbrous and unworkable. In the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury, he moved an Amendment to the effect, that instead of an appeal to two deputy lieutenants or one deputy lieutenant and one justice of the peace, in the event of a commanding officer refusing to strike the name of any one off the muster roll, there should be a court of inquiry.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he saw no difficulty in the practical working of the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not see the force of the objection to the clause. It was not intended to place any obstruction in the way of a Volunteer quitting the force if he gave proper notice and fulfilled the prescribed conditions. A commanding officer had no right to retain on the roll a Volunteer who complied with those requirements; and if there was any dispute on that point it, was to be decided by an appeal to the officials mentioned.
MR. HARVEY LEWISthought the clause permitted the commanding officer to withhold a discharge.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the clause expressly provided that the name of any Volunteer, on his complying with; specified conditions, should be struck out of the muster roll of the corps by the commanding officer.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he had never heard any Volunteer object to the clause. He thought, however, that it was a serious objection to the court of appeal constituted by the clause that it had not the power of enforcing the attendance of witnesses. At present Volunteers were free, from control except on parade, and could not be compelled to attend before a court of inquiry.
MAJOR KNOXsaid, that if the last paragraph of the clause were omitted, that would render the matter of retirement perfectly clear.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, the clause stated the circumstances under, which Volunteers were entitled to be discharged, and was drawn solely and entirely for their benefit.
MR. HENLEY: There was some doubt as to the meaning of the words, paying all money due by him "for any subscription or fine, or on any other account." If an appeal was given in any matter of dispute between a Volunteer and the commanding officer, the meaning of the words "or on any other account" should be rendered more clear, and he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the matter.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that he would give his attention to the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 (Discharge of Volunteer taking service in Militia or Army) agreed to.
Clause 9 (Power for Crown to put Volunteers under command of General or Field Officers).
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that by this clause Her Majesty was empowered to put Volunteers under the command of any General or Field Officers of the Army, when on actual military service, or when voluntarily doing any military duty—including, he supposed, public ceremonies and reviews, He hoped that the Militia would always cordially co-operate with the Volunteers on all occasions, without any jealous feeling; but it would follow from this clause, supposing Volunteer and Militia officers were out together, that the senior Volunteer officer would supersede the senior Militia officer. He thought that on all these occasions the senior officer ought to take precedence. In order to secure this, he would propose the insertion of the words "or Militia" towards the end of the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the clause made no alteration in the existing law. The clause was simply to enable Her Majesty to appoint an officer of the army to command the Volunteers in actual or voluntary service. In the event of the Militia and Volunteers being associated, and there being no commander specially appointed by Her Majesty, the senior officer would take the command.
MAJOR KNOXwished to know, whether the clause meant that no Volunteer officer, however efficient he might be, should be appointed to command? Many Volunteer officers had served in the army, and he thought the Secretary of State should be empowered to put them in command, if necessary.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire would give Militia officers precedence over Volunteers.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that was not his intention; but according to the clause as it stood no Militia officer, whatever his rank, could command a Volunteer regiment.
MR. HEADLAMthought the clause had been misunderstood. It simply gave power to Her Majesty to select a particular individual to command on particular occasions, who should be a general or a field officer in the army. There was no intention to interfere with the status of Militia or Volunteer officers among themselves.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENwas satisfied with the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsuggested the insertion after "field officers" of the words "being of superior standing in rank," in order to prevent a major being put in command over a lieutenant colonel.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the intention of the clause was to give Her Majesty power to appoint a colonel or a lieutenant colonel, and he had no objection to put in words to that effect.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENremarked that in the Militia there was no jealousy of being inspected by an inferior officer.
MAJOR KNOXobserved, that under certain circumstances it might be necessary to put a major in command, with the nominal rank of brigadier.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought, that on the whole, the question should be reserved for consideration on the Report.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 (Annual Inspection).
COLONEL BATHURST, in reference to this and the following clause, pointed out that the out-lying country corps would be placed at a great disadvantage in consequence of their not being able to attend so many battalion drills as corps in towns. He thought some provision of efficiency should be made in their case.
MR. W. E. FORSTERunderstood that each corps would be considered a battalion for the purposes of this Bill.
MR. HUMBERSTONwished the noble Lord to consider the propriety of substituting, in the Older in Council, at all events in the case of the rank and file, additional drill for battalion drill, and instead of requiring them to attend three battalion parades, to allow them to attend twelve drills, one of which should be a battalion drill, in order to make them effective.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he saw no reason for altering the clause. It ought to be left to the discretion of the inspecting officer of the district whether he would inspect the corps separately or in administrative battalions.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was undoubtedly intended most fully to preserve the independence of all the Volunteer corps. No doubt there would be some difficulty in country corps attending in full strength at the inspections. It was very desirable to make the inspection as convenient as possible to every corps; but, as the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel

347
North) observed, it must rest with the inspecting officer to say whether he would inspect the corps separately or in administrative battalions.
MR. W. E. FORSTERunderstood, that there would be nothing in the Bill, or in the regulations intended to be issued, which Would prevent the corps being inspected separately if that were found expedient.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11 (Requisites of Efficiency under Orders in Council).
On Proviso, That any Order in Council under this section shall not take effect until after the expiration of one month after it has been laid before both Houses of Parliament,
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONproposed, that the latter part of the clause should be omitted, with the view of substituting for it the following words—
"The draught of any scheme to be from time to time submitted to Her Majesty in Council for approval under the present section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament one month at least before such scheme receives the approval of Her Majesty in Council."
It would be an irregular proceeding for the House of Commons to have the power of altering an Order in Council which had been approved by Her Majesty. The usual practice was to lay a draught form before the House, in order that after the House had approved it, it should then receive the sanction of Her Majesty. The noble Marquis then explained the attendance at drill and other qualifications which it was proposed to prescribe for the artillery, rifle, and other Volunteer corps, as the standard of efficiency.
MR. W. E. FORSTERadmitted, that the Government had been liberal both with regard to pecuniary payment and the conditions that were to be attained; but with regard to battalion drill for administrative battalions, he thought the noble Lord could scarcely be aware of the condition of many country battalions. If the proposed conditions were strictly enforced, many of them would be broken up. It would be almost impossible for the men to attend three battalion drills, as each attendance would imply holiday for the day, and that they could not afford.
LORD ELCHOsaid, the object of the Royal Commission was to make the drill as light as possible to the Volunteer, consistent with efficiency. The ordinary company drill was the basis of all efficiency,
348
and it was thought, that if the companies were brought together three times a year for battalion drill, that would be sufficient. He believed it was the intention of the Government to act in the main upon the suggestions of the Royal Commission, and to give the 4s. a head for that purpose. But it was stated that there were cases where it would be perfectly impossible to bring the companies together for battalion drill, and it would be very hard that they should lose the grant. Colonel M'Murdo had just put in his hand a draft Order in Council, which provided that in the case of corps so circumstanced the Secretary of State might advise the remission of the number of attendances at battalion drill, on condition that there should be a proportionate increase of company drill, so as to entitle the corps to the grant. It would be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to exercise his judgment according to the case made out by the applicants.
MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, that wherever the companies met, there would be a certain number of individuals who could not be present at the drills.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Order in Council met the objections which he had felt. If the Government chose to exact a larger number of company drills, the Volunteers would be prepared to undergo them.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that there could be no efficiency in a regiment unless the companies were occasionally brought together for movements in the field.
MR. BUXTONasked, at what period the Volunteer year was to commence for drill and financial purposes.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the certificate of efficiency would state that the person had attended drill during the twelve months last preceding the 30th November. He hoped to lay the draft Orders in Council upon the table as soon as this Bill should become law. It was certainly the intention of the War Office, in all ordinary cases, to insist on three battalion drills.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that the commanding officer could give leave of absence where a party could not attend drill.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsuggested that the words "during the Session of Parliament," should be introduced after the words in the Amendment requiring the draught scheme to be laid before Parliament one month before receiving the Queen's approval.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid he would agree to the alteration.
The Amendment was altered accordingly and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 18 were agreed to.
Clause 19 (Application of Provisions as to actual Military Service to Volunteers acting in Suppression of Riots or Tumults).
MR. HIBBERTexpressed his regret that the Government proposed to continue the provision in the 44 Geo. III., c. 54, giving power to the Lord Lieutenant of counties to call upon the Volunteers to aid in the suppression of riots. At present, happily, the Volunteers were highly popular; but nothing could be more calculated to impair that popularity than calling upon them to interfere in disturbances, which might possibly arise from disputes as to wages between workmen and their employers. They should remember the ill-blood that had been occasioned by the employment of the Yeomanry in Lancashire in the early part of the century. It was true the power existed in the old Act, but he did not see why bad precedent should be followed and perpetuated. Cases might arise in which only a portion of a corps might obey the summons of the commanding officer to assemble; and the consequence would be that those who abstained from assembling would be regarded with suspicion as sympathizing with rioters and disloyal. He moved that the clause be omitted.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, it might possibly happen that one part of a corps would take one side and another part the other.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the effect of the clause was in fact restrictive of the present power. It was not an exact copy of the clause in the old Act, but it required that the sanction of the Secretary of State should be given to the calling-out of the Volunteers by the Lord Lieutenant. He quite agreed that it was inexpedient that Volunteer corps should be used to suppress riots generally; but, at the same time, it was not impossible that under some circumstances their assistance would be most valuable. The clause put a double check upon the employment of Volunteers on civil occasions, inasmuch as when the Lord Lieutenant had called upon them to assemble for the suppression of riots or tumults, the approval of the Secretary of State was required.
MR. BUXTONthought that nevertheless the clause ought to be struck out. The fact that there was such a clause would naturally lead Lords Lieutenant of counties to think that they could call out Volunteer corps, and it might he productive of serious evils. Some corps were composed of working men, and in some cases they might he disposed to use their rifles rather against those who led them. ["Oh!"] At least there might be occasions when they might be very indisposed to act against the rioters whom they were required to put down.
LOUD ELCHOsaid, he should be sorry if anything should occur to make the Volunteer force less popular than it was at present, but he would remind the Committee that its present popularity had grown up under a power similar to that conveyed in the clauses under discussion. The only difference was that that power was now limited and could only be exercised in very extreme cases, and then only with the express sanction of the Secretary of State. He could not anticipate any such occurrences as those suggested by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton). The discipline of the Volunteer Corps forbade such a suspicion, and no corps were more highly disciplined than those corps which were mainly or entirely composed of artisans. He might observe that the evidence before the Commission showed that that discipline had had a most beneficial effect upon the habits of the men, who were remarkable for sobriety, and as well disposed as any body of men; the effect of the movement having been, to quote the words of one witness, to convert Chartists into loyal men. The Bill having been drawn up on the principle of Quieta non movere, he did not think it would be advisable to extinguish a power that could only be exercised in extreme cases, and under the special authority of the Secretary of State.
MR. AYRTONhoped the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) would persist in his opposition to the clause. They were called upon to pass a new law, and therefore were justified in considering the whole question. It was not correct to say that the cheek of requiring the sanction of the Secretary of State to the use of the Volunteers was a new one, because under the Act of George III. the sanction of Her Majesty was required. The objectionable feature of the clause was, that when Volunteers were called out, they were to be deemed in actual military service, and would receive

351
pay and be subject to martial law. That arrangement would tend to alter the character of the Volunteer force in time of peace, and would place them in an unfortunate position towards their fellow subjects, By the law of the land, in case of riot the sheriff could call upon the community to aid him; and if the aid of the Volunteers was needed, they should be sworn in as constables in their character of civilians.
MR. A.F.EGERTONventured to differ from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) when he said the Volunteers should be employed, as constables. He had a strong opinion that the Volunteer force would never—it was true occasions might arise, but they were so few that he might use the term never—be Called out to assist the civil power; but still he thought the authority to use them ought to be left with the Lord Lieutenant of the county, under the sanction of the Secretary of State.
MR. POTTERsaid, he was old enough to remember the disastrous affair at Peterloo, and he knew well that some of the Yeomanry officers engaged in it—most excellent and amiable men—had scarcely ever got over the odium of it. If regular troops only had been employed, there would never have been such a melancholy loss of life; and looking back to the affair, he should strongly deprecate bringing Volunteers in contact with the people.
MR. ROGERShoped that the Volunteers never would be called out to aid the civil power, but he looked upon them as an assurance of peace, not only abroad, but at home; and the knowledge that the power of calling in the assistance of the Volunteers existed would always be a security against riot.
MR. EVANSsaid, it was perfectly true that in the existing Act a somewhat more stringent clause existed; but of the Volunteers he had spoken to on the subject very few were aware of this clause, or knew they were liable to be called out in that way. It was a duty from which he was sure they would be inclined to shrink. He hoped the clause would be struck out.
MR. SELWYNdesired to point out that the clause applied only to Volunteers who should voluntarily assemble, with the approval of the Secretary of State, on being called upon by the Lord Lieutenant. The cases in which the services of the Volunteers would be thus required would be very rare—he hoped that one might never occur; but it must be borne in mind that the au-
352
thorities of the counties had constitutionally the power of calling out the posse comitatûs, and might therefore call upon the Volunteers. Surely it would be the height of absurdity to call out a body of drilled men, and send them out as a body of special constables with sticks in their hands. He supported this clause in the interests of peace. In many parts of the kingdom the force of regular troops was exceedingly small, and nothing would be more likely to check a riot in its outset than the knowledge that the authorities had the power of calling to their aid a large force of Volunteers.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYthought that in the cause of peace and humanity the clause ought to be omitted. If there was a riot, a small number of regular soldiers would have a greater effect upon the mob than a large number of Volunteers. As regarded its being a voluntary assembling, that was a reason why he objected to it; because if it was necessary to call them out at all, the service ought to be compulsory. He believed this clause would be distasteful to, and have a bad effect upon the Volunteers themselves, and therefore he should Vote against it.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the discussion had changed his views, and he was inclined to Vote with the Member for Old-ham (Mr. Hibbert) very much on the grounds stated by the hon. Member for Westminster. The voluntary part of the clause was the very part that made it objectionable, for it would place the matter somewhat in the nature of a partisan warfare; for some Volunteers would come, and some would stop away. If the force was to be used at all, the employment should be compulsory, and not left to the option of the men. Nothing would be so fatal to the Volunteer movement as to generate the suspicion that the force was a power behind a class for any purpose whatever. The emergencies in which the necessity of the services of the Volunteers would be required would be very few; and when they arose, Parliament would readily make the necessary provisions.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he quite concurred with those who maintained that it was, as a general rule, inexpedient that Volunteers should be employed against a mob; but he, at the same time, thought that when they could be called out for that purpose only by the Lord Lieutenant under the sanction of the Secretary of State, no danger need be apprehended

353
from placing in his hands the power which the clause proposed to give. He could conceive circumstances in which it might be exceedingly desirable to exercise such a power. There were, in the north of England especially, many artillery Volunteer corps, and they might, on an emergency, do considerable service, if posted in strong places, not with the view of using them against the mob, but of holding them while the regular troops and the police were engaged in quelling a disturbance.
EARL GROSVENORsaid, the responsibility of taking the command of a body of Volunteers with rifles in their hands against a mob was one which many commanding officers would not like to assume.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARfeared, that if the clause were passed, the Volunteer force would be likely to lose much of the popularity which it now so largely enjoyed.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTÌNGTONsaid, that as it was apparently the general wish of the Committee that the clause should not be persevered with, he should not press it to a division.
Clause struck out.
Clause 20 (Provision for Officers and Men disabled, and for Widows of Officers killed) agreed to.
Clause 21 (Discipline of Volunteers while not on actual Military Service).
SIR ROBERT CLIFTONmoved an Amendment in the section of the clause which authorizes a commanding officer to strike off the muster-roll any Volunteer for certain specified causes, and for other sufficient cause—"the existence and sufficiency of such causes respectively to be judged of by the commanding officer." The object of the Amendment being to give the inculpated officer the right of trial by a court of inquiry. The clause had been made much more objectionable than it was in the old Act, for now the colonel could dismiss any officer of a corps, as well as any private, without trial, and after the dismissal he had not the power of entering any other Volunteer corps. It seemed to him that they should allow a member of a Volunteer company who had come patriotically forward, sacrificing time and money, at least the privileges of a common soldier. The soldier could call for a court martial, and had the power of appeal; whereas the Volunteer had not the slightest tribunal, and might be at any moment dismissed, he would not say through
354
the whim of, but disagreement with his commanding officer. The hon. Member having referred to the Report and Evidence of the Royal Commission in support of his views, said, he trusted the House would show their sense of gratitude to the gentlemen who came forward most patriotically when the noble Lord at the head of the Government cried "Wolf!" and not deny them privileges possessed by the common soldier.
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 17, to leave out from the word "cause" to the word "Officer" inclusive, in line 19, in order to insert the words "such causes respectively to be committed to writing, and communicated to the accused by the Adjutant of such corps, and the existence and sufficiency of such causes respectively to be judged of by a court to be summoned by the Commanding Officer, and to consist of one Captain, two Subaltern Officers, and two Non-Commissioned Officers or Privates of the same corps."
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he had spoken to many Volunteers, officers, and privates, and they one and all condemned this clause. Suggestions had been thrown out that it did not apply to officers. He apprehended it might be strained to apply to them; but supposing it could not, why should a private, who was often in as good a position as an officer, have his prospects in life blasted without trial? It was a dangerous power to intrust to any commanding officer, and would only lead to ill-feeling in the Volunteer force, which had hitherto been in a state of harmony.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONloped the Committee would assent to the clause in its present shape. It was, he might add, never intended that it should apply to officers. With reference to the power which it gave over the private, it night be sufficient to say that such a power existed under the old Act. There seemed to be some confusion in the mind of the hon. Baronet between the witnesses and the Commissioners. The hon. Baronet quoted in his favour the opinions of two officers who were examined; but as the Commissioners knew perfectly well that the powers given by the Bill to commanding officers of Volunteer regiments already existed, and as they did not deem it necessary to notice the opinions of those two officers, it might be fairly assumed that the Commissioners did not agree with them. It had been urged that dismissal was a power not given to officers commanding regiments of the Line. This was quite true, but it was not possible to institute

355
any comparison between Volunteers and the Line. It was true a commanding officer in the Line could not dismiss a private; but a private in a Line regiment could not dismiss himself in fourteen days. A Volunteer private could give notice and withdraw in fourteen days; a regular soldier could not quit the army until after a service of many years. The Volunteer was not subject to a variety of punishments which could be inflicted on a private in a Line regiment by order of the commanding officer. This power of dismissal was, in fact, the only power which the commanding officer of Volunteers possessed for the punishment of an unruly or refractory member of his corps; and when they were voting money for the support of the Volunteers, they ought not to diminish the means of keeping up discipline. As to the court of inquiry, it must either be made compulsory on the commanding officer to abide by its decision, or he must be allowed to disregard it. If the commanding officer were allowed to disregard the decision of the court of inquiry, it seemed entirely nugatory; and if it were made imperative on him to abide by the decision of the court of inquiry, it would be investing the court of inquiry with powers which it had never possessed, and which had always been possessed by the commanding officer. The functions of a court of inquiry were clearly laid down in the regulations. It was not a judicial body. It had no power to administer an oath or to compel the attendance of witnesses. It was proposed by this Amendment to make it a judicial body in a very inconvenient form, to invest it with powers of deciding without any security that it would arrive at proper conclusions, and to place the discipline of the force in the care of a committee, instead of in that of the commanding officers with guarantees sufficiently broad to prevent abuse. He was quite aware that there were many commanding officers of Volunteers who were not unwilling to get rid of the responsibility which fell upon them; but the Government was not willing that, while accepting the honour they should evade the duty which attached to it; and he believed that if an officer was not fit to exercise the only power which was placed in his hands, he was not fit to be a commanding officer at all. It seemed to him that a severe blow would be inflicted upon the discipline of Volunteer regiments if the Amendment were adopted; and he would remind those who were inclined to favour it,
356
that if the power of dismissal were misused or abused, the decision of the commanding officer would not be final—although he by no means wished it to be understood that the War Office would intermeddle in an unnecessary and vexatious manner with the decisions of commanding officers.
LORD ELCHOhoped the Committee would reject the Amendment, for the reasons which the noble Lord had very clearly stated, and retain a clause which was essential to the discipline of the Volunteers. It was only under this clause that commanding officers could exercise proper control over the members of their corps; and even supposing they exercised the power given to them too rigidly, there was an appeal to the Secretary of State, who might refuse to confirm what the commanding officer had done. He thought, therefore, there was no danger of the power being abused. He did not believe that they would have had the question brought forward unless there had been some special reasons for it. In the course of the winter a printed paper was sent to every commanding officer of Volunteers, which contained extracts from a speech just delivered at a meeting in a certain borough, and a portion of the extracts was in these terms—
"He regretted to hear that dissensions existed in two metropolitan corps, between the colonels and the men. Those corps were the South Middlesex and the Westminster, and the dissensions arose from the colonels having arbitrarily dismissed men under the Act of George IV., from which decisions there was no appeal."
That was a mistake, as there was an appeal. The same gentleman went on to say—
"The brave, honourable, and patriotic men who compose the Volunteer corps are thus treated differently from soldiers in the standing army, and even worse than criminals, at the will, perhaps, of an incompetent officer, whose only idea is to maintain strict discipline."
That was the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham, and he did not know whether it was circulated by himself.
SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, the printed matter referred to had been cut from the columns of The Morniny Post.
LORD ELCHO: He would venture to say that reprinting such a speech, and circulating it in the manner he had noticed, was not a step calculated to promote discipline, but rather to cause dissensions between commanding officers and their regiments. If the hon. Baronet could point to only two cases among 150,000 enrolled

357
Volunteers, the force having existed since 1859, it was sufficient to prove that the existing law worked well. However, this was the speech, and here was the Amendment. Although an association had been formed called "The Volunteer Defence Association," of which he believed the hon. Member for Finsbury was the head—
MR. COXsaid, that although a Volunteer, he had nothing on earth to do with any such Association.
LORD ELCHObegged to apologize to the hon. Gentleman, and to express his regret that he had connected his name with this association. In consequence of the speech of the hon. Baronet, Petitions, which received but few signatures, had been got up against this Bill, and Volunteers had gone to the parades of other corps to excite hostility to it. He was told that Borne who went to a parade of the "Devil's Own" were informed by the officer in command of one of the companies that he was so far from agreeing with them that he thought that a Volunteer who disobeyed his commanding officer ought to be shot to death by musketry. The two cases to which the hon. Baronet had referred in his speech occurred, one in the corps of Lord Ranelagh, who brought against the parties an action for libel, and compelled them to sign a paper apologizing in the humblest manner, and the other in that of his noble Friend the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor), whom no one would suspect of abusing his powers, and who was as much beloved by his men as was any officer who commanded any regiment of Volunteers. The noble Lord the Under Secretary had rested the defence of this clause upon the true grounds that it was one seldom exercised and never abused; and he trusted the House would reject the Amendment.
SIR DE LACY EVANSagreed with the noble Lord that great difficulties were imposed upon officers commanding Volunteer corps, and that their power was materially controlled by the Secretary of State for War. He was not prepared to say, that because this clause existed in the old Act, it ought to be retained in this one; but he thought that the continued success of the Volunteer movement was evidence that the commanding officers did, to a great extent, perform their duties to the satisfaction of of the public. It would not become him, as an old military man, to interfere with the discipline of these corps, more especially as those who were dissatisfied might appeal to the Secretary of State. It was
358
easy to maintain discipline while Volunteer corps were fêted and applauded on every hand; but this could not continue for ever; and if the organization was to be made permanent, some such authority as the clause provided must be given to commanding officers.
MR. BUXTONhoped that individual cases would be kept out of this discussion, because in this matter no court of appeal could be more unsatisfactory than the House of Commons. He had intended to support the Amendment of the hon Baronet, because he thought that the clause conferred a most arbitrary power, which might be exercised in temperately and unjustly; but he saw no way of getting over the objection that the court of inquiry would be inadequate to the discharge of the duty sought to be imposed upon it. In this dilemma the only alternative was to leave the power in the hands of the commanding officer, who would probably generally find it prudent to accept the assistance of a committee of inquiry.
MR. COXwas anxious that the Committee should agree to this Amendment, because, if they did not, he expected that he should for the observations which he was about to make receive his dismissal from the corps in which he was a full private. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had not stated from whom he obtained his information respecting the Volunteer Defence Association. He (Mr. Cox) had no sympathy with noble Lords who upon hearsay evidence charged other Members of that House with belonging to associations intending to excite ill-feeling between Volunteers and their commanding officer. The noble Lord would have done well before charging him with such a connection to have made some communication to him on the subject. He spoke in the name of hundreds of Volunteers when he said that a severe blow would be struck at the force if this power were retained. Not one man in a hundred, when he joined the Volunteers, knew the existence of the arbitrary power to which he was subjecting himself. The Under-Secretary turned to "the red-book"; but very few had got that "red-book," fewer still had read it, and hardly any of those who read it would be able to understand it. The Petitions against this power, to which reference had been made, were being numerously signed in various parts of the country, and would be presented to the House in a few days. The noble Lord (The Marquess of Hartington)

359
said, if a Volunteer disapproved the system as now existing, he could dismiss himself; but even that satisfaction was sometimes denied. He was acquainted with a Volunteer, who, being unable to concur in the arbitrary proceedings carried on in the regiment of which he was a member, and not wishing to create an unpleasant feeling between officers and men, determined to send in his resignation. He paid every demand that could be made upon him; he complied in every respect with the Act of Parliament; in the presence of witnesses he handed over his rifle and accoutrements in proper order; and having done this, he wrote a very proper and polite letter to his commanding officer, resigning his position in the Volunteer force, and giving his reasons for doing so. According to the rules, as stated by the noble Lord, at the end of fourteen days he would have ceased to be a Volunteer of the particular corps, and might have joined any other of the administration of which he more highly approved. But the commanding officer before the fourteen days expired dismissed him from the service, placarded and advertised him in the shop windows of the neighbourhood and in the newspapers, and this prevented him from joining any other corps. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON inquired the name of this Volunteer.] He had no objection to state, for the information of the noble Lord, that the Volunteer's name was Mr. Hutchins. Having appealed to the War Office, he was referred to the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, and afterwards back again to the War Office, which authority confirmed the sentence of the commanding officer. If the House desired to put an end to the Volunteer force, they would adopt the clause as it stood, which left it optional with a commander to dismiss one of his men for not touching his cap properly. He undertook to say that before the 25th December, if the clause passed, the force would be diminished by fully seven-eighths.
LORD ELCHOsaid, it was quite true that Mr. Hutchins had given up his rifle and accoutrements in proper order, and had likewise satisfied all pecuniary claims; but he was informed that the letter was couched in such improper terms that the authorities at the War Office on reading it over desired the commanding officer to dismiss Mr. Hutchins, and not to allow him to resign.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the question involved in this clause was really
360
whether the discipline of Volunteer corps should be maintained. Commanding officers ought to make up their minds to the bitters as well as the sweets of their position; and if they felt it to be clearly their duty to dismiss a member, they ought to take that step, regardless of the clamour which might he excited.
MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to give his reasons for voting against the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham. The House should consider the position in which the Volunteer commanding officer was placed. If they refused him the power which was now asked, they must relieve him of his responsibility, and give him a court martial. Let them remember that Volunteers, however peaceable, were still men with arms in their hands, and that the commanding officer would be placed in a great difficulty if he could not get rid of a black sheep without appealing to a Committee. It was evident, therefore, that either this power must be given or else the court martial. [Mr. Cox: Hear hear!] The hon. Member for Finsbury said "Hear, hear!" but he could tell him that the institution of Volunteer courts martial would be the most unpopular step that could be taken. Let it be remembered that pending the proceedings the Volunteer must be placed under arrest. He believed that the feeling to which the hon. Member for Finsbury had alluded was very much exaggerated, and he could certainly say for the Yorkshire corps that they had no wish to be governed by a committee instead of their commanding officer. Neither did he think that the power given by the clause was likely to be arbitrarily used, as commanding officers knew very well that such conduct would very soon diminish their corps. Besides, in case of any abuse of the power there were two remedies—one an appeal to the War Office, and another a charge laid before the Lord Lieutenant. He could only speak as a captain of Volunteers, but he knew the feeling of the county from which he came, and he believed that the Volunteers there were fully prepared to submit to whatever might be necessary for the maintenance of discipline.
EARL GROSVENORsaid, that he had been attacked in a portion of the public press on account of some acts done by him in his capacity of commanding officer. He was quite willing to go into the case on which the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Clifton) had proposed to attack

361
him; but he doubted whether the Committee would be inclined to listen to it. ["No!"] He would prefer to give up his position as commanding officer rather than consent to have his power taken away It should be remembered that the commanding officer had the power of dismissal under the old Act; and the best guarantee a corps had that the commanding officer would use his power discreetly was, that if he did otherwise, he would be very likely to lose a large number of his men. Although the Act had been in operation three years, he was not aware of any instance in which the power had been intemperately exercised.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsupported the clause in the Bill. As an old officer, he knew the necessity of establishing the means of preserving discipline among a large body of men. It was to be remembered that privates and officers of the Volunteer force could relieve themselves from service in fourteen days, whether the commanding officer wished them or did not wish them to do so. The commanding officer ought to have some power as a counterpoise, and under these circumstances he did not see how the House could refuse the very limited power asked for in this Bill. He thought it would not he judicious to enter into the discussion of particular cases, but he must express his opinion that the noble Lord who had last addressed the Committee had managed his battalions very judiciously.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, it had been urged that an appeal was given to the War Office in the case of the exercise of any arbitrary power on the part of a commanding officer; but he thought the War Office had quite enough to do at present without additional responsibility being thrown upon it. Some independent court of appeal ought to be provided for the Volunteer force.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, it was not surprising that the Volunteers of the country should be jealous of arbitrary power confided to commanding officers, more especially when they saw that, in dealing with questions in dispute between commanding officers and the privates, the Horse Guards always supported the former against their subordinates. An instance of this had recently come before the public in the case of an officer commanding a regiment in India.
COLONEL BARTTELOTrose to order. The case of the colonel in India had no-
362
thing to do with the Question before the House.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, the Horse Guards admitted that the colonel to whom be referred had not shown a capacity for commanding a regiment, but they sent him back to make a further trial of his incapacity. He doubted whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham would meet the case of the Volunteers in a satisfactory manner; but some measure should be devised for checking the irresponsible authority of colonels.
COLONEL BARTTELOThoped the noble Lord would not withdraw the clause, because if he did, the discipline of the Volunteers would be at an end. The country granted a large sum of money for the maintenance of the force, and had a right to expect that it would be maintained in an efficient state of discipline. If, however, they took away from the responsible commanding officers the small amount of power they now possessed, they would tend materially to damage the value of the force. Only three instances had been cited of a commanding officer having dealt hastily or rashly with those under his command, and these had all occurred in London. He believed, that if the Committee left this power in the hands of the commanding officers, they would never have cause to regret it.
MR. EVANSsaid, that in the corps to which he, as a private, had the honour to belong, not the slightest difficulty or inconvenience had arisen; and he had not heard a single instance in the other corps in the same county in which the conduct of a commanding officer in dismissing a man had been objected to. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would not withdraw the clause.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that he had enlisted as a full private when there were only some 500 Volunteers, and when there came to be 150,000 he thought he might retire from the service. The sting of the clause was that the commanding officer was allowed to judge the conduct of a Volunteer, and to pronounce, it might be, sentence of condemnation upon him; and this sentence, they had been told, that the commanding officer thought himself entitled to publish. Now, in this way it seemed possible that what might otherwise he a gross libel would be made, by this clause, a privileged communication. He thought, therefore, that it was necessary

363
either to change the clause, so as to prevent a commanding officer from publishing anything he chose as a privileged communication, or introduce some provision by which the Volunteer might be enabled to bring the matter before a court of justice, or otherwise right himself in the opinion of his friends and of society. In its present form, the proposal of the hon. Member (Sir Robert Clifton) was untechnical and unadvisable; but he hoped that the noble Lord would consider whether the clause could not be modified in the way he had suggested.
MR. DENMANsaid, he had the honour of serving as a private in the corps commanded by the noble Lord the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor), in which the agitation had arisen that had been made so much of. He did not speak without considerable knowledge as to the feelings in that regiment,; and he was sure, that if the regiment were polled, nine-tenths of the men would be in favour of retaining the present power in the hands of the commanding officer. He was glad that the clause providing that Volunteer corps might be called out in case of civil disturbance had been withdrawn, because a Volunteer might well say—" Non hœc in fœdera veni." But, on the other hand, when they entered a regiment, Volunteers knew perfectly well that they would be under the orders of the commanding officer, and that if they misbehaved themselves, they would be liable to dismissal. He had never yet heard any one say that in the instances which were brought forward, and particularly in that which was to be discussed upon the Motion of the hon. Member (Sir Robert Clifton), the commanding officer had not done quite right, and had no other option.
MR. W. WILLIAMSbelieved that this clause would operate most detrimentally to the Volunteer force. Many of these commanding officers were young men, who had obtained their commands owing to their high rank and position, and who ought hardly to be intrusted with the arbitrary control which they would possess if the clause were not qualified.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he was glad the clause had been so much discussed, because it had shown a great preponderance of opinion in favour of its retention. Whatever the merits or demerits of the question it was clear that the law, as it now stood, was precisely the same as that which regulated the original Volunteer force, and
364
which still regulated the Yeomanry and existing Volunteers, and he thought it would be wise to let well alone. There had been, hitherto, extraordinary harmony between the officers and men of the Volunteer corps, but the remedy now proposed would inflict great injury on the service. The court of inquiry which the hon. Baronet proposed was objectionable, as the sentence would ultimately depend on the commanding officer, while he would be deprived of all responsibility. If they were to have a tribunal to determine these cases, he knew of no other than a court martial; and the question was, whether they would subject Volunteers to a trial of that description. In a regiment of the Line the commanding officer had ample power to enable him to maintain discipline. If a man were guilty of the slightest impertinence, or of even using a disrespectful word, he could summon him before a court martial; and if he struck an officer, he was liable to be shot. But in a Volunteer regiment no power of that kind existed, and it was impossible the commanding officer could maintain discipline unless he possessed the power given by the clause. That power was infinitely better than anything proposed in its place, while it had been in force many years without doing injury to any one.
SIR ROBERT CLIFTON, in reply, said that it was in consequence of a letter which he had received from the noble Earl, (Earl Grosvenor) that he had not the other night brought on the question to which reference had been made. It would have been his duty to read several letters from the noble Earl; and as he understood the noble Earl was labouring under illness, he thought it would not be courteous to bring on the case in his absence. But, on the part of Mr. Reece, he would even now say that he was ready to refer the matter to a court of inquiry, and to abide by its decision. Mr. Reece had been posted all over Piccadilly as having been dismissed for gross carelessness and negligence, and that to a medical man was nearly as bad as shooting him. He could not help thinking that too much despotic power was now placed in the hands of the Volunteer colonels. He expected that the Volunteer officers in the House would oppose his Motion; but if there had been a few more privates in the House, the result would have been different. Yet, he believed that Volunteer officers who divided against him would find themselves rather less popular

365
with their men than they would otherwise be. ["Oh!"]. He was confirmed in this belief by the number of letters he every day received on this subject.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 21: Majority 87.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 (Power for Corps to make Rules, subject to Approval of Crown).
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, this clause gave the corps power to make rules, subject to the approval of the Crown; but the clause provided that the rules shall not have effect until the commanding officer "thinks fit" to transmit them to the Lord Lieutenant. He moved to leave out the words "thinks fit to," and insert "shall."
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he thought the commanding officer ought to have a veto on the rules.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25 (Vesting of Property of Corps in Commanding Officer ex officio) agreed to.
Clause 26 (Storehouses for Arms).
MR. HUMBERSTONproposed at the end to add—
"It shall also be lawful for justices of the peace, municipal corporations, and trustees or commissioners for public or parochial purposes, out of the public funds at their disposal, to provide and furnish, and pay the rent for, any storehouse for arms, rifle range, drill ground, room, or other building used or required by any Volunteer Corps for storing arms and ammunition, rifle practice, or drill, or towards the construction or establishment of any such: Provided, That any order by justices be made by vote at their general Quarter Sessions, by any municipal corporation at some monthly or quarterly meeting of the Council, and by such trustees or commissioners at some meeting duly convened."
MR. HENLEYobjected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would have the effect of casting additional burden upon the county rates, which was a horse, in his opinion, sufficiently laden already. The case of the militia force was different, inasmuch as it was generally a stationary force, whereas the Volunteer force was scattered all over counties. If the Amendment were agreed to, there might be de-
366
mands for the establishment of fifty little armouries in one large county, involving a very heavy charge upon the county rates.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he did not think that such a provision was at all necessary, and he should recommend the hon. Gentleman not to press it. The fact that the provision was merely of an enabling character would in many cases give rise to discussions on the bench of magistrates, and would probably have the effect of making the Volunteer force unpopular. When the Commission inquired into the proposed grant of £1 per man, it was suggested that a portion of the money granted should be appropriated to rifle ranges required by the force. They should not try to get out of the country more than they felt themselves reasonably entitled to ask for.
SIR JOHN WALSHconcurred in the objections urged against the Amendment, but thought it was worthy of the consideration of the Government whether some charge out of the general taxation of the country might not be made for the proper custody and preservation of the arms of the Volunteers.
MR. H. A. BRUCEbegged to remind the Committee that the militia force was the old constitutional force of the country, which the Crown had power at any time to call out, but the Volunteer force was one over which the Government had no control.
COLONEL SYKESalso objected to the Amendment.
MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, that in deference to what seemed the general opinion of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Motion withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 47 agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
Clause 48 (Interpretation).
On Motion of the Marquess of HARTINGTON, words inserted, "The Term 'Volunteer' means a Non-commissioned Officer or Private belonging to a Volunteer Corps, exclusive of the Permanent Staff thereof."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
New Clause added in Part V., "Acquisition of Land for Ranges," excepting the Isle of Man.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that it was not intended to diminish the allowances of clerks of lieutenancy; but

367
as a misapprehension existed on that subject, it had been deemed advisable to substitute the old schedule in Lord Herbert's Act for the one in the present Bill. On the Report he would bring up the Schedule proposed.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,329, 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 1864, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses, &c. Abroad."
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked when there would be an end to expenditure on account of the Embassy houses at Constantinople and Therapia.
MR. COWPERsaid, that as long as the Ottoman Empire lasted, and as long as we maintained our Embassy there, we must pay for its accommodation.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had great faith in the continuance of the Ottoman Empire, but deemed £3,000 a year an excessive outlay for the annual repairs of the Embassy houses.
MR. COWPERexplained that the ordinary repairs amounted to about £2,000. The rest of the item was for special works.
MR. DODSONsaid, that after having spent some £80,000 in building a palace at Pera, we had had to pay for a number of years past £2,000 annually to keep it from tumbling to pieces; and this year the repairs cost as much as £3,200. It would be much more economical to give the Ambassador an allowance for house accommodation.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, the palace at Constantinople was built contrary to the opinion and wishes of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; while the discomfort experienced in it and the want of consideration which marked all the proceedings connected with it were such as excited the greatest surprise among the European residents. The officer employed in its construction ought to be retained no longer.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was impossible to hire a residence of a suitable
368
character at Constantinople. Every Embassy had a house built for it. The present palace was the third which had been erected for the English Ambassador, the two previous residences having been burnt down. The present palace had been built upon plans approved by Parliament, and he believed it was a very convenient residence; but, of course, it required an annual sum for repairs. In England every gentleman had a certain charge every year, proportioned to the size of his house; and he did not think the sum wanted for the palace at Constantinople was at all beyond what was required.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that what ha objected to was the continual increase in the sum asked for repairs. Then there was another item for a house at Therapia. He could not understand why our Ambassadors at Constantinople should require two residences. No man could live in more than one house. The answer of the Chief Commissioner was rather a bit of sharp practice than an explanation.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that in summer all the Turkish Ministers went to Therapia which was a considerable distance from Pera, and it was necessary that our Ambassador should follow them. Moreover, Pera was so hot in summer that nobody could live in it with any comfort. The house at Therapia was given to our Ambassador by the late Sultan. It was not a large building, but still there was a certain amount of expense connected with it.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the palace in Pera stood on elevated ground, and commanded one of the most beautiful views in the world—on one side the whole of Constantinople and the Sea of Marmora, and on the other the entrance to the Black Sea. It was surrounded by immense grounds, and, on the whole, the house at Therapia was not to be compared with it for a moment.
MR. FERRANDinquired, whether the architect was an Englishman or a Turk; and, if a Turk, whether he was placed under any control, or whether he could run up enormous bills annually, without any person to check any serious amount of expenditure which might arise.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the clerk of the works, resident at Constantinople was an Englishman, and perfectly competent for his position of trust. He was obliged to send home his estimates, and all the expenditure was carefully examined into

369
by the assistant surveyor in the Office of Works. There was, therefore, as complete a control over it as if it took place in London. A great deal of the expense incurred was owing to the dearness of Constantinople, and also to the necessity of sending out some things from England. The palace at Pera, a large building, was the residence, not only of the Ambassador himself, but likewise of many of his Attachés; while the house at Therapia was in a rather dilapitated condition, and required a good deal of repair.
MR. ROGERSasked what was the salary of the clerk of the works?
MR. COWPERsaid it was £400 a year. His duties extended not merely to the building, but to the furniture.
MR. DODSONthought the explanation of the Chief Commissioner disclosed a very unsatisfactory state of things. The clerk of the works might be a very competent man—he was certainly competent to run up enormous charges. It was impossible that the Office of Works in London could judge of the necessity of repairs and the cost of materials at Constantinople. Did the Chief Commisioner mean to say that bricks or stones were sent out from London? As the present charge was £1,200 above that of ordinary years, it would be satisfactory to know whether the palace at Pera had been newly furnished, and, if so, whether the Vote would he less next Session.
MR. COWPERreplied, that next year the Vote would be less by £1,000. The extra charge this year was owing to a new roof and some additional furniture.
SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he could not think it necessary that there should be two palaces, Pera and Therapia were not far apart—not more, if he recollected rightly, than three mile3. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Six.] At all events, they were not very distant from each other by water. If the clerk of the works got £400 a year, he was bound to spend some £2,000 or £3,000 for it, because if he were to lay out only £400, the cry would be raised at once that he got 100 per cent. on his expenditure.
COLONEL SYKESwas persuaded, that if the Chief Commissioner were to dismiss the architect, he would save £2,000 per annum.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that the for the purpose of giving a practical effect to the discussion, he would move that the Vote be reduced by £400 a year, the
370
amount of the salary of the clerk of the works.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if the Motion of the noble Lord were agreed to, our representative at Constantinople must employ a Turkish clerk of the works, who would make us pay twice as much.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not believe that a Turkish clerk of the works would be more expensive than the present clerk. He wanted to know what necessity there was for any clerk of the works at all.
MR. COWPERsaid, the houses and the furniture belonged to the Government. The Ambassador was only a resident. If there was no clerk of the works, the Ambassador must be allowed to exercise his discretion in the expenditure of money for repairs and furniture. It was most desirable that some person should be responsible for not expending more money than was absolutely necessary.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked, whether the Ambassador could not be trusted to spend the money requisite for repairs and furniture. Would any gentleman with a large house keep a clerk of the works at £400 to manage repairs?
MR. FERRANDasked, whether there was a clerk of the works at a salary of £400 attached to all our Embassies? If not, why should there be one at Constantinople? He believed that the grossest jobbery went on in these matters. If the salary were stopped, he was convinced that the saving would not be under £1,000 a year.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman opened up a frightful state of things. Nothing could be more preposterous than the supposition that the Board of Works in London could act as any check upon the expenditure of an official at Constantinople. That Board could know nothing about the prices on the spot, and of course the clerk of the works would run up a Bill.
MR. PEACOCKEinquired, if it was really meant that the clerk of the works at Constantinople reported to the Board of Works in London, and that that was the sole check on the expenditure at Constantinople?
MR. COWPER: Yes. The Board of Works had an assistant surveyor who had been at Constantinople. The Board of Works was not quite so ignorant of Constantinople as hon. Members seemed to imagine—they knew quite sufficient to be

371
able to check any expenditure incurred there. The reason why a salary of £400 was given was because they could not expect an Englishman of any professional position to act as clerk of works at so great a distance for the same money as they could get him to do it in London; and if they did not employ such a man, they must be at the mercy of the local tradesmen, and that, he thought, would prove very bad economy.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERthought the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs ought to resent this aspersion on the Turks. Were the people whom that hon. Gentleman the other day praised as the perfection of everything that was honest and gentlemanlike not to be trusted with the mere repairing and furnishing of the British Embassy house? He called upon the Under Secretary to stand up for his friends the Turks, and to say that they were honest tradesmen.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he should like to know whether the hon. Baronet would turn loose upon his country house the carpenter, plumber, painter, glazier, and all those tradesmen, who would be only too happy to run Up a large bill? Would he not rather employ somebody he could trust to regulate their operations, and see that they not only confined themselves to what was necessary, but did not charge unduly for it? It was asked whether there were clerks of the works at all our foreign missions; but it was only at Paris and Constantinople that we had houses. The usual arrangement was for the Ambassador to receive a sum of money with which to find himself a house; but at Constantinople it was impossible for him to do that, for there no house was to be had.
MR. FERRANDbegged to tell the noble Lord that he had heard it repeatedly said by Englishmen in Paris that gross jobbery went on in connection with our Embassy there.
MR. HUBBARDthought it the wisest economy in such a case to have a clerk of the works. It was impossible for any country gentleman, and still less for an Ambassador, to act as a check upon tradesmen like a professional man.
MR. DODSONsaid, that if economy had been the result of such an arrangement in this instance, that argument might have held good; but, unfortunately, it bad Jed to extravagance. The right hon. Gentleman said, they could not trust the Am-
372
bassador with the expenditure upon the repair of his palace, and therefore they kept a clerk of the works. But how could such a man, with £400 a year, be any real check upon a person in the high position of an Ambassador if he chose to be extravagant? It was absurd to imagine that the Board of Works in London could exercise any efficient control in this case.
LORD JOHN BROWNasked, whether this was an Estimate for work to be done for the ensuing year, or for work already executed?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the French Government allocated a fixed sum of 52,000f. every year for the expense of its embassy buildings at Constantinople; and that amount was not exceeded. That was a much better arrangement than ours; and if we voted a fixed sum, say of £2,000 a year, for the whole of the mission building at Constantinople, the saving effected would be between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had furnished his own refutation in the paper before the House. The clerk of the works at Constantinaple had £400 a year, while the charge for the clerk of the Works at Paris was only £185. The expenses at Constantinople might be greater, but it was absurd to suppose that it could exist in so great a proportion.
MR. COWPERsaid, this was an Estimate of expenses for the ensuing year, and not a payment for the past year. The sum of £2,000 was for ordinary repairs, and £1,051 for what were called special repairs. With regard to the difference in the payment of the two clerks of the works, the officer at Constantinople was required to perform more difficult duties and to discharge a more considerable trust, and was therefore a man of a higher class, and received higher remuneration.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,929, 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 1864, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses, &c. Abroad."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 68: Majority 6.
Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; as was also—
(2.) £748, British Consulate, Constantinople.
(3.) £30,000, to complete the sum for the New Foreign Office.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the sum originally estimated as the cost of the New Foreign Office was £200,000. They had already voted £75,000, and this year £40,000 was asked, making together £115,000; and yet he observed in the last column a statement that there was a further sum required of £137,000. He wished for an explanation how that arose.
MR. COWPERsaid, it was true that £75,000 had been already voted under this head; but that money was not in hand, what was unexpended having been repaid into the Exchequer on the 31st of March. The only money spent was £16,868, and the only work executed was in the foundations. The tenders had not yet been received for the building, and his purpose was not to allow any money to be expended on the building until he had a contract fur its entire completion. He expected the tenders would come in shortly. The sum in this Estimate would be expended before March 1864.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he could not understand how such a sum as £200,000 could be requisite to erect a Foreign Office. He remembered the old Foreign Office well, and it was for a great many years found sufficient for the service of the country. He thought that such a sum as £200,000 could not be expended for this purpose without the greatest extravagance. Taking into account the number of persons employed in the Foreign Office he thought £50,000 would be sufficient; and if the building was erected with simplicity and good proportions, it would be a great deal handsomer and more beautiful than a costly edifice. Proportion cost nothing, and next to proportion was simplicity. But the architects of this country did not seem to understand either. He was quite sure, that if anybody who understood architecture were to supervise the designs of this Foreign Office, he would find that there was an enormous expenditure in ornament and things which were of no use, and which would diminish and not increase the beauty of the building. He wished the hon. Gentleman would tell the House how many persons were to be employed in the Foreign Office that it was required to be of such a size.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, the First Commissioner of Works had not explained the discrepancy pointed out by the hon. Member for Truro.
MR. COWPERsaid, if his hon. Friend would add up the three sums in the last column he would find that they amounted to the sum in the first column, £200,000. In reply to the hon. Baronet, he had to say that this was a matter that had been before the House for seven or eight years, and it had been agreed to be necessary to have a building of the size proposed; the question had been repeatedly considered, and a division had been taken on the plans and elevation of the building, and the money had been voted three times over. It was too late now to retrace their steps.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERbegged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question decided by the House was whether the building should be Gothic or Classic; but he thought that now, when they had come to vote the money, some explanation was required why such an immense building was necessary. The papers and records would not occupy much space. How many persons were to be employed, and were any residences to be attached? Was it intended that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or the Under-Secretary should reside at the Foreign Office?
MR. COWPERsaid, that all the details were to be found in the blue-books of 1857 and subsequent years. Those documents would give the size of the rooms and the amount of accommodation. There was to be no residence for the Foreign Secretary, but there were to be reception-rooms which might be used by the Foreign or other Ministers. There would be an extensive library, not only for documents in use, but for State papers during the last hundred years.
LORD ROBERT CECIL, having served upon one of the Committees referred to, doubted whether the blue-books would give the information asked for. The Committee did inquire into the nature of the building to be constructed, and they made a certain recommendation; but the noble Viscount at the head of the Government declined to carry it out, and having a preference for a different style of architecture, by a sort of ukase set aside the recommendation of the Committee. The amount under consideration was not very important, as, if the new Foreign Office were to be built upon the usual scale of our public offices, he thought we should be fortunate to escape for £300,000.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the only change that had been made at his suggestion—which appeared to be distaste-

375
ful to the noble Lord—was as to the elevation of the building. No change had been made in the distribution of the interior, which had been arranged by communication with persons connected with the Department, who had stated what were their requirements for the discharge of their public duties. The whole of that had been settled long ago.
MR. CONINGHAMthought the country was indebted to the noble Lord for his ukase, because nothing could be more un-suited for the purpose than the Gothic style of architecture. At the same time, nothing could be more disagreeable to an architect who was an enthusiast for the Gothic than to have to abandon his own ideas and to carry out another style of architecture.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:—
(4.) £8,674, Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.
(5.) £1,459, Aberdeen University.
(6.) £22,000, Probate Court Registries.
(7.) £3,727, General Register House, Edinburgh.
(8.) £20,000, Public Record Repository.
(9.) £1,806, Court of Probate Principal Registry.
MR. LYGONasked whether this sum formed part of the £70,000 required for the Registry. He also wished to know whether the Government had abandoned their intention of making the Registry a portion of the general scheme for the concentration of the Courts of Justice?
MR. COWPERexplained that this was merely a re-Vote to pay the rent of some houses in Knight Rider Street, forming part of the establishment for Wills and Probate Registry, and was a temporary arrangement. He hoped that shortly some better accommodation would be provided. The views of the Government in respect to a concentration of the courts of justice had not been abandoned.
MR. LYGONremarked that by a previous Vote £1,750 was taken for rent, &c. for the Principal Registry at Doctors' Commons. If the General Registry of Wills were to form part of the scheme for the Courts of Justice, why go to further expense now?
MR. COWPERsaid, this amount was to meet the expense of hiring certain houses
376
which were required for a temporary purpose.
MR. LYGONobserved, that the total Estimate for the office was set at £70,000, of which £33,194 had been expended. Only £1,800 was now asked, and the future requirement was set down at nil. What did that mean? Was there to be any further demand?
MR. COWPER: No. When the amount was originally fixed, it had been intended to make a permanent arrangement at Doctors' Commons; but subsequently that view had been altered, and a more satisfactory and permanent arrangement contemplated by placing the Registry in connection with the courts of law and other offices.
MR. LYGONobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had now shifted his ground. The £70,000 had been originally voted for a permanent arrangement with Doctors' Commons; but the right hon. Gentleman now told them that the original plan was abandoned, and that they were to spend £35,000 on a temporary arrangement. He wished to know whether that £35,000 would include half the plan originally contemplated?
MR. COWPERsaid, that according to the original plan for providing a Registry for the Probate and Admiralty Courts, it was calculated that it would be necessary to buy premises to the amount of £70,000, but on consideration it was thought sufficient to buy premises to the amount of £35,000 only. For the present that arrangement was quite satisfactory; but hereafter when it became necessary to make a permanent arrangement to supply the ever-increasing wants of the Registry, instead of going on buying more property it was thought that the best course would be to sell this property, which was extremely valuable, and place Registry in connection with the courts of law.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the £35,000 bought half of Doctors' Commons.
MR. COWPERthought certainly more than one half.
MR. LYGONasked whether this Vote was to be taken as committing the Committee to the propriety of abandoning the rest of the site of Doctors' Commons, supposing that at some time it should be decided that that was the best site for the Registry.
MR. COWPERdid not think that any

377
such inference could be drawn. All that the Vote was asked for was to secure those houses in Knight Rider Street.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £1,500, Site of the New Foreign Office.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcalled in question payments to the Woods and Forests on account of Land which had been devoted to the public service for centuries without acknowledgment.
MR. COWPERsaid, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests rightly considered it their duty to require payment from the Government for land that was to be appropriated for a public purpose, just as much as they would from a private person.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the principle was new, and had been acted on only during the last ten years. When the National Gallery was built on the site of the old Royal Mews, there was no such payment. He hoped the House would allow a Committee to inquire into the way these charges were put upon the public purse for the benefit of the Crown hereafter.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked, whether the purchase money was paid into the Exchequer?
MR. COWPBRthought everybody knew that. Formerly it was the custom to use balances of the Land Revenue when necessary for expenses connected with public buildings or public parks; but Parliament in 1851 directed that the Land Revenues should be kept entirely separate, and that all the expenses of public buildings should be defrayed by Votes in Committee of Supply; consequently all such purchase monies would be paid into the Exchequer. It was a mere matter of account. Whenever any land belonging to the hereditary Land Revenue was disposed of for public purposes, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests considered it their duty to require payment, just as they would if it were sold for private purposes. It would be highly culpable in them to act on any other system.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, that whatever was added to the land went with the land; and therefore if the hereditary property of the Crown was resumed by the Crown, the buildings upon it would be taken. He wished to know what was the tenure upon which the expenditure of public money was incurred—in plain English, what was the building lease?
MR. COWPERsaid, there was no building lease. The land was bought in fee simple. The money paid became capital in the hands of the Commissioners of Land Revenue, and the interest of that capital was paid into the Exchequer.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £12,000, Westminster Bridge Approaches.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked, what it was to be paid for.
MR. COWPERsaid, this money was intended to complete the purchase of the houses on the south side of Bridge Street, and when the purchases were completed, the Government would make a proposition to the House on the subject; but that could not possibly occur before next year.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYthought the Vote ought not to pass without the Committee hearing from the right hon. Gentleman what was the intention of the Government as to the continuation of the Houses of Parliament from the Clock Tower, on the south side of Bridge Street. Was the original scheme of Sir Charles Barry altogether abandoned, and had any new scheme taken its place?
SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked, whether any arrangement had been come to with the proprietor of Fendall's Hotel?
MR. COWPERsaid, this sum was intended to cover all the amount of purchase money which it was at all probable would be required to purchase all the houses, including Fendall's Hotel. At present, there were no negotiations on foot with the proprietor; but his lease terminated in June of next year. He thought, it would be very unwise to enter into a discussion of what might hereafter be proposed to be done in New Palace Yard. It was quite clear that such a proposal ought to be deliberately considered and carefully detailed, and he thought it better to leave next year's work until next year.
In reply to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
MR. COWPERsaid, it was believed that this £12,000 would accomplish all that was wanted; but if the juries should award a larger amount of compensation than was anticipated, a further sum must be voted next year.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £12,357, to complete the sum for New Westminster Bridge.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked, whether £2,107 was to be the annual charge for watering, cleansing, and maintaining the Bridge, and £250 for police?
MR. COWPERsaid, the police were employed at the two ends of the bridge to insure the separation of the traffic, and to enable the lighter vehicles to pass unimpeded on either side of the heavy and slow traffic. The bridge estate, now vested in the Commissioner of Works, produced more than the annual expense; but he believed the £2,107 would be required every year for the maintenance of the roadway and footpaths, and lighting the bridge with gas. The first item in this Vote comprised all the works necessary to complete the bridge and its approaches. Landing-stairs would be required, and the two sides, both in Surrey and Westminster, were unfinished. Although large receipts were coming in from the sale of plant, they could not be brought to the account of this Vote, but must be paid into the Exchequer. As to the approaches to the steamboats, the works were suspended until the embankment should be in a more advanced state.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked, whether the Board of Works intended to do anything with the steamboat piers on the Surrey side at once, or whether the work would be deferred till the southern embankment was completed?
MR. COWPERreplied that the latter course would be pursued.
MR. CHILDERScomplained of the inconvenience arising from the slow traffic running over the bridge being placed at the middle instead of at the sides as at London Bridge.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYasked, why the charge of £250 for police employed on the bridge was not paid out of the general rates, as in other parts of the metropolis?
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, there were certain estates connected with the bridge, and wished to know what had become of the revenues derived from those estates? Why were not the expenses of lighting and police for it paid out of them?
MR. COWPERreplied, that the property in question consisted of houses, and had been vested in the Commissioners of Works in consideration of certain monies expended on the bridge. The receipts from it could not now be directly applied to the purposes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. With respect to the employment of the police on the bridge, he might ob-
380
serve that the usual course was taken. They were stationed on it for the purpose of directing the traffic, and were thus removed from their ordinary beats. It was deemed right, therefore, that they should be paid the sum named. As to the inconvenience caused by the way in which the traffic over the bridge ran, he must admit that it was a point on which some difference of opinion might very naturally prevail. Mr. Page, the engineer, thought it would be better the heavy traffic should run in the centre, and it would not now be desirable to make any change in its course.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked, what was the amount of bridge property in the hands of the Exchequer?
MR. COWPER: I am not quite sure. I believe about £10,000 a year.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(13.) £983, National Gallery, Dublin.
MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved that the Chairman report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress."
LORD ROBERT CECILhoped, that as the Vote upon the threshold of which the Committee now stood—that for Harbours of Refuge—was a very important one, due notice would be given of the time when it would come on, in order that the sense of the House might be fully expressed upon it. It was not fitting, he contended, that the question of proceeding with the harbour at Alderney should be hurried over at the dinner-hour, or at any other time when it would not be likely to obtain a due amount of consideration.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEalso expressed a hope that an ample opportunity of discussing the next Vote would be afforded.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, whether Supply would be taken again next evening?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We propose to go on with Supply to-morrow, if we can get to it.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: Does the noble Lord intend to bring on the question of Alderney to-morrow evening after all the other Motions have been disposed of?
MR. WYKEHAM MARTINtrusted the Government would not go on with Supply to-morrow. There were Questions enough on the Motion for going into Committee to occupy the House for a fortnight.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONwished to know when the Civil Bills Courts (Ireland) would be brought on.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: To-morrow, after the Notices of Motion on going into Supply.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We should not ask the House to go into Committee of Supply to-morrow evening, say after ten o'clock.
MR. CONINGHAMasked, whether it was intended to go on with the Vote for Harbours of Refuge to-morrow?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We shall take the Votes in their order.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 106.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. PEELstated, that he desired to introduce Amendments providing that the powers which in the Bill were conferred upon the arbitrator should be exercised by the Board of Public Works.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."
  MR. SCULLYsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to introduce an entire page of Amendments into a Bill containing seventy-nine clauses, of which no explanation had been given, either by the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Attorney General. Practically, this Bill was the same which had been originally introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick (Colonel Dickson), passed with little discussion through the House of Commons, and cut down to very narrow dimensions in the Lords. It proposed to carve Ireland into petty drainage districts, which would find employment for local attorneys, local surveyors, local engineers, and professional men of all kinds, to the neglect of any comprehensive and beneficial scheme of arterial drainage. The Bill was founded on an entirely misconceived idea of the principle of drainage on a large scale. Drainage, to be effectual, should commence at the lowest outfall, and the works beginning near the sea should be extended up
  382
  wards to the higher levels. It was not respectful to the House of Lords to pass without discussion a measure upon which they had already pronounced an opinion in the present Session. ["Divide!"] If hon. Gentleman wished to divide, he was quite prepared to do so. In order to carry out their wishes, he would himself move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Scully.)
  MR. PEELsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not persevere in in his opposition. The Bill conferred no new powers on the Board of Works in Ireland. He had very little doubt it would meet with the approval of the other House, and confer great benefit on Ireland.
  MR. MACEVOYbegged the hon. and learned Member for Cork not to delay a useful measure and one that was very much wanted in Ireland.
  MR. BAGWELLexpressed a hope that the hon. and learned Member for Cork would not press his Amendment. No drainage could be effected in Ireland without the system of arterial drainage provided by this Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered; Amendments made; to be read 3o To-morrow.

WATCHMEN IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 102.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Bagwell.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it would be impossible for the Government to agree to this Bill, which revived the old system of "Charleys" with their lanterns in the town of Clonmel. He moved that it be committed that day three months.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir Robert Peel,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he would read a letter, the writer of which stated that he saw no objection to the Bill, and would give the hon. Gentleman who introduced it all

  383
  the assistance in his power. That letter was signed "Robert Peel."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would admit the letter was in his handwriting. He at first saw nothing objectionable in the Bill; but he had since communicated with the authorities in Ireland, who thought it would be impracticable to have watchmen under the town commissioners of Clonmel and the county constabulary besides. He had promised his hon. Friend all the assistance in his power, but unfortunately he found he could not give it him to carry through his measure.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he should support this Bill on its merits, and because it was necessary the local authorities should have the power of appointing these watchmen.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, Irish Members were placed in a difficult position by the conduct of the Government—they did not know to whom to look for advice.
  MR. O'HAGAN (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)said, his right hon. Friend, having consulted the proper authorities, found that they were of opinion that the Bill would not work. He could not consent to make himself responsible for the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the objection to the Bill was that the two police authorities that would be established in the same town if the Bill passed would not work in harmony.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two.

TELEGRAPHS BILL—(No. 86.)
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on, read, and discharged; and Bill referred to a Select Committee: The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Thursday next, at one o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman:

D. Richmond.

L. Blantyre.

M. Bath.

L. Wodehouse.

Ld. Steward.

L. Redesdale.

E. Shrewsbury.

L. Somerhill.

E. Devon.

L. Portman.

E. Romney.

L. Stanley of Alderley.

E. Stradbroke.

L. Lyveden.

House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.