Sitting of 3 June 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE —On Bankruptcy Act, Mr. George Carr Glyn discharged, Mr. Taverner John Miller added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee, R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Accidents' Compensation Act Amendment *.
Second Reading — Burials Registration * [Bill 126]
Considered as amended—Life Annuities and Life Assurances* [Bill 56]; Chief Rents (Ireland) (Lords)* [Bill 117].
Third Reading — Banking Co-Partnerships * [Bill 118]; College of Physicians* [Bill 98], and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Order (No. 142) read.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he rose to move that the Standing Order, which limited

1135
the owning or using by Railway Companies of steam-vessels, harbours, and docks, be repealed. By that order Railway Companies were prohibited from holding the description of property to which it referred, except on special grounds and in special cases, of which the Select Committee on the particular private Bill was to be practically the sole judge, being however required to make a Report to the House of the reasons on which it acted. When the order was agreed to by the House there might have been good grounds for passing it, inasmuch as Railway Companies possessed what was then the exceptional privilege of limited liability, which Shipping Companies and private owners had not: that state of things had passed away with the change in the law. It had been thought, too, that the rule would be acted upon, and that the exceptions would only be few in number; but during the last seven or eight years the exceptions had been more frequent than the cases in which the rule was observed. Many thought that what he proposed was to grant to Railway Companies power to hold this description of property without Parliamentary sanction; but it was not so. All the change he proposed was this—that the question, whether they should hold it or not, should go to the Committee upstairs unfettered by any previous declaration or rule of the House. In the early part of the present Session a Committee was appointed to look into the matter; and the Resolution which he submitted to the House was an embodiment of that Committee's Report. As the Standing Order related to little else than the prohibition, he believed the simplest course would be to repeal the whole of that order. The question really was whether Parliament should protect private owners against the superior wealth of Railway Companies. He did not see that it was their duty to do so. It might as well protect a private owner against a Ship Company, or a small Ship Company against a great Navigation Company. But it would not pay Railway Companies to interfere with the business of Ship Companies. No one could suppose that a Railway Company would think of putting on a line of steamers between Liverpool and New York, or between any English port and a port in the Mediterranean. The only kind of sea traffic into which they were likely to enter was that of conveying goods and passengers across a
1136
short sea, situated between two long continuous lines of land transit. They embarked in that sort of sea traffic in order to obtain greater facilities for through booking. But it was said that a Railway Company might obtain a monopoly as against a Ship Company by one of two means—either by refusing facilities, or by running steamers at a loss. At the present day the contest could hardly be one between a Ship Company and one Railway Company. Ten years ago it might have been, but now there was no important centre of trade in England which was not in possession of at least two Railway Companies. If there was, he could Answer for it that it would not be in that position much longer. Besides, the refusal of facilities was a matter with which Parliament could deal. It was not a thing which could be carried on privately. As for running steamers at a loss, any capitalist who wished to put down a competitor, and was willing to sustain a temporary loss in so doing, could do that already; but it would not be done, because the moment a monopolist attempted to profit by a monopoly obtained in that way, he was met by a new competitor. He could only make up for loss previously incurred by imposing high rates, and the moment he did so, he lost his monopoly. He believed that no injustice would be done by his proposition, and as he thought the Standing Order was not in accordance with sound principles of political economy, he begged to move its repeal.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Standing Order be repealed."—(Lord Stanley.)
MR. BARROWsaid, he was afraid that the small interest the claims of which he was desirous of advocating was very much in the position of the little kingdom of Denmark in the grasp of Austria and Prussia. The monopoly of railways was becoming something gigantic, and no doubt the influence they possessed in that House was a great advantage to railway proprietors. Having had something to do with the drawing up of the Standing Order, he was very unwilling to see it repealed. The object of this Standing Order was to prevent the large capitals overpowering the small capitals, and to preserve to the public that competition which was necessary to secure them due accommodation. As matters stood at present, if a Committee before whom a Railway Company made applica-

1137
tion for powers, should report to the House that the Company was entitled to them, the House had opportunities to decide whether those powers should be conceded; but if the Order should be annulled there would then be no appeal. The application for the repeal of the Standing Order he believed proceeded from the extravagant ambition of railway directors, and he also objected to the proposal on the ground that it would give Railway Companies power to employ their capital for purposes different from those for which it was subscribed. He felt very strongly on the subject, and should certainly oppose the Motion.
MR. CLAYsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord that the practical effect of the repeal of the Standing Order would be very small; for, under a very modest title, he believed the House had rarely had to discuss a matter of greater national importance. The Standing Order imposed no prohibition on Railway Companies obtaining these powers; it simply threw on them the onus of proving a ease of public convenience, and wherever such a case was made out those powers were ordinarily granted under this Standing Order. If he felt certain that its repeal would do nothing more than it professed to do, he should have no fear of it; but he was afraid it would be taken as an invitation to Railway Companies to ask for these powers, and as an injunction to Committees to grant them. At least it threw on the shipowning interest the onus of proving that they ought not to be granted, instead of leaving it to Railway Companies to prove the necessity of them. The world was very much governed by phrases, and he believed that the noble Lord, and opinion generally, had been very much influenced by a phrase in a Report of the Board of Trade, to the effect that it was difficult to see how the great principle of competition could be advanced by the exclusion from competition of the largest capitals in the country. Yet this was easily seen. The railways, by their command of the land traffic, their power of juggling with fares, and their ownership, in many cases, of docks, piers, &c., had the power of placing obstacles so insurmountable in the way of their rivals, as to make competition practically impossible, and to create a monopoly for themselves. If it could be shown that public convenience required it, he was perfectly willing that the proposed change should take place. He
1138
would, however, defy any one who looked through the evidence which had been taken before the Committee to arrive at the conclusion that by giving to the Railway Companies increased powers that object would be attained. So far as he could understand, there were only two cases of public convenience which could be made out for acceding to the repeal of this Order. One was, where there was a large passenger traffic such as that between Dover, Folkestone, and Boulogne and Calais, Brighton and Dieppe, Southampton and Havre, and Kingstown and Holyhead, as to the last of which, although a Railway Company had the power now sought for it had never been exercised. The traffic between the places he had mentioned was carried on by independent Companies; and the other case was where, owing to some unusual state of things, as in the traffic between Harwich and Rotterdam, a special power was given to a Railway Company because the shipping interest had not supplied the accommodation which the public required. Some absurd and well-worn stories, repeated to half-a-dozen Committees of the House, had been told of the inconvenience caused by separate management; but all this evil was to be remedied by a system of through booking. On the other hand, he would ask whether hon. Members had never heard of inconvenience inflicted on the public by the Railway Companies themselves? Had they never heard of trains which took passengers booked for a particular place further than they wanted, and allowed them to get back again in the best way they could? It would be as unfair to use these instances as arguments against railways, as it was to quote the former exceptional cases against the shipping interest. And no case of public inconvenience having been made out, was it, he should wish to know, right to inflict on the shipping interest of the country a blow so great as that which was now levelled at them? Let the business in question be taken away from them, and one of the most paying portions of their trade would be destroyed. He thought that the repeal of the Standing Order would be taken as a distinct intimation that these powers should be granted to Railway Companies whenever they were asked, and they ought to be careful how they enlarged the great powers possessed by the large Railway Companies. In many parts of the coun-

1139
try they influenced Parliamentary elections, and the House of Commons contained many Members returned by the Railway interest and the Railway interest alone. Several years ago, when the East India Company had about as many seats in Parliament as the Railway interest had then, the circumstance was complained of as a great abuse; and he, at all events, was opposed to giving increased powers to these companies, to the prejudice of the shipowners of the country.
MR. RICHARD HODGSONsaid, that if he apprehended that the removal of the Standing Order would injure the shipping interests, he would be one of the last to advocate the Motion of the noble Lord. So far as his experience went, he might add that Railway Companies were not anxious, under any circumstances, to obtain these powers to work steamboats if any other body of shipowners would conduct the necessary traffic to their satisfaction. His objection to the Standing Order was that it threw the onus of proof on the wrong party—upon those who brought forward the measure, instead of upon those who opposed it. While he wished the Standing Order to be expunged, he thought that whenever Railway Companies were about to ask powers to run steamboats the matter should be brought before the shareholders in the same way as extensions were dealt with. He thought the House should impose such restrictions as would ensure equality of treatment to persons on both sides of the passage. He should support the Motion of the noble Lord.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that the hon. Member for Tynemouth had given a very good reason why the House should not assent to the Motion. He told the House that Railway Companies were not particularly anxious to possess steamboat powers. They would as a rule only ask for them in cases in which they could induce no one to perform the sea service from their ports; but in such cases as that Companies might obtain these powers under the Order as it stood. If any Railway Company came before a Committee and gave good reasons why the powers should be granted, the restriction would be removed. It was only last year that three Railway Companies came before the Committee for these steamboat powers, and they were granted to them on the ground that it was wholly unlikely that any private Companies would perform the service. The hon. Gentleman had also recommended the
1140
House to agree to the Motion because Railway Companies were now doing that which was illegal. He hoped that the House would not give any weight to such reason. The Committee, for the Members of which, especially the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, who presided, he had great respect, were by no means unanimous in their recommendations, inasmuch as six members voted for the Report and four against it. They were entirely wrong when they represented that the main arguments which were employed against the proposition were that Railway Companies had the advantage of limited liability, and that they had a greater capital than was possessed by steamboat owners. He never heard any such arguments used in that House, nor were they employed by the witnesses who were examined before the Committee. The real argument, one with which the Committee had not dealt, was that a Railway Company which also had steamboats had, by virtue of its monopoly of the road, such a control of the traffic both in passengers and goods, that it could put it all into its own steamboats and prevent any portion of it going into the boats of an independent trader. His noble Friend said that he had heard evidence which satisfied him that the possession of these powers by Railway Companies would not injure private steamboat owners. That was a point which was easily settled. Of the four witnesses who gave evidence in favour of conferring these powers upon Railway Companies three were railway officials—secretaries or traffic managers—Mr. Forbes, of the London, and Chatham, and Dover; the manager of the Midland, and Mr. Eborall, the manager of the South Eastern. The fourth was an independent witness—Mr. Booth, the secretary of the Board of Trade. Mr. Booth admitted that if a Railway Company ran steamboats it would be able to drive, and probably would drive, every other company or owner of steamboats off the sea; but he said that he thought that the public convenience would thereby be promoted. When asked for an instance in which the public interest had been served by such a result, he referred to the case of the possession of the Holyhead steamers by the London and North Western Railway Company; but being, of course, at once reminded by a member of the Committee that those boats belonged, not to the London and North Western Company, but to the City of Dublin Steam-packet

1141
Company, he said that he had not looked into the matter and he was not aware of that fact. How did the Committee deal with that grave question, the really serious one in the case? They said that there would not be such a monopoly as was supposed, because there were very few towns to which there was only one railway; that if Railway Companies ran steamers at a loss for a certain time, the loss and inconvenience which would result to individuals was only an incident of unrestricted competition, and they suggested that security might be provided against the abuse of these powers by provisions that the faros should not exceed a certain amount, and that the Railway Companies should give facilities to traffic not intended for their own steamboats. There were, however, many ports to which there was only one railway, and even where there were two they would soon come to an arrangement between themselves as to the charge for and direction of the traffic; the word "competition" was entirely inapplicable to a contest between a private individual and a Railway Company, which could direct every single item of traffic to its own boats, and prevent any of it going to its rivals; and the suggested restrictions and provisions as to facilities would be wholly inoperative. And as to the passenger fares it was not high fares that the House was apprehensive of, as Parliament had already taken precautions to prevent that; and Railway Companies had the right of distributing the amount of their fares over the whole journey. It might therefore happen, that while their fares by sea were extremely low they made up the difference by increasing them on the railway part of the journey. In that way they might render it impossible for individual enterprise to compete with them by sea, while at the same time they re-imbursed themselves for any loss they sustained in that direction by increased fares in the other direction. The chambers of commerce, town councils, or corporations of almost every town in England and Ireland had petitioned against the alteration of this Standing Order, and he trusted that the House would maintain it in its present form, and require all Railway Companies who asked for steamboat powers to show good reasons why they should be exempted.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the position in which the House was placed was this. Last year considerable complaint was made by hon. Members representing
1142
shipping constituencies, that the practice of Parliament, and the spirit of the Standing Order in reference to the question whether Railway Companies were to be owners of steamboats or not, did not accord. In consequence of that complaint a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the question. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) was appointed Chairman of that Committee, and, after hearing evidence, they made a Report recommending the House to repeal the Standing Order. They were now asked to disregard that recommendation, and to leave the matter precisely as it was before the complaints were made. If they did nothing, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) recommended, they would still be in this position—that their practice would be one way and their declared policy another. Since the year 1848 they had frequently granted to Railway Companies the powers in question. [Sir HUGH CAIRNS: And they had sometimes refused them.] Sometimes they had refused them. What the noble Lord proposed was that the Committee should be left to deal with parties asking for those powers according to the merits of their proposals. He did not ask the House to declare that in every case a Railway Company that came to Parliament seeking steamboat powers should have them. Nothing of the kind. What he said was this—Do not put any restrictions upon Committees; leave them to decide whether a case had been made out for granting the powers. Seeing that the Standing Order tended to mislead, the noble Lord asked them to repeal what seemed to give a direction to Committees which was not followed, leaving the matter to the free decision of the Committees, who could certainly decide whether it was for the public advantage or not that a particular Railway Company should have steamboat powers. He, for one, therefore, thought the noble Lord was right in his proposal. It must be remembered that if a Railway Company had a steam communication under its control it offered the public very great advantages. It gave the passengers the advantage of an undivided management from the commencement of their journey to the end, whether by land or by sea; and he contended that a person going from London to Paris, or to any port on the Continent, was in a better position if he were carried under such circumstances than if he had to pass through the hands of several Companies. If it were true that

1143
the independent steamboat was driven off; the line by the steamboat of the Railway Company, it would be only driven away because greater advantages were offered by the latter. He did not see what there was to prevent competition between independent steamboat Companies and Bail-way Companies. The Railway Companies could be prevented from giving preferences over their own line, and could also be prevented having fares unduly high. If they were to incur the risk of monopoly, it should be recollected that steam navigation Companies could establish a monopoly as well as Railway Companies. But steamboat Companies could charge their passengers what they pleased, whereas Railway Companies were restricted by their Acts in respect to their fares. Under these circumstances, he should give his support of the proposition of the noble Lord.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, if he had not been a member of the Committee in question he should not have troubled the House with any observations after the able speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast; but he could not allow the President of the Board of Trade to impress the House with the notion that the Committee were unanimous upon the question. The Committee had had a division, and although the opinion of the noble Lord had always great weight, nevertheless four members of that Committee differed from him upon the matter. The balance of evidence was in his (Sir James Fergusson's) judgment quite the other way—that being four witnesses in favour of the proposed change and nine against it. The main point to consider was whether the Standing Order did shut the door against the proposition, inasmuch as it gave the Committee authority to grant the powers asked for in case necessity was shown for the exemption of the particular company from the Standing Orders. There were several instances in which those steamboat powers were refused on the ground that no case had been made out to show that the public would reap advantage from the conferring of those powers upon Railway Companies.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he was anxious that the House should not be led away by the observations made by the President of the Board of Trade when he said that the practice of the House was different from its Standing Order. The Standing Order gave the Committee full authority to exempt a Railway Company from its
1144
operation if they made out a satisfactory case showing the public necessity of granting these steamboat powers. But the noble Lord now proposed to take away from Committees those powers which they possessed, and to throw upon the public the onus of showing that the powers were not required, instead of leaving Railway Companies under the obligation of showing that they were required. Now, what was everybody's business was nobody's business. The Railway Companies might, in that way, get the powers as often as they were asked for, even though the granting of them might prove detrimental to the public interests.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to remind the House that every member of a Committee before whom a case of this kind came, had to declare that he was neither directly nor indirectly concerned in the matter, and that he would give his verdict fairly; but when the question was brought before that House, as they found by their experience of last year, there was a mercantile bias operating to induce their decision upon the point whether those powers should or should not be granted. When the Company with which he was connected applied for steamboat powers they first asked the Steam Navigation Company whether they would place steamboats upon the proposed line of communication, but they refused to do so. Even after they had obtained those powers they gave the Steam Navigation Company the option of placing their boats upon the station, when they again declined to do so. They subsequently informed the Steam Navigation Company, that if they sent into their harbours any boats they should have the same facilities and rights as the railway vessels possessed. He hoped that the House would not allow any mercantile feeling to influence their decision in the consideration of this question.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down was the last person who should have objected to these powers being given. The Bill he introduced was referred back to the Committee, and they unanimously decided that the Railway Company might have these boats, and they had the power of running steamboats.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, nothing could be fairer or more clear than the statement of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn. If the matter was really as he had put it he should have

1145
supported the noble Lord, but he did not look at it in the same light as the noble Lord. That was only one of a great number of Standing Orders which the House had adopted for the purpose of taking care that the reasons which had influenced the decision of the Committee on particular subjects which the House considered of great importance, should be especially reported to them. The very next order was one which negatived the power of the Committee to sanction a railway crossing on the level, unless it reported its reasons to the House for so doing. It was quite clear from the interest taken in the matter, that the subject was of too great importance to be lightly dealt with by the House, and without expressing an opinion upon the particular question as to whether Railway Companies should have steamboat powers, and having to a certain extent the charge of the Standing Orders of the House, he ventured to suggest that the House should not part with the power of enforcing on Committees the duty of giving the reasons on which they recommended legislation on certain points.
Question put, and negatived.

TREATMENT OF THE BRITISH CONSUL IN ABYSSINIA—QUESTION.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What information Her Majesty's Government has received relating to the ill-treatment of Missionaries in Abyssinia, and the imprisonment of Her Majesty's Consul there by King Theodorus; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken in consequence?
MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, Her Majesty's Government had received indirect information that the King of Abyssinia had placed in confinement Her Majesty's Consul and several Missionaries established there, and also the French Consul; but according to the last information the French Consul had been released. The information, however, might be very incorrect, as the King took care that no information should leave his country, and the facts were difficult to get at, but Her Majesty's Government would do all in their power to obtain the release of Captain Cameron and the Missionaries. The most natural step would be to send some person there to demand their release, but Her Majesty's Government were rather afraid that he
1146
would share the same fate as the Consul and the Missionaries. The question was how to get at the King without endangering the liberty of others. He trusted, however, that means would soon be found of communicating with the King, and the subject was under the serious consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office.

INDIAN FINANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the Financial Accounts of India, which ought by law to have been laid upon the table of the House last month, will be presented to the House; and whether he will also present the Speech of the Finance Minister of India along with the Accounts; and when he intends to bring forward the Indian Budget?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he laid the financial accounts on the table about throe weeks since—on the 13th of May. [Mr. J. B. SMITH: Are they printed?] He did not know, but he laid them, on the table at the proper time. They were long and elaborate accounts, and they always took about a month to print. With regard to the Speech of the Finance Minister of India, he could not lay it on the table of the House, any more than he could lay on the table the Speech of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was impossible for him to say, seeing so many Motions that were put down every day on the Motion for going into Supply —it was impossible for the Government to say—when the Estimates would be finished, and, until they had been voted, or were nearly completed, he could not name a day for bringing on the Indian Budget.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any notion when the Accounts will be laid on the table?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had already answered that question. He had already stated they were laid on the table three weeks ago.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to know when they would be in the hands of hon. Members, and whether the right hon. Baronet has given orders for their being printed?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the hon. Member must be aware that this was a point over which he had no sort of authority. All he could do was to lay the papers on the table of the House, and

1147
move that they be printed. That had been done, and they were in the hands of the printer, but as he was neither the printer nor the printer's master he could not say when they would be ready.

AFFAIRS OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to an extraordinary statement which has appeared in the daily papers—whether it is correct that
  "The British Consulates hare been informed that, in compliance with the wish of Greece, England will extend her protection over the Ionian inhabitants in their relations with the Turkish authorities for another year;"
  and, if so, whether he will lay on the table a Copy of the Despatch in which the Greek Government ask for that favour, and the Reply thereto?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the paragraph which the hon. Member had read was not strictly correct. As the hon. Gentleman was aware, there were in the East Consular Courts which had hitherto dealt with cases arising amongst Ionians. Many of these cases were still in litigation; in some the terms of imprisonment had not yet elapsed, and in others judgment had been given, but execution had not been carried out. All the Government had done was to signify its readiness, if the Turkish and Greek Governments should agree, to extend their protection; or, as the case might be, to carry out the judgments in the case of Ionians, so as to avoid the great inconvenience that otherwise might arise in suits that were pending. There was no general protection extended to Ionians for any specified period. He did not think there would be any objection to the production of the despatch; but if his hon. Friend would move for it he would see if it could be given.

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

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.—RESOLUTION.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, with respect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1860, confirmed by the Report of Sir Richard
1148
Bromley, one of the present Commissioners, and by the letter of Admiral Sir James Gordon, the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, that the present system of double government be abolished. It had been long acknowledged by every one capable of forming an opinion, that the existing system of government of Greenwich Hospital ought to be remodelled. In the first year of the present Parliament the late Sir Charles Napier called attention to the condition of the Hospital, and in consequence a Royal Commission was appointed in 1859 to inquire into its management. That Commission sat for six months, and was attended, he believed, on every occasion by all its Members; it was presided over by the Vice President of the Board of Control, and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ingham) and himself were the other Members. The Commission reported in May, 1860. They found that that great institution, which had been founded for the support of aged and disabled seamen, their wives, widows, and children, was no longer popular among the seamen of the navy, and that the wives and widows were totally neglected. They also found that the Hospital, which was calculated to maintain 2,300 pensioners, had at the time of their inquiry only about 1,500 inmates. They found, also, that there were 1,100 seamen in the workhouses of England alone (besides those in Scotland and Ireland of whom they had no return) who were proper objects of this charity. They found further that the cost of the administration for the 1,600 inmates was above £47,000 a year. They found that of the whole £155,000 a year belonging to the Hospital less than a third was spent on the charity. The Royal Commission went carefully into that matter, and they found that without injury to any of the interests which appeared to have been involved in the mismanagement, the administration of the Hospital might be reduced to £26,000 or £27,000 a year. They found that the misgovernment was attributable principally to the existence of a double government establishment in 1829. In that year the civil affairs of the Hospital were confided to certain civil Commissioners, who were called Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, and the military administration as it was called, the internal management of the Hospital, was confided to a military governor and his subordinates, who generally were naval officers of dis-

1149
tinction. After that double government was established, the civil government was filled by the political adherents of the party in power, and that continued to 1842. The consequence was that the funds of the Hospital were diverted to the payment of what must be called political sinecures, and the Commissioners did not interfere with or attend to the management. One civil commissioner, the late Lord Auckland, and the governor, Sir Richard Keates, were on excellent terms with each other, and they contrived to manage the affairs of the Hospital in harmony. In 1842 the late Sir Robert Peel thought it was not proper that the funds of such an institution as Greenwich Hospital should be used for the payment of political sinecures. When vacancies occurred from death, since that date, the post of Commissioner had usually been filled by officers of the navy, appointed in consequence of their services. These Commissioners had attended actively to the affairs of the Hospital, but the Royal Commission found that their management was far from beneficial. It was true that in the management of the property they had exercised a due discretion; but in every relation which they bore to the military governor there had been a clashing of interests, and the quarrels between the two governors had resulted in great injury to the Hospital. He would call the attention of the House to the evidence adduced before the Royal Commission by witnesses whose names carried with them great weight. The late Sir James Graham came before the Royal Commission, and in his evidence stated—
"I think, upon the whole, a re-construction of the governing body is necessary; I see no necessity for more than one civil Commissioner."
The right hon. Baronet then stated to the Commissioners facts in support of his view, that the existing system was a most disadvantageous one, and he added—
"I should say the Governor for the time being should be chairman of the Commission."
Sir John Liddell, who for many years had been the principal medical officer of the establishment, and owing to whose exertions many ameliorations had taken place in the condition of the pensioners, was asked this question—
"Do you think that the Governor might with advantage be united to the Commissioners?"
And he answered—
"Yes; I think it would put an end to all those differences if he was chairman of the board."
1150
In fact, the whole of the evidence taken by the Commissioners went to show the great disadvantage of the double government. As he had said, the Royal Commission presented their Report in 1860; and it was then believed that the Admiralty approved of the suggestions it contained, and were prepared to carry them out. His noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty stated in March, 1861, what all the world knew, that the government of Greenwich Hospital was extremely defective; and in the same year the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, in another place, on introducing a Bill for abolishing the double government, and carrying out other recommendations of the Royal Commission, made a similar declaration. For some reason or other that Bill was withdrawn, and from that day no steps had been taken by the Admiralty to alter the system of government of Greenwich Hospital. He must do the Admiralty the justice to say that many of the minor recommendations of the Royal Commission had been carried out to the advantage of the Hospital; but the flagrant evil of the two governments continually clashing together, and costing twice the sum for administration that was necessary, had not been taken in hand by the Admiralty. During the course of last Session, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) who was then a Lord of the Admiralty, gave the House to understand that he had inquired into the matter, and he gave the assurance that, in consequence, a well known public servant, Sir Richard Bromley, had been appointed Commissioner of the Hospital, with a view of reporting on the Report of the Royal Commission, and of suggesting to the Admiralty what portion of their Report was worthy of adoption. In consequence, nothing further was done in the course of last Session. The Report of Sir Richard Bromley was in the hands of hon. Members; and although in some minute details he did not entirely coincide with the Royal Commissioners, yet he fully bore them out in the opinion that the system of double government was faulty, and that most of the abuses of the Hospital were to be traced to the want of harmony between the two governing bodies. Lastly, he would draw attention to the fact that the military governor of the Hospital, Sir James Gordon—a most able and distinguished officer, who had been both governor and lieutenant governor of the Hospital—had, in a letter dated 11th

1151
April, 1864, confirmed the evidence which he gave before the Royal Commission, that the double system of government in existence at Greenwich was extremely detrimental to the public service and very much to the disadvantage of the pensioners for whom the Hospital was originally created. In consequence of this—in consequence of the fact that the Royal Commission had urged very strongly on the Admiralty the change in the system of government—in consequence of the Report of the Commissioner appointed by the Admiralty coinciding in that opinion—in consequence of the Report of the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, himself no mean authority in this matter, that the Report of the Royal Commissioners and the Report of the Commissioner to whom their Report was referred, that their recommendations ought to be carried out to promote harmony in the management of the Hospital—and in consequence of the saving that would be gained by the adoption of those recommendations, he thought it desirable that the Admiralty adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1860.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He earnestly hoped that the House would join his hon, and gallant Friend in endeavouring to obtain from the Admiralty, or those who represented the Admiralty in that House, some explanation of what, to his mind, was the inexplicable tardiness which had been shown in dealing with the affairs of Greenwich Hospital. He supposed that no public question ever stood in so remarkable a position. A Royal Commission on the Hospital made recommendations; a Commissioner was appointed expressly to inquire into the merits of those recommendations; he approved them; and another set of Commissioners were directed to inquire into his Report. There were a multiplication of Reports all concurring, and yet nothing had been done to remove the evil, which was inseparable from the existing system, and which had been on all hands pointed out as a great abuse of administration and a great waste of funds. He would venture to remind the House that last year, when the Question was brought before the consideration of Parliament, it was predicted — and the prediction required no large amount of foresight—that the appointment of Sir Richard Bromley would create an antagonism within the walls of Greenwich Hospital greater than ever existed before. The
1152
double government, however, was not changed. At that time of day it seemed to be a work of supererogation to prove the obstacles and the utter absurdity of a double government. A double government did exist at Greenwich in spite of all the recommendations which had been made against it. In spite of Sir Richard Bromley's appointment for the express purpose of instituting reform nothing had been done. He never could understand why Greenwich Hospital should not be governed at Greenwich. Instead of that there was a body of military officers entirely controlled by a body of Civil Commissioners, of late years appointed from the ranks of naval officers. So that they had a man of the highest rank in the navy supported by a man of equal weight as his lieutenant governor, presiding over the establishment, and passing rules for the maintenance of discipline and the regulation of the inmates; and yet they were entirely controlled by subordinate officers of the same profession as civil officers. Such a system was certain to produce rivalry and antagonism, as they saw existing. When the Commissioners, in reply to Sir Richard Bromley's Report, stated that the funds of the Hospital had been managed with great care, and that no absolute case of peculation could be proved to have existed, they used that fact in support of their statement that the constitution had worked successfully for thirty years. No doubt, with men of the high position and integrity of the Civil Commissioners no case of peculation had arisen. But what he complained of was this—that a mode of management had been in practice which had entailed enormous unnecessary expenditure upon the Hospital, and that during the whole of that time no effort whatever had been made to curtail that expenditure, which had been proved to be absurdly large; and, more than that, that all the improvements which had been of late introduced had been forced upon them by pressure from without. If it could be shown by the careful observations conducted by Sir Richard Bromley that no less a sum than £8,000 a year had been expended in the civil administration of that Hospital, it followed that had a proper system of management been adopted a saving of £8,000 a year would have been the result. That was a matter of great importance, for it must be remembered that if we were unhappily involved in a war, a naval engagement might at any time throw

1153
300 or 400 additional inmates on the resources of the Hospital. Each inmate, Sir Richard Bromley calculated, cost altogether about £60 a year; therefore 400 new pensioners would represent an additional charge of £24,000 a year. It was thus of great importance to husband the resources of the Hospital in time of peace, and if it could be shown that a consolidation of authority would lead to a great saving, there could not be a stronger argument in its favour. One single word on another point. At various times, and in various quarters, the idea had been broached, that Greenwich Hospital ought to be transferred from its present condition to that of a simple infirmary for the reception of the disabled, and sick, and aged. He was far from saying that that idea was not well worthy the consideration of the House, but he thought its present adoption would be premature. Successful efforts had been made recently to ameliorate by a great expenditure the condition of the pensioner. Only last year a Bill was brought into that House to do that, the want of which ever since its foundation had been a crying evil — namely, a provision for the widows, the wives, and the children. In addition, the first-class men were last year allowed an increased allowance of 2s. a week for improved lodgings. He, therefore, asked the House before turning the Hospital into an infirmary, to wait and see what would be the effect on the pensioners and on the whole tone of the service generally, of these recent changes. What was asked that night was simply that the Government should be true to themselves so to speak, and consent to the course recommended—namely, an amalgamation of the civil and military authorities of Greenwich Hospital, by which the whole might be blended into one harmonious operation.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable that the Admiralty adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1860, confirmed by the Report of Sir Richard Bromley, one of the present Commissioners, and by the letter of Admiral Sir James Gordon, the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, that the present system of double government be abolished,"— (Sir John Hay,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. ADAMsaid, he, for one, thanked the hon. and gallant Member for Wake-field for bringing forward the question, which he was glad to see was put upon its proper footing. It was no use to attempt to remedy the evils in the management of Greenwich Hospital without going to the root of the matter, which was the system of government going on there. The course which the Admiralty had pursued with respect to the question under discussion was, in his opinion, most extraordinary. They had for some reason or other put off dealing with it from year to year. They had chosen to withdraw a Bill which had been introduced on the subject a short time ago, which might have passed into a law, and by which a considerable reform might have been effected. The Admiralty then went to sleep, and were roused from their slumbers only by some letters which had appeared in The Times, and by the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They thereupon appointed Sir R. Bromley, and he had made a report which fell like a bomb-shell on the rest of the Commissioners, The working of the constitution of the Hospital, he might add, was not a little extraordinary also. The government had been called a double, but it was in reality a three-fold government, comprising, as it did, the Governor, the Commissioners, and the Admiralty. The Governor was responsible for the well-being of the Hospital and the comfort of its inmates; yet he was not allowed to drive a nail in any part of the building without consulting the Commissioners. In support of his statement he would read an extract from the last letter which appeared in The Times on the subject. It said—
"The three Commissioners live away from the Hospital and come down once a week and spend an hour there. Their principal occupation is to quarrel with the Governor. The Governor told the Commission of 1860 that they never called upon him to consult upon the business of the Hospital, for the welfare of which they were all alike appointed. They confine themselves to rejecting, in terms of greater or less discourtesy, every application which he makes for the good of the pensioners. The office of the Admiralty at Whitehall is full of the angry correspondence which the two departments of the Hospital address to head-quarters, each complaining of the other. The civil department, apart from the house room and repairs, cost the Hospital, in 1859, £12,635 a year, or the equivalent of the allowances recommended by the Commission of 1860 for 420 pensioners' wives and 840 pensioners' children."
The fact was that all reforms were first recommended by the Governor, that he applied to the Commissioners, and that they

1155
invariably refused to sanction his recommendations. He then appealed to the Admiralty, and they, having something else to do, said as much as that they wished he would not bother them. The Governor thereupon usually went back to the Commissioners, who again received him with a refusal, and he had to return time after time to the Admiralty, until at last the proposed reforms were carried into effect. Such was the way in which the business of Greenwich Hospital was managed, and it was to the credit of the Admiralty that, although somewhat slow in their action, they had in the end carried out many of the details of those reforms which were considered necessary. The manner which he described was not, however, that in which such an institution as Greenwich Hospital ought to be governed. It was an establishment which was of great importance, not only to the men who were kept there in their old age, but also as holding out a certain prospect to the young who were likely to enter the navy. The Admiralty did not, in his opinion, give sufficient facilities for men in the country to apply to get into the Hospital. There were, he thought, two ways in which the present state of things might be remedied. The one was by such a change in the government as was proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite; the other was by the mode shadowed forth by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) — by reducing the institution from the position which it held, and making it somewhat more of an infirmary. Before adopting the latter alternative, however, he would impress on the Admiralty the expediency of trying what good the change proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend would effect before converting into a mere infirmary a great national institution.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the observations which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend who had proposed the Amendment before the House must have been sufficient to satisfy all who heard him that the question of Greenwich Hospital was not one which could be dealt with in a few moments, but that there were grave considerations at stake, requiring the most serious deliberation. He could not help feeling, at the same time, that there was no disposition on the part of hon. Gentlemen on either side to take up the subject in a party spirit, but to deal with it simply in its bearing upon the welfare of our seamen, and with a view to
1156
discovering to what extent that most noble institution could be applied to their advantage, and through them, to the advantage of the State. His hon. Friend who had first spoken had, he might add, great claims to address the House upon the Question. He was a member of a Commission which took great pains to inquire into it, and whose Report was very properly described by his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax as eminently suggestive. It was a Report which was suggestive to the House and to the Admiralty, and it was satisfactory to find that his hon. Friend had been followed in the discussion on the present occasion by one who, as connected with one of the best and greatest governors of the Hospital, was well entitled to advise the House upon the Question. He need hardly add that ever since the Report to which he alluded had appeared, the Government had held much the same views which his hon. and gallant Friend who opened the discussion advocated, and that they had in 1861 brought in a Bill to carry out those views. That measure failed, and he need not point out the reasons why. It was in some respects not quite matured, and he, for one, was not sorry that more time had been given for the discussion of the subject. He hoped the House would allow him shortly to review the present position of the Hospital, and to state the general view of the Government with respect to the arrangements in its regard which ought in future to be carried out. A statement of the present condition of that institution would, he could not help thinking, somewhat startle those hon. Gentlemen whose idea of it was that it was a place solely devoted to the relief of a number of old and infirm seamen and marines, after they could no longer serve the public. Those who looked on Greenwich Hospital as a receptacle for such men, of course expected that their number bore a fair proportion to the entire revenue and expenditure of the institution, and would, therefore, be surprised to learn that there were at the present moment no more than 1,500 seamen and marines in the institution, while its entire revenue was a little over£150,000; that, mother words, for every £100 of revenue there was only one seaman or marine within its walls. That alone was a matter which deserved very serious attention. The property of the Hospital was, in round numbers, as follows:—Estates producing £43,800 per annum; capital in the funds, bank stock, &c., £2,906,324; an annual payment

1157
from the Consolidated Fund of £20,000 in lieu of what were called seamen's sixpences, and other sources, making the total income for the last year £154,000. The total expenditure was £134,000, of which £22,000 was debited to the school, £85,000 to the household, £15,000 to the infirmary, £9,000 to repairs and new works, and £1,800 to other charges. The balance last year was£20,000, out of which £2,700 — an amount which he thought excessive — was set aside for insurance, £2,000 was applied under the Act of last Session for the benefit of the widows, and £8,000 was reserved for the time when provision might be required for a larger number of seamen. The salaries and allowances of all kinds payable in the Hospital and infirmary (excluding the school) amounted to £25,100, of which nearly £5,000 was for civil officers, between £8,000 and £9,000 for military officers, between £2,000 and £3,000 for medical officers, nearly £4,000 for clerks, and £4,900 for retiring and other allowances. The expense of nurses, servants, and police amounted to £10,400; so that the entire cost of the management, including servants of every kind, amounted, according to last year's accounts, to £35,500. The cost of maintaining the pensioners, who were between 1,500 and 1,600 in number, was £63,000, or nearly as possible £40 each. Works in connection with the Hospital cost £4,400, and the allowances to widows amounted to-£2,000. Exclusive of the school, about the efficiency of which there was no question, the present cost of the Hospital was £107,700 per annum, or about £70 for each pensioner maintained in it. The cost had been reduced by £3,000 or £4,000 since the Royal Commissioners reported. Those Commissioners spoke of the Hospital as requiring a very stringent reform, and said that if the measures which they recommended failed it would be the duty of the Government to introduce still more important changes. The Commissioners recommended that the number of pensioners then in the Hospital, 1,676, should be raised to 2,300, and they suggested the following financial arrangement to meet the additional charge which such an increase would occasion. They recommended that £3,175 for the half-pay of the officers, und £23,000 for the out-pensions of the men in the Hospital, instead of being stopped as at present, should be paid by the public to the Hospital funds; and that, in addition, the Hos-
1158
pital should receive from the admirals and captains of the Royal Navy, being the proportions of the freight of treasure now divided between those ranks, estimated at £6,000 a year. To this was to be added a small saving of £300; and thus rather more than £32,000 would be available for the maintenance of additional pensioners. At the same time, they recommended that the charge for the establishment of the Hospital should be reduced by £16,700, and that for works by £4,300, so that the total sum available would be about£53,000. The expense of maintaining the additional 624 pensioners was estimated by the Commissioners at £15,000, which he was afraid was rather below the mark; and they recommended that £10,544 should be added to the money allowances of the pensioners in the Hospital, bringing them up to something like £6 per man. The average amount now paid, however, was between £9 and £10, so that this charge would be insufficient. The Commissioners also recommended a capital expenditure of £62,000 upon buildings for the reception of the wives and children of pensioners, and an annual charge of £33,000 to be paid to them as gratuities. In other words, the recommendation was that provision should be made for 624 persons at a cost which he thought had been rather underestimated, and also that a new institution should be established for the wives and children of pensioners at an annual charge equivalent to the interest upon a million and a quarter; two-thirds of the extra expense being voted by Parliament. What had been done towards carrying into effect the Report of the Commission? The recommendations which referred to the comfort of the pensioners had, there was no question, been fairly carried out, and in regard to gratuities had been exceeded. The Commissioners recommended that gratuities should be given to the men ranging from 1s. 2d. to 3s. 6d. per week. The gratuities actually paid had varied from 3s. to 5s. Since the date of the Report eleven civil and military officers had been struck off the establishment; during the last year the offices of one captain, two lieutenants, a clerk of the check, and a clerk had been abolished, causing a saving of £1,940 a year. Since his Friend the Member for Halifax addressed the House upon the subject last year several additional advantages had been conferred upon the pensioners—2s. a week was now granted to each married pen-

1159
sioner, their wives were buried at the public expense, and a fund had been formed out of which the cost of sending the widows and children to their families would be defrayed. Except in the case of the enormous grant of nearly £40,000 a year to the wives and children of pensioners, the recommendations of the Commissioners had, as far as they affected the pensioners themselves, been fairly carried out. Notwithstanding that, however, the number of pensioners in the Hospital had fallen to 1,508—that was, the number had diminished by 168 since the date of the Commissioners' Report. That fact of itself was sufficient to show that the reforms then recommended were not sufficient, that there was something radically wrong with the Hospital, and that the time had come, not for its abolition, but for the adoption of some, not precipitate, but well considered, measures, which would cause its funds to be applied to the benefit of those for whom the foundation was designed. He did not think there was any foundation for the charge that the Government had not taken sufficient means to make the benefits of the Hospital known in the country. The real difficulty was adverted to in the Report of the Commission for Manning the Navy, and any legislation adopted by the House must be founded upon their recommendation. They pointed out that the Hospital had an available income of about £150,000, and that, under judicious arrangements, it would be found capable of meeting the wants of all worn-out and disabled seamen, whether they belonged to the Royal Navy or to the Volunteer Force. "Men," they add, "who have adequate pensions for their support, and who have families or friends to take care of them, are better in their own homes than in any establishment of this description." That went to prove that it was not desirable to attract seamen to the Hospital by giving them increased pecuniary advantages. The object of the founders of the Hospital was to find an asylum, or to make provision for those who had no families or friends able to support them, and who were not entitled to out-pensions of a sufficient amount on which to enable them to exist comfortably. It was, however, doubtful whether it was a wise policy to attract such men to Greenwich, and to spend larger sums in keeping them there than would maintain them comfortably at home. The language of the Commission of 1860 was entirely consis-
1160
tent with that of the Commission on Manning the Navy, although on the question of attracting the men to Greenwich they took a somewhat opposite view. They recommended that a sum of £40,000 a year should be expended on the wives and families of seamen, that they should be brought to Greenwich, and that cottages or model lodging-houses should be provided for their residences. No one could fail to see that this was an attempt to combine two inconsistent things. The seamen were to be kept together in a great monastic institution combining the advantages of numbers and efficient medical attendance, and their families were also to be concentrated at Greenwich and maintained at a far greater cost than would be sufficient to support them in their own villages. It was more than doubtful whether, if the families of seamen ought to be brought together, Greenwich was the best town for such a concentration. Let the House compare the position of seamen in the present day with their prospects 100 or even twenty or thirty years ago. What chance had they then of obtaining wages or employment in other callings? The average age of the inmates of the Hospital on admission was only fifty-four years. Every one knew that the rate of wages, the comforts of the labouring classes, and the possibility of obtaining employment had greatly increased during the last few years. It was now no longer necessary to provide for the wants of the sailor as in former times, as his character was greatly altered for the better. The sailor of a few years since was, as he is now, gallant, loyal, and worthy of his country; but he belonged to an improvident class, and possessed very little means of adapting himself to other pursuits in life. But of late years the character of the sailors had been enormously improved. They had become more domesticated, and could turn their hands more readily to other pursuits. They were far more able therefore to find employment, and to settle down in their old age among their friends in all parts of the country. Upon these grounds he thought the time had arrived when the Government might with perfect safety gradually adopt, as pointed out by the evidence taken before the Commissioners, the recommendations which were distinctly shadowed out in their Report. In stating what the Government professed to do, he wished to take no credit for himself, as he was but explain-

1161
ing the views of the Board of Admiralty generally; views which the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had proposed and embodied in a memorandum, which he would at once move for; and so far as the functions of the particular office he held were concerned, the merit was due to the hon. Member for Halifax, who had preceded him, rather than to himself. The policy of the Government, therefore, was this. At present the qualifications for admission to Greenwich Hospital were classified as follows:—In the first place every seaman, whatever his service, who was wounded or injured in the service, and was incapable to maintain himself, was admissible to the Hospital. If he had only been in the service a few days or months he was qualified, provided he had been wounded or injured and so disabled in the service. The next class were seamen having out-pensions of £9, that was 6d. per day, and who were incapable of maintaining themselves. The third class were seamen who had served full time, and who were unfit for further service at sea, though able to maintain themselves otherwise. The fourth class were special cases. The Government proposed to limit the admission to the Hospital in future to infirm and helpless sailors and marines who could not be maintained in comfort elsewhere. That arrangement would meet the objections that were expressed against making the Hospital a mere receptacle for the sick, while it would probably diminish the numbers of the inmates from 1,500 to 600. It was proposed to apply the saving towards increasing the out-pensions for seamen after certain ages, and providing additional retirements for the ranks of officers who now benefited by the appointments in the Hospital. With respect to the future government of the Hospital, they proposed to get rid altogether of the double government. The proposal would, in short, be this—the Hospital would be governed by some person in the position of admiral superintendent, with two or three naval officers as lieutenants for purposes of discipline, and those gentlemen would have the entire charge of the institution. There would be a sufficient number of medical officers, as at present, attached to the institution; and all the appointments should be staff appointments for five years. The government of the institution would be in fact like that of Haslar or Chelsea. With respect to those naval officers who were at present
1162
employed in the Hospital, whether in a civil or military character, it would be entirely in consonance with the views of the Government, as well as of the House, that they should be fully compensated for the loss of their position. Nor would they be disturbed in their present residences. Of course it might be possible to transfer those who held the office of clerks to positions elsewhere. With respect to the management of the funds of the institution, it might be a question in what relation they should stand to the general funds of the country —whether it would be well to keep up the form of a separate fund altogether removed from the view of that House, or whether by some arrangement they might not be combined with the funds of the nation, while a careful and separate account of them was still kept. The increased rates of out-pensions would be fixed by law. On this point he might say chat the Government did not agree with the recommendation of the Commission, that the funds of the Hospital were intended to be solely for the benefit of the seamen. It was the original intention to apply a certain amount of the fund for the benefit of old officers of different ranks in the navy, and the Government would propose that such an arrangement should be continued. The whole arrangements with respect to the scale of out-pensions, the additional benefit to the different classes of officers, and the management of the institution, would become the subject of inquiry by a joint committee of the Treasury and Admiralty during the recess; the details of the scheme would be carefully matured by the officers of both Departments, and at the commencement of next Session the Government would be perfectly ready to submit the scheme itself to any investigation the House might think fit. With respect to the funds of the Hospital, the present income was £154,000, and the cost of the future establishment would be as follows: —The infirmary it was calculated would cost about £15,000, maintenance of out-pensioners £23,000, works, including those of the school, £5,500, pensions to widows £5,000, school £23,000, making a total of £71,500, which would leave a balance of above £80,000 to be dealt with partly, as now, by way of accumulation with a view to heavier charges in the event of a war, but mainly for the benefit of the old sailors and officers of the service. By the last Returns there

1163
were between 360 and 370 persons in the infirmary and helpless ward, but the future arrangements would include provision for about 600. The Government fully appreciated all that hon. Members had said as to the valuable services of Sir Richard Bromley, and he hoped in whatever arrangements would be made the services of Sir Richard Bromley would be retained for the institution. He might add that as some wings of the Hospital would not be required in the reduced plan, and as there would be sure to be a group of claimants for their use, their disposal would be matter for the most careful consideration. He had attempted to make his statement as full as he could, and to include such general explanations and important details which it might be satisfactory for the country to receive. The Admiralty were not making what could be called a romantic proposition, and he must admit that it tended to dispel some of those ideas which were attached to the Hospital. It was not their wish, however, to do away with, but to maintain the original character of the institution; and their scheme, if prosaic in some of its details, would, he was sure, be for the good of the service; and if the sailor who might then find a harbour of refuge within its walls should not by-and-by find it as open as before, he would, at all events, receive such additional advantages for his wife, his family, and himself as, he trusted, would prove by the result that the Government were justified in making the change.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, after the clear and very interesting statement which the hon. Gentleman had made, and which the House on every account had heard with satisfaction, he should wish to make a few remarks. In the first place, he had to express his great gratification that the Government had decided to deal at once with the matter, for the time had arrived when something ought to be done, both with respect to the system of government and the whole mode of management of that magnificent institution. When the Royal Commission made a Report some time ago, and that was followed by another able Report by Sir R. Bromley, the Government had ample information at hand for dealing with the subject. He would not offer any opinion on the statement of the hon. Gentleman; but he would go as far as this, and say that it appeared to him that the principles on which the Board of Admiralty intended to proceed were sound.
1164
The House would receive with general satisfaction the announcement that the system of double government would be put an end to. He confessed he had been somewhat surprised at the recommendation contained in another report—namely, that the office of Governor of the Hospital should for the future be regarded as a sinecure, and be held by some gentleman who should not have any duties connected with it. He was very glad to hear that the Admiralty had decided rather to adopt the plan recommended by Sir Richard Bromley. On one point he was afraid he differed, not only from the Royal Commission and Sir Richard Bromley, but also from some Members in that House, with respect to the military officers of the Hospital. The recommendation was that the appointment of those officers should be cut down to five years. He could not but regard that with great doubt and jealousy. He believed it was a mistaken construction of the words of the original charter of the Hospital, which held that the institution was intended exclusively for seamen, and not at all for naval officers. He contended that the officers of the Royal Navy had every claim to share in its benefits as well as seamen. He did not clearly understand what were the intentions of the Admiralty on the point; he hoped, before the discussion closed, the House would receive further information on the subject. He should be very sorry to see any course taken which would operate harshly or unjustly upon officers of the Royal Navy; and he did hope, before the plans of the Admiralty were finally determined, they would give serious consideration to that part of the subject.
MR. INGHAMsaid, that having been a member of the Royal Commission, he wished to express the satisfaction with which he had listened to the statement of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty. He could not agree with some of the criticisms of the right hon. Baronet on the Report. No one who carefully read the Reports and the evidence on the point would be of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the original design of the institution. The statutes, the charters, and, above all, the practice in its earliest and best days, showed that no person, unless below the rank of a warrant officer, was entitled to share in the charity. It was true that during the last two reigns the practice had been otherwise, but before that period the Hospital was exclusively

1165
for the benefit of common seamen. With respect to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman against the propriety of making the governorship a sinecure, that recommendation, it was to be remembered, was accompanied by a proviso that all the other officers were to be staff officers, and appointed only for a short time. He trusted the seamen would find even more comfort under the new arrangements, with an adequate pension, than they had enjoyed in the Hospital. He might state as an interesting fact connected with the Trinity House — a kindred institution— that some arrangements were being made by which, in lieu of certain almshouses at Deptford, which required to be rebuilt, old captains were to receive a money pension, which would be considered more valuable than an appointment to the alms-houses. He repeated that he had heard the statement as to the intention of the Admiralty on this subject with very great pleasure.
MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he thought that scant justice had been done to the Commissioners of the Hospital. In his opinion the country was indebted to them for the conduct they had pursued. If there had been any mismanagement it should be recollected that the Admiralty were the superior authority, and the whole blame ought not to be thrown on the Commissioners. He was gratified at the spirit in which the Government had taken up the subject, and he hoped any determination to which they might come would prove beneficial to that service, which had been the glory of the country.
MR. CORRYwished to know whether it was intended that the offices of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Hospital should be held for only five years. That would, he thought, be a most objectionable arrangement. For his part, he should blush to see Sir James Gordon turned out of his office at the expiration of that period. He should also be glad to know what arrangements would be made with reference to the out-pensioners.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he was glad to see the feeling which had been displayed in reference to the proposals of the Government. These proposals, which had been explained to the House, were the result of very careful consideration, and he thought that in reference to some details which had been adverted to it would be perhaps better that he should lay on the table an interesting Memo-
1166
randum drawn up by the Duke of Somerset, explanatory of the disadvantages of the present government of Greenwich Hospital, and showing the necessity for a change. He would, therefore, now confine himself to giving an answer on some points which had been referred to in the course of the present discussion. With respect to the interests of officers in the navy, he was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Droitwich state in emphatic terms that they had a fair claim for their share of the advantages of Greenwich Hospital. That had been fully recognized by the fact that from the earliest period there always had been naval officers attached to the institution; and as the officers of the navy had contributed large sums towards its maintenance, it was impossible in any re-distribution that the claims of the officers should be omitted. Without going into great detail, he would state generally what was proposed. It was intended that Greenwich Hospital, like Haslar or any other naval hospital, should have a superintendent and a sufficient number of officers to maintain discipline. It was also hoped that, by means of the economies which would be effected, additional advantages might be provided for the sailors, so that they might receive a certain increase of pension after they had been pensioners for a certain number of years, and had arrived at a certain age. It was proposed to offer to the present inmates of the Hospital the option either to remain there for the rest of their days, or accept the improved pension he had just referred to. With respect to the officers, it was proposed to do away with the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, and all captains and officers beyond those who were necessary for the discipline of that Hospital. [Mr. CORRY: The Governor.] With regard to that most distinguished officer the present Governor, he should be sorry for any one to suppose that any injustice would be done to him. Speaking in reference to the future, it was proposed to devote a proportion of the savings consequent on the reduction of the establishment to the purpose of giving a certain increase in the number of good service pensions to officers in the navy. It was likewise proposed that there should be an addition to the number of the Greenwich out-pensions for officers; and, lastly, with respect to the officers now occupying posts in Greenwich Hospital, among whom was that most distinguished officer Sir James Gordon, it was intended to give

1167
them for life their present residences in the Hospital, or to allow them an equivalent in lieu. He need not advert to the provisions intended to be applied to the civil servants, for his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had already made so clear a statement on that head; but as he had heard it stated that encouragement ought to be given to the entry of men into Greenwich Hospital, he felt it necessary to state that, in his opinion, their entry ought rather as a rule to be discouraged. He believed that it would be much better for old seamen who had wives, families, relatives, or friends in the places of their birth, to return there for the purpose of enjoying their old age, and by recounting the events of their ocean life they might, perhaps, bring up many of the young people about them with a love for the sea. If this took place, the effect would be that Greenwich Hospital would be really an hospital or infirmary for old decrepit men, whom, from the circumstance of their having no families or friends, it would be an act of charity to look after. In all other cases he would discourage old seamen from going into the Hospital, and would rather endeavour, by improving their pensions, to make their old age happy and comfortable elsewhere.
MR. LIDDELL: What about the finances?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: The finances would be kept entirely separate from the management of the Hospital. That question would be carefully inquired into by the Treasury and the Admiralty, with a view to a proposal being submitted to Parliament next Session in reference both to the landed and the funded property.
MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to know how the Board of Management was to be constituted?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that there would be no such Board. The management would be intrusted to a superintendent and other officers, as at Haslar and other Hospitals.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that after the satisfactory statement he had heard from the Admiralty authorities, he would withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ADMINISTRATION OF SCOTCH AFFAIRS.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON, in rising to move for—
  1168
  "A Select Committee to inquire how far the number of the Members of the Administration charged with the conduct of the affairs of Scotland, and having seats in Parliament, is commensurate with the requirements of that part of the United Kingdom,"
  said, Sir, the question which I have to bring forward this evening is not new to the House of Commons. In former years there have been constant references made to the subject. Six years ago—in 1858—it was discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), who in a temperate and comprehensive speech brought the question of the administration of Scotland—so far as Members of the Administration having seats in this House are concerned—under the notice of Parliament. On that occasion my hon. Friend proposed that a Member of the Government should be appointed specially charged with the Administration of Scotch affairs—and that, possessing a seat in this House, the management of Scotch business should be intrusted to him. At that time the subject did not appear to the House to be matured for legislation. The Motion of my hon. Friend met with considerable support from the Scotch Members; but it was opposed by the leaders on both sides of the House, and rejected. It did, however, receive such a measure of countenance and support as proved its popularity in Scotland. My hon. Friend went further than I intend to do this evening, for he placed before the House a definite Motion on the subject.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONproceeded. I am glad that this attempt to extinguish the debate has failed. I should have been extremely sorry if the few observations I intended to make had been suddenly curtailed without my having the opportunity of disclaiming, in the strongest manner possible, any desire on my part, in submitting this Motion, to make any imputation against the Administration of Scotch affairs by my right hon. Friend who at present holds the office of Lord Advocate. I shall be fully acquitted of any such desire by all, on both sides of the House, who have noticed the manner in which my right hon. and learned Friend has from time to time met the objections to the measures which he has introduced, and the favourable opportunities he has given for their discussion. The same compliment

  1169
  may be paid to his predecessors in office,; who have uniformly displayed the most conspicuous ability. In point of fact, if anything could have reconciled what I consider to be the incompatible nature of; the duties intrusted to the Lord Advocate of Scotland, it would be the efficient manner in which they have been performed by the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who of late years have held the office, What I contend is, that the duties which; come within the province of the Lord Advocate of Scotland are so diverse, incompatible, and comprehensive, that no parallel can be found either in the Administration of England or Ireland. It seems strange that the constitution of the three portions of the United Kingdom should be so different, that while in England there are various officers of State, of various professions, each exercising his individual duties, in Scotland alone they should all be concentrated in one individual, and that the Chief Law Officer of the Crown for Scotland. Now, it is with regard specially to the management of Scotch affairs, in this House, that I wish to address a few observations. It is well known to Scotch Members, and it is no imputation upon the Lord Advocate, that it is absolutely impossible that Scotch affairs, administered and represented by one Member alone, should be managed with that expedition and convenience which are necessary to ensure the proper consideration of measures which affect the welfare of the country. It must be obvious that a Member, however distinguished he may be, whose duties lie at one and the same moment at opposite ends of the United Kingdom, cannot take advantage of those opportunities which are afforded in this House of introducing his measures at a fitting time, pressing them forward when there is leisure to discuss them, and when it would save time to the country afterwards to consider them, if he has at the same moment to be discharging the duties of his profession in a distant part of the United Kingdom. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself is not prepared to deny that that is often the case. It must also be as well known to the right hon. Gentleman, as it is to many hon. Members of this House, that he has failed sometimes to pass measures which I, for one, have thought likely to be beneficial, because the time of the Session has passed by when due consideration could be given to them. Scotch business is generally postponed until morn-
  1170
  ing sittings become the Order of the Day, or it comes on at one or two o'clock in the morning when Members who have been waiting night after night for the discussion of particular questions have left the House. Under such circumstances measures pass sometimes without proper consideration, and to the astonishment of persons out of doors. That is the state of affairs which is made a matter of yearly and daily complaint, and it is no imputation upon the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is impossible for it to be otherwise. But I intend to base my Motion upon even wider grounds than that. If it were necessary I could cite particular instances in which inconvenience has occurred. I could quote Bill after Bill in bygone years, but I will confine myself to one or two cases that have happened in the course of the present Session. A Bill was introduced before Easter which affects Scotland to a very important extent. It must be looked upon as important because a measure of a similar character has already been introduced in England, has become law, and has been found oppressive and dig-agreeable. Then, again, there is the High Court of Justiciary Bill. That measure was brought in early in the Session. No explanation was offered with respect to its provisions because the Lord Advocate was absent. It was not until it had attained the stage of the Committee before we were informed why it was introduced, and what it was about. We attribute that to the necessary absence of the right hon. Gentleman. There is the Writs Registration Bill — which the right hon. Gentleman himself has described as of the first importance. That Bill was not brought in until the beginning of May — a period of the Session when measures introduced into this House can no longer be expected to be considered fairly by the counties of Scotland. There is one thing which can hardly be disputed. It is a matter perfectly notorious, and a subject of considerable complaint, that persons who come from Scotland, who are interested in the business before Parliament, are never certain whether or not they will find the one official of the Government who is responsible for the Scotch business in this House at his post. I cannot possibly say more than I have already stated to disclaim any intention to reproach the right hon. Gentleman with a neglect of his duty. I do not believe that there ever was a Lord Advocate who sacrificed so much of his time, and I

  1171
  dare say so much of his interests, to the discharge of his public duties; but what I say is that the evils of which I complain are part of and inseparable from the system. Let me ask the House to consider on wider grounds the footing on which the administration of Scotch affairs rests, and especially the representation of Scotch affairs by the Government in this House. The Lord Advocate of Scotland virtually combines in his own person all the leading offices of the State. I am quite aware that the administration of the internal affairs of the country rests nominally in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that the patronage of Church and State rests ostensibly in the Crown — I suppose either in the Lord Justice General of Scotland, or in the office of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs—and that the more important patronage of Scotland rests in the Treasury. But the general impression—and I should be glad to know that the fact is not so— prevailing is, that the patronage of all the Departments is virtually vested in the Lord Advocate of Scotland, for it is not to be supposed that any important appointment is ever made without his concurrence and advice. Then in matters of administration, it will not be denied that no action of the Home Office in any important matter ever takes place without his co-operation and concurrence—if, indeed, he be not the actual Executive officer by whose ipse dixit it is made. In point of fact, he discharges the duty of Secretary of State and of Privy Councillor. I take it that he is mainly responsible for the administration of the police, so far as the supervision of the Government goes; for I am glad to say that the local magistracy have still the direct control of the police body. But the Lord Advocate controls, and virtually presides over all those matters of general administration which in other parts of the kingdom are placed in the hands of the great Departments of the State. There are duties which peculiarly rest with the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and which are unknown to the rest of the United Kingdom. In England and Ireland, in cases of sudden death, there is an inquest held by the coroner. The proceedings are notorious and open, the evidence is known and published, and the decision is openly rendered. Then, again, in England and Ireland the examination of criminals in the first instance is in the hands of the local magistracy, and the
  1172
  proceedings are open to the public, and well known. Prisoners are committed for trial, and before they can be brought before the court of assize, a true bill must be found by the grand jury. In a word, it is impossible that any criminal procedure can take place without being open and known. In Scotland, the state of things is very different. The inquiries in cases of sudden death are made only by order of the Lord Advocate or his subordinates. In case the subordinate — the deputy of the Lord Advocate in that part of the country—considers an inquiry unnecessary, no further notice is taken. It is the same in a case of arrest. If the deputy of the Lord Advocate commence a prosecution, an arrest may be made, but a quarter of a year may elapse before the prisoner is tried; and in the meanwhile the public know nothing of the charge preferred against the prisoner, or, at all events, of the evidence on which it is based. But the evil may go much further. A man may be accused of murder —I take the highest charge known on the criminal law—he may be imprisoned for murder — such cases have occurred; he may then plead guilty to culpable homicide; his plea may be accepted by the Crown prosecutor; and he may be sentenced for such culpable homicide without the public knowing on what ground this has been done, except from common rumour. The Lord Advocate of Scotland and his subordinates possess a power which is unknown in any other part of the United Kingdom. They may arrest any individual upon a charge which may or may not be subsequently established, and the prisoner may be released from custody and re-arrested without any information being given to the public as to the charge against him, or the evidence by which it is supported. This is a terrible and enormous power to wield, and I think the office of the Lord Advocate is responsible enough without his being burdened with the sole conduct of the affairs of Scotland in the House of Commons. If the power I have described have been exercised without abuse, and with so little oppression that no great complaint has been made, that only shows how fortunate Scotland has been in the selection of the persons to whom the duty of administering the law has been intrusted. But that does not in any way prove that the law is not inconsistent with free institutions; nor does it prove

  1173
  that similar laws and procedure are known in any other part of the kingdom; or that a system by which some official has the sole conduct of Parliamentary business and is intrusted with the making of laws, with the rectifying of our course of procedure, and with the power of confirming or remitting sentences, is a system which ought or ought not to be maintained. I have already reminded the House that in 1858 this matter was discussed in this House, on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). That Motion was opposed by the Lord Advocate of that day; who urged as the advantage accruing from the office of Lord Advocate the very acts of which I complain. The Lord Advocate of that day (the present learned and respected Lord Justice Clerk) argued that the possession of such powers, coupled with such administrative duties in this House, was wholesome, because he was possessed of that machinery which enabled him to communicate at any moment most readily with any portion of the United Kingdom. I say it is precisely for that reason that these combined offices and powers should not be vested in the same person. The Lord Advocate further denied that there was any such complaint with regard to delay in the prosecution of Scotch business as was represented. I must appeal to the experience of other hon. Members to disprove that assertion, and also the statement which was made by the leaders on both sides of the House, that the Scotch business was so well conducted that it ought to serve as a model for the conduct of English business. Now, in my humble opinion, the present mode of conducting Scotch business is not favourable to its fair consideration. It is no doubt the practice for Scotch Members to meet and consider public questions without the House at large being put to the trouble of considering them; but I venture to think that that very practice operates to prevent other Members from taking that interest in Scotch affairs which they take in the affairs of other parts of the kingdom. When it is known that the affairs of Scotland are habitually discussed elsewhere, it can hardly be expected that they should excite in this House the same interest and attention which the affairs of Ireland excite in the House generally. We have one proof of that to-night. The empty benches which I see before me sufficiently establish that assertion.
  1174
  But this is the place in which our affairs ought to be considered and our grievances redressed, and it only shows the disadvantages of the system under which we labour. I do not ask the House to come to any decision upon the matter in a hurry, and I cannot anticipate that I shall be supported in the Motion I am about to make by those who now enjoy, or who have enjoyed, the distinguished position of Lord Advocate. No doubt they consider the system a most superior one, offering as it does to their profession a prize so high and a position so dignified. Nor do I expect that the House will come to an affirmative decision upon the question which I have placed before them; but what I am entitled to ask is a full and fair inquiry, the necessity for which has been conceded again and again, into the affairs of Scotland. I simply ask that a Select Committee should be appointed to receive evidence upon the subject and report to the House.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present,
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONresumed. I have very few more words to say. I have shown that in my opinion the duties of the Lord Advocate are incompatible. He is charged with the formation of laws, with the appointment of Judges, or those who practically exercise the power, with the revision of their proceedings, with the consideration of the remission of the sentence of death imposed by these very Judges, and he ought not at the same time to be charged with the administration of Scotch business generally. All I ask the House to do is to sanction the appointment of a Committee, which shall have the power of taking evidence as to the manner in which the affairs of no unimportant part of the United Kingdom are conducted, and I trust that the inquiry which I propose will be assented to.
  MR. CAIRDseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire how far the number of the Members of the Administration, charged with the conduct of the affairs of Scotland, and having Seats in Parliament, is commensurate with the requirements of that part of the United Kingdom,"—(Sir James Fergusson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MAJOR HAMILTON: I cordially agree with the proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), and I cannot help observing with satisfaction that, for the first time during many years, Scotch business has been brought forward at a reasonable hour, and that, to use a sporting phrase, we have the opportunity of having "a good innings." It is not my intention to trouble the House for many minutes, and I hope that other Scotch Members will show their sense of the indulgence of the House by making short speeches. The question submitted to the House by my hon. and gallant Friend is one of the Scottish rights which excited so much attention north of the Tweed a few years since, which if heard of in England at all were chiefly known through the animadversions of The Times. This was a point much urged; but I did not at the time approve of it. I am glad to say that we succeeded in carrying the question relative to the repairs of national buildings in Scotland, and, having accomplished that object, many of us were satisfied. I can only say, with regard to having a Secretary of State for Scotland in this House, that I have very great doubts whether such an appointment would be advantageous or not. But I am certain that, if the Lord Advocate were to devote the whole of his time to Scotch business, he would be able to undertake it, and I wish on those occasions when he is unavoidably absent he had a secondary in the House. I look upon that as one of our principal grievances, because I find that, although in Scotland it is generally understood the Scotch Lord of the Treasury is a gentleman who is paid and kept for the purpose of attending to Scotch business, yet in the present case, being Secretary to the Duchy of Cornwall, it is said that he has nothing to do with questions affecting Scotland. I thoroughly believe what he says, and that we have not any Secretary for Scotland, who ought to have the management of the affairs of that country. It is a great pity that we have not an officer of that kind, and I fully approve of the proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend But if I were asked at this moment to vote whether I would have a Secretary of
  1176
  State for Scotland or not, I should be inclined to reflect on the old fable, and ask whether King Stork would be better than King Log. I certainly think I should not vote for such a measure; but I have no hesitation in giving my support to the present Motion for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into our alleged grievances, in order that, if they really exist, they may obtain that redress to which they are entitled.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIE: The Motion submitted to the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire, implies either that there is some particular defect in the present administration of Scotch affairs, or that those affairs are generally maladministered. I listened very attentively to his speech, expecting to hear some proof that such is the case, because in bringing forward a Motion, which implies dissatisfaction with the administration of Scotch affairs, he was bound to adduce some facts to justify his proposition. I do not know whether other hon. Gentlemen who have listened to his remarks entertain the same opinion, but I must say that to my mind he did not adduce facts sufficient to justify the inquiry for which he asks. I imagine it to be a totally new thing, on a question relating to the administration of the affairs of a great section of the United Kingdom, to move for the appointment of a fishing Committee to find out something to substantiate the general statement that he and some of his friends are dissatisfied with the present administration of Scotch affairs. I am certainly not aware that any such dissatisfaction as that which is alleged exists in Scotland, or in this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman expatiated at considerable length on the duties of the office of Lord Advocate, and said that it was quite impossible, in the nature of things that any Lord Advocate could discharge in a satisfactory manner the numerous and responsible duties which are cast upon him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did justice to my right hon. and learned Friend when he spoke so highly of the manner in which his duties are performed; but he justified his Motion on this ground, that such is the constitution of the office of Lord Advocate that Scotch affairs must necessarily be indifferently administered. The answer to that is experience. For many years Scotch affairs have been most ably administered by successive Lord Advocates,

  1177
  men of first-class reputation and ability, and I believe they hare been administered well, and to the satisfaction of the country. But not only was the hon. and gallant Gentleman bound to show the House some ground whereon to rest his Motion, but, as it seems to me, he ought to have suggested some remedy for the grievance of which he complains; but I did not hear him suggest a remedy of any kind. If the House should think proper to grant a Committee, I think it is entitled to know what remedy the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes. The Lord Advocate has two important functions to discharge— legal functions and administrative functions. I will first take his legal functions. He is the public prosecutor for Scotland, Under his superintendence his subordinate officers have to direct and conduct criminal prosecutions on the part of the Crown throughout Scotland. He has also functions to discharge very much like those which are discharged in this country by the Magistracy and the Coroner, the inquiry into supposed crimes that have been committed. The performance of such duties must necessarily devolve upon a high legal functionary—a man of high character and position — possessing such legal standing as to give importance and weight to the decisions at which he may arrive. The Lord Advocate, then, must be a lawyer. With regard to his administrative functions, they divide themselves into two different branches. He has to advise the Home Secretary with regard to the distribution of a large portion of the patronage of Scotland, the principal portion of that patronage being legal patronage, such as Sheriffships and Clerkships, filled by legal gentlemen. The person having to deal with these matters ought to have a general knowledge of the characters and professional qualifications of the persons to be appointed to these offices, In the discharge of this portion of the administrative duties, therefore, the services of a lawyer are indispensable, and no one is so capable of discharging them, from his practical experience, as the Lord Advocate. The other branch of a Lord Advocate's duty—the legislative branch—can only be properly discharged by a distinguished Scotch lawyer. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) the other night made some vigorous remarks about the jargon of the Scotch law, and the complication, defective character, and incomprehensibility of that law. Now, how is
  1178
  it possible for any but a Scotch lawyer to deal satisfactorily with legislation for Scotland, to propose measures calculated to amend the laws of that country, to improve the administration of those laws, to effect all such reforms as are required by the country. If these be the functions and duties of the administration of Scotch affairs in ordinary times, the conclusion is that the proper person to discharge these functions and duties is the Lord Advocate, and it is the Lord Advocate who has discharged them for so many years to the general satisfaction of the country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that the Lord Advocate is not solely responsible for the conduct of Scotch business. The Home Secretary is as much Secretary of State for Scotland as he is Secretary of State for England. But the question which appears to possess the mind of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Major Hamilton) is that there ought to be some officer in this House specially connected with Scotland, who shall always be fishing about trying to discover something by way of improvement—a sort of dilettante legal reformer, whose sole employment shall be fishing for changes in the Scotch law. Now, I think that would be anything but an improvement on the present system. One of the advantages of the present system is that Scotland is not plagued with those constant meddlings and interferences and changes which are constantly going on in England. And I should greatly deprecate any recommendation for the appointment of an officer of State, who would have nothing to do but interfere in Scotch affairs, and endeavour to make himself a name by keeping Scotch affairs and Scotch Members in continual hot water. In this matter I am content to declare myself a Conservative. I think that at present we have a good and satisfactory arrangement. When any necessity arises for legislation, I do not find that there is any difficulty in dealing with it. It has been my pride and glory to have identified myself with Scotchmen, and to continue to act in entire harmony and good feeling with those I represent in that country; and the result of my experience is, that wherever there has been a real want in Scotland, the public voice of the people of that country has made itself heard, and has had little difficulty making the change that was considered necessary. With regard to the mode in which we conduct our Scotch legislative business, the Scotch Mem-

  1179
  bers are, I have often heard by Members from the sister countries, held up as perfect models. Instead of squabbling over their; legislative matters in the face of the House, and having what the hon. Member; for Linlithgowshire has called a "good innings," we meet and have a friendly and confidential conversation; we find out our points of difference, and more or less compromise those points; and then, when a measure comes before the House, it proceeds and is passed without much difficulty. Without entering into any details of the system of administration in Scotland, I wish to express my satisfaction generally at the mode in which the business is carried on—not merely as to the manner in which it is conducted by the Lord Advocate, but with regard to the general system; and therefore I must vote against the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, I was anxious before I addressed the House to have heard a little more said in support of the Motion. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James Fergusson) will not imagine that I undervalue his statement when I say that it did not contain any very strong or intelligent grounds for the Motion with which he has concluded. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated truly that this subject was brought under the notice of the House in 1858, and was then fully considered. The leaders on both sides then expressed their opinions in the clearest and strongest manner. My noble Friend at the head of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire both expressed their conviction that there was no ground whatever for altering the existing mode of conducting Scotch business in this House. Therefore, unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman had some stronger grounds for his proposal than those which he has laid before the House, it was unnecessary, I think, again to disturb a question so decidedly set at rest within so recent a period. As to the mode in which the subject has been brought forward, as far as I personally am concerned, I have nothing to complain of. In regard to the matter itself, which is of great public importance to Scotland, I shall take the liberty, as shortly and succinctly as I can, of stating the reasons why this Motion ought not to be agreed to. I am, I own, at a loss to understand what is the precise grievance which my hon. and gallant Friend would redress. I lis-
  1180
  tened for it while he was speaking, but could not quite appreciate or understand it. I shall first of all try to methodize, as far as I can, the elements of the objection taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman or by others to the existing state of things. First, it is said that the Lord Advocate is a practising lawyer, and cannot therefore be in the House of Commons when he has his practice to attend to in Edinburgh. The second assertion is that the Lord Advocate, having other avocations, has not the time for introducing measures of that magnitude and importance which he ought to attempt. Thirdly, we are told that the manner in which Bills are prepared, proposed, and considered in the House, is not satisfactory. And the fourth and last allegation is that, at all events, the political functions of the Lord Advocate are such as ought not to be exercised by a practising lawyer. Here then are the objections gathered partly from the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, and partly from the midnight suggestions of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire. I suppose the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire is now satisfied that the notion that the Lord Advocate is never in this House till after Easter, except when the Government require his vote in a great party division—is the mere offspring of a heated imagination. There is not and has not been any foundation for the idea, and I presume the hon. Gentleman must on calm reflection be convinced that such is the case. It is very true that the Lord Advocate is a practising lawyer; but it is also certain that during the Session of Parliament he has substantially to throw his professional business to the winds. If he is not in his place here, then he ought to be, if there is any Government business to come on; and I may say for myself that, with very few and rare exceptions, I have systematically acted on that principle. My usual course has been this. I have come up to London in the second or third week in February, and remained until the 20th March. Sometimes I may have borrowed a day or two after that date when the Court of Session rises for the jury trials, which then immediately commence; but never, so far as I am aware, to the detriment of public business or the inconvenience of this House. I have always been in my place after Easter, and have remained till at least the 20th July; and then, when the Scotch Members are generally more intent on preparations for the 12th of August than

  1181
  on legislative action, I have sometimes gone down to Scotland immediately after that date. It is my duty to be here, and I have always endeavoured to adhere to it. When this question was before Parliament in 1858 the supporters of the proposition now adopted by the hon. and gallant Member, could recollect only one instance in which the Lord Advocate had not been in his place in Parliament when public business required it. What was that? It did happen in 1857 that—not in order to cultivate private practice, but in the discharge of my duty as public prosecutor—I went down to Scotland to conduct a very celebrated trial for murder, which was then exciting, I believe, more interest both in and out of Parliament than any Parliamentary business that was going on. Something similar happened this very year. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the occasion when I was not present to give an explanation in regard to the Court of Justiciary Bill. At that time I had gone to Scotland to attend the trial of the Pampero — the Confederate vessel built in the Clyde—which was then going on in the Court of Session. I thought it desirable that I should be there, for the case was of a very important and anxious character, and I am glad I was present, for I think the result of the matter was to benefit the country, and to vindicate the law. These are the only two occasions when Scotch business has come on here when I have been absent during the eleven years I have had a seat in this; House. I ask, are these matters on which you can found such a Motion as this? Of course, if the Lord Advocate is incompetent to discharge his duties, that is one consideration; but if the Motion is brought under the idea that the Lord Advocate attends to his private practice in Edinburgh, to the injury and detriment of the public business in Parliament, then I repudiate it altogether. Such has never been my custom. I am not subject to any such imputation, and neither have my predecessors in office been subject to it. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: I never made that charge.] Then let us discard this part of the question. Well, the second head of the indictment is that the Lord Advocate, from his position and functions, cannot introduce and carry important measures in this House. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, that there may sometimes be something even better than legislation—there may be let-
  1182
  ting it alone. Over-legislation is not desirable, and I am not sure that occasionally we have not been in danger of running into that evil. It is not two years since the Scotch Members were, I believe, very much inclined to beg of me to legislate no more, for they thought I was rather too prolific of measures than the reverse. If an official were appointed for the express purpose of carrying on legislation, there might be some risk of his overdoing it. Suppose there was an ardent law reformer—such as the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire seemed to have in his mind's eye who was honestly, but rather incoherently, possessed by the idea that the world of Scotland was out of joint, and that he was specially born to set it right, that the unfortunate land was devoured by sinecurists like a flight of locusts, that the law was barbarous, that the lawyers were incompetent or worse, and who was ready to run into a crusade to remedy all sorts of fancied abuses; why, then, I say that anything more undesirable for Scotch legislation I am unable to conceive. But is it true that this state of things exists? Is there the slightest warrant for the suggestion that most important measures have not been carried for Scotland? I will just take the liberty of sketching briefly and rapidly the legislation that has taken place during the last ten years. In 1853, the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire will be pleased to know, we undertook a reform of the Sheriff Courts. The hon. Member for Ayrshire must at least admit that there was no complaint that year of the absence of the Lord Advocate. We had daily, or rather nightly, discussions upon the Bill; it was referred to a Select Committee, where it was carefully considered; it was finally passed, and has proved in all respects successful. In the same year, we accomplished a more important work. We put an end to a long-pending controversy by abolishing the tests imposed on Professors in the lay chairs of the Universities of Scotland. That Bill was not long, but it was most important, for it laid the foundation upon which my right hon. Friend the Lord Justice Clerk was afterwards able to build the great measure of University reform which was passed in 1858. In 1854 we passed two Acts of great consequence. One was the Act for the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, which had been attempted before, but without success. It was in that year, under the charge of my noble Friend the Member for East Lothian

  1183
  (Lord Elcho), carried through, the House after ample discussion, and is now in full and useful operation. The other was the Valuation Act, which is one of some moment, for reforms of much importance have already been engrafted on it, and it may still lead to more. In 1855 no measures of any great consequence were passed. It has been said that measures have failed in consequence of the absence of the Lord Advocate, and of their having been introduced too late to receive proper consideration. Does my hon. and gallant Friend remember the Education Bill of 1855? I am indebted to my hon. Friend for a most fair and liberal consideration of that proposal; but was it lost because the Lord Advocate did not introduce it in time? It was introduced on the 23rd of March, and was read a third time on the 12th of July, after many discussions, various Amendments, and keen opposition. That Bill was passed in this House, not in the indolent and slovenly manner in which some hon. Members choose to represent that Scotch business was conducted, but after long, severe, and searching criticism; and all I can say is, that if the same liberal spirit had prevailed in another place that was displayed here, the measure might have been passed that Session, and we should have been relieved at this day of a great many of the difficulties which now impede the course of Education in Scotland. In 1856, the first Bill we passed is one to which I am entitled to refer with gratification—the Bill for the reform of the Bankruptcy Law of Scotland. For the first time in the legislation of the country, a Bankruptcy Act was obtained, which gave substantially general, I may say universal, satisfaction. Another of the measures of 1856 had for its object the reform of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland. That was a very technical matter; but those who recollect what the old Court of Exchequer was must admit that the reform was very necessary and useful. The Session of 1857 was marked by the passing of the Bills for establishment of County Police and for regulating Lunacy. I remember the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), remarking of these two Bills that they were specimens of hasty legislation. I can only say that the County Police Act has been very successful in its operation, and has led to the establishment of a very efficient force. In regard to the Lunacy Act, I own it was passed with rapidity, and required to undergo amendment afterwards;
  1184
  but it has proved a measure of great social benefit. In 1858, when the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, my right hon. Friend the Lord Justice Clerk in that year carried that great measure of University reform after considerable discussion, but substantially with the support of all sides of the House. The country is greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend for that measure, and not less for his able and laborious discharge of the less prominent but almost more important functions of Chairman of the Commission. I really do not think it is necessary to weary the patience of the House by going further into our legislative performances. I have said enough to show that we have not shirked or slurred over our work. I have produced a catalogue of measures passed between 1853 and 1858, which will contrast favourably with those passed for England or Ireland during the same period. I may remind the House that in 1861 there was a measure of considerable importance, for we again put an end to a long and weary controversy, and succeeded at last, after many, many years of discussion, in abolishing the tests taken by parochial schoolmasters. In that measure we laid a foundation on which a great work may yet be raised. I believe that as surely as the abolition of the tests in the Universities paved the way for the reform of those institutions, so the Bill passed in 1861 for the abolition of the tests to parochial schoolmasters is destined to become the basis and ground work of a large and comprehensive national system of education. There was one Session in the ten years of which I have been speaking when we did not do much. We spent the Session of 1861, with the exception I have mentioned, substantially in doing nothing. We commenced this arduous task on the 15th March, and ended it on the 19th July. The two questions on which our energies were expended were a Salmon and a Road Bill. None who took part in the discussions of that year will be likely to forget them. The Salmon Bill was brought in on the 15th March, and the Road Bill on the 28th, and we had a Select Committee on each, which sat for many days. We took a great deal of pains and trouble with both Bills; but I am sorry to say that the result was that the Road Bill was withdrawn on the 15th July, and that we were "counted out" on the Salmon Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Robertson) on the

  1185
  19th of the stone month. The failure of the Salmon Bill was certainly not owing to the absence of the Lord Advocate, or to any want of energy on the part of its supporters. It was one of those accidents inherent to the nature of legislation in this House. There were interests which required to be conciliated, and it was found impossible at that time to come to a settlement with them. Next year, however, a Salmon Bill was carried, which, I believe, has been productive of advantage. In regard to the Road Bill, although lost in 1861, we have since seen county after county come to Parliament for private Bills at their own private expense, to do the very things we proposed to do in that Bill. That, then, is my reply to the charge that we do not introduce important measures, and that sufficient time and attention is not given to the consideration of Scotch business. During the ten years which I have been reviewing, over a hundred Bills have been passed into law, so that it is perfectly plain that the allegation that Scotch business is neglected, and that Scotch legislation is not carried to a successful issue, is contradicted by the facts. Then it is said that the Bills are imperfect, and that they are passed in a state which amazed the people of Scotland. Are those measures which I have been enumerating, the Valuation, the Bankruptcy, the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, the Sheriff Courts, and other Acts, open to that criticism? I say No. The true test was what amount of litigation had arisen on them. Comparing them with other measures of the same magnitude passed for other divisions of the empire, a very small proportion indeed of questions have arisen for the adjudication of the courts of law in connection with these Scotch Acts. There were some persons who delighted to detect errors in an Act of Parliament, and to trumpet forth the discovery by way of showing how critical they were and how faulty was the legislation. The proper way, however, of judging laws was to look to their effect. Do they benefit the class on whose behalf they have been passed? Do they remedy the evils at which they have been aimed? On the whole, I contend that the measures we have carried will stand that test. No doubt the Bankruptcy Act was not the most careful or perfect specimen of legislation; but it was quickly amended, and its operation has been completely successful. If Bills are
  1186
  sometimes passed which are not exactly models of composition, you must remember what sort of a manufactory of statutes this House is. One cannot sit down and write off an Act like an essay. It is subject to all sorts of alterations during its passage through the House; and it is impossible in every case to prevent errors and perhaps some slight inconsistencies from creeping in. If the machinery furnished by the House of Commons for framing laws is not scientifically precise in its working, that is the price we have to pay for Constitutional Government, and we must just make the best of it. To illustrate the system, let me just take the Education Bill to which I have already adverted. I introduced it about the middle of March, but I was asked to defer the second reading for a considerable period in order that the country might have an opportunity of expressing an opinion with regard to its provisions. I was, of course, obliged to comply with that request. The second reading having been fixed for the 15th April, a further postponement was desired, because the Commissioners of Supply were shortly to meet, and it would be well to hear what they had to say. Again I was obliged to yield, because I knew the force of opposition, and the Bill was put off till the 18th May. When that day arrived, another hon. Member got up and said, You will not surely think of going on with this Bill until you learn the opinion of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which has charge of the schools, and which is just about to meet; so the measure has again to be postponed, but at length comes on for a second reading in the second week in June. We go into Committee, and the paper is crowded with Amendments. I know that a Standing Order has been passed in another place not to take the second reading of any Bill after the 30th June. Consequently I am pushed for time. I am obliged to accept Amendments, for the sake of progress, without having a fair opportunity of considering them. Well, we get through Committee, and then more Amendments are brought up on the Report. I have no alternative except to agree to them or lose the Bill. It is wonderful then, if, under such circumstances, a Bill sometimes gets passed which is not a model of grammatical accuracy? When errors thus creep into Acts, all we can do is to introduce an amending Bill in the succeeding year; and I cannot admit that necessity for such rectification involves any

  1187
  slur on the proceedings of the previous Session.
  The last objection which is made is that the Lord Advocate, being a practising lawyer, has too many functions to perform. It is quite true that his office does embrace a variety of functions which in England are divided; but Scotland is not such a very large country, and, after some considerable experience of the office, I can say that the duties are not so numerous, responsible, or important as to be beyond the power of one man, with reasonable attention and diligence, to discharge. If the assistance tendered to me were given, I should really not know what use to make of it. A large portion of the duties of the Lord Advocate, including all relating to the Home Office and legal questions, could not be transfered to an assistant. The necessity of having a separate official for Scotland is due to the existence of a different legal system in that country. That distinction goes to the root of the whole civil and religious system of Scotland. There is hardly a part of that system which you can touch without an acquaintance with the law of Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) seems to think that the reform of the Marriage Law should be intrusted to Borne one who is not a lawyer. But that is just an instance of the danger of proceeding in that way. It may be true that the Marriage Law of Scotland requires reform; but the people of Scotland have not yet demanded any change, and a few sensation cases or sensation articles happening not so much in as out of the country, do not afford sufficient ground for new legislation on so important a subject. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Lord Justice Clerk on a former occasion showed very clearly that it is not only not undesirable that the Lord Advocate should be intrusted substantially with the charge of Scotch business in the House, but that he has peculiar facilities for it which no other person possesses, and which arise from his position as public prosecutor. My hon. Friend, who appears to be but imperfectly informed upon the subject of the criminal law of Scotland, has declared that it is defective, and that the powers of the public prosecutor are contrary to the principles of the constitution. I entirely demur to that. I am satisfied that under the criminal system of Scotland the liberty of the subject is perfectly secure, and that it works admirably both for the discovery of crime and—what is certainly not less import-
  1188
  ant— the protection of innocence. My hon. Friend has referred to coroners' inquests and grand juries; but I have heard the utility of both these tribunals gravely questioned in England. A system under which inquiry is made into criminal charges without unnecessary publicity tends, I am convinced, very much to the detection of the guilty, and to preventing charges reaching the public ear against persons who turn out in the end to be completely innocent. But the question is as to the position of the Lord Advocate. He is an officer of State in Scotland; and has under his command the staff, not only of advocate deputies, but of procurator-fiscals throughout the country, by means of whom he can, on the shortest notice, collect information on all subjects. If there were a Secretary of State for Scotland in London, he would have to apply to the Lord Advocate for information at every turn, and do at second-hand what the Lord Advocate now does at first-hand. He would have to seek facts as well as law from the Lord Advocate, and the consequence would be that the latter would continue to exercise the same power as now, only with diminished responsibility. My hon. and gallant Friend says that this office is the great prize to which the Bar of Scotland look forward. In one sense it can scarcely be so described, for unquestionably, in point of emolument or prospects, it does not hold out any very golden or glittering temptation. A counsel in large practice is not a gainer by accepting the position I have now the honour to hold; and there is no prospect opening beyond it. There is no promotion, no peerage to look forward to. There are none of those prizes which are within the reach of the Law Officers of England and Ireland. Yet the office has one recommendation, and it is a great one to a generous mind. It has the recommendation that it affords the means of doing much good to the country. It holds out that most honourable object of ambition—the opportunity of using power for its only true and legitimate end, the advantage of the nation. It offers the highest and purest reward of patriotism— the consciousness that one is placed in a position where, by diligence and assiduity, one may be of use in one's day and generation.
  MR. SMOLLETT: Sir, I did not intend to address the House, but I have been so much referred to by the right hon. and learned Lord, I hope the House will allow

  1189
  me to make a few remarks. A few nights ago, when, for the first time this Session, a Motion was brought forward connected with Scotch business, I ventured to say, that the business of Scotland was conducted in a very unsatisfactory manner. That observation seems to have excited the anger of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he seems to think that I have personally attacked him. He has charged me with libelling all the great institutions of Scotland. Now, my observations were meant to refer to the system which prevails in Scotland of placing the legislative authority in the hands of a practising barrister. That, I think, is a very erroneous system. I did not mean to make a personal attack upon the learned Lord, whose abilities and kindness are recognized by both sides of the House. What I did say was, that the present system was defective, and that there was no part of the kingdom where larger legal reforms were required than in Scotland; and that we could not get them. On the occasion to which I have referred, I observed that the Court of Session in Scotland were so strangely constituted as to be obstructions to justice — that they could hardly be called courts of justice—and I now repeat that observation. Last Session the right hon. and learned Gentleman brought in a Bill to amend the procedure of the Courts of Session — the Court of Session Procedure Bill. Well, after it was introduced, it was not pressed with any great alacrity, and it was eventually withdrawn. That Bill, I understand, has since been referred to the Faculty of Advocates, to the Writers to the Signet, and to the Solicitors of the Supreme Courts, and it has been torn to tatters by these learned bodies. I am not aware that it has been introduced again this Session, nor do I know that it will be introduced. In the course of the last autumn, a practising barrister in Edinburgh—a friend of the Lord Advocate—aent me a pamphlet in favour of the Court of Session Procedure Bill. The writer states that the population of Scotland has greatly increased within the last forty or fifty years, if it has not actually doubled, and that its; wealth is five or six times as great as it was at the commencement of that period; but that, notwithstanding this, the business of the Court of Session has absolutely decreased—that it is gradually becoming less and less, and that some reform must take place before litigants will be induced
  1190
  to come to it. The writer goes on to say that the English Courts have been reformed; that the Court of Chancery in England is very different from what it was in the glorious days of Lord Eldon; that the procedure in the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and other law courts has been amended, both with regard to the litigants and the legal gentlemen practising in these Courts. These changes, he says, have been attended with great success; whilst the practice in the Scotch Courts is departing from them on account of their forms being so abominable and detestable, and their expense so enormous. Now, I think we ought to have a thorough reform in these Courts. I believe the Bill of last year was a tolerably good one. My only objection to it is, that it does not go far enough—that it does not put an end to that abominable jargon with which the proceedings of the Courts are disguised, such as the word "multiplepoinding" and many others even worse, which even the practising barristers themselves do not understand. The Bill does not abolish what is called the Outer House. Perhaps some English and Irish Members may not know anything about the meaning of that term. If so, I will inform them that it consists of five Scotch Judges, who sit outside obstructing the portals of the Court of Session. They sit separately, and every person who wishes to obtain justice must undergo the ordeal of having his case sifted by one of these Judges. The case is heard, discussed, answered, and a variety of other processes are gone through, and then it is permitted to enter the Inner House. In fact, the case has to be tried two or three times over at a most intolerable expense. No reform of these courts of justice will be worth a straw unless the Outer House be abolished. But you will have to wait a hundred years, and more than that, before you will find any Lord Advocate trying to abolish these Judges. Reference has been made to the Sheriff's Court Act of 1853–4. Now, I think the Sheriffs' Courts require a great deal of reform. The Bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman congratulates himself on having passed doubled and trebled the pay of the sheriffs. These courts do not work badly, but they are most anomalous courts. A sheriff is appointed a County Court Judge. He is appointed by the Crown, but he is not allowed to reside within his sheriffship. The law provides that he shall be a practising barrister, and

  1191
  he must live in Edinburgh. He must walk the courts there whether he has any practice or not. A person may very naturally ask—How then is justice administered in these courts? It is done in this sort of way. The sheriff, who is called a sheriff-depute, appoints a substitute. If he paid that substitute it would be all very well. But he is paid by the country. He sits de diem in diem to transact the business of the Court in the county town, whilst the sheriff, who lives in Edinburgh, comes out in the vacation, hears appeals, obstructs the business, and by the delay incurred he makes the law more expensive than it would otherwise be. The substitute is paid £700 or £800 a year. He is not supposed to be a servant of the Crown; the Lord Advocate holds him responsible to the sheriff who appointed him. Such a system ought to be abolished at once. But, I ask, will any Lord Advocate bring in a Bill to abolish the office of sheriff's substitute? No such thing; for a change of that kind would interfere too much with the patronage of the Crown. The Court of Session is so bereft of business that the Bar would not get sufficient practice to keep themselves were it not for some twenty-five or thirty offices which, when they get hold of them, they can hold with great advantages to themselves. With the exception, perhaps, of Glasgow and Lanark, there ought to be one sheriff in each county capable of performing the duty without having another sheriff to look after him. I intimated the other night that other reforms are required, and said that we need a reform of the law of marriage, a reform of the law of succession, and a reform of the law of domicile. And what sort of reply did I receive? Why, "You are an independent Member, and had better bring in such Bills yourself." I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman my opinion on these subjects. It is this. The Scotch people want to have the law changed on these points — they want to have it assimilated to the law of England. ["No!"] Now, I think this should be done. If the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend should be carried, and Her Majesty should be pleased to appoint a Secretary of State for Scotland, that Secretary of State might introduce the measures required of him, and, with the assistance of the Lord Advocate, carry them through Parliament. Instead of bringing in good social measures, what kind of Bills have been recently intro-
  1192
  duced? We had a Salmon Fisheries Bill, which was counted out by the hon. Member for Berwickshire. Then we had a Herring Fishery Bill. We have had a Bill to put down trawling. This year we have had a Rivers Pollution Bill, which I believe has come to a sudden death. Fish are certainly well taken care of in Scotland, but Scotchmen are not so well attended to. I believe that so long as we have the Parliamentary duties of Scotland intrusted to a Lord Advocate, a practising barrister—so long as he has a host of retainers to serve about the Parliament House, we shall not obtain those legal reforms which the country requires. Every Scotch Bill is canvassed in Edinburgh, and the first consideration is, how will it affect the interests of the Parliament House—how will it affect the interests of gentlemen connected with the Scottish Bar? Scotland is loaded with legal sinecures, and so long as the present system continues, we shall never get rid of them. Whether the Lord Advocate is a Conservative, or whether he sits amongst those who call themselves Liberals, the evils which are complained of will never be removed until a change is made in the system. If my hon. and gallant Friend takes the sense of the House on his Motion, I shall certainly give him my support.
  MR. CARNEGIE: I trust the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Motion to a division, but will be satisfied with the expression of opinion which has taken place. It would be very inconvenient for many hon. Members to have the matter pressed upon them, and I think it would also be undesirable to have a division on a Scotch question unless it should be supported by a very large number of Members. If Scotland is not nearly agreed that a change ought to take place, it would be a great pity to unsettle the present state of affairs by referring the matter now under consideration to a Select Committee. I think the Lord Advocate has made out an excellent case as to the general practical efficiency of the existing system; at the same time, I think that, theoretically, it seems to be a very extraordinary one. I quite agree in the opinion which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, that so far as regards Scotch legislation, too much deference is paid to the interests of the Parliament House and a particular clique in Edinburgh. This grievance was hardly

  1193
  touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire; but I wish to draw the attention of the present Lord Advocate, and all future Lord Advocates, to the fact, in the hope that they will look a little more to the general interests of Scotland, and a little less to the peculiar interests of Edinburgh. If the plan continues of deferring everything to the desires of Edinburgh, and nothing to the desires of the country, I confidently predict that the people of Scotland will eventually require some change of the system.
  MR. ROBERTSON: It was not my intention to take part in the present debate, nor should I have done so if it had not been for the personal matters which have been introduced into the debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. My right hon. and learned Friend says, that it was I who counted him out on the Salmon Fisheries Bill. That is altogether incorrect, although I certainly hold many of the views which were expressed on that occasion by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. I must say that I entertain very strong objections to the Bill, and the reason that the House was counted out was that the time at which the measure came on for discussion was half past two or a quarter to three in the morning, and it was considered that that was not a proper hour to go into discussion on so important a question. Perhaps, I may be allowed to make one remark in regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett). The hon. Member remarked that during the absence of the Lord Advocate from this House, Scotch business was in danger of coming to a stand-still. That is hardly the case, because we have in the House an hon. Member who is commonly called the Scotch Lord of the Treasury, and I believe that my hon. Friend (Sir William Dunbar) is always ready to give his advice and the best assistance he can render to all who have occasion to go to him.
  MR. MURE: I rise simply for the purpose of joining in the recommendation which has been made to the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr, not to press his Motion to a division. I recollect perfectly well what took place when a Motion on his subject was submitted which involved the direct appointment of a Secretary of State for Scotland. How was that Motion received by both sides of the House? It was the distinct opi-
  1194
  nion of the House that there were no such relations between the people of Scotland and the business of the House which required such an appointment. I was extremely anxious to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr could say in addition to what was said upon that occasion, and after having attentively listened to his speech, I must gay I have been unable to discover any ground for his Motion, or that a better case has been made out why a different course should be pursued now from that which was taken in 1858. As that time, as now, the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) was at the head of Her Majesty's Government. He had had experience in the Home Office as well as in other departments of the State, and he made a most minute and full reply to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montroso (Mr. Baxter). The explanations which were then given carried, in my opinion, conviction to the minds of every one who heard them, and would carry a similar conviction now. The noble Lord then told the House that, if a Secretary of State were appointed, there would really be no duty of any importance for him to discharge. That being the case, what is it that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr seeks to attain by the appointment of a Select Committee? If a Committee were appointed they would, I presume, call before them those who have had experience in the office of Lord Advocate. They would also have from the noble Viscount the Prime Minister the explanation which he made in 1858, and which then satisfied Parliament that there was no foundation and no ground whatever for the Motion. They would probably also examine the right hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), who likewise spoke on that occasion, and explained the reasons why he thought there was no necessity for an alteration of the present system. They would probably also examine the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has, perhaps, had as extended and as wide an experience of the duties of that Department as any one, and who is perfectly cognizant of the duties required of the Home Secretary and of the Lord Advocate, and who would no doubt state to the Committee that there is no necessity whatever for the establishment of such an office as the Motion now before the House contemplates. The appointment of a Select Committee would there-

  1195
  fore do nothing more than bring out a repetition of the statements which have already been made to Parliament by the noble Lord at the head of the Government and others, and which satisfied Parliament that there was no necessity for a change. I think, therefore, that this Motion would be productive of no good, and I concur with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Carnegie) in suggesting that the Motion should not be pressed to a division. I do not wish to detain the House by attempting to answer the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton; but my hon. Friend stated as one of the reasons why the Motion should be agreed to that certain measures of law reform are necessary. Now, I do not know how a Secretary of State, who is not a lawyer, could conduct those legal reforms which my hon. Friend suggests; and how any one, if not a lawyer of the same capacity as my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, would have the confidence of the people of Scotland in undertaking the responsibility, I am at a loss to imagine. I certainly heard with surprise some of the remarks of my hon. Friend in reference to the law of domicile. For some years back the Scotch Judges have been endeavouring to assimilate the law in that respect as near as possible to that of England, and it is now very nearly assimilated. That being the case, I should certainly like to know what Bill my hon. Friend wishes to introduce to reform the law of domicile. Some of the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend I heard with great regret; and I am sorry that he did not follow the example of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr in avoiding all personalities. My hon. Friend insinuated that the desire of the Lord Advocate to reclaim the patronage of what he was pleased to call sinecure offices, prevented him from going on with legal reforms last Session, and from introducing any measure with that object in the present Session. I believe that such observations as those which have fallen from my hon. Friend will be read with very great regret in Scotland. No man who ever held the office of Lord Advocate is less open to such imputations than my right hon. Friend the present holder of that office. The remarks of my hon. Friend with regard to the emoluments of the legal profession, show how ignorant he must be with regard to the profession to which I have the honour to belong, and of the mode by which it best flourishes. Nothing could be better for
  1196
  the Lord Advocate, or for the legal profession generally, than incessant changes in the law, and the institution of new forms of procedure by which the law is administered. They are certain to introduce an immense mass of litigation, and the passing of such measures invariably affords employment to the profession to which I have the honour to belong. Under all the circumstances, I sincerely trust that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Motion to a division.
  SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR: It may appear superfluous and even presumptuous in me to attempt to add a single word to the lucid and exhaustive statement which has just been addressed to the House by my learned Friend the Lord Advocate; but I hope, nevertheless, that I may be permitted to offer one or two brief observations upon the subject-matter of the Motion now under consideration. When the same Motion, or one with a similar object, was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) in 1858, I abstained from voting on that occasion, because my mind was not definitely made up upon the subject. But whatever may have been my doubts then, further reflection, combined with the five years' experience I have gained in the office I have now the honour to hold, has satisfied me that no substantial advantage would be derived from any change — or, at all events, any material change — in the administration of Scotch affairs in this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire, who introduced the Motion, has disclaimed any intention of finding fault with the present management of Scotch business; but if his Motion has any meaning at all, it must mean that he considers it unsatisfactory. That, no doubt, is his honest opinion, and it has the sanction of some other Scotch Members; but I make bold to say that that opinion is not shared by the House generally. If there is one thing more than another connected with the transactions and proceedings of this House which I have heard remarked upon with commendation by hon. Members on both sides of the House with whom I am in constant intercourse, it is the mode in which Scotch measures are brought forward and carried through. I, for my part, do not believe that business is less efficiently performed because it is quietly and unostentatiously conducted; nor do I consider that it detracts from the importance or the efficacy and usefulness of pub-

  1197
  lic measures that they do not provoke strong differences of opinion or any discussions in this House. Until a very recent occasion, such discussions have always been avoided, and I attribute the happy circumstance to the easy intercourse and mutual confidence which have subsisted between the Lord Advocate and the representatives for Scotland, and their antecedent agreement upon all material points involved in the legislation which has been introduced by him. But while I say this, I am not here to deny that there are some slight practical inconveniences connected with the present system. But I would ask whether it would be possible to set up any machinery which would not occasionally fail to perform its functions with the exactitude and regularity that might be expected from it, or which might be desirable? Occasional failure is the utmost that in my judgment can be alleged to the prejudice of the present system; but after the fullest consideration that I have been able to give to the subject I certainly know of nothing which you could substitute in its stead that would work more smoothly, or produce more solid or satisfactory results as I think my right hon. and learned Friend has convincingly shown. If there is anything which we have to complain of, it is not the dearth but the superabundance of legislation—not the too little, but the too great interference in matters of that kind. But, be that as it may, my belief is that the remedy for the defect which is stated to exist is not to be found, as the hon. and gallant Baronet's Motion implies, in the appointment of one or more additional paid functionaries to represent and watch over Scottish interests in this House. However plausible in theory, the proposition is one which I am sure would be found extremely inconvenient in practice. If the hon. Baronet should succeed in persuading the House to adopt his Motion; and if, under the influence of his preconceptions, the Committee which might be appointed should accede to his proposal—then I will venture to say his real difficulties will begin. If he should be called upon to give practical effect to his views, lie would find it no easy task to do so. He would find it no easy task to define the duties of the new functionary, or to assign him his true position. If he is to be responsible, I should like to know how the hon. Baronet proposes to reconcile responsibility with subordination? And if he
  1198
  is to be independent—and unless he can think and act for himself in all matters pertaining to his Department he would be powerless for good matters—I should like to know how the hon. Baronet would propose to reconcile that independence with the legitimate authority of the Home Secretary in matters not legal on the one hand, or with that of the Lord Advocate in matters strictly legal on the other? But difficult as he would find it to bring conflicting authorities into harmony, his new functionary would be still more puzzled to know how to employ his time. He would have little or nothing to do; and like most persons who have nothing to do, he would endeavour to carve out work for himself — to use a homely phrase, he would fall into mischief—and the result would be that he would become a source of greater embarrassment and danger to the Government with which he might be connected than useful to the country whose interests he is supposed to represent. For these and other reasons which I need not enter into, I intend to record my vote against the Motion. I cannot sit down without adverting to certain expressions which fell from the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Major Hamilton). I must say that the mode in which he has alluded to alleged private conversations in this House is one which I, for one, cannot approve of. Such a course must necessarily occasion great inconvenience—
  MAJOR HAMILTON: I rise to Order, Sir. I beg to say that I made no reference to any private conversation. If the hon. Baronet will be good enough to inform me what it was, I will at once refute it.
  SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR: I speak, Sir, under correction. I certainly understood the hon. Member to say that I had stated either to him or to somebody else that, as I am connected with the Duchy of Cornwall, I did not feel myself occupying the position of a representative of Scotch interests.
  MAJOR HAMILTON: I admit that the hon. Baronet did use words to that effect in public, but, as far as I know, not privately.
  MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Member are out of Order.
  MAJOR HAMILTON: I must again repeat that the observations of the hon. Baronet were made in public, not in private.
  SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR: Then I beg to give the statement of the hon.

  1199
  Gentleman the most emphatic denial. I never stated that my connection with the Duchy of Cornwall prevented me from considering myself as the representative of Scotch interests. What I may have said is this—That I did not hold myself responsible for the legal business in reference to Scotland, which is introduced entirely upon the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EPPING FOREST.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. TORRENSsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to carry out, completely or partially, the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Royal Forests in Essex of last Session; whether any encroachments or enclosures have been reported to have been made within the forests since the date of that Report; and, if so, whether they have taken place on portions of the forest wherein the rights of the Crown had been sold or not? He begged to remind the House that in 1862 they addressed the Crown with a view to prevent further steps being taken to facilitate the legalization of the encroachments in Epping Forest. It appeared from a Return which had been presented, that the Crown rights over 5,000 acres within the forest had been sold for the paltry sum of £18,000 to various individuals, some of whom claimed to be lords of manors; but the greater number of the purchasers of the Crown rights made no such claim; and, on the strength of these purchases, the buyers of the Crown rights proceeded to enclose right and left wholly disregardless of the rights of the commoners and of the public. By the evidence before the Select Committee which considered this subject, the mode was disclosed in which such bargains were made. Persons first of all were allowed to encroach illegally upon the property of the Crown, and then they were invited by a circular letter or notice from the Department of Woods and Forests to purchase the rights of the Crown under a threat of legal proceedings. The Select Committee had strongly animadverted upon the notices thus issued by the Department. That proceeding was explained on the ground that it was desirable to avoid the expenses of a litigation, as the only court in which the rights of the commoners could be tried was
1200
the Court of Exchequer; and one witness had stated that the expense of such a suit would be at least £1,500. Formerly there was the Verderer's Court which tried such questions, but that had fallen into abeyance; and although the Royal Commission appointed by Act of Parliament in 1850 had recommended the establishment of some tribunal for the disposal of questions arising out of the Crown forests, yet no substitute for the Verderer's Court had been provided. Hence arose all the illegal enclosures and oppressive acts of which the commoners and the inhabitants of the eastern parts of London, who have been debarred from healthy recreation in the forest, so justly complained. The Junior Commissioner of Woods and Forests was generally believed to have the management of Epping Forest, and that Gentleman had stated before the Committee that his Department could take no notice of the wants of the public as it was only a Revenue department, and, further, that he thought the Crown should dispose of the land without regard to the convenience and enjoyment of the people. He (Mr. Torrens) could not help expressing great astonishment at such a doctrine, enunciated by a servant of the public, paid from the money of the people, whose interests it was his bounden duty to attend to. It was desirable to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what the views of the Government really were with regard to carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session.
Amendment proposed,
To leave oat from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, a Copy of any Orders or Correspondence regarding inclosures in the Royal Forests in Essex since, or in consequence of, the Report of the Select Committee of last Session,"—(Mr. Torrens,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. PEELsaid, the Committee of last Session had fully ascertained the nature of the Crown interest in Epping Forest; and it was of importance that the nature of that interest should be fully understood. The Crown had no property either in the soil or the timber. The forest belonged wholly to private persons, the lords of the manors, copyholders and others, subject only to the

1201
Crown's forestal right, and the right of the commoners to turn out their cows and horses upon the wastes. The forestal right of the Crown was merely the right of keeping deer in the forest, but as there were no deer in the forest and could not be, because the forest was intersected by railways and near a crowded population, the right of the Crown simply amounted to the right of preventing fences being put up, and so keeping the forest an unenclosed waste. As there was no means of producing any revenue, and it was not consistent with the original purpose for which the right was created, nor fair to the lords of manors and other owners of property, to convert it into an instrument for making the forest a sort of park, a Royal Commission some years ago recommended that the Crown rights should be sold. Subsequently, and about ten years ago, the Law Officers of the Crown having been consulted upon the propriety of instituting legal proceedings to prevent certain encroachments, also advised that those rights should be sold, and the Treasury adopted that advice. Sales accordingly were made from time to time until the beginning of last year, when there remained only about 3,000 acres over which the Crown possessed the bare forestal rights in question. At that time the House agreed to an Address to Her Majesty to preserve the open spaces in the forest for the use of the people, and since then no rights had been sold, and no negotiations carried on, except in cases in which the purchase-money had been already paid. Shortly after a Committee was appointed for the purpose of considering the subject, and they agreed to a Report and made certain recommendations to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention with a view to ascertain how far the Government were prepared to act upon them. The Committee in the first instance stated that they did not consider it just that those forestal rights should be maintained for the purpose of preventing enclosures by the owners of the soil; and they recommended that a Bill should be introduced with the object of enclosing the whole of the forest, with the exception of certain spaces which were to be reserved under the general provisions of the Enclosure Act as places of recreation for the people, and that those spaces should be enlarged by the purchase of adjacent pieces of ground. They likewise recommended that any encroachments which had taken place upon the wastes of
1202
the forest, where the right of the Crown had not been purchased or redeemed, should be abated, and that legal proceedings, if necessary, should be taken for that purpose. As far as he knew, no enclosures or encroachments had been reported to have taken place since that time. But a very considerable encroachment to the extent of 300 acres was made some time ago by a gentleman who had not purchased the rights of the Crown, and he had more than, once been made acquainted that the Crown might take proceedings for the purpose of securing proper consideration of its rights. The question whether such proceedings should be taken was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown; but they were of opinion that those proceedings would be attended with very considerable expense, and they called attention to the Address to the Crown last Session, having for its object to prevent the sale of forestal rights, and to the fact that even if the rights of the Crown were vindicated at great expense they would be of no use for purposes of revenue, because, according to that Address, they were to continue unsold. He thought it would be desirable if the opinion of the House as expressed in the Address of last year should be held to be superseded by the recommendation of the Committee, to the effect that the rights of the Crown should not be maintained for the purpose of preventing enclosures in the forest. It was hardly consistent with the principles of the Land Revenue Act, or the Act passed when the separation was made between the Offices of Woods and Works, that the revenue of the Crown lands should be used for the purpose of providing public parks. The principle of the Land Revenue Acts was that the Woods and Forests was a department of Revenue only, and they were not authorized to spend any of the revenues of the Crown lands except for the purpose of maintaining the property and paying the expenses of the collection and management of its revenue. Another recommendation of the Committee was that supposing the forests to be enclosed and spaces set apart for the recreation of the people, those spaces should be increased by the purchase of other spaces, but they did not show whence the money was to come. They neither recommended that the money raised by the sale of the rights of the Crown should be applied to the purchase of such recreation grounds, nor that a public grant should be obtained from the House for the purpose. He did not know

1203
whether it was contemplated that such a fund should be provided by the Metropolitan Board of Works by means of a tax levied upon the metropolis. But if those difficulties could be got rid of—if the address of the House should be considered no longer applicable after the Report of the Committee, and if funds should be provided either by a metropolitan rate, or in any other manner, for the purpose of making a public park, there would be no obstacle in the way of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of last Session. He did not feel justified at present in producing the correspondence asked for by the hon. Gentleman.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had somewhat underrated the importance of the rights of the Crown in Epping Forest. They carried with them a much greater importance than the right hon. Gentleman had stated, because upon the preservation of those rights depended the preservation of open spaces in the neighbourhood of this crowded metropolis, for the recreation of its inhabitants. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were not to be blamed for the way in which they administered their trusts. That House alone was to be blamed. The responsibility of preserving spots for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis rested solely with the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had not quite correctly quoted the Report of the Committee. The Committee stated that there were two courses which might be pursued — the one was to discontinue the sale of the forestal rights of the Crown, vigilantly to preserve those rights without regard to cost, and to keep the forest in its present wild and unenclosed condition; the other was to ascertain the rights of the several parties interested, and to make provision, partly by these means and partly by purchase, to secure an adequate portion of the forest for purposes of health and recreation. It was not the intention of the Committee that the forestal rights should be discontinued, unless the second course was adopted. And, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Address of the House ought to be considered as overridden by the recommendation of the Committee, he was not justified in coming to that conclusion, for it was only, on the express condition that Her Majesty's Government should entertain the recommendations contained in the Report
1204
— a course to which Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accede — that the vote of the House might be considered as overborne. The Committee was appointed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Torrens), but it so happened that the selection of the Members rested with the Attorney General, and the recommendation relied on by the right hon. Gentleman was carried in the Committee so constituted upon a division, by a vote of seven to five, and in the majority was one Gentleman who voted under a misapprehension. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman said that that recommendation of the Committee should be considered to have set aside the Vote of the House, he totally misapprehended the duty of Her Majesty's Government as well as of the Committee. The right of the Crown in 4,000 acres of Epping Forest had been sold, 3,000 acres still remained unenclosed, and 2,000 acres had been enclosed without purchase. With respect to those 2,000 acres the Committee had recommended that in those cases where enclosures had taken place without purchasing the rights of the Crown, immediate steps should be taken to assert those rights; and he wished to know whether the Government were prepared to carry that recommendation into effect. The Government appeared to be signally misinformed on the subject, for the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no further in-closure had taken place since the Report of the Committee. About a fortnight ago he rode into Epping Forest, and found enclosures taking place close to Woodford Wells, a very favourite spot for picnic parties, of which he had a visible illustration, for no fewer than from twenty to thirty families were there and then enjoying themselves. The Question was at present in a most unsatisfactory position. It was one moreover that ought not to be left in the hands of private Members. It was the duty of the Government to take the subject into their immediate consideration. A Committee upstairs could not know the nature of the localities, and it would be well if a Commission were sent down to the spot to select those portions of the forest most eligible for purposes of recreation, and the freehold of those portions should be purchased. There was a pressing necessity that these spaces for recreation, which were gradually disappearing from the neighbourhood of London, should be preserved.
MR. PERRY WATLINGTONsaid, he could not altogether concur in casting blame on the Government, but he thought that a Commission should be issued to inquire as to the best vacant sites for recreation purposes, and, where rights existed, how they could be compensated, so that suitable spaces for popular amusement might be maintained. The population at the east end of London, and that portion of Essex which he had the honour to represent, derived great enjoyment and benefit from occasional visits to Epping Forest, and to prevent the restriction of that enjoyment by the enclosures which, legally or illegally, were taking place in the district, it was necessary to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member for Maldon. The population in the east of London was rapidly increasing. In one parish, West Ham, the population which in 1851 was only 15,000, had, in 1861, more than doubled. It was 38,000. They had evidence before the Committee that the forest was used by all classes of the people. It was a place of favourite public resort during the whole summer; and, on every day in the week, large schools were being constantly taken down in vans. On one occasion, as a witness stated, he had taken down sixty vans, containing 1,000 adults. It would be a great loss to the people to be deprived of such healthful resorts, and it was incumbent on the Government to take the proper steps to preserve at once the rights of the Crown and the means of recreation for the people. The Government were not blameless in the matter, for in the Forest of Hainault 2,000 acres of Crown land had been enclosed and all the timber swept away, the whole being now a large sweep of arable land, without a single acre being reserved for the recreation and enjoyment of the people. Something should be done to prevent further encroachment.
MR. COXsaid, he would congratulate the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down on his change of opinion on the subject. Lately, when the people of Finsbury were endeavouring to keep the forest for ever open for their recreation and health, the hon. Gentleman was a strong opponent of that course; but now that he found the population of West Ham was rapidly increasing and required the forest for recreation, he joined with those who exclaimed against forest enclosure. The position in which the question stood was this. The Crown was entitled to certain
1206
rights over the forests of Hainault and Epping, and if the Crown claimed those rights, the lands would be left very much in their present condition. But, for the last fifteen years, the Crown had sadly neglected its duty. Its rights were allowed to be encroached upon and their money value to be filched by parties residing in those districts. The Committee which sat last year came to certain Resolutions, but these Resolutions might be said to express the opinions of the Chairman only, for the Committee divided six to six on every Resolution, and, as Chairman, he was called to give the casting vote. The Government ought to take action in the matter, for since the Report of the Committee, enclosures had taken place and were taking place; and if things went on so, in two or three years the people would be entirely shut out of their favourite places of recreation and enjoyment. The Government should stop the sale of all forestal rights in that forest, or appoint a Commission of Inquiry, for he claimed an indefeasible right on the part of the public to the use and enjoyment of a great part of the forest.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there was one proposition in respect to which they were all pretty much agreed, and that was, that the question was in a very unsatisfactory state; but he marvelled much that some hon. Gentlemen, the promoters of the Address of last year, should cast on the Government the responsibility for that unsatisfactory condition of the question, for he maintained that it was in a great degree owing to them and to the Address which they induced the House to adopt. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down called on the Government to act on the recommendation of the minority of the Committee and against that of the majority. [Mr. COX: Act on one or on the other, but act.] He wished the House to observe what the recommendation of the majority of the Committee was. They advised that the sanction of Parliament should be given to the enclosure of a main portion of the forest; that the rights of interested parties should be ascertained, and that provision should be made by these means and partly by purchase for securing a part of the forest for the recreation of the public. But where there was a purchase, there must be purchase money, and hon. Gentlemen had been very shy of that part of the question. Was the purchase

1207
money to come from the Consolidated Fund? The Government thought proper, from respect to a Resolution of that House, to discontinue the sale of forestal rights, but by so doing they inflicted injury on the corpus of the estate of the Crown, of which they were only the life tenants. The estate of the Crown was only in their hands for the life of the Sovereign, and it was the duty of the department of Woods and Forests to administer the estate as other landlords administered theirs—in an enlightened spirit, no doubt, but for the interest of those to whom the estate belonged. Now, it was not the duty of a landlord to reserve open spaces for the public. As for fresh air the people of London were not the only persons for whom that was good; and if the claim then made were admitted, the inhabitants of other parts of England, living in crowded houses and narrow streets, would be equally entitled to apply to the Consolidated Fund. Let hon. Members consider what enormous sums had been expended on the parks, and the grants of money which had been given during their own lifetime for the creation of new parks. That expenditure had been made with great liberality until the House began to consider that there must be some limit to the practice, and determined to provide other machinery, by which London, the most wealthy town in relation to its population, might be able to provide for its wants. The Metropolitan Board of Works was consequently constituted; and an Act was introduced to enable that Board to provide parks and places of recreation by means of rates. [Mr. COX: This forest is beyond their jurisdiction.] It was beyond their jurisdiction for the purpose of levying rates, but not for the purpose of purchase and devoting the place to the enjoyment of the people. The consequence of the Government being prevented from selling forestal rights had been, that those who were desirous of getting the land occupied it without permission, and legal proceedings to dispossess them would only cause a further expense — and for what purpose? Not to make use of the land for the benefit of the proprietor, but for the purpose of keeping it open and unoccupied. The Committee reported that the employment of forestal rights as a means of obstructing enclosure was a course of doubtful justice, and might fail in securing the desired object; but the House, on the other hand, said, "Do not make a sale of
1208
forestal rights." He admitted that the question was in an embarrassing position, but he was not prepared to say that the Government were responsible for it, because they did their best to prevent the House coming to the Resolution which had been referred to. It was now said that a Commission should be appointed, but he did not think that the Government were ever justified in appointing a Commission to get rid of responsibility, and they ought not to appoint a Commission unless they were prepared to give instructions for a definite object. No doubt the ground was very much wanted. On that he quite agreed. But it was doubtful whether it was the duty of the Government to inquire what ground should be reserved. It came much more within the province of the Metropolitan Board, to which, under the sanction of law, the duty of providing recreation grounds for the recreation of the people of London belonged. The Government would not be justified in acting contrary to law, and in taking into its hands the function and duty which a statute had assigned to another body. He should be glad if any mode could be discovered for dealing with the question, but so long as the Metropolitan Board existed, it would not be the duty of the Government to find new places of recreation for the people of London, and even should the statute which constituted the board be repealed, it would not become the Government to provide out of the Consolidated Fund such places for the inhabitants of the metropolis until they had carefully considered whether they were prepared to act on the same principle in the case of other large towns.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, bethought that the right hon. Gentleman was incorrect in what he had said regarding the powers of the Metropolitan Board. That Board, he fully believed, had no authority under the Metropolis Local Management Act to buy any land beyond their jurisdiction for the recreation of the people. If the Metropolitan Board really had such a power, he would be the first to advocate their exercising it for the benefit of the public. He understood that all that was now desired of the Government was that they should simply prevent any encroachment upon the forest. Considering the miles of bricks and mortar that were constantly springing up in the metropolis, he did not think it was fair to turn round upon its inhabitants, who now paid for many things of which the country at large

1209
had the benefit, and accuse them of wanting to draw upon the Consolidated Fund for their own purposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MASTERS IN THE NAVY.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he rose to move that this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for putting the Staff Captains, Commanders, and Masters of the Royal Navy upon an equality in pay, rank, and eligibility for receiving marks of distinction, with any other class of Officers in that Service. The duties of a Master in Her Majesty's Navy were only second to those of the captain or the commander of the vessel in which he acted, and he should be glad, if time permitted, to show the House how those officers entered the service, and how they were treated in comparison with other officers who entered at the same time. The Masters entered as second class cadets, and they served six years as Masters' assistants before they become eligible for the position of Master. Entering the service at the age of fifteen they would be twenty-one before being eligible for second Masters, while the cadet at nineteen was eligible for a lieutenant. True, at the commencement they received as Masters' assistants more pay than the first class naval cadets; but as the latter gained more rapid promotion, their pay quickly exceeded that of the Master, though the expenses and the mess were the same. The Master began with a sense of inferiority which stuck to him through life, and marred his hopes of fame and rank. The Master, having served twenty-five years, would obtain the nominal rank of staff commander, and be in receipt of £1 per diem. The lieutenant who had served from seven to nine years would have gained his promotion as commander, and in nine years' service, according to the new scheme—from which the Masters were to derive no benefit whatever—the lieutenant would be in receipt of £1 per diem. Five years more would make the lieutenant a post-captain, when he would receive from £400 to £800 a year, besides command money. The staff commander, having served a greater length of time, would receive only £365 per annum. He
  1210
  next came to a comparison of the pay in the dockyards. The Master attendant received £480, the Master shipwright £650, the assistant Master attendant £380, the chief engineer £650, and the storekeeper £600. In the victualling yards at Deptford the Master attendant of the two establishments received £480, and the storekeeper of the dockyard and victualling yard £1,200. The noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) had said that the Masters had never made any demand for increased pay, and that their demand was entirely limited to rank, which had been granted them. Neither of those statements could be maintained. A memorial was presented in December, 1860, from the Masters, in the last paragraph of which they said—
  "It would be satisfactory to the class of Masters generally if they were placed, with regard to relative rank, pay, pensions, and social position, on the same footing as that now held by medical officers, of whom they have always had the precedence since the Order in Council of the 28th of March, 1808."
  It was admitted by all naval men that the Masters formed a most intelligent, most trustworthy, and most valuable class of officers. For years they had been complaining of the treatment to which they were subjected in respect to pay, promotion, and rewards for distinguished services. In 1862, in consequence of representations made to the Admiralty, a Committee was appointed to consider their grievances. That Committee consisted of Rear Admiral Elliot, Captain Goldsmith, Captain Washington, and one Master. The report of those gentlemen, for some reason or other, though moved for, had never been presented to the House. It bore strong testimony to the efficiency of the Masters, recommending that they should be retained as navigators and pilots, but that their position should be improved. Among other things the Committee proposed that the grievances of the Masters should be removed with respect to widows' pensions, compassionate allowances, and prize money; that their designations should be altered, and that they should be rewarded like other officers for distinguished services. Some of those recommendations had been adopted, but the greater part had never been carried out; and with regard to distinguished rewards, especially, the Masters at the present moment were in no better position than formerly. At that moment a staff commander of thirty-four years' service and of twenty-two

  1211
  years' standing, with a separate command, was junior to a junior lieutenant, and if a boy of nineteen who had the rank of lieutenant came in contact with the Master of Her Majesty's yacht, Osborne, who was one of the most distinguished officers in the service, that Master must wait upon him as his superior officer. The Masters had not been raised in point of rank, nor had they up to that time been permitted to share in rewards granted for distinguished services, though some of their number had been highly praised for their conduct in the Crimea and at Kagosima. After the attack on Sebastopol, on October 17, 1854, all the post-captains present were made C. B.'s, the commanders were posted, and a lieutenant commanding a ship was made a commander; but there were no such rewards for the Masters. Admiral Kuper acknowledged how much he was indebted to the Master of his flag-ship, Mr. W. H. Parker, for a survey which he made of the bay before the action at Kagosima; but there, again, there was no reward. As he understood the noble Lord the other night, he said that the Masters enjoyed the full social rank to which they were entitled. That might be so nominally, but in reality the Masters ranked socially below the lowest officer of the ship. He should like to see the Masters placed in the same position as the engineers of the army, that was to say, placed in a superior and not in an inferior position. He thought they were entitled to such position by the importance of the duties they had to discharge.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for putting the Staff Captains, Commanders, and Masters of the Royal Navy upon an equality in pay, rank, and eligibility for receiving marks of distinction, with any other class of Officers in that Service,"— (Sir Lawrence Palk,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that before the noble Lord rose to address them he wished to say a few words, although he did not mean to enter into the Question raised by his hon. Friend behind him. He
  1212
  would say only that the Masters were officers of great merit, and ought to be adequately requited for their services. The subject, however, suggested a question of a wider and more comprehensive character. It was well known that for many years the officers of the Royal Navy had had reason to complain of insufficient pay. He had himself repeatedly adverted to the fact that captains were sometimes obliged to decline commands from inability to make their income meet the expenses involved. The Admiralty had, with the best intentions, introduced a supplementary estimate to increase the pay of certain classes of officers; but he believed that their proposals were not satisfactory even to the officers concerned, while there were several classes which were not touched at all. His noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had adopted generally rather an apologetic tone in speaking of that estimate, and had pleaded the limited fund at his disposal as a reason for not doing more. He could not, of course, blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for reasonable vigilance as to the finances of the country; but, considering the growing wealth and prosperity of the nation, which the right hon. Gentleman had himself so eloquently described, he thought there was no excuse for committing any injustice on the ground of necessary economy. He submitted that the time had come when the matter should be dealt with in a broader and more liberal manner than had been done in the supplementary estimate; and he would therefore beg to ask the noble Lord whether the Admiralty would, as a preliminary step, consent to a Royal Commission on the pay of the Navy?
  COLONEL EDWARDSthought he was only doing his duty in advocating the claims of a body of men who deserved the best consideration of the House of Commons. As to the captains on the reserved list, when he referred to them the other night, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty seemed to ignore their existence. One hundred of those captains, as the noble Lord was well aware, were originally placed on the reserved list upon the distinct understanding that they should enjoy the same advantages prospectively as those who were placed on the active list. He had that day received a statement from a post-captain in the Royal Navy who had been placed on the reserved list, in which he stated that the class he represented were at a loss to know what Lord

  1213
  C. Paget meant by saying that a "boon" had been granted to those officers, to which body he unfortunately belonged. The noble Lord must have alluded to a different class. The captains on the reserved list had received no "boon;" on the contrary, their claims had always been pooh-poohed by the Admiralty, and they were told by the Duke of Somerset that they had "obtained advantages they could not possibly have expected when they entered the service!" They expected justice, and were distinctly assured by the Order in Council under which they were promoted, that their claims should be "equitably met." They now complain of a breach of faith, as their claims are by no means "equitably met," (that is equally with other officers, fairly and impartially). Many reserved captains had served twenty, thirty, and thirty-five years in active service, on the most unhealthy stations, and in all parts of the world—in general actions and numerous engagements, wounded, health impaired by sickness, and arduous service for their country. These men were kept on a miserable pittance, whilst there were admirals on 25 s. per diem who had only served twelve or thirteen years on active service, and that of no particularly severe nature, but principally in the Mediterranean and other healthy stations. He (Colonel Edwards) maintained that this was an instance in which men belonging to Her Majesty's Navy—a most gallant and meritorious class of officers—had been treated very unfairly, and he could not conceive why the noble Lord, who professed to be such an ardent friend and supporter of the just claims of the officers of his own profession, could ignore the fact of their very existence in face of the House of Commons, being well aware that he (Colonel Edwards) had, four years in succession, in debates which had arisen in the House, advocated their claims, and, on more than one occasion, close divisions had been taken. He trusted the hon. Baronet would, on some future and early occasion, include the captains on the reserved list in his category, and that the just claims of this class of officers would be fairly and equitably considered.
  MR. C. P. BERKELEYobserved, that the Committee which sat last year examined no Master nor Commander, and no evidence was taken about their position except incidentally. As to the retired captains, he thought their case had been pretty fully inquired into by the Committee
  1214
  of last year, and the result of the inquiry had not disturbed the opinion which he had expressed two years ago—that they had not a leg to stand upon. No boon had been granted to them since that, except the boon of a good grievance, which had been granted to them a few nights ago. The only boon granted to them previously was that conferred by the Order of 1861, which enabled them to get additional pay according to service. One officer who had been examined said that boon only amounted to about 3d. a day, and he never knew why that had been given to him, and he thought it must be a mistake. The Committee could not allude to the grievances of the Masters and Commanders. There were fifty or fifty-five classes of officers on the active list, and as to scales of pay he believed there were not less than one hundred of them. He therefore considered that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was worthy of attention.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESjoined his hearty wish to that expressed by his hon. Friend near him, that the Secretary of the Admiralty would consider the case of the Staff Masters. He had had the honour of sitting upon the Committee, and he conceived that there was no class of officers in the Royal Navy whose case deserved greater consideration than that of the Staff Masters. He believed that if England were polled as to this question, there would be a unanimous opinion expressed that their position ought to be improved. He thought that the claims of all the other officers of the navy should be likewise considered.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted that the Government would not readily accede to the request which had been made, and by handing over its functions to a Commission, entail upon the public a great increase in the expenditure. As a Member of the Committee, he had hoped that their well-considered Report would have put an end to much of what they had heard that night. If the inducements at present held out were not sufficient to induce officers to enter the navy—which he did not believe to be the case—he hoped his noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty would state so.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSEsaid, he hoped that the House would always listen to any class which came before them with a well-founded grievance. It had been clearly shown that the only memebrs of a very difficult and dangerous service, who had not been recognized or received any

  1215
  increase of pay or decoration were the Masters in the navy. As he had a great many of that class amongst his constituents he felt that he was justified in raising his voice in their favour. The right hon. Baronet had proved a strong case for the whole subject being taken into consideration, and he thought the House would not be doing its duty if they did not entertain it.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he would admit that the House was a court of last appeal for grievances; but he must protest against taking out of the hands of the executive Government the exercise of their proper functions. If the House undertook to remedy all the grievances which ought to be remedied by the responsible Officers of the Crown, it would get itself into considerable difficulties. The case before them was very like that of the Custom House Officers seeking for additional pay. He had received many applications on the subject, but he had invariably said that he did not think it his duty to interfere with the Officers of the Crown on such matters. The duty of the House of Commons was to check the expenditure, not to increase it.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he wished to know what the officers of the army and navy were to do, if, having brought a grievance before the Executive and obtained no remedy, they were to be precluded from appealing to the House of Commons. "Would the hon. Member have them strike, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recommended working men to do the other night?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. If he makes such an assertion as that, will he have the goodness to prove it?
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to justify strikes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: "Recommend strikes" was the expression I called on the hon. Gentleman to prove.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he would withdraw the word "recommend," but he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to justify strikes. In all such cases as that before them the ultimate court of appeal must be that House.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was not in a position to answer the Question of the right hon. Member for Droitwich, whether the Government were pre-
  1216
  pared to recommend a Royal Commission on the subject; but he had no hesitation in saying that it was a most unfortunate thing for the navy that Motions devoted to the cases of individual classes of officers should be brought forward in the manner they had been of late years. The Masters did complain of their position, in the shape of a memorial to the Admiralty, and he certainly quite admitted that they had reason to do so. Considering the responsible duties they had to perform, their position had not been commensurate with their merits. When the complaint was made, the Admiralty appointed a Committee to consider their case, and the Masters came before it to state their grievance. A few of them complained of their pay; but the grievance of the great majority of them was in reference to their position as regards rank in the navy. They complained that in the colonies and in garrison towns they were not always entitled to be considered gentlemen by their rank. The Committee took into consideration the propriety of abolishing the rank of Master altogether, and that was a question on which distinguished officers who gave evidence differed; and the Committee reported that it was not advisable to abolish the class, but recommended, after a certain length of service, to grant them additional rank. Another grievance was, that their widows' pensions were not sufficient, and they were increased. There were other additional claims which they made; for instance, they asked for some out-pensions at Greenwich Hospital. The Committee recommended that it should be granted, and the Admiralty were glad to do it. He knew it was a sore point with the Masters that on the quarter-deck they ranked below the junior lieutenants, but he submitted that there were important reasons connected with discipline which rendered that necessary, and that it was not the sort of question which could be decided in the House of Commons. It was a matter that should be left to the Crown. With regard to the question of their pay, as compared with that of paymasters, he might observe that the paymasters, having no opportunity of rising to the higher branches of the service, expected that some difference should be made in their favour. Besides, they laboured under the disadvantage that they had had their pay reduced. The paymaster in former days received very large perquisites, and when those perquisites were taken away they had a fixed

  1217
  pay granted to them much higher than that of the Masters. Then, taking the case of surgeons, it must be borne in mind that they were young men who had to go through a very expensive education at their own cost, the fact being too that, while there was great difficulty in getting surgeons for the navy, no difficulty was experienced in getting Masters. Again, turning to the executive branch of the navy, it would be found that the pay of the junior Masters was the same as that of the junior lieutenants. The Masters rose by gradations to a pay of £273 15 s. a year, not in command. The highest pay which a lieutenant would receive under the new scheme was £269 a year, when in command; while a Master in command got 2s. a day additional, so that he was better paid than the lieutenant. Staff commanders ranked with commanders, and their lowest rate of full pay was £273 15 s., and the lowest pay of commanders was £365; staff commanders not in command rose to £365; and commanders in command rose to £433; a staff commander when in command of a ship got £36 10 s. extra, which brought him up nearly to the pay of commanders. He contended there was no cause of grievance between the two ranks in regard to pay. The Masters had also an allowance, when in charge of stores, of from £38 to £73 per year. There was no such pay as £1,200 per annum for the Master attendants of the dockyards; all they got was £600 per annum. [Sir LAWRENCE PALK: Some of them hold double appointments.] That was a mistake. And what had been done for the Masters at various times in the way of half-pay? In 1855, the rate of half-pay, which up to that time was only 7s., was raised to 13 s., and in 1860 to 15 s. 6d. That being so, he confidently appealed to the House to say whether those officers were badly treated. There was, he admitted, no more useful branch of the service than the Masters, but he regretted for their sakes that they should have brought such a grievance as that of which they complained under the notice of the House. The Admiralty was, of course, always ready to listen to any respectful complaints from them or any other officers, and if compliance with their requests was refused, it was only because it was due to the public to resist the constant appeals for increase of pay which were made.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that as the prices of provisions and almost
  1218
  every necessary of life had risen 35 per cent, it was not to be expected that officers would be content to remain contented on the present wretched and miserable pittance they received. He could assure the noble Lord that the matter would be persisted in until justice was done to the service. It would not do for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to that House and explain to the working men how to strike when they wanted more wages, and then to tell those officers, who were justly disgusted at their present position, that they were not to come in a constitutional manner and lay their grievances before that House. He, therefore, called upon the Government to grant the Royal Commission, and he assured them that until it was granted the Motion would be persevered in. The supplementary estimate for the increase of pay to the navy which the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty laid upon the table a few nights ago was, he added, a most fallacious document, inasmuch as it fixed a rate of pay for certain officers as belonging to a class which had in reality no individual existence. The pay of the officers of the different classes was entirely insufficient; they were, in fact, in a worse position pecuniarily than they were fifty years ago. The pensions to their widows were too small, and warrant officers were not allowed to marry after fifty—that was, their widows did not receive pensions if they married after that age—while other officers were allowed to marry until they were sixty. They had also grievances as to wounds and retirement, the regulations as to the latter being most unsatisfactory. Warrant officers were not entitled to become officers of the Coastguard, and they could only get into Greenwich Hospital by laying aside their pensions and entering as petty officers or seamen. The seniors obtained no promotion for war service, and the boatswains felt it a degradation to be obliged to inflict corporal punishment, which he quite agreed with them ought to be administered by the police of the ship. He hoped that after these statements the noble Lord would not again say that there was no case for the appointment of a Royal Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich did not move for such a Commission to investigate the subject of the pay of the navy, he would himself do so.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that he could conceive nothing

  1219
  more tending to confuse the order of debate than the course which had been, taken by the hon. Baronet, who, upon a motion referring to the special case of certain officers of the navy, without notice, and without his noble Friend being able to make any reply, had made a speech upon what he called the general grievances of the officers of the navy. He believed that the character of the British navy was such that it would withstand almost any unfavourable influence, but that character was severely tried by speeches such as that to which the House had just listened. After the hon. Baronet's animadversions upon the speeches of his hon. Friends the hon. Members for Peterborough and the Tower Hamlets, he felt bound on the part of the Government to thank those hon. Members for the constitutional doctrines which they had laid down as to the impropriety of referring to commissions subjects which were connected with the elementary duties of the Executive Government, and with its relations with Parliament. The hon. Baronet had threatened the Government that by tenacity and incessant recurrence to the Question he would force a compliance with his demands. In answer he had to say that while he trusted that the Government would, upon every occasion, give their careful attention to every question connected either with the army or the navy, or any other department of the State, they would not be driven by this menaced and pertinacious agitation, if he might call it so, to move one single step in advance of what they believed to be their duty alike to the Crown, to the country, and to the navy itself. The hon. Baronet had said that provisions had risen 25 per cent. He was astounded to hear that statement. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Meat.] The hon. Baronet fell back upon the single article of meat; but if meat had risen in price, locomotion, clothes, books, and almost all commodities purchased by gentlemen of moderate fortunes, were much cheaper than they were thirty years ago. It was not for him to prescribe the limits within which hon. Members should exercise their functions. It was of course in their power to do that which they would do whether he liked it or not, to make continual endeavours to augment the demands upon the public purse. There was no doubt that the primary duty of Members of the House of Commons was to check the Government in its propositions for the public expenditure, but he believed that
  1220
  he was making a moderate estimate when he said that, during the whole of the present Parliament, which was now approaching the term of its natural expiration, for every hour which had been spent in an attempt to check or restrain any proposal of the Government for increasing the public expenditure, ten hours, twenty hours, or perhaps more than that, had been consumed by Members, and he must say nine-tenths of them by Members opposite, in endeavouring to force the Government to increase the public expenditure. With respect to the general question, the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) had remarked that while all these grievances were pleaded, he was not aware that there had been any difficulty in providing the navy with a supply of efficient officers. That, indeed, was rather a material point in the case. He had no wish to disparage the services rendered by naval officers; on the contrary, he bore cheerful testimony to their general efficiency and to the honourable and zealous services which they rendered. But they were bound to treat the members of that service on principles of justice, and principles of justice required that they should receive a fair and reasonable remuneration, the test of which in the public service generally was the willingness of competent persons to accept this remuneration in respect of the duties they performed. Ten or twelve years ago, when Sir James Graham was First Lord of the Admiralty and he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, an increase took place in the pay of the men of the navy. But the First Lord founded that proposed increase upon a sound and legitimate basis—namely, that a difficulty was found in procuring a sufficient number of well qualified seamen for the public service. But what was the case with regard to officers? An hon. Member might go to the Duke of Somerset and ask to have his son put down on the list for a cadetship; and he might add, "As the pay given is so miserable, and the prospects are so inadequate, your Grace will have no difficulty in giving my son this nomination." But the Duke of Somerset might reply, "Sir, you appear to me like a man who has lived among the stars or in some foreign country. So far from finding a difficulty in procuring cadets, I have the greatest difficulty in meeting the demands for cadetships. I have lists of applicants that I cannot exhaust, and numbers of persons to whom I am compelled to refuse a place upon my list."

  1221
  There was, in fact, a pressure and a rush for these appointments which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think were the subject of such great and general grievance; and the same might be said of every branch of the service with one exception—the surgeons. The question, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think had only one side, had really two sides. Other people had their grievances besides naval officers. It was not a Eutopian world, a paradise in which it was possible to deal out benefits and blessings all round ad libitum. It was a hard-working world, in which the mass of human beings found it difficult to live. He had to remember the taxpayers; and how was he to look in the face of the poor Irish peasant, and say to him, "Let us augment the pay of all classes of public servants?" For other public servants were in just the same case. The Post Office, the Customs, the Inland Revenue Department, the Colonial Governors raised one continued cry for increased emoluments along with naval officers. On the other hand, he received every day applications from persons who prayed for exemption from taxes, and told piteous stories of poverty; but it was his duty to say in all these cases, "The law must take its course." Such was the taxpaying side of the question. If there had been a contract between the public and the naval officers the public had faithfully fulfilled its contract, and, indeed, had more than fulfilled it. And while the House was enjoining, on the one hand, thrift and economy in the public service, it would be a mockery, on the other hand, to pass Resolutions such as that before them, the result of which would be to bring about a very large addition to the expenditure.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he hoped that if a Royal Commission was not appointed, the question would at least receive the reconsideration of the Admiralty. He contended that the captains of the Warrior and of armour-plated ships of that kind ought to receive as large an allowance as the captains of a line-of-battle ship. The lieutenants, too, ought to receive pay in a fairer proportion to their length of service.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was sorry that the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be supposed to represent that of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. The House had been told that officers ought to strike, but the only way in which they could strike was by declin-
  1222
  ing to serve, as many of them had done. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted that side of the House with being always ready to urge a high expenditure, but the taunt came with a very ill grace from a Government which had been for several years spending £70,000,000 a year of the public money in all sorts of wasteful and ill-considered projects.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he must remind the House that the present Government had been described by the hon. Member for Rochdale as the most wasteful and profligate Government in regard to expenditure that ever sat on the Treasury Bench. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to expend half a million in the purchase of the Exhibition Building, and was a Member of the Government that had flung away thousands of pounds into the sea at Alderney. The fact was, that while the Government underpaid the men in the Royal Navy they were wasting the public money in useless fortifications at home and docks at Malta. And yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer ventured to read that side of the House a lecture on their extravagance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

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

SUPPLY.

  ACCIDENTS' COMPENSATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. FERRAND, Bill to amend the Act ninth and tenth Victoria, chapter ninety-three, for compensating the families of persons killed by Accidents, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FERRAND and Colonel EDWARDS.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—SELECT COMMITTEE —Report—Insane Prisoners Act Amendment * (Nos. 110 & 111).
Committee — Chimney Sweepers and Chimneys Regulation (No. 76); Naval Prize Acts Repeal* (No. 78); Naval Agency and Distribution* (No. 83); Naval Prize* (No. 87).
Report — Naval Prize Acts Repeal* (No. 78); Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (Amendment)* (No. 103).
Third Reading—Scots Episcopal Fund *, and passed.

JAMAICA.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD DUNSANY, who had given notice of a Motion for Papers respecting the Government and internal affairs of Jamaica, said, that he was induced to bring forward this subject at the present time owing to the very grave and very unsatisfactory state of affairs existing in the Islands. Perhaps the House would understand better what this state of things was if he read a Resolution passed by the House of Assembly—
  "That this House cannot, consistently with a due regard to the maintenance of its prescriptive rights and privileges, which are the firmest bul-
  1120
  warks of the liberties, franchises, and immunities of the people, proceed to any further business with his Excellency Lieutenant Governor Eyre, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Resolutions."
  In bringing the subject before their Lordships he did not mean to express any opinion as to who was right and who was wrong, but he could assure their Lordships that the Government and affairs of Jamaica had arrived at a dead lock. There were no less than twelve Acts of the Colonial Parliament which would expire in the course of the present year, and there was no intention on the part of the Assembly to renew them, although some of that number related to the audit of the public accounts, the militia, the new Import Duties, the Stamp Act, and many important subjects. He knew that it was always invidious to speak of absent persons, and his purpose in rising was not so much to make any complaint about an absent and meritorious servant of the Crown as to urge upon the House the fact that something was due to the Assembly and Colonists of Jamaica. Nor was it his intention to east any reflection upon the noble Duke the late Secretary of the Colonies (the Duke of Newcastle), whom he believed to have been most conscientious and painstaking in the performance of his duties. Until the arrival of Governor Darling in the Island, things had gone on very smoothly; but the Governor, contrary to the counsel of his official advisers, had determined to introduce party or responsible Government. His official advisers knew that the elements for such a Government did not exist in the Island, and they consequently resigned. That circumstance might be considered as the commencement of the disagreements which had arisen between the Governor and the Colonists. The Governor did not get on well either with the Colonial Secretary or the Assembly, and he came home. On his return to this country. Her Majesty's Government thought fit to reward him with the highest colonial appointment in the hands of the Crown—they appointed him Governor of Victoria, and this act was regarded by the people of Jamaica as a slight upon themselves. The care of the Island was intrusted to a Lieutenant Governor. During his tenure of office the construction of a tramway between Spanish Town and Porus was determined on, and this undertaking, if properly carried out, would have been of great public benefit. The financial guardian of the colony was naturally the island engineer, whose duty

  1121
  it was, therefore, to see that the work was honestly performed. Instead of doing so, he himself and another person became the contractors for the work. He was tried before the Privy Council for this job, and dismissed from his office; and this circumstance had brought not only upon the contractors, but all connected with the matter, to say the least, a great deal of unpopularity. This job could have been prevented by the Lieutenant Governor, as the ex officio Chairman of the Board of Main Roads, and it was his duty to have done so. In spite, however, of representations made to him upon the subject, he neglected to take any precautions, and he did not even attend a single meeting of the Board. The Assembly exhibiting symptoms of an unruly spirit, the Governor entered into correspondence upon the subject with the Colonial Office, and it was proposed that the power of the Lieutenant Governor should be increased. With that view, a most extraordinary step was taken, and it was announced that all members of the Assembly who held office under the Crown would be required to vote with the Government. It happened that there were two gentlemen having seats in the Assembly who held offices under the Government. One of them, Mr. Espeut, a district official assignee of the Insolvent Court, was informed that he must either resign his scat or vote with the Government. That gentleman was not convinced that if he declined to take either of the courses which were suggested to him, the Government had power to dismiss him from his office, or to remove him except for misconduct, and in that view he was supported by the opinion of counsel. In consequence of the differences that had arisen between the Lieutenant Governor and the Assembly, all legislative business was suspended, It had been declared that the Government intended to suspend the Constitution, but whatever course might be intended to be taken it was desirable that the least irritating and unpopular should be adopted, He did not intend to make any charge against Governor Darling, who was an experienced and valuable public servant, but he did not consider that he was the right man for an office which had been filled in past times with great ability and success by such men as the late Marquess of Normanby, Lord Elgin, and Lord Metcalfe. He hoped that some official person would be sent out to inquire into the grievances alleged by the Jamaica Assembly.
  1122
  The noble Lord concluded by moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for—

  1. Copy of all Correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the late Governor and late Lieutenant Governor of Jamaica respecting the Establishment of Party Government or Responsible Government in that Island:

  2. Copy of a Report presented to the House of Assembly of Jamaica by a Committee appointed to consider and report to the House on certain Points connected with the proposed Tramway between Spanish Town and Porus:

  3. Correspondence between Lieutenant Governor Eyre and the Secretary of State for the Colonies relative to that Tramway from June 1862 to the present Time:

  4. Copy of that Part of Lieutenant Governor Eyre's Speech in the Assembly on 4th November 1862 which relates to that Tramway:

  5. Copy of all Correspondence between the Lieutenant Governor of Jamaica and Mr. Espeut, a Member of the House of Assembly in Jamaica, relative to the Option allowed to that Gentleman either to support the Lieutenant Governor in the Assembly or resign his Seat therein, under the Threat of Dismissal from his Office of District Official Assignee of the Insolvent Court; also all Correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Lieutenant Governor of Jamaica or between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and any other Person upon the same Subject:

  6. Copy of a Memorial lately sent to Her Majesty by the House of Assembly of Jamaica, and Reply of the Secretary of State for the Colonies thereto:

  7. Copy of all Correspondence between the Lieutenant Governor of Jamaica and the Secretary of State for the Colonies relating to such Memorial.

  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had already informed the noble Lord that there would be no objection on the part of the Crown to give the Returns for which he had moved, if he would consent after the word "copy" to the addition of the words "or Extracts," There might be some parts of the despatches which ought not to be produced.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he desired to take that opportunity of bearing testimony to the great ability, spirit, and discretion with which the late Marquess of Normanby had in the most difficult circumstances performed the duties of Governor of Jamaica. To his skill, courage, and discretion in a great degree was owing the success of the great measure of negro emancipation.
  Motion amended, by inserting the words "or Extracts;" and agreed to.

CHIMNEY-SWEEPERS AND CHIMNEYS REGULATION BILL (No. 76).

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I had hoped I should have been Bared the necessity of troubling your Lordships at any length on this Bill, but having heard that some objections are entertained to its provisions, I feel it to be my duty to state the principles of the existing law, the necessity for it, and the provisions I consider necessary for carrying that law more effectually into operation. The Bill which I have laid on the table does not contain any new principle. It contains only provisions to give effect to the law already existing. In 1840 a Committee was appointed by this House, out of which came a Bill which prohibited the system of climbing boys altogether; and if that law had been observed there would have been no necessity for the present Bill. In 1853 I introduced a Bill for the purpose of rendering the previous Bill more operative. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee upstairs, and although we examined thirteen witnesses, every one of whom bore testimony to the necessity of the law, and to the necessity for strengthening it, yet the Bill was not allowed to proceed any further, the Committee simply declaring that it was not expedient. Now, both these Bills—the Bills and the evidence before the Committee—set forth in the clearest manner the enormity of the system and the great degradation and cruelty inflicted on children engaged under it. They also set forth the sufficiency of the remedy and the entire safety of it. In 1862 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the various trades in which children were engaged. The Commission, amongst many other matters, took evidence on the state of climbing boys, which confirmed everything that had gone before, only that the evils were greater in amount and intensity than existed in former times. It is the evidence that was then adduced I am now about to bring before your Lordships, in order to show the absolute necessity of the provisions I propose; — and let me say that, revolting and disgusting as the evidence in the Report is, the facts stated In the Appendix are ten times more so. To give your Lordships a picture of the entire
  1124
  system I will first state the age at which these children are generally forced into this work. The concurrent testimony of all is that the usual age is from 6 to 8; but there are many instances of 5, and even 4½ years. The hours of working in the smaller towns are 8 and 9, in the larger towns 12 to 16; and for the greater part the work begins at 4, 3, and even 2 o'clock in the morning. This shows the cruelty of the system as affecting children of such tender years and such delicate frames engaged in this disgusting and revolting employment. Sixty-three witnesses were examined by the Commissioners. They came from all parts of England, and thirty-three of them were master sweeps. Let me give your Lordships some examples of the evidence they adduced to show the extreme cruelty of the system and the abominations to which these poor children are subjected. The first evidence I shall quote comes from a master sweep in Nottingham—Mr. Ruff; and his testimony may be taken, the Commissioners state, and so says Mr. Ruff himself, from great experience, as a very fair sample of what is going on in various parts of the country. He says—
  "No one knows the cruelty which a boy has to undergo in learning. The flesh must be hardened. This is done by rubbing it, chiefly on the elbows and knees, with the strongest brine, close by a hot fire. You must stand over them with a cane, or coax them by the promise of a halfpenny, &c., if they will stand a few more rubs. At first they will come back from their work with their arms and knees streaming with blood, and the knees looking as if the caps had been pulled off; then they must be rubbed with brine again."
  This painful description, the Commissioners observe, they would have hesitated to record, but that it was so amply confirmed by the testimony of many practical witnesses from all parts of the country. Mr. Clark, another master sweep, says—
  "If, as often happens, a boy is gloomy, or sleepy, or anywise 'linty' [I do not know the meaning of this expression], and you have other jobs on at the same time, though I should be as kind as I could, you must ill-treat him somehow, either with the hand, or brush, or something. It is remembering the Cruelty which I have suffered which makes me so strong against boys being employed. I have the marks of it on my body now, and I believe the biggest part of the sweeps in the town have the same; that (showing a deep scar across the bottom of the calf of the leg) was made by a blow from my master with an ash plant—i.e. a young ash tree that is supple and will not break—when I was six years old; it was cut to the bone, which had to be scraped to heal the wound; I have marks of nailed boots, &c. on other parts. It was a common thing with sweeps

  1125
  to speak of 'breaking in a boy.' If he was hard, like a ground road or a stone, they gave it up. The other sweeps and I do not like to think of our children growing up to such a business, I believe that in every respect, except the sleeping department and washing, the condition of the boys is now as bad as ever as to treatment, perhaps worse, as the men who have boys are only the least respectable."
  The evidence of Mr. Elton, a chimney sweeper at Basingstoke, is to the same effect. He says—
  "Some boys are more awkward and suffer more; but all are scarred and wounded."
  James Brown, a journeyman at Winchester, says—
  "Some chimneys are rough, and, of course, that skins you on the elbows and back; some put pads on the knees if you are very bad; saltpetre, what they call brine, is the only way of getting over it; I remember very well having that rubbed on every morning and night."
  Mr. P. Hall mentions a child not more than seven or eight years old, at Birmingham, who could scarcely walk from sores and bruises received in climbing. But the treatment they receive in the course of their training is not the only hardship these young children have to endure. Let us look at what they have to undergo in the process of their work. They are subjected to cruel usage from their masters, and it is a remarkable fact that all the witnesses concur in stating that it is the most cruel masters who persist in refusing to use the sweeping machines. Many of the children are seriously burnt in consequence of being compelled to ascend the flues on fire, and others are killed or maimed. One case occurred at Ashton-under-Lyne, where a child of seven was burnt badly, and at Preston a boy was severely flogged by his master for refusing to go a second time into a hot boiler flue. Mr. Michael Brown, coroner for the borough of Nottingham, states that he held two inquests on climbing boys; in one case the fire was burning, and something was put over the still hot fireplace to enable the boy to rest his feet on at starting. In this case Mr. Brown attributed the death partly to the air in the chimney not being fit for breathing. A hole was broken in the wall to got the boy out. In the other ease the master had lit straw under the chimney to bring the boy down, as it was supposed he was asleep, when in reality he was dead. Even within the last two years (the Commissioners say) a child lost his life in the West End of London having "stuck" in the chimney. According to Mr. Peacock,
  1126
  of Burslem, Mr. Herries of Leicester has collected twenty-three eases of boys who have been killed in chimneys by being stifled since the Act of 1840 was passed. I am sorry to detain your Lordships with these details, but it is essentially necessary that I should give you the authority on which I make these statements; and I beg of you to recollect for whom I am now pleading. Mr. Richard Stansfield, a master sweep at Manchester, says—
  "Why, I myself have kept a lad four hours up a chimney, when he was so sore that he could scarcely move; but I wouldn't let him come down till he had finished; it has often made my heart ache to hear them wail, even when I was what you may call a party to it. In learning a child you can't be soft with him—you must use violence. I shudder now when I think of it. I have gone to bed with my knee and elbow scabbed and raw, and the inside of my thighs all scarified; we slept five and six boys together in a, sort of cellar with the soot bags over us, sticking in the wound sometimes; that and some straw were all our bed and bedclothes; they were the same bags we had used in the day, wet or dry."
  Some are burnt, some suffocated, some tortured and half killed, or quite killed, when stuck in a chimney, by the very means used to extricate them. Some are drawn out at the top and some at the bottom of the chimney, and a case is mentioned by Mr. Ruff of Nottingham, in which a boy was smothered in a chimney there; and the doctor (he added) who opened his body (naming him) said that they bad pulled the boy's heart and liver all out of place in dragging him down. So much for their hours of work. What for their hours of so-called repose? A large proportion of them are lodged in low, ill-drained, ill-ventilated and noisome cellars. They "sleep black" — that is, they lie unwashed for the whole week, perhaps for many weeks. Hence that most frightful disorder called the chimney sweep's cancer—a disease which I will not seek to describe to your lordships further than to say that, having witnessed it, I have never seen a more terrible form of physical suffering. It almost always proves fatal. I come now to the moral condition of these children. On Sundays, in a great many instances, they are shut up altogether, that their neighbours may not see their miserable plight. The moral and intellectual state of boys so trained and treated must necessarily be degraded to the lowest possible point. Out of 384 boys examined by Mr. P. Hall, that witness says he found "only six who could write, and twenty-six who could read,

  1127
  most of them very imperfectly." "They never go even to Sunday School," says one; "they do not get a chance," says another. There may be an exception here and there; but what more striking estimate could we have of the low, despised, brute condition in which these children are kept, or of how completely they are overlooked and degraded by the community, and regarded as mere pariahs for administering to the wants and comforts of the wealthier classes, than that furnished by the remark of a lady to Mr. Ruff:—
  "Formerly," says Mr. Ruff, "the sweeps, as they said themselves, had three washes a year —namely, at Whitsuntide, Goose Fair (October), and Christmas; but now they are quite different. This is owing a great deal, I think, to a rule which we brought about of taking no orders after twelve midday, and washing then. The object of this was to let the boys go to school in the afternoon. At first most did, but they do not now. A lady complained of this to me, because she could not get her chimney done, and said, 'A chimneysweep, indeed, wanting education! what next?' "
  Good Heavens! my Lords, I say that the woman who could speak in that way of a human being with reference to his temporal and eternal interests is a woman who would cut up a child for dogs' meat or for making manure. In the worst days of slavery a more disgusting sentiment, or one more offensive both to God and man, could hardly have been uttered than that implied in this woman's "What next?" There is also a regular traffic in these children. They are constantly bought and sold. Mr. Jones, of the Midland Association, read a paper before a meeting on Social Science, in which he stated that—
  "In the country young children are bargained for by their parents and master sweeps; they are bought and sold; and the more tender their age the more valuable they are considered."
  Mr. E. S. Ellis, a magistrate of Leicester, says—
  "I am satisfied that great numbers of children are bought and sold, and that, practically, they are as much slaves as any negro children in South Carolina."
  Mr. Francis Peacock, of Burslem, says—
  "I have bought lads myself. I used to give the parents so much a year for them. In Liverpool, where there are lots of bad women, you can get any quantity you want."
  This system in the provinces generally, with some exceptions, is very largely on the increase. And here I may pause for a moment to ask your Lordships by what social right or by what law of God you take these children of such tender years, who can have no will of their own, and who derive
  1128
  no benefit from the trade, because they receive no wages — their clothing does not deserve the name, and their food is of the scantiest character — and compel them to enter upon a career the most filthy and the most degrading, physically and morally, it is possible to conceive. In that career they suffer during all their tenderest years, and when they emerge into manhood — I mean, of course, those of them who survive so long—they find themselves crippled in body and mind, and without knowledge or ability of any kind. Under such circumstances can you wonder that a larga proportion of them, when they arrive at manhood, are found either in gaol or upon the gibbet? If when taken possession of they had reached their riper years, and were able to judge for themselves, they might have made their own bargain, and entered upon the career with a full knowledge of what was before them; but I ask you, in the name of God, what right you have to impose upon human beings, as good and as responsible as yourselves, having the same rights, the same hopes, and the same destinies, so degrading, so filthy, and so disgusting an occupation? This is mere wanton cruelty, for, as the evidence proves, it is totally unnecessary. I should have thought that the evidence taken before the Commission of 1840 would have satisfied every one of the efficacy of the machine if properly used. Before the Committee of 1853, when my Bill was on the table, thirteen witnesses deposed to that fact without a single dissentient voice. Even that Committee of 1853, which declared that it was not expedient my Bill should be proceeded with, gave it as their opinion that the machine was capable of doing the work assigned to it, and was even safer than the climbing boys. The present evidence proves the same thing at great length. The universal testimony is that every chimney, however angular or tortuous, can be swept by the machine, provided occasionally that, at a very small expense, apertures called soot-doors are opened at certain places. It is obvious, indeed, that the machine must do the work better than a boy. A boy avoids every hole and corner he can, and gets through the business as speedily as possible, whereas the machine goes into every nook and does the work thoroughly and well. But the masters do not like the machine, because it imposes upon them a certain amount of labour, whereas, under the climbing system, the poor boy has to go through all

  1129
  the toil. In this metropolis itself yon have two remarkable instances of the efficacy of the machine—in the Athenaeum and the Bank of England. The chimney of the Bank of England is a most peculiar structure; it has six different angles, and yet it is swept effectually by the machine. So also with the chimney of the Athenaeum. But I am now speaking after an experience of twenty-one years, and I have further proofs to submit to your Lordships. The climbing system has been suppressed altogether in Edinburgh for thirty years by the action of by-laws, and it has also been totally suppressed in Glasgow. In Bath, with its thousands of tall chimneys, it is extinct, and it no longer exists in the town of Leicester or in the Potteries. There is an enormous population among whom it has been suppressed without any injurious consequences whatever; but I have a stronger proof still. In this huge metropolis the machine has been used for twenty-one years. The Commissioners say—
  "As the experience of London is so important in the solution of this question, the number of houses being about one-tenth of those in England and Wales, it appears desirable briefly to explain the facts of this case. According to the census of 1861 the total number of houses in the metropolis was 379,222, and in 1851 it was 327,391, thus showing an annual increase in the number of houses of 5,183. Allowing on an average six chimneys to a house, the total mini- her of chimneys may be estimated at 2,375,332, all of which, with some few exceptions, are swept by the machine."
  Is it necessary to ask for more proof? Everybody in London is satisfied with the work the machine does. But we have also the testimony of the late Mr. Braidwood. Superintendent of the London Fire-engine Establishment, who said that no risk whatever would attend the discontinuance of the use of boys for sweeping chimneys provided where the machine could not sweep them there were doors made by which they could be swept. Captain Shaw, the present Superintendent of the Fire engine Establishment, was likewise requested to give the result of his experience. The Commissioners say—
  "We are indebted to Captain Shaw for a very instructive table, showing the total number of fires from all causes, and the number caused by flues, in each year from 1833 to 1862. From this document it appears that while the total number of fires has increased with the increase of new houses, the proportion of fires caused by flues to the total number has considerably diminished, the average percentage in the ten years previous to the application of the Act (namely,
  1130
  1833–42) amounted to 11·8, while the average percentage of the twenty years subsequently (1843–62) was only 8·6; the highest percentage in any one year being 15·5—namely, in 1833, and the lowest, 6·4, in 1861. We have received similar information from the surveyors of some of the principal London Assurance Companies; and we are therefore satisfied that all fears of the increased risk of fire from the abolition of climbing-boys are entirely without foundation."
  That being the state of things, every one being satisfied that the machine could be used with safety, it is desirable to inquire into the causes and modes of the violation of the Act. I am bound to say, at the outset, that the master sweeps are not principally to blame. No doubt there are some who dislike the trouble of the machine, but the vast majority, go where you will, are most anxious to get rid of the climbing system. It is the householders, and especially the great people, who keep it up, declaring that no power on earth would induce them to allow a machine to enter their premises. These are the persons who, in spite of the law, will have children to go up their chimneys. Everywhere you have one and the same testimony. One master says: —
  "The use of boys is much encouraged by the fact that many householders will have their chimneys swept by boys instead of machines. I have myself lost a good deal of custom which I should otherwise have, and some which I formerly had, at large houses and public establishments, because I will not use boys. That reason was not given, but I was not employed after I refused. I have been sent away even from magistrates' houses, and in some cases even by ladies, who have professed to pity the boys, for refusing to use them."
  Many householders refuse to alter their flues, or to incur the smallest expense for putting in soot doors, and persist in setting the law at defiance. The whole burden of the evidence of the Committee of 1853 and of this Commission goes to prove the determination of the magistrates, with some exceptions, not to carry the law into effect. They may not go the length of saying that they will not convict, although it is reported they have done even that in some instances; but they take good care to prevent convictions by demanding evidence of such a kind that it is next to impossible it should be produced, and dismissing cases with rebuke and even insult to the prosecutors. Even where there is a grave charge, it is too often treated with lightness, and acquittals are granted in the face of the most conclusive testimony the other way. Thus it happens that of the hundreds of cases which are annually brought before the magistrates, only a

  1131
  small percentage result in convictions. Then, again, we have also, I think, reason to complain of the builders of houses. By a section of the Act of 1840, it was ordered that flues should be constructed in such a manner that machinery could be used, and the services of climbing boys dispensed with. As far as we can learn, however, the builders have pertinaciously refused to obey that provision of the Statute. Scarcely any chimneys have been constructed as directed, and the consequence is that this pretext still remains for the employment of climbers. One builder, indeed, Mr. Cubitt, of Belgravia, deserves to be mentioned as a noble exception, for he strictly carried out the Act, and built all his chimneys in such a way that the occupants of the houses to which they are attached never think of sending up boys, for they know the work can be done more speedily, effectually, and conveniently by machinery. Not only, my Lords, is this a matter of very serious importance, involving the temporal, and I may say the eternal, condition of these youths; but it is one that really concerns the political character of the country. These things of which I have been speaking are done, in the main, for the use and comfort of the wealthier classes, and you may depend upon it that a rankling feeling is kept up in the mind of the people by the thought of a system which is a scandal to a civilized country. If your Lordships reject the proposal I have now the honour to submit, you will be perpetrating a system more cruel and disgraceful than almost anything I know of—a system which, however it may be connived at, and however it may be palliated, cannot be justified—a system which day by day and week by week leads persons of all conditions to violate the law and outrage their sense of humanity. Your Lordships must remember that I am not seeking to establish any new principle. I am asking only for the means of giving effect to a principle which has already been affirmed, and which is quite in accordance with the spirit of modern legislation, in alleviating toil and suffering. I well recollect how, when I was engaged in carrying my measure of factory reform, the most terrible predictions were uttered as to the ruin alike of employers, parents, and children which must befall them. Now I hear nothing but praise on all sides; and I cannot express the joy I felt when a master manufacturer said to me, "I opposed you tooth and nail as long as I could; but
  1132
  now the law is passed, take my advice, for God's sake, and do not part with a hair's breadth of it, for it is a measure which must do great good to the people, and can do no harm to the employers." I appeal to you now on behalf of another class of weak and suffering humanity. I ask you to protect, not adults, who can take care of themselves, but the helpless young, many of them orphans, and some the offspring of cruel and unnatural parents. The other evening your Lordships were engaged in discussing the intellectual progress of the children of the upper classes—a very right and proper subject of debate. But now you have to consider whether a small and humble ray of light shall be allowed to fall on the children of the poorest and most unhappy in the land I pray you, my Lords, not to reject this Bill. I entreat you to show your goodness and consideration for these unfortunate children by granting them the repose, leisure, and opportunity necessary to enable them by the blessing of God to acquire such secular learning as may give them the possibility of a life of industry, honesty, and comfort in this world, and above all to attain that religious knowledge which alone can make a man wise and just.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he doubted whether some of the provisions of the Bill were absolutely necessary or desirable. Clause 9, for instance, provided that any constable or other peace officer might
  "Take into custody, without warrant, any chimney-sweeper believed by such constable or officers to be committing any such offence as aforesaid, within the view of such constable or officer; and might secure him until he could be brought before the justices, or be bailed."
  A chimney sweep was not a vagrant, he was always known, and if he had committed an offence, surely he might be apprehended on a warrant. Again, by Clause 10, a constable might detain
  "Any person apparently under the age of sixteen years or of ten years (as the case may be), who is caused or allowed to enter a house,"
  in contravention of the Bill. Surely this was going rather further than was necessary.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 6 (Restriction on Employment of Children under Ten).
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHpointed out that under the Bill a master chimneysweep would be liable to penalties if even he employed a child to drive the donkeycart in which he carried his soot.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Chimney Sweeper entering House to sweep Chimney, &c., not to bring with him Person under Sixteen).
  LORD PORTMANsaid, he thought the clause too stringent.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, if the boys were allowed to go into the house with their masters, the offence would certainly be committed. The clause was stringent, but the only way of preventing this intolerable abuse was by interdicting boys from entering the house on any pretence whatever.
  LORD CRANWORTHproposed to leave out the words "or for extinguishing fire in any such chimney or flue." Every facility should be given to extinguish fires, and it might happen that the only person at hand was a boy under sixteen.
  EARL GREYsaid, the great cruelty complained of was that of forcing boys to go up chimneys which were on fire.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Penalties for these Offences).
  EARL GREYmoved to add the words—
  "If any occupier of a house shall knowingly allow any person under sixteen years of age to be sent up a chimney in the house he occupies, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, it would not be right to subject householders to such a penalty; at all events, he objected to the Amendment being considered without notice.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, it was only proposed to punish the particeps criminis. Of course there must be some proof to satisfy a magistrate that the occupier had knowingly allowed an infraction of the Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHopposed the Amendment upon the ground that the occupier of a house could not tell whether a boy were under sixteen, though his master might know it perfectly well.
  EARL GREYsaid, this objection might show the difficulty of convicting the occupier, but it did not show that the occupier who knowingly allowed the offence to be
  1134
  committed was not equally liable with the master-sweep.
  Amendment withdrawn: Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Power for Constable to arrest Offender), and Clause 10 (Power for Constable to detain Person employed) struck out.
  Clause 12 (Burden of Proof of Age to lie on Chimney Sweeper).
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHdesired an explanation.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the provision was inserted, because to necessitate the production of proof on the part of the prosecutor would be to insure a constant failure of justice. The defendant always had the opportunity of ascertaining the child's age from the register when he engaged him; but it would be impossible for the prosecutor to do the same, because a boy might have been born in Dublin, and might be employed at the Land's End.
  Clause agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 112.)
  Preamble agreed to, with an Amendment: and Title amended by striking out the words "and Chimneys."
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.