Sitting of 19 February 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE — on Poor Relief, appointed.* (List of Committee.)
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee *—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading — Land Drainage (Provisional Orders)* [Bill 25]; Inclosure [Bill 26]; Cattle Diseases Prevention* [Bill 27]; Cattle, &c, Importation* [Bill 28].
Second Reading — Bank Acts (Scotland)* [Bill 16].
Committee—Insane Prisoners Act Amendment [Bill 4].
Report—Insane Prisoners Act Amendment.*

THE "ALABAMA"—CAPTURE OF THE "MARTABAN."—QUESTION.
Mr. G. S. LEFEYREsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that a British Ship, the Martaban, has been captured by the Alabama, and burnt by order of its captain; and, if so, what steps the Government are taking to obtain reparation, and to prevent the repetition of such outrages?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that as yet no information had been received by Her Majesty's Government; the only information they had on the subject was obtained from the public newspapers.

AFFAIRS OF MEXICO.—QUESTION.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he also wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if any communications have been addressed, during the recess, to Her Majesty's Government with the view to a recognition of an empire in Mexico; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the table of the House.
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that no such communications had been received by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government had hitherto declined to express any opinion on that subject.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON ROYAL ACADEMY—THE EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose to ask the first Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government have taken any, and, if so, what steps to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Royal Academy; and, when the removal of the whole of the late International Exhibition Building will be completed, and what is intended to be done with the site?
MR. COWPER: Sir, the Royal Commission, which was moved for by my noble Friend, recommended several alterations in the constitution and mode of proceedings of the Royal Academy; and it appeared expedient to the Government to ascertain the views entertained by the Royal Academy on these questions, and they were directed to consider the subject, and report on it to Her Majesty. I understand the Royal Academy have been in deliberation on the subject for some time, but hitherto they have made no Report. With regard to
794
the second part of the question—the site has not yet been cleared of the building. There has been very considerable delay, and the Government have made remonstrances to Messrs. Kelk and Lucas, but at present the removal of the building is going on rapidly. But I have not received from Messrs. Kelk and Lucas any assurance as to the period at which the land will be entirely clear of the work now in progress. Preliminary steps have been taken towards the decision as to the building hereafter to be erected on that site. I have invited a competition of architectural plans and designs of the buildings hereafter to be erected, and they will have reference to the ultimate disposal of the whole site.

EXPORT DUTY ON RAGS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government is in communication with any Foreign Powers with a view to the reduction or abolition of the Export Duty imposed by the latter on rags; if so, with what powers; and whether there will be any objection to an early production of the Correspondence?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he could assure the noble Lord that the subject, which was of no slight importance, had not been lost sight of. Her Majesty's Government were now in communication with France, Prussia, Russia, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Hanover, Baden, Wurtemburg, Hesse, Saxony, Darmstadt, Oldenburg, and other countries on this subject; and as negotiations were still going on, the Correspondence was not yet ready to be produced.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSION—SALARY OF THE SECRETARY.—QUESTION.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of the Charity Board, In what Act of Parliament the Clause is inserted which increases the salary of the Secretary from £600 a year to £800; and, whether public notice was given to the House that such Clause was intended to be inserted?
  MR. LOWE: Sir, I informed the hon. Gentleman the other night that the Clause referred to was to be found in the Charity Commission Act passed in the year 1860, and I had hoped the hon. Gentleman

  795
  would have been good enough to look it out for himself. But as he has not taken the trouble to do so, I will inform him that it is to be found at the 22nd section of the 136th chapter of the 23rd and 24th Victoria. As to the second part of the question, whether public notice was given to the House that such a Clause was intended to be inserted, I really cannot take upon myself, after a lapse of four years, to say what notice was given. The Clause was in the statute-book, and I presume it came there in the ordinary manner. I may add, that I consulted the late Sir George Lewis, then Home Secretary, who entirely concurred with me in thinking, as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that as the Secretary was holding an office of considerable difficulty, having large amounts standing in his name as Trustee, he was underpaid at £600 a year. The hon. Gentleman said the other night that I had, in a private conversation with a Member of this House, expressed myself unfavourably with respect to the Charity Commissioners, and had expressed a wish that an Act should be brought in to check their frauds. I regret that I did not notice the statement at the time; but I wish now to state most distinctly, that I never in my life had any conversation with any Member of this House, or any one else, in which I applied these terms to the Charity Commissioners, of whom I entertain the highest opinion, as being among the most industrious, able, and honest of Her Majesty's Servants.
  MR. FERRAND: I hope the House will allow me to say—["Order"]—I never made such a statement. ["Order"]

  CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES—THE NORTHERN CIRCUIT—THE WEST RIDING CIRCUIT.—QUESTION.
  MR. MORRITTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is finally decided that the Assizes should be moved from York to any other place?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that no final decision had been come to on this subject; and that no decision had been come to, or opinion expressed, that the Assizes should be removed from York. Even if Assizes were held at any other place, Assizes would still be held at York for the larger portion of Yorkshire. What had taken place was this:—Several memo-
  796
  rials had been presented to Her Majesty from towns in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying that Her Majesty would, in the exercise of her powers, constitute the West Riding of Yorkshire into a separate Assize District. These memorials had been referred to a Committee of the Privy Council, and they had reported that they recommended to Her Majesty that separate Assizes should be held in that part of the county of York called the West Riding, but no final decision could be come to until the Order in Council had been made.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Government Annuities Bill this evening; and whether, considering that the Title of the Bill does not fully convey the real objects of the Bill, and that the Bill hitherto has passed through two stages without being fully understood; and further, considering the great interests affected by the proposed alteration of the Law, he would have any objection to postpone, for a short time, the further consideration of the measure?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he had no objection whatever to postpone the further consideration of the measure for a short time. He was very sorry that the object of the Bill had not been understood, because it was of a simple character, and he considered that he had been careful to explain to the House upon its introduction its nature and provisions. But as the Bill had not been long before the House, ho had no objection to postpone the Committee on the Bill until Monday week.

UNITED STATES-THE "SAXON"— MURDER OF MR. GRAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to renew a question he had put the other night to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will be kind enough to inform the House what is the date of the Despatch addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States with reference to the murder of Mr. Gray, and the date on which it was sent out? At the same time, he begged to ask

  797
  another question. There were some Papers which he had moved for on Friday last relative to the case of the Margaret and Jessie, and other vessels, which the Government refused to produce to the House. Since then, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had consented in the other House to the production of these Papers. He now begged to ask, Whether diligence would be used to place these Papers on the table of the House? With reference to the case of the Saxon, his Motion for Papers would extend only to the murder of Mr. Gray, and not to the capture of the prize.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the first information relative to the murder on board the Saxon, was received by Her Majesty's Government, towards the end of December, but the depositions were not received from New York until about the 20th January. They were immediately sent to the Law Officers of the Crown. Their Report was received on the 30th, and the same afternoon instructions were sent to Lord Lyons to ask for such redress as we were entitled to from the American Government. But before the receipt of any instructions Lord Lyons had already communicated with Mr. Seward on the 30th of January, and Mr. Seward ordered an inquiry to take place, and the last information received was that that investigation was now going on. With regard to the second question, the hon. Gentleman was slightly in error with regard to what Earl Russell promised to give the other night. He promised that a certain list of claims should be laid on the table of the House. Of course, there was no objection on the part of the Government to give a list of all claims, but the difficulty was with regard to the claims of persons who could not be included in the list, as they might be prejudiced by their omission. There was no wish to withhold any of the Papers, and of course the Papers produced to the other House would be laid on the table of that House; but he believed that Earl Russell had not consented to the presentation for the present, of the papers relating to the case of the Margaret and Jessie.

BANK ACTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he means to proceed
  798
  with the Second Reading of the Bill that evening?
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he did intend to proceed with the Second Reading. As he did not anticipate any discussion on this stage of the measure, he would fix the Committee for a distant day, and that would give ample time for discussing the general provisions of the Bill.

  JAPAN.—EXPLANATION.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, he wished to offer an explanation with reference to an expression which fell from him in the course of the debate on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton), on the subject of the attack on Kagosima. Speaking of an affair in which Mr. Moss was concerned, he had used the word "crime" with reference to his conduct. He had since received a letter from that gentleman stating, that in the course of the affair spoken of the gun had been discharged accidentally, and not by orders. He therefore regretted having made use of the above expression.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, he would beg to ask, If the Government will lay on the table the Papers relating to the case of Mr. Moss, in Japan?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, there was no objection to produce the Papers, except that they were utterly useless, and would put the country to a large expense. He could not conscientiously do it, unless the hon. Gentleman prevailed upon the House to consent to a Motion for their production.

THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he begged to move the adjournment of the House in order to defend himself from the attack which had been made on him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe). What he (Mr. Ferrand) had stated was this, that the right hon. Gentleman had told an hon. Gentleman, a Member of the House, that he (Mr. Ferrand) had been right in opposing certain proceedings of the Charity Commissioners in his (Mr. Ferrand's) own neighbourhood; that the Charity Commissioners were wrong, and that the Government were about to bring in a Bill to put a stop to the frauds of

  799
  which, he had complained. Having made that statement, he would beg to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment.

DENMARK—THE DANISH PAPERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, be wished to ask, When it is probable that the Danish Papers will be presented?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that not a moment of time was being lost. He believed the Papers would run to between 600 and 700 folio pages, but he would get them ready as soon as possible.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government had promised to furnish the Papers by instalments.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE PROVINCE OF JUTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the Austrian and Prussian Forces entering, or proposing to enter Jutland, Her Majesty's Government will not consider such action or intention as inconsistent with the plea upon which the German Forces have entered Holstein and Schleswig, and, therefore, requiring more energetic and decisive action, diplomatic or otherwise, on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the sense of the Treaty of 1852?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, we have no authentic account of an intention on the part of the Austrian and Prussian troops to enter Jutland. I have seen a statement in the newspapers to that effect. No doubt any entrance into Jutland by the Austrian and Prussian troops would be an aggravation of that violent outrage— which, in our opinion, they have committed in entering Schleswig —a step involving a great sacrifice of life and shedding of blood for which those two Governments are deeply answerable. So far as to the first part of the question. With regard to the latter part—namely, as to what course or change of course Her Majesty's Government would think it necessary to take in such in event, I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the House will not think I am wanting in any respect to him or them if I decline answering the question as to the future conduct of the Government in a case of this sort.

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

ASSIZE TOWN FOR THE WEST RIDING CIRCUIT.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDEESS.
  SIR JOHN HAY,in moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, for an Address praying Her Majesty to nominate the town of Wakefield as the assize town for the West Riding of Yorkshire, said, he was extremely glad to find, by the answer which the Home Secretary had given to the hon. Member for the North Riding, that in making the present Motion he was not asking the House to repeal any Order in Council. The Government, as he understood their answer, had decided that the West Riding was to have a separate assize, but it had not decided where it was to be holden. It had previously been supposed, from communications received by the Mayors of Wakefield and Sheffield, that the Government had decided in favour of Leeds, and this decision had caused great surprise and indignation among the majority of the inhabitants of the West Riding, who were under the apprehension that the interests of the West Riding were about to be sacrificed to those of the borough of Leeds. He was not about to trouble the House at any length, but in order to explain the grounds upon which his Motion was based, it would be necessary to go back to the year 1832, when the Common Law Commission reported, under the signatures of several eminent Judges, to the effect that the extent of the County of York was so great and the population of the West Riding so numerous, that an additional Assize district for the West Riding was desirable. In 1857 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the place where it ought to be holden, and of that Commission, presided over by the late Lord Campbell, the late Speaker was a Member, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwitch (Sir John Pakington), and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten). In their Report they declared themselves unanimously against a separate assize being held in the town of Leeds; but as to the suitability of Wakefield for the purpose a difference of opinion existed. Among

  801
  the signatures to that document were the names of Sir John Pakington and Colonel Wilson Patten, who thought that "Wakefield had established its claim. Having communicated with the Home Office he was informed that the Government had come to no decision, and that the matter had been referred for the decision of the Privy Council, consisting of the Lord President, the Lord Chancellor, and the Yorkshire Privy Councillors. The Privy Council humbly reported to Her Majesty an opinion in favour of Leeds. This opinion had given great surprise and offence to the inhabitants of the West Riding. He was glad however that the Government had not acted on the opinion of the Privy Council until the West Riding had had an opportunity of expressing its opinion, because there were only six Privy Councillors present, and but one of those was a Yorkshireman. He referred to the Earl De Grey and Ripon, who, he was informed, had always expressed a strong opinion in favour of Leeds; an opinion not shared by other Yorkshire Privy Councillors. Of 350 magistrates for the West Riding, 191 were of opinion that the assizes ought to be held at Wakefield, only fifty-nine were in favour of Leeds, and the remaining magistrates expressing no opinion. Among those in favour of Wakefield were Sir Charles Wood, Lord Houghton, Mr. Forster, the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont), who had much property in Yorkshire, the hon. Members for Wenlock, Malton, and York, and almost every West Riding man who had been High Sheriff of Yorkshire. Fifty-six Petitions had been sent to the Home Office in favour of Wakefield, while there was no record of any Petition in favour of Leeds. Thus a large majority of the inhabitants, the magistrates, the Privy Councillors, and the Members of the West Riding were in favour of Wakefield. The population of the West Riding was about 1,600,000 souls. To 900,000 of these Wakefield would be the nearer and more convenient town, as against 700,000 who would be nearer to Leeds. The population around Wakefield too was increasing at the rate of 17½ per cent, while the population on the Leeds side of the county was only increasing at the rate of 9 per cent. But then it was said that Wakefield laboured under an insufficiency of railway accommodation. There were, however, not less than 187 passenger trains a day from Wakefield to all parts of Yorkshire, and
  802
  Wakefield was in fact in communication with as many railways as Leeds. The courts at Wakefield were superior to those at Leeds, and the music hall at Wakefield was to be placed at the disposal of the Government for Assize purposes. The Town Hall at Leeds was no doubt a magnificent building; but an additional rate must be levied upon the county in order to provide Assize Courts at Leeds. The county buildings at Wakefield had cost £250,000, and there was ample accommodation for the learned Judges and the bar. The county prisoners were all committed to Wakefield before trial, and if the assizes were held at Leeds the county would be put to the expense and inconvenience of removing them to Leeds for trial. Would it, then, be either wise or just to have the gaol delivery at Leeds? Wakefield, too, was the headquarters of the county constabulary, while in Leeds there was only the borough police, over whom the High Sheriff had no control. If the assizes were held at Leeds, it would be the only instance in which the capital town of any county had been passed over. If the precedent were followed the assizes must be removed from Warwick to Birmingham, from Exeter to Plymouth, and from Lewes to Brighton. The reasons which he had set forth, which were matters of fact within the cognizance of many hon. Gentlemen within that House, were sufficient to prove how undesirable it was that a heavy tax should be laid upon the West Riding solely for the benefit of the town of Leeds, and to the manifest disadvantage and dissatisfaction of the people of the district who were not inhabitants of that town. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Amendment.
  MR. LEATHAMrose to second the Motion which had been so ably moved by his hon. and gallant Friend. It would be admitted on all hands that the consideration which ought to govern the decision of this question was the public convenience of the West Riding. The town at which the business of the assizes could be conducted with the greatest convenience and despatch and with the least expense to the litigants ought, cateris paribus, to be selected, unless it could be shown that it laboured under some great disadvantage on some subsidiary point. His hon. and gallant Friend had shown, by figures which admitted of no dispute, that Wakefield was nearer the great bulk of the population of the district in the immense proportion of

  803
  three to two. ["Hear, hear!"] The case of "Wakefield could be proved upon an authority which even his hon. Friend (Mr. Baines), who cheered so vociferously, could hardly dispute, and which stated that, taking the whole of the Riding, Wakefield seemed to have a larger population residing near to it than Leeds. That was a proposition for which his hon. Friend was responsible. [Mr. BAINES: I have never made such a statement.] The admission was not made by his hon. Friend personally, but it appeared in a journal with which his hon. Friend was generally believed to have something to do; it was not competent, therefore, for his hon. Friend, who disported himself with such ease and grace among figures, to come down to the House and argue that this was a question simply between the larger population of Leeds and the smaller population of Wakefield, whereas the question really was between the larger population near Wakefield and the smaller population near Leeds. In anticipation of the speech which would be made by his hon. Friend, he would touch upon a few of the main points raised in a document which had been prepared on the subject. It was stated in the document that in relation to the manufacturing and mercantile districts Leeds was the more central town. But there was no mention of the agricultural districts, of which Wakefield was the acknowledged centre. The great cattle and corn markets were both at Wakefield, notwithstanding the spasmodic efforts which had been made to bring them to Leeds. He denied that Leeds was the central town of the manufacturing districts. He held in his hand a map in which the relative positions of Leeds and the various towns of the Riding were marked, and so far from Leeds being at the centre, it was on the very margin—an outpost, as it were—of manufacture. Bradford was the chief seat of the woollen trade, Sheffield of the hardware trade, and Wakefield of the corn trade. They had been told that Leeds contained 200,000 inhabitants; he never knew until lately how they were stowed away, but upon looking at the map he found the borough of Leeds was a district extending eight miles north and south, and six miles east and west. Now, if the same rule were applied to Wakefield, its population would be not 20,000 but 90,000. And besides, was it certain that this large population was an advantage to Leeds? He would not yield to his hon. Friend in the
  804
  confidence which he reposed in the attachment to order and loyalty to the Crown of the working classes, whom his hon. Friend had taken under his protection; but would his hon. Friend guarantee the good conduct of the substratum which lay beneath? That huge mass of population, less instructed, less orderly, migratory, aliens in race and in creed—would his hon. Friend engage for them? ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend was a sanguine man; but suppose in a time of great excitement a breach of the peace were committed, or one of those atrocious outrages occurred which had made the name of Sheffield notorious, would his hon. Friend guarantee that the authorities would have just the same confidence in the working classes as his hon. Friend, and that they would not endeavour to insure the public peace by a display of military force, or by changing the venue? But to change the venue was to instil suspicion of the accused, and to resort to a display of military force was to provoke the very danger which it was intended to avert. But there was another drawback, that, owing to its dense population and to the immense "mass of steam machinery collected there, the air of Leeds had become vitiated to an extraordinary degree. It was proverbially dense, and was charged with noxious vapours. Any hon. Member might judge for himself; he had only to visit Leeds by one of those lines of railway about which so much had been said, and as he approached the place he would have leisure to observe the gradual decay of vegetation, that the trees had dwindled into shrubs, the shrubs into sapless stumps, and the very grass bore evidence against his hon. Friend, for it became of an invisible green. As for the atmosphere, it grew murkier and murkier every step, until at last the sun seemed scarcely able to struggle through the impenetrable black mask which rested for ever on the face of that unfortunate town. This question of fresh air was of great importance to the litigants, the bar, and the bench. But there was another claim advanced on behalf of Leeds on the ground of railway communication. But if the rumour were true of a gigantic project for additional railway accommodation, Leeds was not too well provided after all. With respect to railway accommodation, let any hon. Gentleman consult Bradshaw, if he were a person of great leisure and strong intellect, and he would find that there was no

  805
  town in the kingdom to which a greater number of railways converged than to Wakefield; and there were no provincial towns better provided with, trains. An additional railway was in course of construction, and when it was finished there would be two hundred trains a day in and out of Wakefield. One ground on which Leeds preferred its claim to be an assize town was, that a large proportion of criminal business originated there. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) might endeavour to make out that his constituents were located in a sink of iniquity; but, if so, the hon. Member should cease his laudable efforts to aid philanthropic societies, whose object was to raise "the character of Leeds, unless, indeed, he desired to destroy one great claim which Leeds had, on account of its extra criminality, to be selected as a place for holding assizes. Another claim was, that the Bankruptcy Court was held at Leeds; but the jurisdiction of that court was not co-extensive with the West Biding, but with the whole county of York, and a portion of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. That was the only institution of more than a local character which Leeds had to place against the numerous institutions in Wakefield. Then, great stress was laid upon the Leeds Town Hall, for the erection of which the borough rates had been mortgaged for many years to come. The Town Hall always appeared to him to be staring with well-bred surprize at the extraordinary collection of buildings around it. Leeds was the worst built town in the whole Riding, and did not possess a single substantial claim to be a county town. Compared with the dignity and prestige of York, Leeds was only distinguished by bulk and bustle. One great authority in Leeds—an authority which his hon. Friend behind him would not dispute—stated that the court there had the defect of not being a good place for hearing—what greater defect could there be for a court of law than that? He had received a letter giving an account of the case of a man tried for embezzlement at Leeds on two counts; one charging him with the embezzlement of 10 s. 6d., and the other with the embezzlement of £2 18 s. 6d. The whole of the questions put by the prisoner in conducting his defence had reference to the smaller sum; and when the chairman directed his attention to the other sum of £2 18 s. 6d. the prisoner said that he had not heard a word
  806
  about that charge, but he then produced receipts for the money. The chairman, turning to the jury, observed that there was an end to the case, and the jury immediately acquitted the prisoner, who had not heard the evidence of the witnesses, situated not five yards from him. About this time last year the people of Leeds perceived that their case was becoming desperate, and they went over to Sheffield. He supposed that the hon. Member (Mr. Hadfield) who rose to speak, but sat down at the cry of "Order!" meant to say that the people of Sheffield went over to Leeds; but, at all events, the two joined forces. Now, in 1858, a deputation from Wakefield, attended by the hon. Member for Sheffield among others, had an interview with the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), who was then Home Secretary. Upon that occasion the Member for Sheffield strongly pressed the claims of Wakefield, observing that on such a matter the convenience of the public ought to be the first thing to be considered, and that that convenience would be best considered by admitting the claims of Wakefield—the hon. Member also observed that Leeds would be scarcely less inconvenient than York for the assize town. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Wickham), and the then hon. Member for Halifax (Sir Francis Crossley), expressed similar opinions. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Knaresborough, who was also in favour of Wakefield, because there, he said, one could have a country walk and enjoy the fresh air when the Court rose, whereas in Leeds it took one two hours to escape from the smoky atmosphere of the town. He was not versed in all the details of the diplomatic arrangement between Sheffield and Leeds. It might be, as the hon. Member for Sheffield had said, that his constituents first communicated with Leeds. They all knew what happened when the lion and the jackal went out hunting together. The king of beasts secured the lion's share, while the poor, weak-minded jackal had to slink away with its tail between its legs. Sheffield was exactly in the predicament of the latter. The good people of Leeds did their best to keep up the spirits of their friends at Sheffield, telling them that if Wakefield had been made an assize town the chances of Sheffield acquiring that honour would have been destroyed, because its inhabitants would

  807
  then have had no grievance. There were many good reasons why Sheffield had no claim to be an assize town, apart from the fact that it had no prison, no courts, and no proper accommodation for the Judges. In July, 1863, a meeting of the Leeds Town Council was held to consider this question, at which one of the Aldermen, a gentleman of undoubted influence and authority, observed that it was absurd to say that Sheffield had advantages at all equal to Leeds, and quoted the opinion of Mr. Talbot Baines, that Leeds ought not to join forces with Sheffield in this matter. The same gentleman referred in strong terms to the prevalence of trade outrages at Sheffield. In fact, all the objections applicable to Leeds might be urged with still greater force against Sheffield. He never believed that the House or the Government would attempt to carry out the scheme of setting up an assize town in every corner of the Riding, instead of establishing one in a central situation, where business could be transacted with convenience to all the inhabitants of the Riding. The utmost wonder prevailed throughout the Riding when the decision of the Committee of the Privy Council was made known. None were more surprised than the people of Leeds themselves. He was informed that an important journal in that town, after having buoyed up the hopes of the citizens as long as it could, had, on the eve of the decision of the Privy Council, prepared what was called a "let-them-down-easy" article. The Leeds folk were highly elated. All the bells rung joy-peals, so that you would have thought everybody was going to be married; and in their exultation the Town Council had even some idea of sending a present of crape to the Corporation of Wakefield. Nobody knew what to make of the decision. By-and-bye, however, there came rumours attributing the success of Leeds to the exertions of his hon. Friend the Member for that borough. It was said to be the victory of the importunate widow over again. Ministers, it seemed, stood in awe of his hon. Friend, for he had not only command of a powerful organ of public opinion in the north of England, but went about carrying with him a single-barreled Reform Bill at full cock. Of course, he did not mean to justify these wild and improbable reports. He referred to them merely to show how puzzled the people in Yorkshire were to account for
  808
  the extraordinary decision of the Privy Council. He now left the question to the House, feeling confident that they would be guided in their vote by considerations of public convenience, and that they would respect the desire of the Riding, as expressed through innumerable petitions, through the voices of Members of the House, and last, not least, through the opinions of a great majority of the county magistrates.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing to Her Majesty, the town of Wake-field, the capital of the West Riding of Yorkshire, as the place suggested by a large Majority of the Magistrates of the West Riding as the best for holding an Assize; that Wakefield, containing as it docs the West Riding Prison, the head quarters of the West Riding Constabulary, the West Riding Register Office, and the West Hiding Probate Office, is also geographically the central town of the West Riding, and possesses every convenience in courts, railway communication, and hotel accommodation for the purpose; and praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to nominate the town of Wakefield as the assize town for the West Riding of Yorkshire,"—(Sir John Hay.)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would briefly state to the House the reasons why he thought they ought not to agree to the Address to Her Majesty, moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), and seconded in a very amusing speech, characterized by great talent, zeal, and ingenuity, by the hon. Member below the gangway (Mr. Leatham), who, although not at present Member for Wakefield, was a resident in that town. First of all, what was the law on the subject? The statute, which was passed in the reign of William IV., after reciting two Acts of Parliament of Richard II., empowering the Lord Chancellor for the time being to fix the places where the assizes should be held, transferred the duty of making these arrangements to the Sovereign, acting on the advice of the Privy Council; the object, as stated in the Preamble to the Act, being to provide for the cheap, speedy, and efficient administration of justice. Such being the law, the facts of the case were these:— For some time past the Government had received numerous memorials from the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying that Her Majesty would divide that county into more than one district for

  809
  assize purposes. Memorials had also been received from Leeds, Wakefield, and Sheffield, on the assumption that the former request would be acceded to, praying that their claims might be considered in the determination of the question where the new assizes should be held. All the memorials on this subject were, by Her Majesty's command, referred to the Committee of the Privy Council, in order that they might consider them, and after weighing the facts tender their advice to Her Majesty. Reference had been made to "the importunate widow," and he might say that he never was subject to so much importunity on almost any subject. He must bear testimony to the zeal the hon. Member for Wakefield had shown, both publicly and privately, in the matter. He had also received repeated applications from the hon. Members for Leeds and Sheffield. He gave one and the same answer to all these Gentlemen, that the question was one on which he must reserve his opinion, that it did not lie with him to decide it, and that an order must be made on the subject by Her Majesty in Council, after the question had been considered by a Committee of the Privy Council. Every document received at the Home Office on the question was forwarded to the Council Office, in order that it might be printed and placed in the hands of the members of the Committee. The Lord Chancellor (who had looked very carefully into the matter, was a member of the Committee, and the President of the Council) summoned to the Committee two Members of the Government, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India (Sir Charles Wood), and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for "War (Earl De Grey), who were connected with Yorkshire, and possessed a local acquaintance with the subject. Two law Lords were also added, who had, as Common Law Judges, well known the Northern Circuits — Lords Wensleydale and Cranworth. His right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Council (Mr. Lowe) and himself were also summoned to attend. An inquiry was made of the parties interested whether the whole of the case of Leeds, Sheffield, and Wakefield respectively, was contained in the documents transmitted to the Council Office, and they answered that it was. It had been said that Earl De Grey went into the Committee with his mind already made up in favour of Leeds.
  810
  His reply to that was, that when he entered the Committee with Earl De Grey, he did not know what the opinion of his noble Friend was. After considering all the documents laid before them, and deliberating carefully on the subject, the Committee came to the conclusion—without reference to political or private interests, but with a single view to the convenience of the West Riding, and the cheap, speedy, and effectual administration of justice—that Leeds had a preferable claim. Reference had been made, much to his surprise, to the opinion of the magistrates; for the fact was well known, that if the magistrates' opinion was to prevail, a large majority were decidedly against any change whatever. He trusted the House would not, at the instigation of the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), without having one authentic document before it, but simply on the perusal of ex parte statements, such as were circulated in the case of a Private Bill, decide a question which could only be decided after due deliberation, and with a full knowledge of all the facts. No doubt the House had a right to address the Crown on this or any other subject; but in the absence of all information it would, he was sure, refuse to interfere with the ordinary course prescribed by law, and set aside the decision of the Privy Council. It was not correct to assert that the Government had suspended action in order that the opinion of the inhabitants of the West Riding might be more definitely ascertained. The case was the same as that of Manchester. Long ago it was decided that an assize should be held in Manchester; but no order in Council had yet been issued, simply because it was necessary that proper provision should be made beforehand for the holding of an assize there. So it was with Leeds. Advice had been tendered to Her Majesty in favour of holding an assize in that town, and if an Order in Council had not been issued, it was not because the Government wished to suspend proceedings, but because the requisite accommodation had not yet been provided. On the whole, notwithstanding the stirring and amusing nature of the appeals which had been addressed to it, he hoped the House would not be led into the consideration of the merits of this case without having the means of arriving at a safe and sound conclusion.
  MR. BEECROFTsaid, he congratulated the Borough of Wakefield in having for its

  811
  able representative his hon. and gallant Friend who was ever ready to stand forth as its champion even under the most adverse circumstances. His hon. and gallant Friend would however, perhaps, allow him to say a word or two on behalf of Leeds: and, in the first place, he must remind him and the House that Her Majesty's Privy Council was fully apprised of the opinions of the county magistrates when it came to its decision in favour of appointing Leeds as the assize town for the West Riding, and that decision was no doubt arrived at from the fact, that the claims of Leeds were found to be irresistible. The majority of the "West Riding magistrates were not in favour of Wakefield being made the assize town; 158 magistrates voted for Wakefield and fifty-seven for Leeds, and as there were about 360 magistrates in the Riding, it appeared about 150 abstained from voting. The West Riding contained 1,700,000 acres, and was larger than any county in England or Wales, except Lincoln. The population was 1,500,000, being one-twelfth of the population of England. Leeds was by far the most populous town in the Riding, and was the centre of a large manufacturing and mercantile district, and contained, according to the last census, 207,000 inhabitants, and within a radius of ten miles of Leeds there were 600,000 inhabitants. Wakefield, had a population of 23,000, and was only a little more than eight miles from Leeds. Common sense told us, that as between these two places, the small population should go to the large town, and not the large population to the small town; he was much surprised, therefore, that any one should attempt to set up the claims of Wakefield as being superior to those of Leeds. Leeds was the centre to which all the railways in the Riding, with one or two unimportant exceptions, converged, and had frequent access to all parts, and in nearly all cases without change of carrriage or line of railway. Leeds had 120 arrivals per rail per day, and the same number of departures, and in these respects was far better situated than any town in the Riding. The House would admit that this facility of access was the best means of rendering the administration of justice cheap, and was a great convenience to commercial men, as they could come from almost any part of the Biding before the opening of the court in the morning, and return home after the
  812
  close of the court in the evening. Leeds, on account of its great population, and being the seat of the most important trades in the Riding, had more than an average share of cases for trial, and had contributed much more largely than any other town in the Riding to the civil and commercial business of the assizes. For this reason, when bankruptcy courts were instituted, Leeds was chosen as the principal, and Sheffield as a branch court. For similar reasons the assizes for Northumberland were removed to Newcastle, and South Lancashire to Liverpool, simply because of the large population, amount of accommodation, and facility of access, &c. The population of Leeds was loyal, well affected, very peaceable, no riot of any consequence having ever taken place in it. The great variety of trades prevented the working classes being subject to any general trade distress and conduced to their contentment and peaceable habits. If Leeds was not the natural centre of the Riding, why did the railway companies choose it as their terminus instead of Wakefield? Wakefield had almost equal railway communication with Leeds, but it was accidental, being in the valley; and when railways were first made they could not work districts which they can now; for instance — direct from Manchester to Leeds viâ Dews-bury. If they had been able to do it then, Wakefield would only have been an out-of-the-way place on a branch. What induced railway companies to centre in Leeds was its business and importance, and being the natural centre of the district; and the same reasons applied to assizes. Newcastle was at the extreme verge of Northumberland, and Liverpool at the extreme verge of South Lancashire. In all these cases the assizes were taken to large places, though at extreme points; but they had large populations, good and plentiful accommodation, and were centres of railways, and therefore had direct access to most parts of their respective districts. Leeds had these advantages of population, of accommodation and of railway access, and besides which it was central, which they were not. His hon. and gallant Friend had alluded to the hotel accommodation in Wakefield. Now, he really must differ with him in this respect; there were no superior hotels in Wakefield, but certainly sufficient for the accommodation of 23,000 inhabitants, although anything but sufficient for the accommodation for the number of people

  813
  frequenting the assizes. The railway stations at Wakefield were not good, and passengers had to wait till trains came up, as they were only roadside stations. In Leeds, passengers could wait in a first-class hotel, and know the moment they start, because it was a terminus. Was it not, therefore, idle to talk about the claims of Wakefield being superior to those of Leeds? He could understand the city of York being opposed to any change: it had many associations connected with it which, beyond mere possession, had given it a sort of claim to continue the assize town of the county. It could not be wondered at that its influence should have been exercised to the utmost to retain them. How, then, it would be asked, had the change been at last brought about? He answered, by the sheer necessity of the case. The claims were so strong the Government could no longer resist them. The area of the Hiding, the increase of its population, the extent of its commerce, and the consequent amount of assize business, both civil and criminal, which necessarily arose within it, exceeded those of many of the counties, which each possessed a separate assize, put together. Then, where were the new assizes to be held? The same considerations furnished the ready answer. The centre of the densest of the population, surrounded immediately by numbers greater than those which people many a county —itself furnishing a very large proportion of the business of an assize, and supplying the most intelligent class of jurymen that could be empanelled, and possessed already of all the necessary courts and buildings — whither, but to Leeds, could an impartial tribunal bring the business that it had once determined to remove from York? The citizens of York need not, however, fear that their ancient city would ever cease to be regarded as the metropolis of the great county of York. He could easily understand the prejudices of the magistracy and the county gentlemen, and their old associations with the county town—these were very natural; but they must remember that when York was made an assize town, it was the largest and most important town, not only in Yorkshire, but in the north of England, and now the population was concentrated in quite a different direction. The magistrates of the West Riding, he knew, wished to retain York as the assize town for the whole of York-
  814
  shire; but for what reason they should prefer the small town of Wakefield to Leeds as an assize town, was to him, he confessed, a great mystery. He, therefore, asked the House, was justice to be brought to the doors of the people or not? Were the prejudices of county gentlemen, however natural, to be considered before the public convenience? He asked these questions with confidence. Was the public convenience of the great masses of the people to be considered or not? That was the question which this House had to decide. He believed that the House would not attempt to reverse or overrule the decision already arrived at by Her Majesty's Privy Council, and he also believed the people of the West Riding—even the magistrates— would, after calm consideration and due reflection, regard that decision as wise and judicious.
  SIR GEORGE GREYwished to correct an omission in his previous statement. He had mentioned the names of Lord Wensleydale and the Secretary of State for India as among the Members of the Committee of Privy Council, but neither of them was able to attend personally: they sent the President their opinions in writing.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought that this matter had been taken entirely out of the jurisdiction of the House. An Act of Parliament had been passed, giving the Privy Council the power to determine this question, and it had been determined accordingly. ["No!"] The Privy Council had determined it; they had said that the assizes should be removed from York to the West Riding, and they also recommended that Leeds should be the town fixed upon. They waited till Leeds had done certain things, and till certain documents should be issued, before they made it decisive that Leeds should be the new assize town; but still it should be distinctly understood that the Privy Council had decided. Parliament had declared that the Privy Council was the best tribunal to judge of that matter, and that tribunal had had before it all sorts of evidence. He had himself laid before the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) certain evidence, and he regretted that that weight had not been given to it which he desired; but still he bowed to the decision. But the House had no evidence before it, and they were precluded from doing anything in the matter. They, perhaps, did not know what they were about when they passed an Act of Parfia-

  815
  ment; but, having given this power to the Privy Council, they ought not to interfere with its decision. He knew that country gentleman liked a country town with a country atmosphere; but he could not pretend to share the fantastical notions of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), who spoke of the horrors of Leeds. He could not very well understand how the hon. Gentleman coming from Huddersfield should pretend a wish to escape from the horrors of Leeds. He could very well understand how the country gentlemen should prefer Wakefield to Leeds, and prefer York to either. They might have their dances and their flirtations at Wakefield, and they might not like the society they would meet at Leeds. All that might weigh with the country gentlemen of York, but it should not weigh with the Parliament of England. He spoke merely as the mouthpiece of his constituents, having no feeling on the matter himself. His constituents told him that they desired Leeds to be chosen, and their desire in such a matter he took as a command, although in matters Imperial he would not take their opinion for more than it was worth. He, therefore, spoke in favour of Leeds, and hoped the House would not stultify their previous votes by now voting this Address.
  COLONEL SMYTHsaid, he had heard the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) with some astonishment, because only that day week that hon. and learned Gentleman went with his Colleague and himself on a deputation to the Home Office and asked that Sheffield might be united to York for assize purposes. Therefore, since that day week the opinions of the people of Sheffield must have greatly changed. As long ago as the date of the Report of the Commission, to which his hon. and gallant Friend had alluded, this question had been more or less agitated; and in 1858 a memorial was sent to the then Home Secretary, signed by an overwhelming majority of the magistrates, in favour of the retention of the county assizes at York; but many of the magistrates said that if there was to be a change, Wakefield was the place that should be selected, and not Leeds. On several subsequent occasions the feeling of the magistrates had been expressed to the like effect, in every instance the majority being adverse to any removal of the assizes at all from York. What they complained of, therefore, was that the opinions
  816
  of the justices having been asked by the Government three or four separate times, and always with the same result, a determination of the Privy Council, diametrically opposed to those opinions, should have been taken. That, he thought, was a sufficient reason for raising this question again. Moreover, the decision of the Privy Council was arrived at by a narrow majority, and he believed that if Lord Wensleydale and the Secretary of State for India had been present, they would have been in favour of Wakefield instead of Leeds. When Leeds was selected, the intelligence was received with a surprise amounting to something like indignation by every one whose opinion had been sought. He should support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.
  MR. BAINESsaid, this question had been already settled by the authority to which it had been delegated by Parliament. The Acts 3 & 4 Will. IV. and 27 & 28 Vict, concurred in giving power to the Privy Council to decide questions of this nature, and, after patient and mature deliberation, they had decided in favour of Leeds. Would that House constitute itself as a court of appeal against the Privy Council? The case was as complete for Leeds as it was for Manchester, to which the assizes of a portion of South Lancashire had been transferred. It was the intention of our old law that the assizes should be held in the principal town of each county, and there could be no doubt that Leeds was the principal town of the West Riding. Contracts for land and buildings and other arrangements, involving the expenditure of large sums of money, had already been entered into at Leeds, under the belief that the assizes were to be transferred to that town; and all those engagements and the consequent expenses which had been incurred, would be nullified if the House should interfere to set aside the decision of the Privy Council. It had been stated that 282,000 of the inhabitants of the West Riding were nearer to Wakefield than to Leeds; but that calculation had been made upon the data supplied by a period which preceded the development of the railway system; and the latest estimate of population and the most recent railway time tables showed that 60,000 of the people of the West Riding had more easy access to Leeds than to Wakefield. Leeds was the most central as well as the most populous part of the West Riding. Its industry and commerce

  817
  were greater, it possessed much superior accommodation for an assize town than Wakefield, and there was no reason for attempting to disturb the decision of the Privy Council, and he hoped the House would not sanction any such attempt.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was not a Yorkshireman, and had no connection with the West Riding, and he was, therefore, a perfectly impartial witness in that matter; but he had been a member of the Royal Commission, which, in the year 1857, sat to consider the question. He could confirm the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), that the Commission, which was presided over by Lord Campbell, and of which Lord Wensleydale and Baron Martin were members, arrived at a unanimous decision against transferring the assizes of the West Riding to Leeds. It was true that a majority of the Commission were in favour of retaining the assizes at York; but a minority, which included his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) and himself, were of opinion that the case for establishing a separate assizes for the West Riding had been made out, and that such assizes ought to be held at Wakefield; and he believed that if the Commission had merely to choose between the claims of Wakefield and Leeds, the majority, if not the whole of its members, would have decided in favour of the former town. The population of the West Riding were nearer to Wakefield than to Leeds, in the ratio of seven to five; and the great prison of the West Riding, as well as the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the principal police station, were at Wakefield. He could see no constitutional objection to the House addressing the Crown upon that subject; and if the Motion were pressed to a division, he should feel it his duty to give effect to his opinion as a member of the Royal Commission, by voting in favour of it.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not denied that the House had a constitutional right to address the Crown in such a case.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that at a meeting of many of the most influential inhabitants of Sheffield it was resolved that Leeds ought to be the assize town of the West Riding; but the people present at that meeting intended to ask hereafter that there should be a further division of the Riding, and that Sheffield should ultimately become an assize town.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 119: Majority 19.

LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WARNERsaid, that since he gave notice of his intention to call attention to the Law of Settlement, he had had an opportunity of stating his opinions upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had also publicly declared his opinion that a union rating was only a question of time, and that with a union rating the law of settlement must go. He (Mr. Warner) was perfectly satisfied with his declaration, and he thought he should best serve the cause he had at heart, by leaving the further discussion of the matter to the Committee which had already sat two Sessions, and which he hoped would be re-appointed.
APPOINTMENT OF LIEUT. GENERAL GOUGH TO THE 2ND DRAGOONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, On what principle Lieutenant General Gough, C.B., has been appointed to the 2nd Dragoons? In the first place, he wished to disclaim all intention of saying anything that might be hurtful to the feelings of an old and distinguished officer; it was because he was influenced by the feelings of an old soldier that he brought this question forward. He fully admitted that General Gough deserved all the rewards his country could bestow upon him except the one reward of an appointment to a cavalry regiment. He had always thought that the rule was that no officer was entitled as a General Officer to receive the appointment to a cavalry regiment who had not served as a lieutenant-colonel of dragoons. That was the belief of the service—that was the rule observed by the Duke of Wellington, and with some modification it was observed by Lord Hardinge. Only on one or two occasions had that rule been departed from, and he thought that these were appointments which cavalry officers were fairly and honourably entitled to claim. He should probably be told that Lieutenant General Gough had served for many years in a cavalry regiment. But the fact was that he

  819
  never served at all with a cavalry regiment, for although he was in the 3rd Light Dragoons he had not done one day's duty with that distinguished regiment. In 1820 Lieutenant General Gough entered the service. He was in the 22nd and 23rd Foot, or on half-pay till 1837, in which year he was appointed to an extra troop in the 3rd Light Dragoons, when that regiment was proceeding to India. In this regiment he remained from 1837 to 1853, during which time, however, though his services were most distinguished, he did no regimental duty, being placed upon the staff, and other officers in the regiment, who got no reward whatever, had to perform his duty. It might be true that at the battle of Moodkee and Ferozeshah, General Gough commanded a cavalry brigade, but they were Native cavalry. He would leave it to the House to judge whether an officer who had never commanded a squadron of dragoons was as qualified to command as an officer who had been trained in that branch of the service. He next came to the time when he found the gallant General at home on half-pay, and when he found him in command of the Belfast district; in Dublin he had command of the infantry brigade, General Parlby commanding the cavalry brigade. The last-named fact showed that the authorities regarded General Gough not as a cavalry but as an infantry officer. He quite admitted that an officer who had performed distinguished service should be well rewarded by his country; but he also went a step further and said, that he should be rewarded in that particular branch of the service with which he had been connected; and without underrating the merits of General Gough he could not help saying that he thought that old cavalry officers had some little reason for complaint at that appointment. Looking at the list of General officers in that branch of the service, and having regard to the number of vacancies that had occurred within a specified period, if promotions were to take place at the same rate the junior officer would have to wait fifty years before he obtained a regiment, and therefore he regarded such appointments as this with apprehension. He hoped he had not said anything which reflected on the character of General Gough. All that he wished to convey was that he thought it was not for the interest of the service that a highly-approved rule should be set aside, and that those who had served in cavalry regiments should be
  820
  deprived of their rewards. He had given notice to move an Address for papers, but if the noble Marquess was unwilling to give them he should not press the Motion.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he thought that discussions upon military appointments in that House were very much to be deprecated. He did not wish to limit in any way the authority of this House over expenditure, but the appointments and discipline of the army ought to be left in the hands of those whom from time to time Her Majesty and the country honoured with their confidence. It was impossible that any Commander-in-Chief could give general satisfaction; but there was in this country a public opinion which no man, however high his station, could outrage, and as a general rule, army patronage was bestowed with tolerable fairness and discretion. There had recently been a melancholy instance of the imprudence of interfering in a matter which had been already settled by competent authority, and this constant interference with military appointments struck a heavy blow at the root of discipline, and tended to deprive the authorities of the confidence of their subordinates.
  MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, he thought that Lieutenant General Gough could not object to have his services and claims laid on the table, because those services were almost a history in themselves of the successful campaigns of this country during the last forty-two years. When the hon. and gallant Officer opposite brought this case forward, why did he not take pains to explain that Lieutenant General Gough had served his country for forty-two years, of which period forty years had been passed in active service abroad? [Colonel BARTTELOT: I said he had entered the service in 1820."] He said the hon. and gallant Officer had given the particulars afforded by the common Army List, but he might have informed the House that Lieutenant General Gough had been in four distinct campaigns, was thanked seventeen times in general orders for his gallant conduct in the field, while no man had been more mangled and more pitifully wounded in the service of his country. At the battles of Moodkee and Ferozeshah, in both which engagements he was badly wounded, he commanded a cavalry brigade. As to the objection that Lieutenant General Gough was not a cavalry officer, he did not understand it. It seemed to him that he was bonâ fide a cavalry officer.

  821
  He had exchanged from the 23rd Fusileers into the 3rd Light Dragoons, paying the difference between cavalry and infantry; and after sixteen years' service with that regiment, chiefly on the staff in India, he was put on half-pay, without receiving the difference, when that regiment returned from India and was reduced. Infantry Generals six and seven years junior to him in the service had received infantry regiments; and, after waiting for five or six years, during which so many were put over his head, General Gough had recently been appointed to the Greys. He thought the Horse Guards had not only shown great discretion, but also a proper appreciation of distinguished and lengthened service in the field, by conferring this appointment on that gallant officer. It was an appointment that did honour to the Horse Guards and to General Gough.
  MR. DAWSONconcurred with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Colonel Dickson), that the House ought to discourage discussion on such subjects as this. He was sure that the eminent person who presided over the Horse Guards, fairly considered the claims of gallant officers who were eligible for rewards by reason of their distinguished services. That General Gough was not exclusively a cavalry officer could not be for one moment contested; but it was equally true that he had performed some of his most distinguished services in the field while commanding as a cavalry officer. It was certain, too, that General Gough had lost in a pecuniary point of view by not getting himself put over an infantry regiment years ago; and it would be unreasonable to object to his getting the Greys when he had waited so long for an appointment to which his services justly entitled him.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not intend to enter on this occasion into the question, whether it was expedient or inexpedient that the House of Commons should take into its cognizance matters of this nature relative to the discipline of the army. There was no doubt, that on subsequent occasions during the Session, that question would be more prominently brought forward and discussed in a case which had given rise to great public interest within the last twelve months. But he must say, as the representative of the War Department and of the Commander-in-Chief in that House, that if he could have selected any case which, he should
  822
  have wished to see brought forward there, it was the case which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Barttelot) had brought forward that evening. After the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne), it was not necessary for him to trouble the House with the dry details with which he was prepared in reference to the services of Lieutenant General Gough. Those services had been, in the main, correctly stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot); but he had made an omission, which had subsequently been cleared up by the hon. Member for Liskeard. He had omitted to tell the House that when General Gough exchanged from the infantry to the cavalry he paid the difference in the price of the commissions, and that when he was reduced to half-pay he did not receive that difference back again. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had told the House that there was a rule to the effect, that none but field officers of cavalry should receive such an appointment as had been conferred upon General Gough. He could only say that after careful inquiry he had not been able to find that any such rule had ever been known or recognized either at the War Office or the Horse Guards; and he thought it would be absurd that such a rule should exist. The simple understanding was that a bonâ fide cavalry officer should be selected from a cavalry regiment, and a bonâ fide infantry officer for an infantry regiment. The only point in the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which had not been replied to was that General Gough had commanded a brigade of infantry in Ireland. The fact was that a change of system was determined on while General Gough was in Ireland. The system of Generals of districts was done away with, and instead of it the system of Generals of divisions was substituted. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief would not have appointed General Gough to the command of an infantry brigade if he had not been the General of a district; but, having no other command at his disposal, he gave him the command of an infantry brigade in consequence of having found him in the command of a district. He was glad the hon. and gallant Member had disclaimed any intention of decrying the services of General Gough; or of alleging that the reward which that gallant officer received had not been properly earned; but he must say that the notice on the paper might easily have induced any one to sup-

  823
  pose that he intended to submit to the House the inexpediency of rewarding General Gough at all. After the statements which had been made to the House, he did not think it necessary for him to justify the appointment to a cavalry regiment of a distinguished General who had always been considered more of a cavalry than an infantry officer. He thought it would be extremely hard if any objection was made to the appointment, inasmuch as General Gough had been passed over again and again when the commands of infantry regiments were being conferred, because it was considered by the Horse Guards that he was a cavalry officer, and that the command of an infantry regiment was not the reward to give him.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that in the regiment in which he had served — the Blues — two infantry officers, Lord Hill and Lord Gough, had been appointed to the colonelcy.

  UNITED STATES—CAPTURE OF A CONFEDERATE VESSEL IN A BRITISH HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
  MR. HALIBURTONrose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for information relative to the capture of a ship under the Confederate flag, by a Federal vessel of war, within the harbour of Pankbar, in Nova Scotia, and under the guns of the fort; whether complaint had been made of this outrage to the Government of the United States, and, if so, what answer had been given thereto; and to move an address for copies of correspondence thereon? The hon. and learned Member said, that the vessel in question was sailing from one port to another of the United States, when she was captured by a body of men on board who claimed to be Confederates holding commissions from the Confederate authorities. She was afterwards brought to a port and received certain supplies and shipped a certain number of men. She then proceeded further towards Nova Scotia, and finally entered the harbour of Pankbar. While there she was pursued by an American man-of-war, captured, and carried to Halifax, where she was given up to the Admiralty. He did not wish to inquire as to whether a piratical act had been committed, nor did he want to inquire into the subsequent proceedings of the Court of Admiralty at Halifax. What he wished to know was whether any complaint had been made, on
  824
  the part of this country, of the capture to which he referred; and, if so, what reply had been returned on the subject by the Federal Government. The outrage itself was one about which there could be no dispute; and it was well that it was so, for there had been exhibited by the American authorities a carelessness in their statements of facts and a looseness in their preparation of public documents in those instances which, he would simply say— for he did not like to use harsh or coarse language—contrasted very unfavourably with the accuracy which we displayed. In support of that view, he might mention that in a case which occurred off the West Indies, where a Federal man-of-war chased a vessel ashore and fired broadside after broadside into her at a distance of only 300 yards, it was maintained on the part of the Americans—nay, sworn—that the vessel was at the time three leagues away, and nothing but the production of the shot and fragments of the shell could convince them that they were wrong. In the same careless manner it was asserted, on their part, in the case in which a vessel was seized near the Cape of Good Hope and the mate shot by one of the American officers, that it was all a matter of the purest accident; that the officer had presented the pistol by accident, that it went off by accident, and that by accident the man was killed. He alluded to these cases in illustration of the carelessness to which he had just adverted; but, in the present instance, the facts were too strong and too well authenticated to admit of denial. The capture of the vessel was well known to the inhabitants of a large fishing village in the vicinity of the spot where the seizure took place; it occurred under the guns of the neighbouring fort, in view of two regiments, and while the vessel was within 300 yards of the shore. But the case was one which only afforded a single illustration in connection with a very painful subject. It was a source of constant complaint that vessels lawfully trading with the Bermudas and Nassau were condemned by the American Prize Courts without rhyme or reason; and although the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston), the other evening, passed a high eulogium on the American Courts, stating that they were very impartial, and that this country ought to be satisfied with their decisions, yet he must be allowed to remark that that was the very reverse of the opinion which was generally entertained with respect to them.

  825
  Indeed, the Americans themselves did not speak very highly of them; and it was, therefore, no harm to say, that while the Supreme Court in America had ever since the days of Washington borne the highest character for the intelligence, learning, and ability of its members, the decisions of the inferior Courts, whose Judges were generally chosen for political objects, and because of the political opinions which they held, were beneath contempt, and, to use the language of Americans themselves, not to be trusted. There was, therefore, not unnaturally a very general feeling among the colonists, that when their property was seized by the Federal vessels, it was very often wrested from them by the ruling of those inferior Courts in defiance of law and reason. They felt, moreover, that the Americans were a people who would just go as far as they were allowed, and that when they took a step they were disposed to go a step further if not checked. They saw that the Americans were constantly making inroads into Canada in pursuit of deserters, at whom they fired, and sometimes captured and took back—for such things were repeatedly done, although we learnt nothing of their occurrence from the public prints or from the Government; they felt that there was a lawless people in their neighbourhood who were bound by no ties, who disregarded international law, who resorted to violence and force; and it was because the colonists felt all this, that he had deemed it to be his duty to bring the case of the capture of the vessel, to which his question related, under the notice of the House of Commons.

DENMARK AND GERMANY — THE DANISH SUCCESSION—TREATY OF 1852, AND THE WARSAW PROTOCOL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINGLAKEsaid, that as his hon. Friend the Tinder Secretary for Foreign Affairs would be precluded from speaking a second time on the Motion before the House, he wished to invite his attention, before he replied to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, to the subject of his notice—the way in which the operation of the Treaty of London, of the 8th of May, 1852, was affected by a Note addressed on the same day by Baron Brunow to the Danish Minister at the Court of St. James'. At a moment when that treaty was the cause of so much perplexity, confusion, and war, he might, he thought, be par-
  826
  doned for endeavouring to bring to the knowledge of the House a portion of the transactions which occurred on that 8th of May on which it was signed, and which had not yet, so far as he knew, been communicated to Parliament or to the country. It was true that, in his judgment, the casus fœderis under the treaty had not occurred. As he read it, it was a treaty which had no immediate application, and which could have no application until the King of Denmark had taken the necessary measures for changing the succession, not only in Denmark Proper, but in the two Duchies; and he ventured to believe that the country was fast coming round to the opinion that it would be grievous indeed if there was any word in the treaty which would compel us by force or diplomatic pressure to force on a reluctant people a ruler to whom they objected. His present object, however, was to bring under the consideration of the House the true nature of the arrangements which had been entered into on the 8th of May, 1852, including that which was withheld, as well as the treaty of which they were cognizant. But in order to give significance to the Question which he was about to put to the Government, it was necessary that he should give hon. Members some idea of the purport of the Warsaw Protocol of which they had heard so much. According to some, that Protocol, far from being what its terms purported, a concession made by the Emperor of Russia, was regarded as a retraction of a concession which had been formerly made by the Emperor Paul. But whether that was or was not the true interpretation, it was quite certain that the Protocol of Warsaw did carefully keep alive, and sought, as it were, to give new life to all those rights and claims of the Emperor of Russia which might accrue after the failure of the male issue of the present King of Denmark. Inasmuch as before the signing of that instrument there were many lives intercepting any claim on the part of the Emperor — as many, he believed, as seventeen — and inasmuch as the arrangements put an end to by the treaty and the renunciations to be obtained would limit to fourteen the number of those intercepting persons, it was quite clear that the Protocol of Warsaw, if it ever came into operation, enabled the Emperor to make a vast stride. This stride was so obvious that it never seemed to have been thought that Europe could be asked to give its sanction to the arrangements of the Warsaw Pro-

  827
  tocol. He had often heard it said that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had from time to time approved that protocol; but he was bound to say that, as far as he could gather anything from the papers which had been brought to his knowledge, the noble Lord ceased to be, in public at all events, a supporter of the proposal brought forward by the Emperor of Russia, from the time when the Protocol of Warsaw was submitted to the opinion of European diplomatists. It being, as he said, impossible that the arrangements made by the Protocol of Warsaw should be openly proposed to Europe, the Treaty of London carefully avoided recognizing them. The Treaty of London dwelt only specially with circumstances which were to occur until the failure of issue of the present King of Denmark; but it also provided, not in a special, but in a general way, for the manner in which Europe should deal with the condition of things which would arise in the event of such failure of issue. By the second Article it provided, that in the event of the failure of male issue of the present King and Queen of Denmark, it should be competent to the King to propose new arrangements to Europe, and those new arrangements should be taken into consideration by the parties to the treaty. There, then, an initiative was clearly given to the King of Denmark; and a power of dealing with that initiative, a power of receiving his proposal, was reserved to the other parties to the treaty. Accordingly, this second article has always been relied upon as the safeguard contained in the treaty; and when in the year 1853 there was a good deal of discussion on this subject, Lord Clarendon stated, and stated quite rightly, if this treaty was the only thing in existence, that the fears of those who desired to look to the state of things after the failure of issue of the present King of Denmark were provided against by the second article of the treaty. That being so, what would the House say when he stated, that on the very day on which the treaty was signed, as it were, while the ink of the treaty was drying, another paper was prepared, signed by Baron Brunow, and addressed by him to the Danish Minister, which, if acquiesced in by the Danish Minister and the other parties to the treaty, would absolutely annul the second article of the treaty, and would do a great deal more — would positively bring into force and make obligatory upon the King of Denmark the stipulations of the War-
  828
  saw Protocol? That such a paper was signed he was absolutely certain. He had in his care the original French of the paper in question, and he had also a translation which he had made of it. The French copy which he had in his pocket he had compared with a copy which he knew to be authentic, and he was therefore enabled with perfect confidence to state to the House that this paper was signed and addressed to the Danish Minister on the 8th of May, 1852. The Note was dated according to the Russian plan "26th April and 8th May" —old and new style—" 1852," and was addressed by M. de Brunow, the Minister of Russia at the Court of London, to M. de — the Danish Minister at the same Court. It ran thus—
  "The undersigned Envoy, &c, has received orders to deliver to him at the same time this present Note, in order to recall and renew the reserves expressed in the Protocol of Warsaw of the 24th of May (5th of June), 1851, which, after having been clothed with the sanction of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and His Majesty the King of Denmark, has been brought to the knowledge of other Powers."
  Then there followed a copy of the third section of the Warsaw Protocol, and then M. de Brunow ended by renewing, by order of his Court, the reserves then declared. He did not for a moment imagine that in this proceeding there was any idea of anything like treachery. He was perfectly certain that his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) would be able to tell the House that there was no concealment among the Powers who were parties to the treaty, and that the Note in question was fairly communicated, not only to Denmark, but to all the other Powers who were parties to the Treaty of London. But although there was, as he had no doubt, this perfect freedom of communication between the plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty, still, for some reasons of State with which he was not acquainted, no communication of this important document — this document which varied and altered in a most important way the terms of the Treaty of London—had, as far as he had been able to ascertain, ever been made to Parliament or to the country at large. Therefore, as it appeared to him, the effect of this Note, if it was acquiesced in by the King of Denmark and the other Powers, was exactly the same as that of a document well known to diplomatists, called "a secret Article." It would operate exactly in the same way as a secret Article annexed to a treaty. His hon. Friend must not

  829
  tell him that a mere Note such as this was not a document of sufficient solemnity to undo the solemn engagements of a treaty; because it did so happen, either by chance or as. the result of an extraordinary amount of ingenuity—he could not say which— that the particular provision of the treaty was of such a kind, that without any violation of the principle that one treaty was not to be got rid of by anything less than another, this document would have the effect of altering the arrangements of the Treaty of London—because the provision of the treaty was that it should be competent to the King of Denmark to make proposals for changing the succession; and the effect of this Note, which was brought to his attention, and which revised the Protocol of Warsaw, was to limit his power, to limit his discretion as to making those proposals, and to bind him, with the degree of cogency which was involved in the receipt of and acquiescence in the paper, to a strict observance in the proposals which he made of the Protocol of Warsaw; therefore, if this singular Note addressed to the Danish Minister, and, as he understood, hitherto withheld from Parliament, was not acquiesced in by Her Majesty's Government, the House would be glad to have any correspondence which showed that it was objected to, protested against, or repudiated. If, on the other hand, it was acquiesced in, it must be regarded as a document which altered in a most material way the terms of the Treaty of London, and then it would be clear that the Treaty of London must never again be submitted to Parliament without being accompanied by a document which so importantly altered its terms. He begged, in conclusion, to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the communication of the Note to Her Majesty's Government was received by them with acquiescence, or was the occasion of any Correspondence which can be laid on the table of the House?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that his hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Launceston (Mr. Haliburton), who had asked a question with regard to the Chesapeake, had very properly abstained from making any remarks upon the part of the case which was still the subject of judicial inquiry, and he (Mr. Layard) should, of course, pursue a similar course. With regard to the seizure of the vessel, his hon. Friend had stated correctly what had taken
  830
  place. It was well known that some agents of the Confederate States took a passage on board the Chesapeake, that they rose on the captain and crew, killed one of the officers and wounded two others, put the captain and crew on board a pilot boat, and finally carried off the vessel and took refuge in a harbour of Nova Scotia, called Sambro. An American gunboat entered that harbour and carried off the vessel illegally and by force. As soon as information was received of what had taken place, Her Majesty's Government sent instructions to Lord Lyons, to ask for an immediate explanation, and for redress in case the statement which they had received proved to be correct. But he was happy to be able to state, that long before Lord Lyons received those instructions, Mr. Seward, of his own accord, having heard of the occurrence, but being at first doubtful as to what the facts really were, expressed to Lord Lyons the intention of the United States Government to afford ample satisfaction, if the statement made with regard to the occurrence should prove correct. When Mr. Seward ascertained what the facts really were, he lost no time in making a full and ample apology, expressing his regret for what had taken place; and that part of the question, therefore, was settled. He had no objection to lay on the table the papers connected with the seizure of the Chesapeake; but as some time might elapse before the papers could be produced, he thought it only just to Mr. Seward to read the despatch written by that gentleman to Lord Lyons, and the answer returned to it by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. Mr. Seward's despatch was as follows:—
  "Department of State, Washington,
  January 9th, 1864.
  "The undersigned Secretary of State of the United States has the honour to present his respects to the right hon. Lord Lyons, accredited to this Government as the Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty, and to state that he has submitted to the President certain papers which were placed in the hands of the undersigned by his Lordship on the second day of this month, and which are described as follows: 1. Memorial of Susan Henry; 2. Affidavit of John E. Holt; 3. Memorial of John E. Holt; 4. Affidavit of John E. Holt; 5. Provincial Secretary to the Mayor of Halifax, December 19th, 1863; 6. Mayor of Halifax to Provincial Secretary, December 19th, 1863; 7. Same to same, December 22nd, 1863; 8. City Marshal to Mayor of Halifax, December 21st, 1863; 9. Police-constable Hutt to City Marshal, December 21st, 1863. The undersigned is authorized, in the first place, to express to his Lordship his ap-

  831
  preciation of the delicacy of manner in which his Lordship has thus, without formal complaint, brought to the notice of this Government the fact that the commander and other officers of the United States' steamer Ella and Annie in their recent visit to Halifax, in pursuit of pirates who had captured the American steamer Chesapeake, and taken refuge within British jurisdiction, directly violated the sovereignty of Her Majesty, by the assumption of power and authority in the name of the United States, as well on board the said steamer Chesapeake as on board the British schooner Investigator, while within British waters, without having obtained consent thereto of the authorities of Her Majesty's Government there or elsewhere. The undersigned observes that in some of these papers it is represented that the acts of power and authority referred to were at tended with circumstances of severity, rigour, and insult to British subjects. The' undersigned, how ever, thinks, that it sufficiently appears from the papers that the rigour and severity alleged were not greater than were necessary to secure the per sons of the pirates, in pursuit of whom the officers complained of were engaged, and to deliver them up to the British authorities of that place. lie hopes that this view of the case may be taken by Her Majesty's Government. The undersigned would observe, in the next place, that the Chesapeake and the prisoners were promptly delivered to those authorities, in compliance with the instructions of this department. The undersigned is further authorized to assure Her Majesty's Government in the spirit of a former communication made by the undersigned to his Lordship, relating to the capture of the Chesapeake in British waters, that the President disapproves and regrets the acts of force, power, and authority which was exercised by the officers of the Ella and Annie within British waters on the occasion mentioned, as the violation of the law of nations and of the friendly relations existing between the two countries, so greatly to the satisfaction of the United States, and to the advantage of both nations. The President has reason to believe that the proceedings thus disapproved were taken by the officers concerned under the influence of a patriotic and commendable zeal to bring to deserved punishment outlaws who had offended against the peace and dignity of both countries. The President, while he recognizes this circumstance as modifying the character of the transaction and mitigating the censure to be bestowed upon it, nevertheless freely concedes that it does not constitute a justification for the violation of the sovereignty of Great Britain, which those officers have committed. He has, therefore, directed that they shall be censured for this violation, and he will take such other means as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence of the grievances complained of. Fully determined to make all the amends that are due to Great Britain in the premisses, the undersigned will await the consideration of Her Majesty's Government upon the case as it has now been submitted. The undersigned avails himself, &c.
  "W. H. SEWARD.
  "The Lord Lyons, &c."
  In reply to that despatch, Lord Lyons was informed as follows:—
  "Foreign Office, Feb. 3, 1864.
  "My Lord, your several despatches of the numbers and dates specified in the margin, respecting
  832
  the case of the Chesapeake, together with the papers which have been received by the Secretary of State for the Colonies from the colonial authorities in North America, have been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, for their opinion on the different questions raised in them. The greater part of those questions have reference to the administration of the law in the colonies, and I need not trouble your Lordship with the view taken of them by the Law Officers of the Crown. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom I have communicated the opinion of the Law Officers, will doubtless give full instructions to the several colonial authorities. The readiness which Mr. Seward in his first communication with your Lordship, manifested to make all proper and suit able reparation for the acts of the United States' officers, has rendered it unnecessary for me to insist upon the questions which, under other circum stances, it would have been my duty at once to instruct your Lordship to discuss with the Government of the United States—namely, the wilful and flagrant violation of Her Majesty's territory by the officers of the United States' cruiser Ella and Annie. The Government of the United States having subsequently made, as reported in your Lordship's despatch of the 12th January, a full apology for the violation of Her Majesty's territory, committed by its officers in the case of the Chesapeake, it is only necessary for me to authorize your Lordship to state to Mr. Seward, that Her Majesty's Government accept that apology in the same spirit in which it has been offered, and are truly glad that the matter has been settled in a manner honourable to both parties, and calculated to improve the friendly relations which Her Majesty's Government are always anxious to maintain with the Government of the United States.
  I am, &c.,
  "RUSSELL."
  He (Mr. Layard) trusted that this apology and the answer of his noble Friend would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend and the country. His hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kinglake) had made what he evidently thought an extraordinary discovery in an extraordinary manner; and for his own part he felt anxious to know what were those peculiar sources of information which had led his hon. Friend to the discovery of the document of which he had made a translation. It might, however, have saved his hon. Friend some trouble if, instead of applying to those mysterious sources, he had come either to himself or had consulted the librarian of the House, who was always so ready to assist every Member, in which case he would have found that a copy of the original document, with a translation, was laid upon the table of the House no longer ago than 1856. He would have found that it was moved for by Mr. Hutt; and he would have obtained access to the Protocol of Warsaw relating to the Danish

  833
  Succession, to the Treaty of 1852, and the Note of Baron Brunow with its inclosure, and he would have found that the Note and its inolosure were communicated to Lord Malmesbury, at that time Minister for Foreign Affairs. Lord Malmesbury simply acknowledged its receipt. No correspondence whatever took place, and therefore there was no correspondence to lay on the table of the House beyond the simple acknowledgment. Into the important question of the nature and value of the Protocol of Warsaw, it would not be right that he should follow his hon. Friend. It was a question of very great importance, and one on which it would not become him, at the present moment, to enter.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kinglake) appeared to belong to that nondescript class of politicians who were singularly fortunate in finding "mare's-nests." This was a very large nest, but its dimensions were entirely owing to the inflation the matter had received in the present discussion. He would suppose a simple transaction—the ordinary case of a contract between A and B. If A chose to write a note to C, could any one say that such a note would in any way alter the effect of the contract between A and B? The five Powers of Europe entered into a treaty, and the Minister of one of them chose to write a Note to the King of Denmark about some portion of that treaty. The treaty itself remained unaffected by that Note, which became waste paper, and the hon. Member for Bridgewater amused himself by translating it.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Supply considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  INSANE PRISONERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 4.]—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Repeal of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 54, s. 1), agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Prisoners becoming insane, Two Justices may inquire, with Medical Aid, respecting such Insanity).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, who had given notice to move Amendments in
  834
  Clause 2, line 12, to leave out "death," and in Clause 2, line 20, after "appoint," to insert—
  "If any person imprisoned in any prison, under sentence of death, shall be certified by two or more of the visiting justices of such prison to have become insane since his conviction, one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State shall, on receipt of such certificate, forthwith issue a commission to three Commissioners to be selected by him, not more than one of whom, if any shall be of the medical profession, to inquire into the truth of such certificate; and such Commissioners are hereby empowered to examine such person, and to take evidence on oath of such witnesses as they may deem necessary; and such Commissioners shall report their proceedings, with the evidence, and their decision thereon, to such Principal Secretary of State; and in case they shall adjudge that such person has become insane since his trial, then such Secretary of State shall issue his warrant for the removal of such person to some lunatic asylum for the reception of criminals;"
  said he would now move an Amendment to omit the word "death" in the second line of the clause, which would be sufficient to raise the question which he desired to have discussed. His object was to define and limit the power of the Secretary of State in cases where sentence of death had been passed.
  The operation of the Bill ought in his opinion to be confined to insanity arising in the period between conviction and execution; and if it were intended by the Government to reinvestigate the question of insanity either at the time the offence was committed, or at the subsequent period of arraignment, that end ought to be attained by some different machinery. He saw an Amendment on the paper of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Montague Smith), to delegate the inquiry into the sanity of a prisoner, after certificate of the justices, to one of the Masters in Lunacy and a jury. But though that seemed a plausible he did not think it would be a satisfactory proposition. A jury required the direction of a leading mind, and he was far from being satisfied that they were easily directed to a right conclusion. In a pamphlet by Dr. Hood it was stated that, in the six years from 1852 to 1858, 120 persons were tried for murder or attempts to murder, or for acts of personal violence, and were acquitted on the ground of insanity. Of that number, seventy-nine were received into Bethlehem Hospital, but in several instances they exhibited no symptoms of insanity during their residence in the asylum. That showed the way in which juries acquitted pri-

  835
  soners where there was no ground for saying they were insane; and the risk would be greater if their decision in favour of sanity was to be immediately followed by the punishment of death. He thought that when a man had been convicted by a jury of his countrymen, he should be dealt with as a State prisoner, and that the State should undertake the charge of investigating the condition of his mind. When the visiting justices certified that a prisoner had become insane, Commissioners should be sent to examine the prisoner, and to call such witnesses as they deemed fit; and upon their Report the Secretary of State should act, without any responsibility attaching to him. The mode which he should propose in a subsequent Amendment, of sending three Commissioners, not more than one of whom should be of the medical profession, was, he thought, better than that of a jury, which was suggested in the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He begged to move the omission of the word "death" in line 12 of the Clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "death"—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. NEATEsaid, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) as to the principle embodied in his Amendment, although he differed with him as to the mode in which it should be carried out. He would suggest that it should be left to the Governor of the gaol, as well as the visiting justices, to put the machinery of the law in motion. In many respects the Governor was a better person to exercise the power than visiting justices, who were frequently selected merely on account of their near residence to the gaol. In his opinion, the law, with regard to insanity, was not merely unsatisfactory but was contrary to humanity and common sense, and he believed that the Judges would willingly dissent, if they could, from the exposition of the law contained in the Answers of the Judges to the question proposed to them in M'Naughten's case. In the eye of the law, normal and habitual insanity was no defence whatever. The question considered upon a plea of insanity was, whether the prisoner was insane at the time the act was committed, and in reference to the circumstances under which it was committed. Supposing a man acted under the influence of a delusion for which there was no reasonable
  836
  ground, according to the law he might be liable to its extreme penalty. For instance, if a man supposed that another man's house belonged to him, and went with a loaded pistol demanding admission, and on being refused shot the person dead, although he acted under the influence of an insane delusion, and was subject to delusions shutting him out from intercourse with society, and was not able to know that the house of his neighbour did not belong to him, yet, according to the opinion of the Judges as to what the law was, he would be liable to the extreme penalty of the law. The inquiry should therefore be, not whether a prisoner had become insane since his conviction, but whether he was habitually and normally insane, which was, and ought to be, a sufficient ground to exempt him from punishment.
  MR. MACDONOGHsaid, the Judges of the land had, with great ability and humanity, laid down the law with regard to insanity, and it was absolutely necessary for the protection of society, that every one who knew the consequences of his acts should suffer the penalty imposed for his offence, and that they should not be mystified by the advocates of the new and singular doctrine of moral insanity, that the more depraved a man might be the more should he be exempt from punishment. Such a doctrine was unchristian and unworthy the law of England. It was clear, that from the time of a man's conviction he should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that nothing should save him but the exercise of the Crown's prerogative of mercy. The object to be achieved was, to furnish due information to the Secretary of State as to the state of the prisoner's mind. He did not think that this should be left to the justices. There were only two modes of doing it effectually—first, by an inquiry by a jury; and secondly, an inquiry by a Commission. He thought that an inquiry by a Commission—not of medical men, but of men of intelligence and station, who might consult experts if necessary, was the true species of tribunal to whom this important authority should be consigned. He therefore approved of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had considered the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) very carefully, but he had failed to satisfy himself that they would be an improvement. Suppose a man changed with a capital

  837
  crime but not yet put upon his trial—if the Amendments were adopted, the very day before his trial he might be examined by two visiting justices and two medical men, and the Secretary of State would be bound to act upon their report. Sometimes a long interval takes place between commitment and trial. Take the case of Townley. He was committed on a charge of murder, and was imprisoned for some months before trial. At any time before his trial this certificate might have been signed, according to the Amendment, and he would have been withdrawn from the cognizance of a judicial tribunal. The hon. Member, as he understood, proposed not that there should be a representation by the visiting justices of a prisoner's insanity, but that they should certify to the fact of his insanity. This would be the only instance in which two laymen, as distinguished from medical men, had been empowered to certify the existence of insanity. There were cases in which two medical men might sign, and others in which visiting justices and medical men might jointly sign, but none in which laymen were to sign alone. To that extent the hon. Gentleman proposed an innovation on the existing law; because, although the opinion of two laymen in cases of insanity might be of value, it ought not, in his opinion, to be entirely unconnected from that of medical men. The hon. Gentleman then proposed that, on the certificate of two justices that a prisoner was insane, the Secretary of State should send down a Commission to consist of three members, only one of whom should be a medical man, with power to inquire into the prisoner's sanity, that their certificate should be final, and that no discretion should be left to the Secretary of State in the matter. The course suggested was very much like that which he had taken in sending the Lunacy Commissioners to inquire into Townley's case. They consisted of two laymen, members of the Lunacy Commission, and one medical man; and what was the result? They produced a report which was evidently a compromise. They expressed an opinion that Townley was not of sound mind; but that, according to the law laid down by the Judge, he was rightly convicted. If the present Bill had then been the law, with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the certificate of this Commission would have been final, the Secretary of State would have had no discretion, and he must have transferred Townley to
  838
  a lunatic asylum. The final report made by four medical men of great experience was more satisfactory. He thought it would be better that there should be a certificate from the visiting justices and the medical men, and that the Secretary of State, being thus put in motion, should appoint those persons whom he thought best qualified to examine the prisoner and report their opinion to him. The Bill would, no doubt, increase the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but that could not well be avoided with due regard to the proper administration of justice.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman in objecting to put prisoners under sentence of death in a different position to other prisoners had failed to notice the peculiar state of public opinion on the subject of death punishment. Among a small section of the public there was a strong opinion against the punishment of death, and that feeling was entertained so vehemently, that no scruples would prevent some of those who shared it from putting into work all the machinery which might exist for the purpose of saving a criminal from his fate. It was necessary, therefore, to treat the position of these prisoners as exceptional, and to take special precautions to prevent people signing their names to statements which they did not believe for the sake of getting them off. The weak point of every such tribunal as that proposed was, that it would consist more or less of medical men. Now, the medical and legal theories of insanity entirely differed from each other. Medical insanity simply meant something wrong in the structure of the brain, or in the performance of some of the functions connected with it. It might or might not affect the personal responsibility of the patient, and might be quite consistent with a full knowledge of the nature of a crime and its consequences. There was no reason for excusing a man from the penalty of his crime because he was, in a medical sense, insane. But there was an insanity which was an excuse for crime, and that kind of insanity had been defined by the Judges, and was acknowledged to be the legal doctrine on the subject. It had been excellently laid down by the Judges in M'Naughten's case, where it was ruled that ignorance of the nature of a crime and of the consequences which would flow from it were necessary to exculpate a criminal. The worst of appointing medical men on a tribunal to try the

  839
  sanity or insanity of a prisoner was, that they were sure to go off on a wrong scent. They would be thinking of medical insanity, when the point they were put to judge of was, whether a man was legally insane or not. The position of medical men in such cases should be that of a witness, not of judge. He had never been able to see why insanity after trial should not be judged of in the same way as insanity before trial—by a Judge and jury. If that tribunal was the fittest for the one investigation, it was the fittest for the other. Those who were conversant with foreign jurisprudence would be aware, that in some countries insanity was tried by a jury, and he regretted that this had not been introduced into the present Bill. He thought the Amendment was an improvement on the Bill, but it did not go far enough; he was convinced that we should never arrive at a proper condition of the law, and never relieve the Secretary of State from a burden which pressed heavily upon him, and which exposed him to constant obloquy, except by having recourse to the ancient and tried system of trial by jury.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that the noble lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had taken the bull by the horns, for he had gone the full length of the legal doctrine of insanity, and held that if a madman in a lunatic asylum should murder his keeper, he ought to be brought out and hanged. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, no!] If the doctrine laid down by the Judges were carried out to its full application that must be the result. In a conversation he had had with Dr. Forbes Winslow that morning, that distinguished physician told him that he had lately subjected three patients under his care, all hopeless and incurable lunatics, to the test laid down by Baron Martin— that they should know the nature of an offence, and the legal consequences which would flow from it, and all three of them had given such answers as would have placed their lives in jeopardy. "If you were to shoot a man with a pistol what would be done to you?" was the question he put; and one answered that he should be hang, the second that he should be hung here but guillotined in France, and the third said that he should be hung only that he was a lunatic. Nothing could rescue us from a continued difference between the present state of the law and common sense and humanity but an inquiry which would reconcile the conflicting doctrines of medical and legal insanity.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the question was not at all that which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Neate) had put before them. If there was any error in the administration of justice, it was rather on the side of acquittals on the ground of insanity than improper conviction of lunatics. What he desired the House to consider was whether, in the case of persons capitally convicted, who were alleged to be insane, the question of sanity should not be inquired into by the same rules as were applied to other cases. The Bill should be confined to cases of insanity arising after trial. In the case of a prisoner insane before trial, there were two courses open to follow. In the case of the prisoner being evidently mad, he was not to be put on his trial at all; but the Secretary of State had power to order his removal to a lunatic asylum at once. But if it were a doubtful case, the question would be raised at the trial, and the verdict of the jury would decide it. His opinion was, that the verdict of the jury should be conclusive down to the time of the verdict; and if the law were not satisfactory on that matter, let it be amended. Then came the question as to insanity of the prisoner after trial. In the case of a man under capital sentence the time was so short, and it was so important that he should not be removed until the question was settled, that all that should be required was that the visiting justices should certify that the man appeared to have become insane. The right hon. Gentleman said, it would be dangerous not to call in medical witnesses, and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) would include the Governor of the gaol; but the Governor of the gaol was the servant of the visiting justices, and it would never do to call him in. He would report to the visiting justices if he thought the prisoner insane, and so would the medical officer of the prison. But the visiting justices having reported that the prisoner was insane, there should be an inquiry — his noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) said by a jury. But a jury did not appear to him (Mr. G. Hardy) for such a purpose a very efficient tribunal. What was wanted was some sort of investigation into the man's state, by an examination of the man, such as could not take place at the trial. In such an issue there would not be proper parties to bring forward the evidence for and against insanity; and the jury could not examine the prisoner for

  841
  themselves, as Commissioners could. In the case of Townley the decision of the last Commissioners was entirely founded on their own personal examination of him. It would be much better that medical men should be called in as experts than as judges. Both theoretically and practically, the medical man would take a very different view from what a jury or barrister would take. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he (Mr. G. Hardy) was inconsistent in proposing a Commission in which medical men should sit; but, if he examined his proposition, he would find that he left it optional with the Secretary of State to appoint a medical man on the Commission, or not. But what the House was now called on practically to decide by his Amendment was this:— Whether a man under sentence of death should be treated in the same way as a man under sentence of a few weeks' imprisonment or penal servitude? Should there not be once for all an investigation into his sanity, and with as little delay as possible? If a Judge and jury were to be called in, it could not be done promptly enough, for the Judges might be otherwise engaged. For these reasons, he had come to the conclusion, that it was necessary that Commissioners should be sent down forthwith, and should certify to the Secretary of State. What he wished the Committee to determine now was, whether by taking the word "death" out of the clause, cases of those under sentence of death should be left to be decided by some other tribunal than that which was sufficient for ordinary cases? If the House agreed to his Amendment, he should ask the Committee whether the inquiry should be by Commissioners, or before a jury.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he was pleased that the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had come to the conclusion that a jury would be the best tribunal, but a private Member had no chance of getting his views carried into effect. The question was, whether prisoners under sentence of death, should be put precisely under the same conditions as prisoners confined for slight offences? In former times there was no question whether prisoners under sentence of death should be put on the same footing as other prisoners, for their execution generally took place within forty-eight hours from the passing of the sentence. The word "death" was introduced for the first time in the 3 & 4 Vict, by the late Marquess of Normanby in the other House, and adopted without discussion, the noble
  842
  Marquess having stated that there was no novelty in the matter. But there was very great novelty, because it altered the law, and altered it in such a manner as not to fit the case of persons under sentence of death. With regard to the retention of the word, he should prefer its omission, and that the whole matter should be left to the Secretary of State rather than have this wretched legislation about visiting justices. If the matter was left to the Home Secretary he might, before he advised the Crown to exercise its prerogative, inquire by any means he thought fit into the prisoner's insanity; but he would be fettered by such legislation as was now attempted. It was virtually giving to two justices and two medical men the power of interfering with the prerogative of the Crown. In his (Mr. Montague Smith's) opinion, the inquiry should originate with the responsible Minister of the Crown. The Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman desired to pass it, was a most absurd piece of machinery. It was made mandatory on the magistrates to grant a certificate. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Not at all.] It would certainly appear so from the Bill. The Bill stated, that if the prisoner "shall appear to be insane" then the visiting justices were, with the assistance of two medical men, to make an inquiry into the sanity of such person. But to whom was it to appear that the prisoner was insane? To anybody? He conceived that the visiting justices would be placed in extreme difficulty by this clause, and that the proposed legislation would not be found to operate in a satisfactory manner. Again, how were they to construe as mandatory, words that were in their terms conditional? If a certificate of insanity was signed by the visiting justices and medical men it was to be sent to the Home Secretary, and then arose the question, what ought to be the next thing done? Now that the interval between the judgment and the execution was no longer restricted to forty-eight hours, there was time for a formal inquiry; and if they were to have any legislation at all, it would be better to have recourse to the old and constitutional inquiry by a jury. But, for himself, he thought it was best to leave the matter as it stood, and to leave the inquiry and the responsibility to the Secretary of State.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Amendment actually before the Committee, did not, in fact, raise the whole question at issue, as would appear from the opposite views of the two hon. and learned

  843
  Gentlemen, He (Sir George Grey) could not help thinking, that if the case were to stand over to the next assizes, the interval which would elapse would amount to a remission of the capital sentence. The same result would follow if the case was sent before a Master in Lunacy. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Leominster, that that would be in fact only a means of evading the execution of the law. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would take away a grave responsibility from the Secretary of State. Of course, if the House were willing to consent to that, the Secretary of State would be relieved; but he (Sir George Grey) thought the result might be an interference with the due execution of the law. With regard to the proposition before the House, he thought it was right in the first instance to require a solemn declaration from the visiting justices and medical men of the insanity of the prisoner; and then the Secretary of State, on his own responsibility, which he could not shrink from, would take that course which he deemed best calculated to meet the requirements of the case. With regard to the observation that the words "if it should appear," might mean if it should appear to "anybody," he wished to say that he believed there was no doubt that the true construction of those words was that the matter in question must appear to the persons who were to act.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEfelt an objection to the local nature of the inquiry suggested by the Secretary of State. The visiting justices and the medical man who would sign the certificate would, in most cases, be residents of the neighbourhood; and judging from what had recently occurred—for it was impossible to disembarrass the mind of it—it would be easy to find persons who were influenced by the prejudices or passions of the locality. Before the Secretary of State was put in motion, some more solemn representation than what was required in this Bill ought to be necessary.
  MR. HUNTfeared that if the Bill became law they would not be in any better position than heretofore. He would put a case. Let them suppose a man adjudged to the sentence of death who had pleaded insanity, but had had the plea decided against him. If two medical men and two visiting justices after the sentence certified to the Secretary of State that the man was insane, and the Secretary of State by virtue of this certificate removed him to a
  844
  criminal lunatic asylum, the country generally would not be satisfied that justice was done. It would not be endured that the certificate of four gentlemen, without the assistance of counsel or the attendance of the public in this inquiry, should virtually reverse the decision of the Judge and jury. It might be said that the certificate was given, not upon the question whether the condemned man was insane at the time of his trial, but whether he had become insane since the sentence was passed upon him; yet the impression on the public mind would be otherwise. In the recent case the medical man was called upon to state his opinion of the prisoner's state of mind from the insanity of members of his family; but if he was not responsible for his actions at the time of that inquiry, on the same ground he could not be held responsible at the time that he committed the offence; and it would be simply preposterous to set up this conclusion against the finding of the jury. In fact, to raise this question of insanity after the trial would be to give the go-bye to the real issue. It was said that the visiting justices were selected by the bench of magistrates, because of their great experience; but he (Mr. Hunt) believed they were generally selected because they resided near the gaol, rather than for any other reason. It seemed to him that under this Bill, if a prisoner under sentence of death could only persuade the surgeon of the gaol that he was mad he would save his life, for the surgeon was bound to bring the matter before the justices, and his opinion would be sure to have almost irresistible weight with the latter, If the visiting justices wanted assistance in their inquiry they would either call in a medical man of the locality, or else would take the evidence of a "mad doctor." He (Mr. Hunt) had very little faith in these lunatic doctors. The medical man in the case of Townley's inquiry said, if a man had a perverted moral sense to an extraordinary degree, he was not to be held responsible for his actions. But he (Mr. Hunt) said that all criminals had a perverted moral sense: for malice and a premeditation to murder were perversions of the moral sense. And if any two Members of that House, hearing the evidence of a medical man with such a reputation as Dr. Forbes Winslow, without any cross-examination, were called upon to give a decision, it was easy to anticipate the result. He (Mr. Hunt) believed that Dr. Winslow had run mad himself on the doc-

  845
  trine of insanity; and there was hardly a Member in that House who would not be pronounced by that gentleman insane. Indeed, he (Mr. Hunt) would be sorry to subject himself to him for examination, though his perverted moral sense might not be of the strongest degree. The country would not be satisfied to have criminals reprieved on the certificate of two visiting justices and two medical men after a private investigation in the gaol; and what he wanted was that the Home Secretary's duties should be defined by Act of Parliament, in the event of a similar popular outcry as was raised in Townley's case. The question then before the Committee was not the tribunal before which an inquiry should be made, but when it came before the Committee lie should be prepared to express his opinion on it. There should, he thought, be a distinction between the cases of prisoners under sentence of death and those under lighter sentences; because the motive was strong in a man under sentence of death to set up a plea of insanity, and his friends would be anxious to assist in it to save themselves from the disgrace of a public execution. Besides that, there were also persons ready to come forward from philanthropic motives to save a fellow-creature from the gallows, and if the Bill was passed in its present form he ventured to assert that in almost every case they would do so. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to exempt prisoners condemned to death from the operation of this Bill. Should the Committee decide on the investigation taking place, either before a jury or a commission, he hoped the examination would take place in public. He saw no reason why the criminal should not be examined before them as was now done in the case of persons who were supposed to be incapable of managing their affairs on account of insanity.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, the real question before the Committee was, whether or not there should be a different mode of dealing with prisoners after sentence in the case of death, and those who were under sentence for a term of imprisonment or penal servitude. In his opinion, the weight of argument was adverse to the opinion entertained by Her Majesty's Government on the question. He believed that it was only per incuriam that persons under sentence of death were included in the Act of 1840. Persons under capital sentence were not included in
  846
  10 Geo. IV., which was still the law in Ireland, but it was introduced in the Act of 1840, probably from its not occurring to the then Parliament that it involved such a serious question. He agreed in opinion with the proposition urged by the hon. and learned Member for Truro (Mr. M. Smith), that the inquiry into the soundness of mind of a criminal after sentence of death should not be a hole-and-corner proceeding, but publicly, so that the public might have an opportunity of being present, and of knowing that the witnesses were properly examined. It was a principle well known to the common law, and was so stated in a passage of Lord Hale, quoted on a former occasion, that not only should such an inquiry take place after verdict and before judgment, but after sentence had been passed. The revised code of New York adopted the principle, and it had been acted upon in America for the last fifteen years, and had been found to work well. No delay need take place under such an inquiry longer than ten days or a fortnight. The present Bill proposed to give the Home Secretary a discretionary power; and why, if he found it necessary to make further inquiry into the matter, should it not be done before a jury or a Commission openly? It would be more consistent with public opinion that the inquiry should take place before a jury.
  Question put, "That the word 'death' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 32; Noes 26: Majority 6.

  AYES.

  Blake, J.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Neate, C.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Clay, J.

  Palmerston, Viscount

  Clifford, C. C.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Clifford, Colonel

  Peel, J.

  Cobbett, J. M.

  Potter, E.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Powell, J. J.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Seely, C.

  Ewing, H. E. Crum-

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  White, L.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Wyld, J.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Knatchbull - Hugessen,

  E.

  TELLERS.

  Layard, A. H.

  Mr. Brand

  Lawson, W.

  Sir W. Dunbar

  Martin, J.

  NOES.

  Addington, hon. W. W.

  Cargill, W. W.

  Archdall, Captain M.

  Clifton, Sir R. J.

  Brooks, R.

  Cox, W.

  847

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Longfield, R.

  Duke, Sir J.

  Macdonogh, F.

  Dunne, Colonel

  Morris, D.

  Fraser, Sir W. A.

  O'Brien, Sir Patrick

  Gard, R. S.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Smyth, Colonel

  Hotham, Lord

  Somes, J.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W.

  G. H.

  TELLERS.

  Langton, W. Gore

  Mr. G. Hardy

  Lanigan, J.

  Mr. M. Smith

  Lloyd, T.

  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he should not, after this division, more his other Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he had given an Amendment to his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey), and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider it before the Report.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Amendment related to certain facilities in sending criminals from one asylum to another, and it should be considered on the Report.
  MR. HUNTregretted that the important discussion which had just taken place had not occurred in the presence of a greater number of Members. Considering the small majority by which it had been decided to retain the word "death" in the clause, and considering also that some of those who had voted in that majority had not heard the discussion, but had come in to vote, he would urge upon the hon. and learned Member for Truro (Mr. M. Smith), or the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. G. Hardy), to raise the question again upon the Report, in order that the House might have an opportunity of reviewing its decision.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. W. G. LANGTONmoved the insertion of a clause (the charge of maintenance of insane prisoners to be borne by the common fund of the Union.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYassented.
  Clause added.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday next

  POOR RELIEF.—SELECT COMMITTEE,
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire into the administration of the Relief of the Poor under the Orders, Rules, and Regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners and the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, and
  848
  into the operation of the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor."—(Mr. Villiers.)
  And on Wednesday, February 24, Committee nominated, see p.p. 1052–3.

  INCLOSURE BILL.
  Bill to authorize the Inclosure of certain Lands, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 26.]

  LAND DRAINAGE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Land Drainage Act, 1861," ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 25.]

  CATTLE, &C, IMPORTATION BILL.
  Bill for the amendment of the Law relating to the Importation of Diseased Cattle and Unwholesome Meat, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 28.]

  CATTLE DISEASES PREVENTION BILL.
  Bill to make further provision for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases amongst Cattle, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 27.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock, till Monday next.

Preamble
Their Lordships met, and having gone through the business on the Paper without debate,
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next Eleven o'clock.