Sitting of 8 June 1865

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—considered in Committee.—CLASSES IV. V. VI. VII.—Resolutions [June 2] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Inland Revenue Acts reported*
Ordered—Falmouth Borough *; Penalties Law Amendment *; Ecclesiastical Commission (Superannuation Allowances) *; National Gallery (Dublin).*
First Reading—Falmouth Borough * [200]; Ecclesiastical Commission (Superannuation Allowances * [201]; Penalties Law Amendment * [202]; National Gallery (Dublin) * [203]; War Department Tramway (Devon) * [204] (Lords]
Second Reading—Sugar Duties and Drawbacks * [198]; Lunatic Asylum Act (1853) &c. Amendment * [196].
Committee—Greenwich Hospital (re-comm.) [179]—R.P.; Defence Act (1860) Amendment * [176]; Pilotage Order Confirmation (No. 2) (re-comm.) * [131]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) * [177]; Wick and Ayr Burghs Election * [166]; Trespass (Scotland) * [98].
Report—Defence Act (1860) Amendment * [176]; Pilotage Order Confirmation (No. 2) (re-comm.) * [131]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) * [177]; Wick and Ayr Burghs Election * [166]; Trespass (Scotland) * [98].
Considered as amended—Procurators (Scotland) * [157]; Trespass (Scotland) * [98j.
Third Reading—Militia Ballots Suspension *; Militia Pay *; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* [191]; District Church Tithes * [186] [Lords] Trespass (Scotland) * [98].
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

ROACH RIVER FISHERY BILL— [Lords]

  (by Order.)—SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HUNT MR. HUNT moved, that it be read a second time that day three months. He said, this river was an Essex stream, which gave name to the town of Rochford, and which emptied itself into the Crouch, and which was specially fitted for the propagation of the oyster. The object of this Bill was to hand over to a company the monopoly of fishing in the four miles of water covered by the Roach, to the exclusion of the rights of fishing now enjoyed by the public, and to establish and preserve oyster beds there. The only analogous case that he knew of was the Herne Bay Fishery Bill, but in that case there was not the same encroachment on public rights as there would be here. That Bill, however, was quite of an exceptional character, and there had not been time to test the degree in which it would be advantageous to the public, for the Bill was only passed last year, and a period of three years was required to bring an oyster to perfection. The Deep Sea Fisheries Commission had been appointed to examine into the whole question, and nothing ought to be done until it had made its Report, but when that was done it would be the duty of the Government to introduce a general Bill, laying down the conditions on which monopolies for the supply of fish should be granted. It was said that this Bill was intended to promote the public benefit by enlarging the supply of oysters, but it would not benefit the English public, because the oysters taken from the River Roach had green fins, which caused them to be rejected from the London market, and they were exported to Ostend and Paris. This Bill would also prevent other fish being taken in this river, and seemed

  1263
  to him closely analogous to the taking away of rights of common, and he felt bound to oppose this concession, at all events at the present time.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  MR. BRAMSTONsaid, this Bill had been carefully considered before a Committee of the House of Lords. It was unusual, under such circumstances, to refuse a Bill a second reading. As to these oysters being sent abroad, if they could supply the Parisian market so much the better for those who could rear the supply.
  MR. COXsaid, the House of Lords could scarcely have had their attention drawn to the fact that the Commissioners of "Woods and Forests had sold the company the right of exclusive fishing in the river for £20 per annum, notwithstanding the proprietors higher up the stream had offered £500 per annum for that right.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he objected to the rights of the public which had been enjoyed for centuries, and which they themselves were not in a position to support, being interfered with in the manner proposed by the Bill.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that if the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had power to sell the right of fishing in the stream, the Bill could not interfere with any public rights whatever.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Amendment. The Bill having come down from the other House, he thought the House of Commons would be adopting rather a strong measure in saying that there was no case for inquiry, and refusing to allow the Bill to go before a Select Committee, where both its principle and details would be fully considered.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.

MIDDLESEX INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.—CONSIDERATION.
MR. HENNESSY, who had given notice of his intention to move that this Bill should be taken into consideration tomorrow, said, that the measure was in rather a peculiar position. It was a Bill promoted by the Middlesex magistrates to increase their power over industrial
1264
schools, and for other objects. The House was of opinion that the Bill was so far a public Bill that it should be referred to a Select Committee partly appointed by the Committee of Selection. That Committee considered the Bill and reported it to the House with Amendments. Among those Amendments were two clauses relating to the religious instruction of the inmates of schools. He found from the evidence of Captain Brooks, an officer of the school, that there were no less than eighty Roman Catholic pupils, who all attended the service and learnt the Catechism of the Established Church; and the Rev. Sidney Turner, the chaplain, expressed it as his opinion that it was highly desirable that these children should have the opportunity of being instructed by a Roman Catholic priest. The Committee appeared to have been of the same opinion, because they inserted in the Bill two clauses providing that the warrant of commitment of a juvenile offender should specify the religious denomination to which he belonged, and that if that was a denomination other than the Church of England the Committee of visitors should allow a minister of such denomination to visit such offender, unless it was objected to by him. Captain Glossop, the chairman of the sub-committee of magistrates, who had charge of the Bill, as the provisions were similar to those introduced into the new Prisons Act, recommended the acceptance of these clauses as concessions which could not be refused; but, unfortunately, a majority of the Middlesex magistrates did not take that view of the matter, and they adopted a resolution—the House of Commons having prescribed conditions in reference to the religious instruction of the inmates—to withdraw the Bill. Accordingly, an hon. Member the other day moved, at the instance of the promoters, to discharge the order for further proceeding with the Bill, but that Motion was very properly negatived. The Bill was now, therefore, deserted by its promoters, and no one was prepared to proceed with it. Under these circumstances, it was his intention to endeavour to pass the Bill through the House, but he had been informed by the Speaker that the adoption of that course would involve the House in some difficulty, and that the better course would be to allow the Bill to drop now, in the hope that there might be some general legislation upon the subject next year. He hoped that the Secretary for

1265
the Home Department, with the concurrence of the House generally, would take some steps to bring in a public measure next Session to remedy the grievance of which the Roman Catholics so justly complained in the present instance. In conclusion, he had, simply as a matter of form, to move that the Bill be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill, as amended in the Committee, be taken into Consideration To-morrow."—(Mr. Hennessy.)
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he doubted the propriety of the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as there was a Standing Order of the House to the effect that a Private Bill should not pass a stage unless notice were given by the agent. No such notice had been given, and the hon. Member was therefore, in his opinion, quite right in not pressing his Motion.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped the Bill would remove the evil of which the Roman Catholics complained, and regretted very much the course the magistrates had taken in abandoning the Bill, because of the very reasonable provision which had been introduced into it with the unanimous concurrence of the Committee. It was not possible to bring in a public measure this Session, but the question was one which he admitted was worthy of consideration.
LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he wished to express his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the observations which had just fallen from him. The course adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County was, he thought, the most judicious which, under the circumstances, he could have adopted. The question was one which involved a great hardship, and one which was rather of a public than a private character, inasmuch as it affected the pockets of the ratepayers to the extent of £70,000, that being the sum expended on a school capable of containing 800 boys. It was proved in the evidence taken before the Committee that, although there was a large number of Roman Catholic boys in the schools, they might be taught a catechism of a creed at variance with their own, and that if they refused to learn that catechism they might be punished; while if the parents had the courage to make a report on the subject they were liable to fine. Though the parents might
1266
make a special request for the boys to see a Roman Catholic minister they were not allowed to do so, and were obliged to go to the Protestant chapel. Indeed, a great deal might be said on the subject of the Bill; but, as it would have to be sifted at some future time, he would not trespass on the attention of the House by dwelling upon it, beyond observing that it was a grievous thing that the Middlesex magistrates should come to the conclusion to abandon the measure very much on account of the by no means too liberal portion of religious liberty conceded by the Committee upstairs. Nobody, however, could be surprised at the course which they had taken, who recollected how they had acted in the case of the Prison Discipline Bill. He did not wish to characterize such conduct in severe language, but he thought it was a dark and black case, and it appeared to him that the hon. Member for the King's County had done a great good by letting even a small gleam of light into it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AZEEM JAH (SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS.)

  MARSHALL AND WHITEHEAD DISCHARGED.
  The Serjeant at Arms attending this House informed the House, that in obedience to their Order, and Mr. Speaker's Warrants, he had on Friday last taken into his custody Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, but that he had not yet succeeded in apprehending George Morris Mitchell.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to present two petitions from the prisoners Marshall and Whitehead. They were worded in precisely similar terms. The petitioners stated that they were taken into custody on a charge of contempt of the House—that in consideration of having been kept in confinement for a week, and of their having acted in entire ignorance of the offence for which they were committed, they prayed that the House would consider the punishment which they had already undergone sufficient. Upon those grounds, as well as upon the fact that the petitioners had expressed their sincere regret and contrition for the offence they had been guilty of, he begged to move that the petition be laid upon the table with a view to the prisoners being discharged from custody.
  Petitions from the said Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, expressing their

  1267
  regret and contrition for their offence, and praying for their discharge, brought up, and read.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the two petitioners in question were unable to pay the fees which were demanded of them, and that to insist upon their doing so would be simply to inflict on them a more prolonged confinement. Under these circumstances he begged to move that they be discharged from custody.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the said Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, having expressed their regret and contrition for their offence, be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, without payment of their Fees."—(Mr. Heanessy.)
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he thought it was somewhat irregular to make such a Motion without notice.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not out of order in doing so, as the question involved was one of privilege.
  MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he, on the part of the Committee of Petitions, had no wish that the House should proceed with undue severity in the present instance. What was chiefly desired was to show that the authority of the House was sufficient to repress practices which militated against the fair exercise of the right of petition. He hoped, therefore, that, inasmuch as those persons now in custody expressed their contrition for the offence they had committed, and had been only guilty in the second degree, and the authority of the House had in their case been vindicated, no opposition would be made to the Motion.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, that after two Committees had been sitting on the question, and after the very warm debate which had taken place a few days ago on the subject, hon. Members could be scarcely prepared for such a Motion as that of the hon. Member for the King's County, especially as he had only just presented the petitions on which it was founded. It was, to say the least, a very mild course of proceeding which he suggested, and must rather, he thought, tend to increase the number of fictitious petitions, that when only a few Members were present men who had been proved to have forged signatures should be permitted to come forward in forma pauperis to be absolved from fees imposed in consequence of their offence, and then discharged with a few complimentary remarks.
  SIR GEORGE GREY, said, that the Report of the Committee proved that the persons in question had been merely agents in the hands of others. They had now been in custody for nearly a week, and he thought that, as they had expressed their contrition for what they had done, the House would be only acting with the usual consideration under such circumstances in agreeing to the Motion. The amount of the fees which they were liable to pay was, he understood, £10, and, as they were in a humble position of life, to insist upon the payment of that sum might involve their being kept in custody for the remainder of the Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the said Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, having expressed their regret and contrition for their offence, be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, without payment of their Fees.

LOTTERIES—PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VERNERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is aware that lottery tickets of an illegal character have been extensively circulated amongst the Clerks in the Public Departments, for general distribution, accompanied by gratuitous tickets as an inducement for the sale of the others?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had, like other gentlemen, sometime ago received envelopes which appeared to be filled with papers or billets which more or less resembled what the hon. Member described them, and he need hardly say that they had at once found their way into the waste-paper basket. He had no reason to suppose that they had been sent to public officers in particular, and he was not aware it was anything that could be called a circulation. He imagined it was the act of some unauthorized persons, and he had certainly not thought it his duty to take any notice of it.
  MR. VERNERsaid, he would now beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if his attention has been drawn to the distribution of lottery tickets to and by the Irish Constabulary, and if the employment of the Constabulary in this occupation has received the sanction of their superior officers and of the Irish Government; and if, after the opinion lately expressed by the Attorney General as to the illegality

  1269
  of the practice, he is prepared to censure and prohibit it.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, in reply, that such a proceeding would not have been sanctioned by the Government. He was not aware that any tickets had been distributed by the Irish constabulary. Tickets, he believed, had been forwarded to them, but he was not aware that they had distributed them. After the opinion expressed the other night by the Attorney General, and, indeed, without it, the constabulary would have been liable to censure if they had distributed tickets of this kind.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he is aware that large and increasing arrears of Untaxed Bills of Costs have been accumulating in the Taxing Office of the Irish Court of Chancery since the death of the late Taxing Master O'Dwyer, and also to inquire when a new Taxing Master will be appointed?
  MR. PEELsaid, that no information had been received at the Treasury as to the business in the Taxing Office having fallen into arrears, and no application had been made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the appointment of a successor to Master O'Dwyer.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the office was a very important one, and ought to be filled up. He wished to know who had the appointment.
  MR. PEELsaid, it was in the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, subject to the approval of the Treasury.

CONVOCATION-ALTERATION OF THE CANONS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to ask, Whether a licence has been granted to the Convocation of Canterbury to repeal or alter any of the Canons of 1603, or to obtain the sanction of the Crown to any New Canon; and, if so, whether a Copy of it will be laid upon the table? If no such licence has been granted, he wished to know whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend Her Majesty to give Convocation permission to repeal or alter any of the Canons of 1603?
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, the other night I stated that the Archbishop of Canterbury had been informed that while the
1270
Crown did not invite the concurrence of Convocation to the proposed alteration of the clerical subscription, if the licence of the Crown was asked Her Majesty would be advised to grant it, for the purpose of enabling Convocation to alter the Canons, in order to bring them into conformity with the Bill now before Parliament. The licence has not yet actually been granted; and what has taken place is this: An Address was presented to her Majesty by Convocation, praying for a licence to alter the 36th and two following Canons in terms which had already been agreed upon by Convocation. The Archbishop was informed that the prayer of the Address could not be granted in that form, because its effect was to ask by anticipation the consent of the Crown to a specific alteration, and to a new declaration to be made by the clergy, before it was ascertained what might be the ultimate decision of Parliament upon the Bill now before it. The Archbishop was, therefore, informed that if the prayer of the Address was merely for a licence in more general terms it would be granted. There will be no objection when the licence is granted, which will be very soon, to lay it on the table, together with the correspondence which has passed on the subject.

PRINCESS OF WALES—ADDRESS OF CONGRATULATION.
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, before proceeding to the Orders of the Day, I wish to make a Motion which I am sure will be received with the cordial concurrence of this House. In consequence of the happy event which has taken place since the House last met, I have to propose that the. House should agree to an humble Address to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty that the Princess of Wales has given birth to another Prince, and to assure Her Majesty of our loyalty and attachment to Her Person and Family.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion of the right hon. Baronet. I am sure that the event is one not more gratifying to Her Majesty than to this House and to all Her Majesty's subjects.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty on the Princess of Wales having happily given birth to another Prince, and to assure Her Majesty of our feelings of devoted royalty and attachment to Her Majesty's Person and Family.

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

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—considered in Committee.

CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Question [June 2] again proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £13,336 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, for the Expenses of the National Gallery, including the purchase of Pictures."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to ask, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose an Estimate this year for the enlargement of the National Gallery, and if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would favour the Committee with an outline of his proposed plan.
MR. COWPERsaid, the Estimates were in preparation, and he hoped he should be able to lay them on the table of the House in a few days. It was proposed to purchase the ground in the rear of the present building, at present occupied by the workhouse and the parochial schools belonging to St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and also Archbishop Tenison's school. He had been in communication with the vestry, and he found that they were willing to dispose of the workhouse and parish schools to the Government upon condition that they should receive such a sum of money as would enable them to erect another workhouse in the suburbs, and provide within the parish a casual ward and parochial offices. The Trustees of Archbishop Tenison's schools were also willing to dispose of their property provided means were given them to obtain another school in the parish. And a similar arrangement would have to be made with regard to the parochial schools. It would therefore be his duty to submit to the House a proposal for the purchase of this property, to be laid out as required for the enlargement of the National Gallery from time to time, so as to give the necessary accommodation.
1272
That was the only course open for the House to adopt with the view of extending the accommodation. Some time must, however, elapse, before the Royal Academy would be able to obtain a building to which they could transfer their pictures, schools, and exhibitions. When they vacated the apartments they at present occupied the building would be wholly occupied by the National Gallery; but the addition of those rooms to the National Gallery would not give sufficient space for the exhibition and classification of all the pictures by ancient masters, and certainly not for the works of the British School, which were now in South Kensington Museum, and therefore it would be necessary to make an addition to the present building. He hoped the hon. Member would consider what he had said sufficient, without calling upon him to enter into an explanation of what did not relate to the Vote then before the Committee.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention, in consequence of the numerous petitions that had been presented upon the subject, to open the National Galley three evenings in the week, in order that the labouring portion of the metropolis might have an opportunity of inspecting the works of art contained therein. The plan had been tried on particular occasions with perfect success, and was, in fact, adopted in the South Kensington Museum, without the slightest damage having occurred, he believed, to the pictures. Numerous petitions had been already presented in favour of opening the National Gallery three times a week, and the petitions were greatly on the increase. It was clear that the working classes could not visit these collections during the day, and thus they failed to exercise the elevating and beneficial influence upon the mass of the community which they were designed to promote, and which alone entitled them to the name of national collections. He held in his hand a list of resolutions in favour of thus opening these collections, agreed to in one part of London alone. It comprised 7 societies of young men, consisting of 655 members; 3 friendly societies, with 726 members; 13 building societies, with 5,130 members; 2 Christian congregations, of 1,700 persons; 2 bodies of teachers in schools, 61 in number; 12 temperance societies, registering 1,898 persons; 22 public meetings, attended by 9,003 persons; and the officers of a college

1273
of 93 students; altogether representing 62 associations and meetings, and 19,266 persons. These had unanimously petitioned Parliament in favour of the movement. He could not see any valid objection to it; for wherever it had been tried it had been found successful, and he earnestly pressed upon his right hon. Friend not to lose this opportunity of at all events assuring the country that this matter should receive the serious and earnest consideration of those who had charge of our national collections. The Royal Academy was opened at night by gaslight, without any difficulty, and without injury to the paintings, at a comparatively small expense. As the national institutions were supported out of the taxes of the people, he thought that every facility should be given to enable them to visit them. He believed it was the hearty wish of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of other Members of the Government that these national collections should be opened at night, as it was likely to have an elevating and beneficial effect upon the tastes of the working classes.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask, as some time would necessarily elapse before the could provide a new site and building, if he was to understand, from what the right hon. Gen-leman the First Commissioner of Works had said, that her Majesty's Government did not intend to offer the ground at Burlington House for the Royal Academy?
MR. COWPERsaid, that a proposal had been made by the Government to the Royal Academy, that if they pleased to apply for a site at Burlington House the Government would be prepared to grant it to them. There had not been time as yet to ascertain the intention of the Royal Academy, but in any event a considerable time must necessarily elapse before they could vacate the National Gallery. With reference to opening the national collections three times a week, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that a great portion of the inhabitants of the metropolis were so busy all day that they could not find time to see the public exhibitions except at night, and, further, that many of the persons for whom these collections were especially provided were just the people who were unable to benefit by them at present. So that he entirely went along with his hon. Friend, on the principle that every public exhibition should be, so far as was feasible and safe, opened in the
1274
evening. With regard, however, to the National Gallery, it was in the hands of trustees, who were under a very heavy responsibility for the preservation of works of art so immensely valuable, and which could not possibly be replaced if they were destroyed. It was necessary for the trustees to consider what danger might arise from the use of gas in lighting up the National Gallery for evening exhibition, and they all knew that the mere introduction of gas increased the risk of fire. He would not say that very great precautions might not be used so as, by the application of modern science, to reduce the danger to a minimum, but he must express his opinion that it was not desirable to introduce gas into the present building in Trafalgar Square. If, however, a new building were erected expressly for the purpose of enabling night exhibitions to take place, it could be made fireproof, and the gas might be so introduced as to reduce the risk to a minimum. Another subject which required consideration was the fact that nothing was more deleterious to pictures and other objects of exhibition than the effluvia from gas. On the other hand, great improvements had been made in ventilation, and it was possible in a new building to carry off all the noxious effluvia from gas. It was, however, doubtful whether arrangements could be made for this purpose in the present building, and the pictures would incur very considerable risk if gas were introduced. It would be desirable that buildings erected in future for these purposes should be so constructed as to enable the public to see the national collections in the evening as well as during the day.
MR. MITFORDsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the trustees could not open the National Gallery on the days when it was now closed, at a charge of 6d. or 1s. each person. The Gallery was open to the public on four days in the week, and to students and copiers exclusively on the remaining two days. This was a great inconvenience to the public, which it would be desirable to remedy if possible. It might be objected that an additional expense would be incurred in providing policemen to watch the pictures; but, as some persons must be in attendance to look after them at present, the additional expense would be very small, and would be almost, if not quite, covered by the fees paid by the public. Another objection

1275
might be that the persons admitted on payment might interfere with the students. It appeared, however, that not more than thirty-eight students were at work on an average in copying pictures, and they were distributed in five or six rooms. The fee would deter all but real lovers of art from entering the building, while it would give an opportunity to many persons to enjoy the pictures quietly. The students would have cause to rejoice rather than otherwise that such persons were admitted while they were at work, because the lovers of art would often buy a good copy which they might see in progress. It was an anomaly that the public should lay out a large sum of money for a collection, and that they should then be shut out of it for two days a week.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he trusted that due provision would he made in any new building for pictures which might be bequeathed to the nation. He believed that a large number of bequests might be made to the country if a gallery of adequate dimensions were built to receive them. Persons who might be induced to leave their pictures to the nation were now deterred by the apprehension that they would be thrust into some hole or corner where no one could see them.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the statement of the First Commissioner of Works was satisfactory in one respect—namely, that the National Gallery would remain where it is. It also appeared that the Royal Academy would have to go elsewhere, and that was equally satisfactory. He observed an item of £8,000 for the purchase of pictures; but there was also an item of £9,548 for three balances which were stated to be surrendered to the Exchequer. Was the National Gallery to have those balances in addition to the Vote of £8,000? There was a heavy item for the travelling agency last year, an expense of £2,000 having been incurred in the purchase of pictures, while the pictures themselves only cost £3,000.
THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that nothing would be more inexpedient than to lay out every year the sum of £8,000 voted by Parliament for the purchase of pictures, whether works of art of sufficient merit presented themselves or not. The question then arose whether this balance should be kept in the hands of the Department or surrendered to the Exchequer, like the other balances. It was always undesirable to
1276
make an exception to a sound general rule, and if that exception were justified in the present instance it might be made the pretext for similar claims from other departments. It was therefore thought better that the balances should be surrendered to the Exchequer, and that the Treasury should be willing, on any fair case being made out, to ask the House to re-vote the money.
Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £1,650, British Historical Portrait Gallery.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know whether in the new buildings to be added to the National Gallery it was contemplated to devote any building for the proper exhibition of the national portraits. No one could properly see them where they now were, and as the number who wished to do so was increasing every year it became a matter of importance that they should be better placed. The pictures were only open for exhibition on a certain number of days, and then only for a limited number of hours. Lately they had been open up to five o'clock, and that was a great convenience. Would the right hon. Gentleman see whether better accommodation for the pictures and increased facilities for the public could not be afforded for a collection which was likely to form a very good historical gallery?
MR. COWPERsaid, he agreed that it was important the collection of national portraits should be better exhibited. The present accommodation was only temporary. It was fully intended that when the new gallery was erected a proper place should be found for the exhibition of these portraits. No doubt a really good gallery ought to be made for them. With regard to the hours during which the portraits were now exhibited trustees would be called upon to consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to know whether the Committee were to understand that these portraits were not to be sent to South Kensington.
MR. COWPERsaid, there was a wonderful alarm on the part of some hon. Members at the words "South Kensington." Nothing had yet been decided on the subject.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £4,059, to complete the sum for Magnetic and Meteorological Observations.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he understood that a railway was projected which it was supposed would interfere with the scientific labours carried on at Greenwich Observatory. It was of the greatest importance not only to this country, hut also to the world, that nothing should be done to interfere with the delicate observations in course of operation there. It was obvious that the running of railway trains near the Observatory would be injurious, and he trusted that the Government would prevent any such interference.
MR. WHITEsaid, he wished for some explanation of the item of £500 for a meteorological survey in the West Indies. This was a yearly grant. What progress had been made, and how long was it to last?
MR. PEELsaid, that the West Indies paid one-half of these expenses and all incidental expenses. There were a great many islands, and he thought these gentlemen would be occupied for some time to come.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the effect of a railway upon Greenwich Observatory was for the consideration of the Admiralty, not of the Board of Trade.
MR. COWPERsaid, that it was true a railway proposed to go by a tunnel under Greenwich Park. The Admiralty objected on the ground of injury to the Observatory, and the promoters had accordingly been told that the consent of the Crown could not be given. It was open to the promoters to show that the railway could pass under the Park without injury to the Observatory, but as yet they had not succeeded in doing so.
MR. WHITEsaid, he thought that there ought to be some report made to Parliament as to the progress of the meteorological survey in the West Indies.
MR. PEELsaid, that before the survey was commenced a Parliamentary Report was laid on the table giving a full account of the objects of the survey.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he had to complain of the diversity of authorities having control over this Vote. Some items were under the Admiralty and others under the Board of Trade. He wished to know whether the Board of Trade was going on prophesying the weather for the next two days. He believed that the head of that department was at present vacant. Was it the intention of the Government to fill it up? There were Returns presented to
1278
the House last year, showing that the prophecies were once right, twice wrong. Last Tuesday week what did the Board of Trade prophesy with regard to the weather? Wind SE to SSW, fresh to moderate. What was the fact? The wind did not blow from those quarters; hut a tremendous gale, involving great destruction of property, swept across the north of England. In point of fact, almost all the great storms came before the warning signals; and last Tuesday week the warning "to look out for rough weather," followed the arrival of the gale. He hoped that a gentleman would be placed at the head of the department of high scientific attainments.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, his hon. Friend had underrated the reputation which the late Admiral Fitzroy enjoyed in the scientific world. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) was only speaking the opinion of those best qualified to give one that the late admiral did a great service in perfecting—in carrying forward—the science of meteorology; and not only had his efforts been acknowledged by scientific men in this country, but they had also been recognized by some of the ablest scientific men in France. He would explain how it was the Board of Trade had to do with this question. Some years ago there was a congress at Brussels, composed of representatives of the principal maritime powers, who decided that it was desirable that ocean statistics should be collected in order that navigators might know what to expect, as it were, in different latitudes and longitudes at different seasons of the year, and thus be assisted in the long voyages round the globe. The English Government agreed to co-operate with France, the United States, and other Governments, in supplying their quota of information and collecting the ocean statistics. It was necessary to supply the merchant vessels with forms to fill up in the course of their voyages, and which were, in fact, to be the means of collecting these statistics; and the Board of Trade being most in connection with those vessels, they were naturally employed to distribute these forms. The collection of these statistics went on for some time, but it had since been very much given up, and they had got into another system, which was not originally contemplated, of predicting—making forecasts—of the weather, and attempting to give a practical application to what was called the science of meteoro-

1279
logy. This had been done very much by Admiral Fitzroy himself, but always with the concurrence of this House and of the Royal Society. Since the death of Admiral Fitzroy he had thought it to be his duty, seeing the position of the office, that the whole state of things had been abandoned and a new one substituted—to take the advice of the Royal Society as to what would be the best course to pursue, and whether the science of meteorology was in a condition to justify the Government in proposing Votes of money for the continuance of these weather forecasts. Meanwhile he asked for the usual Votes; and if it should appear to be desirable to abandon the present system, that money would not be expended. At present the duty was discharged by Mr. Babington, who was the late admiral's chief assistant; and he hoped that the money would be voted this year as usual.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he observed that there was a considerable item—£3,000—for telegrams, and wished to know whether the money was expended for telegrams indicating the weather in different parts of this country only, or all over Europe. The Department appeared to have become more practical than scientific.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the Government paid for all the telegrams sent by them to different parts of the United Kingdom and to foreign countries, but, no doubt, a certain portion of expense in connection with this matter was defrayed by foreign Governments.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask whether he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the collection of statistics by merchant ships was given up. As a collection of facts—rather than of prophecies—he thought they might have been made the foundation of some useful object. The expenditure for telegrams by this Department was enormously large, as large as the sum expended for telegrams by the Foreign Office. He hoped the matter would receive the consideration of the Government.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the collection of the Returns was not absolutely given up, but was very much diminished.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £5,000, Universal Exhibition at Paris.
(5.) £500, Royal Geographical Society.
(6.) £1,000, Royal Society.
(7.) £500, Royal Academy of Music.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he wished to ask where the Royal Academy of Music was—["Hanover Square!"]—and who managed it?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend might rest assured that if the object was one fit to be promoted by a public grant at all the persons in whose hands the grant was placed were perfectly competent to administer it. One of the Governors was Sir George Clerk, formerly a Member of the House, as good a man of business as ever sat in the House, an enthusiastic lover of music, and a faithful friend and patron of the Institution. The Institution might be described as a normal school of music. It was perfectly open, and therefore worthy of public support. Its object was to teach teachers, and the effect of the moderate aid afforded by the House had been to give a considerable stimulus to voluntary exertion, and cause a large annual addition to private subscriptions. This, indeed, was made a condition of the grant.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, there were many other societies quite as meritorious as this which received no grant of public money. On some future occasion the Committee might be called on to vote grants for the Antiquarian, Geological, Anthropological and Entomological Societies. The grants were not made on principle, but pro re natâ, as the occasion arose.
Vote agreed to.

CLASS V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES.
(8.) £4,200, Bermudas.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to ask whether any formal decision had been come to as to the restoration of the convict establishments at this colony.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, an application had been made to him by the War Department with regard to the employment of convicts upon the works at the Bermudas. No formal determination had been come to on the subject, but he thought it inexpedient to restore the convict establishment' in the colony, except in case of necessity, and he hoped that other means would be found to execute the works there.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought it remarkable that, although the local revenue was constantly increas-

1281
ing, the Imperial expenditure there was I the same as before.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the local revenue had increased from causes connected with the American war, but it had already begun to decline.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £2,813, to complete the sum for Clergy, North America.
(10.) £1,000, Indian Department, Canada.
(11.) £23,278, Governors and others, West Indies, &c.
(12.) £6,200, to complete the sum for I Justices, West Indies.
(13.) £6,730, to complete the sum for Western Coast of Africa.
(14.) £2,924, to complete the sum for St. Helena.
(15.) £700, Orange River Territory.
(16.) £1,104, Heligoland.
(17.) £3,488, to complete the sum for Falkland Islands.
(18.) £2,641, to complete the sum for Labuan.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that the Vote was of considerable amount. There were charges for all the paraphernalia of a colonial Government, and he should like to hear from the Government what was the condition of things in the colony.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that it had been thought expedient to maintain Labuan as a British colony on account of the coal mines which existed there, in order that we might have a coaling station in that neighbourhood.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) £300, Pitcairn's Islanders.
(20.) £10,531, Emigration.
(21.) £1,657, Zambesi Expedition.
(22.) £3,000, Treasury Chest.
(23.) £35,000, to complete the sum for Captured Negroes, Bounties on Slaves, &c.
MR. WHITEsaid, he wished to inquire whether the expected co-operation of the American Government in the suppression of the slave trade was not likely to lead to a diminution of the Vote on a future occasion.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought the hearty co-operation promised to this country by the United States Government would lead most effectually to a decrease, if not to the extinction, of the slave trade. Now that the civil war was at an end,
1282
and their ships of war would be free, they would be able to co-operate with us to a greater extent than hitherto.
Vote agreed to.
(24.) £7,650, to complete the sum for Commissions for Suppression of Slave Trade.
(25.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £91,018, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, for the Consular Establishments Abroad."
MR. CLAYsaid, that for many years a body called the Russian Company levied charges on British shipping in the Russian ports, a system altogether out of date, and so wholly indefensible that the company itself had given up all these charges with one exception. The company now existed only for the purpose of distributing the revenue arising from its own accumulated funds, and which were exceedingly well spent in charities at St. Petersburg. The solitary charge which they still levied on British shipping was called agency money, yielding about £1,100 per annum; and it had always gone to the British Consul at St. Petersburg, who was also the company's agent; that charge on shipping being, in fact, a way of supplementing the insufficient salary of the Consul. In 1858, 1859, and 1860 the Consul's salary was raised from £750 to £1,000, and it was then quite understood that the charge for agency moneylevied on British shipping should cease. However, whether the Consul thought that £1,100 per annum was better than an extra £250 to his allowance, or whether for some other reason, the charge for agency money had been resorted to again, to the surprise of the shipowners, and was still levied to this day. He had the authority of the Chairman of the Russian Company for saying that they had no wish to continue that impost, a relic of a barbarous age, and that if the Consul were prevented from receiving it they would not appoint another agent, and so the charge would cease. The charge had been condemned by Lord Napier in his despatches to Lord Russell as an unusual and objectionable mode of remunerating the Consul. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said it could not be defended, and that when the next Consul at St. Petersburg was appointed it would be

1283
put an end to. The culprit having thus been condemned, the question was when he should be executed. He had brought the subject before the House last year, when he was assured that something would be done, but the matter had not since then advanced a step. In order, therefore, to raise the question in the only way open to him, whether that objectionable mode of supplementing an insufficient salary by a tax on British shipping should not De discontinued, he begged to move that the item of £750 for the Consul at St. Petersburg be omitted from the present Vote.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £750, for the Salary of Her Majesty's Consul at St. Petersburg, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Clay.)
MR. LAYARDsaid, he had stated to the Committee in a former year that that addition to the salary of our Consul at St. Petersburg was exceedingly objectionable on principle, although, as the Correspondence presented to the House showed, there was really no grievance in the present case. Yet, as soon as an arrangement could be made, either by finding another post for Mr. de Michele, or by his retirement, the Consul at St. Petersburg would receive a salary adequate to his position, and that fee on British shipping would no longer be levied. Negotiations were pending, the result of which, he hoped, would be that the post would soon become vacant, when a new arrangement would be made. The Government would do their very best that Mr. de Michele should have another place; but it would be scarcely fair to deprive an efficient and long-tried public servant of the salary he had enjoyed for so many years, and which was attached to the office before he accepted it, without adequate compensation. He hoped his hon. Friend would accept the assurance he now gave that, unless he was greatly disappointed, next year this charge would not be made on British shipping; and that he would not divide the Committee on this occasion.
MR. CLAYsaid, that there was a very simple mode of rectifying this grievance to the shipping interest, amounting to £1,000 a year. If the Government could not provide for Mr. de Michele otherwise, let him be paid as other Consuls were—a proper and sufficient salary being brought forward in the Estimates. If his hon. Friend would promise that, he would not divide on this Vote.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he must remind the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that in the Committee on the Consular Department it had been clearly demonstrated that charges of this kind created much discontent among the mercantile classes, and engendered disagreeable feelings towards our Consuls. He had nothing to say against the efficiency of Mr. Michele, who, he believed, was a very good Consul; but the charge was one that certainly ought not to be maintained.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had every reason to rely on the undertaking of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, but he hoped that not only in this case but in every other where fees were levied on British shipping the practice would be discontinued.
MR. LAYARDsaid, this was the only case of the kind, and it arose out of the old system of "British factories." He did trust that some better arrangement would be made before next year.
MR. CLAYsaid, his hon. Friend might be disappointed in his expectations. He was quite certain the Government would do all they could in the matter, but they might not be able to find another appointment for Mr. Michele, or if they did that gentleman might not accept it. Would the hon. Gentleman in that case put a proper salary on the Estimates and relieve the shipping from this obnoxious tax?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought the Consul at St. Petersburg received more than he ought to receive, and unless this Vote were reduced Mr. Michele would most likely decline to accept another situation when offered.
MR. LAYARDdid not think the salary too high, considering how expensive a place St. Petersburg was, but he quite admitted that in principle it was objectionable that a salary should be supplemented by such means as his hon. Friend the Member for Hull had pointed out.
MR. CLAYsaid, he must repeat his question; would the salary of the Consul at St. Petersburg be placed next year on a proper footing?
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was certain that no difficulty would be raised on the part of Mr. de Michele, who was anxious to leave St. Petersburg, but of course he could make no promise with regard to the Estimates of next year, which must be left to the Treasury.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped the Consul at St. Petersburg would not in the meantime be considered to have a vested interest in what he now obtained in an irregular way by fees on British shipping.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Hull withdraw his Motion? [Mr. CLAY: Certainly not.] It would be more convenient to take the Motion of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) first. It would be open to the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) to propose the reduction of the Vote alter-wards.
MR. HENRY SEYMOUR: Surely the Committee could divide more than once on the same Vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: If they took a division on this item they could not go back and discuss a former item.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to call attention to the Consular Establishment at Venice, and asked from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs some explanation of the grounds on which it was maintained. It appeared by reference to the Estimates that there was not only a Consul General with a salary of £800 a year, but a Vice Consul with £200 a year. He could understand why we should have kept up the present consular establishment in Venice, when the Austrian Government possessed not only Mantua and Venice, but also Lombardy; when English diplomatic agents in the Lesser Italian States were very few; and when the means of communication with the seat of Government were somewhat difficult; but now matters were very much altered. Austria had lost Lombardy, and the communications with Vienna exist both by railway and electric telegraph, and by the cession of the Ionian Islands the visits of British shipping had been very much reduced. At Venice the entries inwards of British ships for the year 1864 had been forty sailing vessels and thirty-one screw steamers running once a month from Liverpool and London. The latter were regular packets belonging to one company, and they absorbed the largest part of the carrying trade. There was, therefore, very little for a Vice Consul to do at Venice on that score. "What the Consul General did he could not conceive. Not only was there a Vice Consul at Venice with £200 a year, but there was also a Vice Consul at Trieste who had much more to do, but whose
1286
salary was only £100 a year. That was an enigma he could not understand. It was not his intention to move any reduction in the Vote, because the holders of those offices he thought were entitled to at least a year's notice; but he hoped the reduction would be moved next year unless the explanation of the Government were necessary.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the position of the Venetian territories with the great fortified cities of Venice, Mantua, and Verona was very exceptional, and it was well that we should have the means of communicating with the authorities through our Consul General, who was an old and well known servant of the Crown. The £800 was not mis-spent. By this means we had obtained very valuable and important information. As to the Vice Consul seventy ships must require constant attention. The Vice Consul at Trieste received only £100 a year, because he was allowed to trade.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the present Vice Consul at Venice had been a trader whilst acting as Vice Consul also—he was formerly a banker, though some years ago he became bankrupt.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to know what course he was to pursue, as he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the item under the head of Rome.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the rule was that after any Motion for the reduction of an item on the Vote had been proposed from the Chair it was not competent for any hon. Member to propose a Motion on or to debate any previous item.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, it was very difficult for an hon. Member to know what to do. He was desirous of calling the attention of the Committee to the charge for our Consul at Abyssinia, but he was unable to catch the eye of the Chairman. Another hon. Member who was more fortunate commenced a discussion upon a later item, and thus debarred him from making any remarks at all.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that when the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) commenced his remarks upon our Consularship at St. Petersburg, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour) should have risen, and said that he desired to offer some remarks upon an earlier item.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that if this rule, which he believed to be a new one, were persisted in they should have

1287
beforehand to beg the Government to break up the Vote into smaller items.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought that all difficulty would be avoided if hon. Gentlemen would give notice of any Amendments they desired to propose.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member could exercise his right in discussing the whole Vote after the particular Motion before the Committee had been disposed of.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he demurred entirely to the doctrine of the necessity of giving notice, because the right of raising any matter without giving notice was the especial privilege of the Committee. The rule, as stated by the Chairman, was an extremely inconvenient one, and it might be advisable to consider whether it should not be repealed.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the rule was analogous to that which guided the deliberations of the House when in Committee upon any Bill. In Committees of that kind no Amendment could be submitted on any portion of a clause previous to that portion on which an Amendment had been proposed. But on the question that the clause should stand part of the Bill any hon. Member could object to the whole or any portion of the clause.
Question put:—The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 50: Majority 30.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the two unfortunate gentlemen who had recently been captured by brigands in Italy. One of them had been released, but the other—Mr. Moens—had been detained by his captors. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to state that the Foreign Office was taking some steps on behalf of this unfortunate gentleman.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to inquire about the captives in Abyssinia. It appeared that Her Majesty's Consul, Captain Cameron, two missionaries, and some other individuals had remained for more than a year in captivity in Abyssinia, and the Foreign Office had not been able to procure their release. Upon a former occasion his hon. Friend had stated that anything spoken in that House would come to the knowledge of the King of Abyssinia and might tend to aggravate the misfortunes of the captives. It could not, however, be expected that silence was always to be maintained upon
1288
so serious a matter, and the mother of one of the captives had made an appeal to the public upon the subject. Being acquainted with Captain Cameron he had heard of his captivity with alarm, which was heightened by the recent information that the King of Abyssinia had returned unsuccessful from a military expedition. He did not believe that Abyssinia was a country exceedingly difficult to reach. The King was a Christian. The Bishop of Abyssinia was, he understood, sent up in chains from Cairo under a new interpretation, perhaps, of the allegation—nolo episcopari. There was constant communication from Cairo, and we had a Consul at Massowah. He believed that a very able gentleman had been sent from Aden to procure the release of the unfortunate prisoners, but he wished to know whether the Government would lay upon the table information as to the efforts that had been made to procure their release, and would state what policy they intended to pursue. He did not know whether the presence of a ship of war on the Abyssinian coast would have any effect, but it was certain that to allow these unfortunate gentlemen to remain in captivity without using every possible means in their favour would be a slur upon the Government which it would be difficult to explain away.
MR. LAYARD, in reply to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), said, that every effort was being made by the Foreign Office on behalf of the gentleman—Mr. Moens—to whom he referred, and the Italian Government was doing even more than could be expected from them. It was not advisable to say too much, but he might state that within a few hours intelligence had been received from Naples to the effect that the gentleman had been seen, was well, was fairly treated by the brigands, his captors, and that there were hopes of his speedy release.
The case alluded to by his hon. Friend of the Abyssinian captives was one of very painful interest. The Committee would understand that the Foreign Office could have but one object—to obtain the liberty of the unfortunate gentlemen who were held in captivity. It was a most difficult question to deal with, and one requiring great prudence and circumspection. He would willingly state all that had occurred were it prudent to do so, and the time would come when he thought he should be able to prove that nothing had been omitted

1289
to procure the release of the captives; but he could assure his hon. Friend—and he did so most conscientiously—that he believed any public statement at present might lead to serious results. Within the last few days he had received a letter from Mr. Rassam, in which he implored him to prevent the publication of statements relating to this matter, because such statements found their way to Abyssinia, and were used by a party in that country hostile to England for the purpose of inflaming the King's mind. He must express the deep regret he felt to find that there was some one—he did not know whom—in the public service who had betrayed official secrets in a manner deserving of the highest reprobation. In the Pall Mall Gazette had appeared extracts from a letter which had been sent confidentially through official channels. He would never desire to restrict the freedom of the press, but when he found that there were persons in public offices who were capable of betraying the trust placed in them it gave him great pain, and he hoped that the journal to which he had alluded, which was a highly respectable journal, would not in future allow such statements to appear, as they were not only injurious, but might possibly lead to actual loss of life. The gentleman who had been selected to go to Massowah to obtain the release of the captives was in communication with leading persons in Abyssinia, and hoped to succeed in his endeavours. Mr. Rassam had been chosen because, although not an Englishman, he had received an English education, partly under his (Mr. Layard's) care. He had studied at Oxford, he had exhibited great ability, and had shown great caution and skill throughout these proceedings. Mr. Rassam was peculiarly fitted for the task intrusted to him, being well acquainted with Eastern manners and languages. The Committee, however, would, he hoped, not require him to enter further into details at present, as they would be attended by risk, but at a future time he should be able to show that the Foreign Office had not neglected its duty. He could hardly tell them for what cause Captain Cameron had been thrown into captivity, for there were different reasons assigned, and in the present state of uncertainty he would avoid any speculation on the subject. In the other House of Parliament a Motion for papers connected with this case had been carried by a majority of one. Those papers were in
1290
course of preparation, and if they could be given without risk of injury to the captives they would be produced; but if the Government should be of opinion that their production would be injurious, then it would be their duty to refuse them. Everything that could be done had been done, and was doing, on behalf of the unfortunate prisoners.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to know whether any alteration had been made in the system of passports issued at Rome to British subjects coming home viâ France. Englishmen at Rome were told that returning from Civita Vecchia to Marseilles they would not require passports, but at the latter port there was always a discussion with the gens d'armes as to whether the individuals claiming to be British subjects were really entitled to that character. The position of the British Consul at Rome was peculiar, and it was difficult to understand from what source the Consular fees were obtained, as there was no commercial business to be transacted, Mr. Russell, the British agent at Rome, who fulfilled the duties of his office with great ability, being unaccredited, had no power, and could only apply to the Papal Government upon sufferance. He wished to know whether British subjects leaving Rome were required to obtain the Consular stamp, and whether they were required to pay fees for such stamp when returning viâ France?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that during the American war, citizens of the so-called Confederate States had found a difficulty in obtaining the visé of the United States Consul at Rome, and in their case the Papal Government had waived the requirement. Her Majesty's Government had applied to the Papal Government for a similar concession to British subjects, and had pointed out that the Consular visé was not necessary, and was not required elsewhere. No fees were now taken from English travellers leaving Rome. Considerable misapprehension existed in the public mind on the subject of passports. There were several countries in Europe, including Italy and France, in which Englishmen were not required to produce passports; but still they had to identify themselves as Englishmen, and, after all, the readiest and the most convenient plan of doing so was by having a passport, which only costs 2s. He should certainly recommend any one to take out a passport, even for those countries where passports were not re-

1291
quired from Englishmen, as the least troublesome mode of proving their nationality.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to ask what course the Government were pursuing with regard to the suppression of Consulates in Turkey. No doubt many of the Consuls in the interior of Asia Minor were no longer required, though he certainly regretted the suppression of the Consulate at Batoum.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the object of the Foreign Office was, of course, to dispense with all Consuls who were not absolutely required, and they had recently been enabled to effect that object to some extent in the ports of the Mediterranean, in consequence of the transfer of the Ionian Islands to the kingdom of Greece. As regarded Batoum, the place was so exceedingly unhealthy that it was impossible to reside there, except a few months in the winter time. The following statement, which had been drawn up by Mr. Murray of the Foreign Office, showed that the cost of the Consular service was not excessive:—
"The management of the Consular expenditure since 1861 has now produced the result that was anticipated from adopting the system of placing the control exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State. The sum actually expended under each head of service is accurately known, and the wants of the next year may confidently be stated. The payments on account of the Consular service have arrived at a stage which enables us to say that, while it is necessary to estimate a larger sum than may actually be spent, somewhat more than £155,000 will cover the annual requirements, for I we avoid increases unless we can make corresponding reductions. The payments for the last year were £155,425, but fees have been paid into the Exchequer of £15,546, so that the net cost to the public was only £139,879, although the sum voted was £166,503. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that there are items charged on the Consular grant for 1864–5 which really have nothing to do with carrying on the Consular service—namely, expenses of churches abroad, £10,355; expenses of hospitals abroad, £592; relief to distressed British subjects, £405; total, £11,352; so that in truth the Consular cost was only £128,527, a sum which can scarcely be called excessive."
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to know what were our present relations with Russia, and why Russia did not permit us to have a Consul at Tiflis?
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was not then prepared to answer so comprehensive a question, but every country had of course a right to determine what foreign agents it would receive.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he had always understood that Russia had refused to allow us to have a Consul at Tiflis, because we had not received Russian Consuls in India. But as that refusal on our part no longer existed, he hoped we should be allowed to establish a Consulate at the important town of Tiflis.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the Votes proposed for the Consular establishments in the Ionian. Islands were excessively large. It was larger than the charge for Consuls in the whole Kingdom of Greece. These Votes included sums of £1,000 for a Consul General at Corfu, £500 for the Consul at Zante, and £500 for the Consul at Cephalonia.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that in consequence of our long and intimate relations with the Ionian Islands there had arisen between the two countries a variety of interests which required the services of an unusual number of Consular agents. He did not believe that their salaries were at present excessive.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he did not object to the amount of the salary of the Consul General at Corfu, but he thought it was mere extravagance to allow £500 a year to the Consuls at Cephalonia and Zante.
Original Question (£91,018,for Consular Establishments Abroad) put, and agreed to.
(26.) £102,972, Consular Establishments, China, Japan, and Siam.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought that £8,000 was too large a salary to be paid our Minister at Pekin, who could not have to dispense extensive hospitalities as at Paris and Vienna. As contrasted with that, only £200 was allowed to the surgeon there, a sum quite insufficient to support a gentleman. There was £500 for an assistant and accountant at Pekin, and £500 for the Colonial Auditor at Hong Kong. What moneys had he to audit? The Attorney General at Hong Kong received £250 out of this Vote, though he had a full salary from the Colonial Estimates. The importance and trade of Canton had decreased by one-half, and yet we still paid the Consul there £1,600 a year, and the Interpreter £700, and kept up an expensive establishment.
MR. LAYARDsaid, it was true the salary paid to our Minister at Pekin was large, although it had recently been considerably reduced, but his expenses were very great. It was not a question of hospitalities, but almost everything—even

1293
the supply for his Excellency's table—had to be brought up from the coast. The Accountant at Pekin discharged different duties from those performed by the Colonial Auditor, an independent officer, who audited all Consular accounts, which were sent direct from China to the Treasury. The Attorney General at Hong Kong complained that what he received was not sufficient for what was required of him. It was a retaining salary for special services rendered to the Crown. He had to take all briefs from the Crown without further fee, and he was unable to take briefs against the Crown. He could assure his hon. Friend that every exertion would be made to reduce our expenses in China.
Vote agreed to.
(27.) £32,400, to complete the sum for Ministers at Foreign Courts, Extraordinary Expenses.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the annual Vote for these extraordinary expenses had increased from under £20,000 to £36,400 within ten years. This Vote ought to be decreasing, in consequence of the increased facilities of communication, owing to railways and telegraphs. Such responsible persons were now unnecessary, as telegraphic messages could be sent direct from headquarters. He objected to the system of employing young attaches to become trained diplomatists, as young men in time must naturally become imbued with the principles and feelings of the countries wherein they resided. Whenever any duty of peculiar importance was to be transacted the system broke down, and an outsider was engaged to discharge it.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that while the outlay on stamps on Treasury issues for all these embassies was as small as 9s. 1d. the annual expense of postage was £4,417; and of telegraphic messages, £3,596; nearly £8,000, Then what, he asked, was the necessity of employing couriers at a cost of £6,130 more?
MR. LAYARDsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Augustus Smith) that there was no advantage in having trained persons for the diplomatic service. The service was every year improving in this respect, and he thought no country was served by a more efficient or able body of gentlemen. The public were taking an increasing interest in the monthly Reports of our Secretaries of Legation
1294
and Consuls upon the produce, commerce, and finances of the countries in which they resided, which were now laid before Parliament every month. The junior members of the diplomatic service were not kept long at a time at foreign stations, but it would plainly be unfair to them to be constantly removing them. It was impossible to carry on the public service without the assistance of trained diplomatists, and so far from the gentlemen in the employment of this country acquiring foreign principles and foreign feelings, he was proud to say no set of men could be more thoroughly English, in every respect, than were our diplomatic servants. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had objected to the employment of special messengers, but it was impossible to send important public documents through the post, or to communicate their contents by telegraph. As to the employment of outsiders in special cases, Government were only too glad to avail themselves of the services of any man whose peculiar qualifications adapted him for the service to be performed.
Vote agreed, to.
(28.) £19,000, to complete the sum for Special Missions, Outfits, &c.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the item of £42 14 s. in that Vote. He had the greatest possible respect for Viscount Amberley, and although on the whole he differed from him on political questions, he was far from grudging him a share of the moderate amount he had mentioned, and therefore he did not intend to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount. Some little explanation, however, should be afforded by Government of the Vote which was under the head of "Conveyance," and was in these terms—
"Hon. H. Elliott, Viscount Amberley, and Mr. G. Conyngham, on board Her Majesty's ship Phœbe, from Corinth to Ancona, and from Piræus to Kalamaki, on board Her Majesty's ship Liffey, in April, 1863."
He should like to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs what Lord Amberley was doing on board Her Majesty's ships Phœbe and Liffey that afforded an opportunity to the country of contributing towards his travelling expenses. Taking into consideration the great dearth of public news at the present time, and the fact that Viscount Amberley had made so many interesting speeches, which had actually

1295
afforded matter for three leading articles in The Times, he thought they ought not to refuse to pay him the little compliment contained in the item to which he had drawn attention.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he had no particular explanation to give regarding the item in question, and it was scarcely necessary to give one after the excellent defence of it made by the hon. Member himself. Mr. Elliott, our Minister at Greece, was engaged in visiting certain parts of that country, and in a portion of his journey he was accompanied by Viscount Amberley who acted as his private Secretary. When Ministers and other diplomatic officers were sent on any special mission they were frequently taken on board vessels of war, and in such cases some small allowance for expenses of entertainment was made by Government to the captain of the vessel. It was apparent from the manner in which the item was worded that there was no wish to conceal the nature of these charges, which were really very trifling in amount. In the same way, Government were always very glad to afford all the assistance in their power to persons engaged in good and benevolent works. In another part of the Estimate would be found a Vote of £48 for expenses of conveyance of Sir Moses Montefiore, from Gibraltar to Morocco, on board Her Majesty's ship Magicienne in January and February, 1864, when that gentleman proceeded on his benevolent mission to the Emperor of Morocco.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he wished to ask whether Viscount Amberley was attached to the mission?
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was not quite certain, but he believed that the noble Lord was not formally attached to the mission, although acting as Mr. Elliott's private Secretary.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to ask for some information respecting the Vote of £3,500 for the Commission employed on the regulation of the navigation of the Danube.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought that the operations of the Persian Boundary Commission ought to be brought to an end.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that he shared the anxiety which was generally entertained that the Turco-Persian Boundary Commission should bring its labours to a close, and would do his best to expedite their termination. The other Commission, upon
1296
which all the great Powers of Europe were represented, was performing a work most important to the corn trade of the country. It had already opened one mouth of the Danube, and was now turning its attention to another.
In reply to Colonel SYKES,
Mr. LAYARDsaid, that the sum voted was not for works, but for the expenses of the Commission.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to revert to the subject of Viscount Amberley, and to inquire what was the rule laid down by the Government as to the payment of travelling expenses. Must a man, for instance, be the son of a Peer or a Member of that House? If he knew what was the rule he would do his best to qualify himself under it.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that this was not really a ease of the payment of travelling expenses, but of providing a passage where there was no regular means of communication. He was sure that if the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, notwithstanding his persistent opposition to Her Majesty's Government, found himself at some foreign port where no packets were plying, and one of Her Majesty's ships called there he would not be refused a passage.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had to complain of the length of time during which the Persian Boundary Commission had been in existence.
Vote agreed to.
(29.) £4,500, Third Secretaries of Embassies.

CLASS VI—SUPERANNUATIONS AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARTABLE AND OTHER PURPOSES.
(30.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £119,382, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March I860, for Superannuation Allowances and Compensations to persons formerly employed in the Public Service."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that although the Vote showed a small reduction it was still very large in amount, and he was afraid that superannuations were not granted according to any fixed principle.
MR. PEELsaid, that the principles according to which superannuations were granted were very strictly laid down in the Act of Will. IV. and that passed in

1297
the year 1859. The Vote was sometimes swollen in consequence of the abolition of offices, but it was a satisfaction that there was this year a small reduction in its amount.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he desired to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury should, whenever it was possible, find occupation for gentlemen whose offices had been abolished. He was afraid that there was some reluctance to adopt this course because it diminished the patronage of the Department.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he might instance the case of Hugh Corr, who was now eighty-two years of age, who had been for half a century in the employment of the Government in Ireland, and who received a retiring allowance of only £12 3s. 4d. a year; as well as the case of Bridget Digman, of the House of Industry, Dublin, who was seventy-six years of age, who had been twenty-two years in the public service, and who retired on an allowance of £5 a year, to show that the Government proceeded on the system of construing the Superannuation Act strictly with regard to persons having only small salaries, while they put a much more liberal interpretation upon it in dealing with those who happened to possess larger salaries. Indeed, many of the pensions to the latter class were not sufficient to save the men from starvation.
MR. PEELsaid, the system, such as it was, was one which was based upon the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and proceeded on the same principle of length of service and amount of salary in reference to all salaries, whether large or small.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to know who the hackney carriage attendants were who were set down for superannuation allowances at page 54?
MR. PEELsaid, the allowances under that head were not asked for for the first time this year. He could not exactly say under what circumstances those who were in receipt of the pensions at present had retired, as the hon. Baronet had not given him notice of his question.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he merely desired to know who those functionaries were.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he found on referring to page 48 an item of £400, by way of retiring allowance to Mr. Hood, late Consul at Buenos Ayres, who was described as being only thirty-one years of age, and as having been in the public
1298
service only twelve years, having entered it at the age of nineteen. The cause assigned for his superannuation was the abolition of his office, but surely it was necessary that there should be some one to represent our interests at Buenos Ayres, and he at any rate saw no good reason why Mr. Hood, whose full salary was £800 a year, should after so short a period of service receive £400.
MR. PEELsaid, that Mr. Hood was entitled to the pension in accordance with the Act of Parliament, in consequence of the abolition of the office which he held.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, these Estimates were so voluminous, and included so many important matters, that they ought to be referred to a Committee to report upon them.
MAJOR KNOXsaid, he wished to ask whether no other Consulship could have been found for Mr. Hood instead of giving him so large a retiring allowance.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that as he was not satisfied with the explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £400 mentioned.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Item of £400, for Retiring Allowance to Martin T. Hood, late Consul at Buenos Ayres, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Augustus Smith.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 28: Majority 15.
Original Question (£119,382, for Superannuation Allowances and Compensations) put, and agreed to.
(31.) £661, for Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, &c, and American Royalists.
(32.) £325, for the Refuge for the Destitute.
(33.) £1,789, to complete the sum for Polish Refugees and Distressed Spaniards.
(34.) £54,200, for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.
(35.) £21,400, to complete the sum for the Belief of Distressed British Seamen.
(36.) £2,780, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charges, formerly on Civil List.
(37.) £2,272, for Public Infirmaries, Ireland.
(38.) £1,600, to complete the sum for the Westmoreland Lock Hospital.
(39.) £700, for the Rotunda Lying-in Hospital.
(40.) £200, for the Coombe Lying-in Hospital.
(41.) £5,600, to complete the sum for House of Industry Hospitals.
(42.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the Cork Street Fever Hospital.
(43.) £600, for the Meath Hospital.
(44.) £100, for St. Mark's Ophthalmic Hospital.
(45.) £300, to complete the sum for Dr. Steevens's Hospital.
(46.) £245, for the Board of Superintendence of Dublin Hospitals.
(47.) £7,644, to complete the sum for the Concordatum Fund and other Charities and Allowances, Ireland.
(48.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £25,809, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, for Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland."
MAJOR KNOXsaid, he was surprised that it was not proposed to increase this Vote. A deputation on the subject had waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, and the right hon. Gentleman gave them reason to suppose that the Government would raise the salaries of the Presbyterian ministers in Ireland from £75 to £100 a year. The right hon. Gentleman was not now in his place to state why, though he had given that sort of pledge, he had not thought fit to fulfil it. The Presbyterians in the north of Ireland took a great interest in the matter, and they thought it very hard, when so many liberal allowances were made, that the stipends of the Presbyterian ministers should not be increased.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be mistaken in thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given any pledge whatever. [Major KNOX: He told the deputation that he would consider the matter.] The Government had considered the matter and were clearly of opinion that no increase could be made.
SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, he was strongly of opinion that the Vote ought to be abolished altogether. He objected to any sums being voted by Parliament for the support of any man's religion. The principle was opposed to the interests of the denominations and to those of the ministers themselves. If the Vote were abolished these ministers would receive better salaries from their congregations, who could well afford to pay them, than
1300
they now did. He was determined not to rest until this Vote should be abolished altogether. It was a monstrous thing that the people of this country should have to pay not only their own ministers, but the ministers of other people. He would not now propose the rejection of the Vote altogether, but as there was an item of £300 increase for new ministers, he should move to reduce the Vote by that amount.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £25,509, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, for Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland."—(Sir Francis Crossley.)
MR. REMINGTON MILLSsaid, he seconded the Amendment. Considering the wealth of the Presbyterian body in Ireland, they were degraded by receiving this money. The Vote had originated in Parliamentary corruption, and had been established by Lord Castlereagh, in order to obtain control over the Presbyterian ministers. He did not accuse the present Government of maintaining the grant with a view to corruption, but it would be well if the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland wiped their hands of it altogether. The money, as voted, was for distribution in a certain manner, but the grant was much abused, as there were ministers under it receiving as much as £200 a year by the accumulation of offices receiving pay. [Colonel KNOX—Name!] Dr. Cooke. [Colonel KNOX: No!) Yes. Dr. Cooke was a professor, and in various ways his salary, paid out of the grant, was more than £250 a year. It would be an honour to the Presbyterians of Ireland if they would come forward of their own accord and give up this grant altogether.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the last speaker had been singularly ill-informed on the matter of history. In his patriotic dislike to any grant, the hon. Gentleman was of opinion that this grant had its origin in Parliamentary corruption. This was the product of the hon. Gentleman's imagination—an entire hallucination—as nothing of the kind occurred. If he (Mr. Whiteside) read the history of Ireland aright, the first person who made the grant to the old Presbyterian settlers was a sovereign of whom the hon. Member might, perhaps, have heard, King William III. By his express desire, in consideration of great

1301
services performed at a critical period of English history, and after the little affair at Londonderry, the King did suggest to the Parliament of Ireland to make a grant to the ministers who settled in Ulster. It was made for a long time by the Parliament of Ireland, and it was unfair to lay the blame upon Lord Castlereagh, who had enough to answer for. For Lord Castlereagh upheld the honour of England, and with the Duke of Wellington, did as well as most of the Ministers whom they heard of in modern times. Lord Castlereagh was a sensible man, and he naturally desired not to endow, but to encourage the Presbyterian ministers in the north of Ireland, whose congregations were to subscribe a sum equal to the amount voted by Parliament. But it seemed to startle a Member of Parliament that Dr. Cooke should get the enormous sum of £250 a year. Now, in the pulpit, he (Mr. Whiteside), who had heard both, believed Dr. Cooke to be fully equal in eloquence and genius to Dr. Chalmers. If the sum were seven times as great as it was, Dr. Cooke was better entitled to it than many a man who had been a bishop. He (Mr. Whiteside) was surprised, in these days of Parliamentary purity and religious toleration, to hear from the opposite Benches a complaint that an able divine, a celebrated preacher, and eminent scholar, after fifty years spent in the ministry, received £250 a year. The £300 was not a new grant, but merely an extension of the old principle, and he was sure the House would support it.
MR. VANCEsaid, he thought that this grant ought to be treated on the same footing as the Maynooth grant, and placed upon the Consolidated Fund. It would then be taken out of the arena of political controversy. Sir Robert Peel was asked whether he would make a proposal to this effect, and replied that if any Member would do so he would support the Motion. If the present Secretary for Ireland would submit such a proposal it would receive general support from Irish Members, and would prevent every year much unnecessary and unpleasant discussion. It had been stated that the Presbyterian congregations could well afford to support their own clergy, but they were not so wealthy as dissenting congregations in Yorkshire, and he knew that some of them could not afford to do so. As to the proposed increase for the support of new ministers, that was a part
1302
and parcel of the compact, and he hoped the House would adhere to it.
MR. GILPINsaid, he regretted that the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Crossley) had not moved to strike out the whole Vote. The complaint in Dr. Cooke's case was not that he, who could scarcely be spoken of too highly, was paid a salary of £250 a year, but that he got that amount in some way or other out of this fund. In his opinion, if this compulsory payment was withdrawn able ministers would be well supported; and, instead of receiving a pittance from this House, they would, if worth their bread, earn it from the freewill offerings of their congregations. This paltry grant was a dishonour to those who received it, and nineteen-twentieths of the dissenting community of the three kingdoms would vote against it.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, the Vote had been opposed hitherto by English Members only, and those were Members of a peculiar class—Voluntaries. On the other hand, he believed the Vote was supported by Irish Members of every section; no Vote excited greater unanimity among Irish Members than that for the support of the Presbyterian clergy. The statement that it was recommended by King William III. was not, in his mind, an argument in favour of the Vote. The fact was that at the time of the Union the Presbyterian clergy of the North of Ireland opposed the Union. In this, he thought, they acted the part of patriots; but if Lord Castlereagh intended to bribe them by what he then proposed he certainly did not succeed in his object.
MR. WHITEsaid, that if he had any doubt as to the Vote he should give, one remark made by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) would have removed it. That hon. Member told the Committee that all Irishmen, Catholics and Protestants, were agreed on this question. Now, such unanimity was wonderful, and seemed possible to be brought about only by the opportunity of putting their hands into the pockets of the people. The Vote was most unjustifiable, and he regretted that the rejection of the whole sum had not been moved. It was also a matter of regret that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was unavoidably absent. He regarded the Vote as most mischievous in its effects on the Presbyterian religion itself. The Presbyterians were a most opulent body in Ireland, and they ought to be ashamed of persist-

1303
ing in such disgraceful mendicancy. It was said that when Presbyterian congregations increased in size they then split up into separate congregations in order to obtain additional Parliamentary grants. It was highly disgraceful, in so opulent a body of Dissenters or Nonconformists, to ask the House for such a grant as that now proposed. This, however, was only a small part of a great question, and the time would come when the country would be alive to the larger question of the Irish Church. The sooner Irish Pres-byterianism and State aid were separated the better, and he again expressed his regret that the hon. Member for the West Riding (Sir Francis Crossley) had not moved the omission of the whole Vote.
SIR. ROBERT PEELsaid, that the Presbyterian body, so far from being a mendicant body, was highly respectable, and worthy of every consideration on the part of Parliament. There was an arrangement that when a congregation consisted of more than a certain number of families a fresh congregation should be formed; and the increase in the Vote was occasioned by the formation of fresh congregations. He was glad that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was not in the House, for his absence proved that the hon. Member had withdrawn his opposition to the Vote, finding opposition useless. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Mills) stated truly enough that Dr. Cooke received a salary as agent for this fund. He received £320 a year for salary and allowances, stationery, postage stamps, &c, as agent for the Ministers of the General Assembly, not as a minister of the Presbyterian Church. There was also a salary paid to the agent of the Ministers of the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster of £230, which made up the £550 stated in the Vote. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Crossley) would not go to a division.
MR. PEELsaid, he had received a letter that morning from the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), asking him to put off the Vote till Monday, as he could not be present in the House that evening; but, having given notice that the Vote would be taken that night, and finding that many Members from Ireland had attended, expecting that it would now come on for discussion, he regretted that he could not accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he was sorry that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), in the warmth of his opposition
1304
to religious endowments, should have allowed himself to be betrayed into using unjustifiable expressions towards the Irish Presbyterians. As a Roman Catholic himself, he must say that the Presbyterians were one of the most industrious and respectable bodies in Ireland. With regard to the Vote under discussion, he looked upon it as the result of a compact; and as long as the much larger endowments of the Established Church remained, he thought it a very paltry thing to grudge the Irish Presbyterians a grant of £40,000.
MR. COXsaid, he had no intention to offer any disrespect to the Presbyterians of Ireland, but he entirely objected to any grant out of the Consolidated Fund for the support of any particular form of religion. More than 200 years ago the Presbyterian body was brought from Scotland into Ireland by the Crown, no doubt with a view to the planting of their creed there. That might have been a right and proper proceeding at the time it was taken; but the Irish Presbyterians were now Dissenters from the Established Church, and one of the distinctive principles of their dissent was a desire to be free and independent of the State. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), and knew that he was attending to his Parliamentary duties in the borough that he represented. That hon. Gentleman, though desirous of being present to move the entire rejection of that Vote, had to address a meeting of his constituents that evening. The mode in which that grant was distributed had the effect of causing a subdivision of congregations for the purpose of securing more of the public money. As a member of the Established Church himself, he thought it was the duty of every denomination to support its own religion out of its own means. On that ground he would vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet to reduce the Vote, and if that Motion failed he would himself divide the House on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield against the entire Vote.
Question put:—The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 51: Majority 37.
MR. COXsaid, he accepted the disparity of Members as an indication that the House in its present state was disposed to support the Vote. He would not divide the Committee on the main question, but promised, if he were returned to the new Parliament, on every occasion to exert his hostility to it.
MR. SCULLYsaid, many Presbyterians 'in Ireland repudiated the attempt that was made last Session to increase this beggarly grant, and in voting for the grant he did so that it might remain in statu quo. He was not for attacking the weakest of the bodies which received support from the Church, but would be glad to get rid of all endowments, including Maynooth. He believed that the grant in this case was at first given in the reign of James.
Original Question (£25,809, for Nonconforming, Seceding and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland) put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, SPECIAL, AND TEMPORARY OBJECTS,
(49.) £3,750, for Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
(50.) £27,702, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
(51.) £25,003, to complete the sum for Patent Law Expenses.
(52.) £11,427, to complete the sum for Fishery Board, Scotland.
MR. HENNESSYwished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury. The Vote before the Committee included a sum of £3,000 for piers and quays in Scotland. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) would tell the right hon. Gentleman that at this moment the fishermen in Ireland were very anxious to obtain the means of repairing the piers and quays, which assistance had been promised at the same time of the Union, and which had been given for many years by the House. The Secretary to the Treasury was aware that a grant of £5,000 a year had for a long time been paid to the fishermen of Ireland; but it had been stopped some years ago, and he wished to know why it should not be continued. They had just had the Report laid on the table upon Irish Taxation, and the very last paragraph of that Report stated that in Ireland for a number of years the fishermen received aid from the Government. It ceased some years ago, and the Committee recommended that the Government should re-consider the propriety of again extending the same assistance to the fishermen of Ireland. He wished to know what steps the Government were prepared to adopt under these circumstances, with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee?
MR. PEELsaid, that in 1828 the Lord
1306
Lieutenant had power under the temporary Act to advance £5,000 to Commissioners for the construction of piers and for the materials of fishermen's boats; but that power expired in 1830. About 1845, £90,000 was granted by Parliament for constructing fishery piers, in sums not exceeding £5,000 for any one pier, or three-fourths of the whole expenditure to be incurred. A portion of that grant still remained, and the Board of "Works had recommended to the Treasury that a Bill should be introduced for another grant on the principle of the grant made fifteen years ago, and that proposal was still under the consideration of the Treasury.
MR. WHITEsaid, that this Vote was one of the most objectionable in the Estimates. He had often protested against it, and it was really wonderful to see what longevity belongs to a job—for a job he certainly considered this Vote to be, however un-Parliamentary the term might appear. Here, in the 19th century, they were voting a considerable sum in order to maintain in Scotland a Board for the purpose of branding Scotch herrings. Now, he could not conceive the use of such a Board. They were free traders or professed to be free traders, and yet for the sake of patronage they kept up some of the worst remnants of the old protection system. He must protest against the Vote. The sooner the whole system was got rid of the better. He wished to respect vested interests, and would not deprive those who held offices under the Fishery Board without due notice; but still he thought the whole system must be put an end to, and although he would not at present propose that reduction, or divide against the Vote, he hoped the new Parliament would altogether abolish it.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was quite aware that this matter had often been discussed in the Parliament which was about to expire; and he had no doubt it would also be discussed in the new Parliament. He believed, however, that no solid argument could be advanced against the Vote. The Estimate included a Vote of £3,427 for branding; but if his hon. Friend would turn to the items, he would find that a sum of £4,500 was paid back in the shape of fees for branding, so that the institution was in fact self-supporting. His hon. Friend said it was a remnant of the old Protectionist system. Possibly it might be so, but the position of matters was this—the herring fishing had thriven

1307
in a very wonderful manner under the Board, and Scotch herrings cured under the management of this Board enjoyed a decided preference in the Continental market. His hon. Friend might think it absurd, but it was an undoubted fact that foreign merchants did not so regard the Crown brand affixed by the Board to herrings cured under their direction. No doubt the Crown brand carried with it an enhanced price on the Continent; and without the Crown brand Scotch herrings would not have the preference which they now had. The second part of the Vote was for the general police connected with the herring fishery, and was altogether independent of the branding system. It was absolutely necessary to have some superintendence and security at such places as Wick, for instance, during the fishing season. The third part of the Vote was the smallest and the most needful portion. It was £3,000 to be given for piers and harbours to the small fishing towns in Scotland. The grant was given in return for corresponding amounts advanced in the locality itself; and the House would be surprised to find the sum that the fishermen themselves had been able to advance in order to obtain portions of the grant to be voted. He hoped the House would not hesitate to vote the sum required. Undoubtedly, the Board to which it was granted had administered it hitherto in the most useful manner, and under their auspices the herring fishery of Scotland had attained a point of most successful cultivation.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he did not understand whether the money proposed for Ireland was to be advanced by way of loan or grant. It might be interesting to the House, too, to know whether the Crown brand was a broad arrow or not.
MR. PEELsaid, that with reference to the grant made to Ireland and Scotland, the Act by which the former country received the money was only temporary, and expired in 1830. The £5,000 a year formerly granted in Ireland was a free grant. The grant under consideration was to be on the same principle as the £90,000.
LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that there was considerable doubt as to whether the grant in the case of Ireland had expired in 1830. He and other Members of the Irish Taxation Committee dissented from this conclusion, and thought it advisable that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown should be taken on the subject.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the grants to Scotland and Ireland originated in the same Act of Parliament, but it had been perpetuated to Scotland, and had not to Ireland. Unless the Government were prepared to treat both countries in the same manner he should feel bound to oppose the Vote.
MR. PEELsaid, that £90,000 had been given to Ireland, and that no amount of a similar character had been given to Scotland.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that Scotland had received £3,000 a year for forty years, making a total of £120,000.
MR. MARSHsaid, he was not at all interested in the dispute between Scotland and Ireland, because he maintained that neither country ought to receive anything at all. The practice of giving encouragement by means of Government money was contrary to the principles of free trade.
MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that it was proved before the Irish Taxation Committee that the Irish fishery suffered from the want of an authentic brand such as was supplied by the Fishery Board in Scotland.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the Report of the Irish Taxation Committee was not yet before them, and so it was premature perhaps to enter minutely into this discussion. It might be stated, however, that the Committee thought that the Law Officers of the Crown ought to have their attention directed to this question. He thought it undesirable and inconvenient to discuss the question now. When the Report was brought up it might be necessary to take the opinion of the House on the matter.
Vote agreed to.
(53.) £2,000, for Trustees of Manufactures, Scotland.
(54.) £39,532, to complete the sum for Local Dues on Shipping under Treaties of Reciprocity.
(55.) £1,900, to complete the sum for Inspectors of Corn Returns.
(56.) £500, for Boundary Survey, Ireland.
(57.) £500, for Brehon Laws, Ireland.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask when any part of the work would be completed.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that one volume had already been issued this year, and another volume might be expected in the course of a few months.
Vote agreed to.
(58.) £5,000 Flax Cultivation in Ireland.
MR. FLNLAYsaid, it gave him great satisfaction to find that Ireland was not entirely forgotten by the Government. He wished to know what advantage had been or was expected to be derived from this grant. In Scotland they considered that flax was an exhaustive and undesirable crop injurious to the land. It seemed strange to offer premiums on the cultivation of such an article.
MR. MARSHsaid, he thought it was contrary to all principles of political economy for Parliament to grant money for the encouragement of any particular crop in any part of the British territories. Flax ever since the days of Virgil was considered a most exhausting crop.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the Prime Minister, in consequence of the representations made by a deputation that waited upon him last year, agreed to insert a Vote in the Estimates for the encouragement of flax in Ireland, believing that it would be productive of great good to that country. At the request of the Irish Members £2,000 was granted last year, which had proved so useful that the sum was increased. This was the last year, he believed, it would be given. It did not appear to be an exhausting crop in Ireland, for in Ulster flax had been grown continuously for many years with the greatest success.
MR. HENNESSYcomplained of this money being given exclusively to the south and west of Ireland, whereas it was equally wanted in the King's and other central counties, which took a great interest in the flax movement. He would remind the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Marsh) that in the reign of King William III. it was attempted to put down the Irish woollen trade, and that for ages the efforts of the English Parliament had been directed to the repression of the manufactures of Ireland, to which cause her present condition was mainly attributable. It was only fair that Parliament should now make some attempts to remedy past mis-legislation, but he thought the Vote was paltry in amount.
MR. SCULLYsaid, the encouragement of flax cultivation in Ireland was of the utmost importance, but it was still a doubtful question whether it was really beneficial or injurious to the land. The Vote was not accurately described. This money was really granted for the
1310
purpose of teaching the farmers of Ireland how to cultivate the growth of flax without exhausting the soil.
MR. BLAKEcorroborated the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the expenditure of the money had done great good, and as he was to some extent instrumental in getting up the deputation which waited on the noble Lord last year, should also add that they were led to hope that the grant would have been of a larger character, and was glad i to find that the advantage resulting from it was so manifest as to induce the Government to increase the amount. He would beg hon. Members who seemed disposed to oppose the Vote, to consider whether it was not justified quite as much on Imperial grounds as from any advantage likely to result to Ireland. The disasters occasioned to the manufacturing interest, and which fell heavily on the labouring portion of the English population, must still be fresh in their memory, and they knew it was occasioned by the impossibility of obtaining sufficient cotton, owing to the disastrous war in America. If they had sufficient textile material produced at a moderate price in the United Kingdom they would be quite independent of foreign supply, and would not be subject to a similar calamity in the way of thousands of their people being thrown out of bread as lately occurred. It was, therefore, good policy of the Government to endeavour to promote flax cultivation in Ireland, as it would tend to make them independent of other countries for their supply of textile materials; and, besides, the money paid in Ireland for flax would come back to them again in the purchase of other species of British manufacture.
MR. COXsaid, he wished to know to what purpose this £5,000 was applied. Was it for instruction in the manipulation of the crop, or was it an encouragement merely for the growth of it?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Scully) had just stated the purpose. It would be applied towards the payment of instructors to teach the small farmers in the south and south-west of Ireland how they should manipulate their flax crops without injuring the ground. The money would be placed for distribution in the hands of the Royal Dublin Society and Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland. A Return had been published, in which it was shown

1311
that the most beneficial results had flowed from this arrangement.
Vote agreed to.
(59.) £780, Malta and Alexandria Telegraph, and Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.
MR. MARSHsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of this Vote. He wished to know by what process of arithmetic three-fifths of £500, the expenses of the Government Superintendent at Malta, came to £500, as charged in the Estimates?
MR. MOORsaid, he wished to ask what necessity there was of keeping a superintendent at Malta. It was a mistake to say that the cable was held under a lease from the Government until the 1st of January, 1867, because he believed that since the Estimates had been prepared it had been leased for forty-two years longer. If the cable had been so leased, what was the use of keeping a superintendent at Malta with no power over the working of the cable? The Estimate only gave the receipts for nine months, instead of the whole year, as it ought to have done.
MR. PEELsaid, that three-fifths of the superintendent's salary was paid out of the Imperial Treasury, and two-fifths by the Indian Government, the line having been laid down at the joint expense of both Governments. Four or five years ago the cable was leased to Messrs. Glass and Elliott up to 1867, and it had since been sub-let with the sanction of the Government to the present company, and the result was that the Imperial Government received one-half of the gross receipts of the line. The lessees were bound to certain conditions, and it was necessary to have a superintendent on the spot to see that the line was properly worked and the fair share of the earnings given to the Government. The sum of £500 in the Estimate was the share of the Imperial Government of his salary. The money was well expended in having such an officer on the spot. Since the Estimates had been prepared negotiations had been entered into for further leasing the line. The line, it would be remembered, broke down last year, and great difficulty was experienced in restoring its working condition. Having been constructed for deep water, it gave way when sunk in shallow water. In consequence of what had happened it was deemed desirable to enter
1312
into new arrangements, and lease the line for a period of forty years, the cable to be given up to the Government in as good working condition as when it was leased; the company taking the whole of the expenses and the receipts, and paying to the Government an interest at the rate of 3J per cent on £450,000, which was the sum the line had cost the Imperial and the Indian Governments. It was supposed that that arrangement would secure to the Government for the next forty years an income of between £15,000 and £16,000 per annum. The arrangement was a satisfactory one, and he believed if carried out it would be unnecessary to keep the superintendent at Malta.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he supposed it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make the communication between this country and India perfect in less than forty years.
MR. MOORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not made out a case for retaining the superintendent an hour longer than was necessary for sending a telegraphic message from here to Malta dismissing him.
Vote agreed to.
(60.) £10,000, Agricultural Statistics, Great Britain.
(61.) £14,674, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses from Civil Contingencies.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to call attention to an item of £3,000 for robes, collars, badges, &c, for the Knights of the several orders, and intimated that he should on some future occasion call the attention of the House to this matter. The next item he saw had reference to the Tower of London. Within the Tower of London there was one of the smallest but, at the same time, one of the most interesting of churches, that of St. Peter ad vincula. Some of the most celebrated characters to be found in English history, many of whom had expiated their political offences upon the scaffold, were there interred. Any gentleman entering this church—which he believed was a parish church—would feel that the greatest desecration had been committed, and instead of its being most carefully preserved, it was very much neglected, and was filled up with the monuments of aldermen and lord mayors; respectable people, no doubt, but a reference, to Eng-

1313
lish history would have led one to suppose that more interest would have been taken in Anne Boleyn, the Duke of Monmouth, and other similar characters. Six or seven years ago he pointed out that something ought to be done in the way of improving this church, but as yet nothing had been done. A great deal of money had been very properly spent of late years on the Tower of London, and he thought a few hundreds in making this church—so renowned for its architectural beauty and historic associations—both useful and ornamental would not be objected to by the country.
MR. WYLDcalled attention to the charge of £1,456 17 s. 5d., for "expenses incurred by the War Department in executing a fac simile of Doomsday Book by the photozincographic process," and asked why it had not been charged to the War Department. Referring to expenses in connection with British cemeteries at Varna and Scutari, he wished to know what the Government had done with regard to the preservation of the cemeteries of Sebastopol. The French Government had taken the necessary steps for preserving theirs from destruction.
MR. PEELsaid, that with regard to the fac simile of Doomsday Book, it was found that as fast as each copy was completed the sale repaid the expense; and it was thought the expenses, under the circumstances, ought to be charged to the civil contingencies. The cemeteries at Sebastopol had engaged the attention of the Government, and a considerable sum had been spent towards keeping them in a proper and becoming state. An officer had recently been appointed to take charge of the cemetery at Scutari.
MR. SCULLYremarked that all kinds of rubbish had been shot into these "miscellaneous expenses." A sum of £3,000 for robes, collars, badges, &c., for the knights of the several orders was a very large one for such a purpose, and there was an item of £401 for the purchase and conveyance of sheep presented to the Viceroy of Egypt.
MR. PEELsaid, that the charge for robes, collars, &c, must of course vary according to the number of appointments. It was larger this year than last because the appointments by Her Majesty had been more numerous. Formerly the knights paid for their own robes, &c., but a few years since it was decided that they should be no longer called upon to do so,
1314
but that their cost should be defrayed at the public expense.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 179.]—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave Chair."
MR. CAVEexpressed his approval of the main object of the measure. He believed that the congregating in almshouses and asylums of people who had been accustomed to a totally different kind of life, and worrying them with rules and regulations, was a kind of charity much more agreeable to the giver than to the receiver. There was, in fact, too often more ostentation than charity in such arrangements. You might keep birds in a gilded aviary, with all appliances for their comfort, but the birds would rather live a much rougher life in their native woods. So far, he thought, the Bill proceeded in the right direction. When he came to the provision for the staff whose employment would be at an end, he saw that there at least there was no evidence of the ingratitude of Governments, and he could not help feeling that the best post under the Crown was that of an abolished officer. But though not only titles and salaries but even the residences of the abolished officers were to be continued to them—["No, no!"]—this was certainly the case with some, no one could doubt that—there must be a very considerable quantity of building for which no present use could be found, and he ventured to suggest a manner in which a portion might be disposed of. Every one who had passed up and down the Thames was familiar with the Dreadnought, an old man-of-war lent by the Government as an hospital for seamen of all nations. A more useful charity did not exist. He had heard foreign sailors describe with tears in their eyes the kindness they had received on board the Dreadnouyht from strangers when left behind by their own countrymen to die or recover as best they might in a foreign land. He regretted that it was proposed to abandon the ship for an hospital on shore, as the sight of the old three-decker, with the pale-faced convalescents on her deck, was more calculated to attract the notice of those who

1315
passed to the great port of London along the watery highway from every country in the world than a building on shore, which would in their eyes be little different from any other hospital; but, if they were to adopt this course, and he believed the reasons for it were cogent, then what more appropriate use could be found for a wing of Greenwich Hospital? It had been suggested that if the hospital was placed in a Government building, people would look upon it as supported by Government, and would withhold their contributions; but the same might be said of the Dreadnought, and the difficulty might be met by simply placing over the hospital the same inscription—" Hospital for Seamen of all Nations, supported by voluntary contributions." Too much money was spent in building by the managers of charitable institutions, and he thought that this proposal, which would save the funds of the Hospital £60,000, was worthy of consideration.
Motion agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Power to Order New Pensions, &c.)
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to suggest the insertion of words authorizing the Admiralty to grant pensions as well as gratuities to the widows of non-commissioned officers and men. The grant of a pension was not always the best mode of providing for widows, but it would be well that the Admiralty should have power to make such provision in cases in which they might think it appropriate.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he desired, before they came to the part of the clause to which the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) would apply, to call the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that the clause as it stood entirely excluded all claims on the part of merchant seamen to participate in the benefits of Greenwich Hospital, as out-pensioners, which benefits would be confined to the Royal Navy and Marines. There was no dispute that any man who was wounded or disabled in service in presence of an enemy or in defending his ship against pirates was entitled to the benefits of the Hospital. He thought that he should have been justified in extending the claim to the widows of such men; but as he understood that his hon.
1316
Friend the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers), while admitting the claims of the men, was not prepared to include their widows, he had confined the Amendment of which he had given notice to the reservation of the rights of seamen of the mercantile marine as they now existed. As, however, his hon. Friend had given notice of an Amendment upon the subject, he should not move that which he had placed upon the paper, but would leave his hon. Friend to deal with the subject.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that as it was the object of this Bill to maintain unaltered the rights of all parties as they now existed, he could not consent to include in this clause the widows of merchant seamen; nor did he think that it would be desirable to introduce the Amendment recommended by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for "Wakefield (Sir John Hay). The means by which he proposed to effect the object aimed at by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was the insertion in this clause, authorizing the grant of pensions to certain classes of persons, of the words "and seamen of the merchant service for the time being entitled to the benefits of Greenwich Hospital."
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that he had an Amendment to propose, which would come in before that of the hon. Gentleman. This clause provided that pensions should be granted to "officers," and defined them to be "captains, commanders, lieutenants, masters, paymasters, and warrant officers." Prom a Report signed by the Junior Lord of the Admiralty, which had been presented to the House, it appeared that according to the interpretation placed upon it by the Government, the term "officers" did not include medical officers or chaplains. Chaplains were dealt with by a subsequent clause, and therefore medical officers were the only class of officers who were excluded from the benefits of this Bill. This was the more unjust because the Commissioners who inquired into the state of Greenwich Hospital reported that the only part of the establishment which required no reform was that which was under the control of the medical staff. The hon. Member concluded with his Amendment proposed, that in Clause 5, line 12, after the word "officers" the words "medical officers" be inserted.—(Mr. Hennesy.)
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he could not consent to the proposed Amendment, as

1317
in the first place, the words proposed to be inserted were superfluous, the word "officers" including medical officers; and, in the second place, because the medical officers not being deprived of any advantage by the scheme, were not entitled to any benefit from it. The Bill proposed to substitute certain benefits for certain existing advantages. Neither chaplains nor medical officers would lose any advantages under the present scheme. There would be as many employed as there were at present.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the question which had just been raised justified the objection which he had raised on a former occasion, as to the indistinctness of the Bill. He entirely agreed in the opinion that medical officers ought to share in the pensions, but neither medical officers nor engineer officers—who likewise should be—were included in the Bill. If there had been a schedule to the Bill they might have been inserted. At present there was no guide as to the mode of dealing with these pensions. The Bill was most indistinctly worded, and the paper which had been laid before the House for the purpose of explaining the Bill omitted the two classes of officers from the list of those who were to share in the benefits of the charity.
MR. MOORsaid, he wished to inquire whether the medical officers were to be excluded from sharing in the advantages of the Hospital.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the clause would not exclude them as they came within the general word "officers." There would be two occasions annually when the matter could be discussed. In the first place, when the Orders of Council in reference to the Hospital were laid upon the table, and secondly, when the Vote in aid of the Hospital was proposed. But he repeated that it was not at present intended to give additional pensions to medical officers.
MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, the medical officers would still have open to them the appointments to Greenwich Hospital. There was, however, another class of officers, who were altogether omitted from the Bill—namely, the Marine officers. They had subscribed to the funds of Greenwich Hospital as well as to that of Chelsea, but when they made any application they were told that they ought to be charged upon the funds of Chelsea Hospital, and when they applied there they were told
1318
that they ought to be charged upon the funds of Greenwich Hospital.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the Marine officers were expressly included in that list, while the medical officers were as expressly excluded from it. Not withstanding the assurance the hon. Gentleman had given them that medical officers were included in the general word "officers," some hon. Gentlemen had doubts on the subject which might easily be removed by the two or three words necessary being inserted in the interpretation clause.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would take care that the wishes of the hon. and learned Member (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) should receive attention.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to know exactly in what position the medical officers were to stand, as the only paper purporting to give a list of those who were to share in the advantages of the Hospital expressly excluded medical officers. The only way of settling the matter was to insert the words.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the matter would be much complicated by interpolating the words "medical officers," those officers being included in the general term "officers." It would be invidious to name them alone.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, after the assurance of the Junior Lord of the Admiralty, that the medical officers were included in the word "officers," he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he should be sorry if the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment, on the supposition that medical officers were intended to participate in the benefits of the scheme. Medical officers hold appointments in the Hospital at present, and those appointments they would not be deprived of, so that, as they lost nothing by the scheme, they could not fairly hope to derive benefit from it.
MR. HASSARDsaid, he thought the words in the clause sufficiently large to include all officers.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the clause did not affect individuals, but simply operated to give pensions to certain classes. He should take care that the interpretation clause was so framed that the word "officers" should bear the usual construction of that word in matters relating to the Hospital.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 10 (Money to be voted before Title to pension.)
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he should like to have some explanation of what was really meant by the words "nothing in this Act or in any Order of Council shall give any person any title to a pension unless money is provided by Parliament for the payment thereof." Supposing a meritorious officer was entitled to and had granted him a pension of £1,000 a year out of the revenues of Greenwich Hospital, it appeared by this clause that no pension or annuity should be paid unless out of monies voted for that purpose by Parliament. Did that mean that such pensions should depend upon a Vote taken year by year in that House, and so that the source of livelihood of a person should he liable to be stopped by the Government, backed by a majority of the House? It might be thought that he alluded to a particular case, and it was quite true that he did so. A well known and distinguished officer was granted a pension, and the Ministry, having a command of a majority of the House, availed itself of its power, and intercepted the payment of money actually due to the individual to whom he referred.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to have ascertained what the effect would be of subsequent clauses of the Bill. Under the 13th clause, for example, existing officers would be compensated by way of annuities purchased at the National Debt Office without the necessity of an annual Vote, or its being requisite that the names of the officers should appear on the Estimates. The operation of the clause under discussion would be simply to place Greenwich future pensioners in the same category as those in existence in connection with the army and the navy.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not understand why this noble Hospital, with its income of £150,000 a year, should have every part of its expenditure voted by Parliament.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the idea involved was that the dispensation of pensions should come, as it always had done, under the cognizance of that House.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he was not satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord. Suppose that under the Act a pension was granted, being approved by this House, would the grantee hold it independently of this House, or would it
1320
be in the power of the Government to come down to this House and, by its command of a majority, stop the payment of the pension?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, these pensions would rest on the same footing as all others which were granted by Parliament. The constitutional practice was that all such pensions should be voted annually by this House, although the faith of Parliament might be pledged to their continuance. Of course, it was open to anybody to propose that Parliament should violate the engagement it had entered into, but this was not a probable contingency.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause expressed what its framers hardly meant to convey. It declared that this House was to determine annually whether these pensions were to continue or not. The intention of the Government, no doubt, was that the pensions, though the amounts were to be voted annually, should not be called in question after being once granted; if that were so, the clause should be framed accordingly.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought that the grant of these out-pensions would be liable to great abuses, and that they should come under the notice of Parliament every year just as other pensions did.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that these pensions did not stand on all-fours with those which were granted out of the taxation of the country, and which were, therefore, rightly open to the annual revision of Parliament; they were derived from a fund applicable for certain purposes. He wished to know what was to become of the surplus revenue, supposing the whole of it should not be expended.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that subsequent clauses would provide for the investment of the balance precisely as it was now invested. With regard to the clause to which objection had been taken, it should be looked into, and if it was found open to the objection that had been raised it should be altered.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it was quite clear that the revenues of Greenwich Hospital were confiscated and merged in the national funds, and that all pensions connected therewith would in future depend upon the mercy and annual Votes of Parliament. The present officers did not appear to have confidence in "the faith of Parliament," or of the Government, as they ap-

1321
peared 'to think an independent annuity better for them to have than a pension—at least so it appeared from the clause quoted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers).
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was mistaken in supposing that the funds of Greenwich Hospital were liable to be dealt with by Parliament. The Admiralty, as trustees of the Hospital, would be able to invest any funds of the Hospital without coming to Parliament at all.
MR. HASSARDsaid, he thought that it was clear from one of the sections of the Bill that all investments of the funds of the Hospital were to be made by the Admiralty exclusively for the benefit of the Hospital. By another clause Parliament would have the power of annually revising the pensions, but no injury could accrue to the recipients unless the Government neglected to ask the House to vote the annual grant.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would move the omission of the clause, on the ground that if retained it would put it in the power of the Government for the time being, not by a Vote of the House, but of its own mere Motion, by simply omitting the Vote, to deprive persons who might be entitled to pensions of what was their right. And something of the same kind had been done in the case of a well known contract not long since. By the omission of the Ministers of the Crown to move a Vote for the payment of money actually due, an individual who had performed his contract was deprived of what was his due. What he desired was that the Government should distinctly pledge themselves to put this Bill into such a form that when once a pension was granted it should be the absolute property of the grantee, unless by some misdemeanor he forfeited his right to it.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there could not well be two things more entirely different than that of the contract to which his hon. and learned Friend had referred and the case now before the Committee. In the former ease the contract was never authorized by Parliament; but the Government thought fit to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject, because, when the money for the packet service was voted, specific words were inserted that no part of such money should be applied to the contract in question. But, with regard to the case now before the Committee, if at
1322
any future time the Government omitted to do its duty, the House had the remedy in its own hands, for it had always the power to move an Address to the Crown. His hon. and learned Friend knew very well that there were a great many persons who received their pensions by annual grants, and it was not the habit of the Government to omit asking the House to grant them.
MR. CORRYsaid, that in all cases in which the sanction of Parliament was required it ought to be required but once. They were told that this was a Bill to secure vested rights; but, if that were so, what need was there for subjecting the Vote to the annual revision of the House?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the clause did not refer in the smallest degree to existing rights, which were all provided for under Clause 13. The clause before the Committee simply related to future pensions to officers, exactly like good service pensions now, which were voted in the gross every year by the House, after having once come separately before it for approval. It was simply proposed to put the two classes of pensions on the same footing.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 37: Majority 27.
Clause 11 (Abolition of Commissioners, &c.)
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought that the Report of the Royal Commission contemplated very distinctly the maintenance of the post of Master and Governor of Greenwich Hospital. The Commissioners paid great attention to the subject, and they found there was very strong reason for maintaining that office, even though it might be considered in some degree a sinecure. Much more benefit was conferred by it upon the navy than there would be by frittering the amount away in five or ten pensions. His object was to move the omission in the tenth line of the clause of the words "and of Governor," in order to retain that office. It was the only prize at present open to distinguished officers of the navy, though in the sister service various regiments were open to old officers. From its commencement it had been held by men eminent for their merits in the profession. It had been looked forward to as the prize of honourable ambition by officers of the rank of admiral; and he felt quite sure that the navy would

1323
regard the abolition of the office with great jealousy and dislike. He trusted that the House would agree to the omission of the words.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, to leave out the words "and of the Governor."—(Sir John Hay.)
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could by no means agree to the Amendment, and he doubted whether any considerable number of officers of the navy would agree with his hon. and gallant Friend. Parliament was about to abolish various comfortable offices in the Hospital by this Bill, among them flag officers, and would it be consonant with justice to leave the Governor alone in full possession of his large income? It would be extremely unfair to the other officers to make this office an exception. The Bill, moreover, assumed that a Superintendent of the Hospital would be appointed, and he and the Governor would be something like the two Kings at Brentford. Such an alteration of the Bill would only lead to difficulty and dispute. The sum saved by the abolition of the office of Governor would be much better bestowed in pensions to flag officers than in maintaining a sinecure of this kind. He trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was very loth to withdraw his proposal. It must be recollected that the office of Master and Governor stood on a different footing from that of other officers appointed to Greenwich Hospital for the fulfilment of various duties within it. He would appeal to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ingham) whether the Commissioners did not devote considerable time to the matter, and whether they were not of opinion that the Master and Governor was appointed on the ground of his merits in his profession, and not for the benefit of the Institution. From the first to the last an officer of the most distinguished qualities and character had been elected to that appointment, which was one coveted very earnestly by the members of the navy.
MR. INGHAMsaid, that this matter had been before debated, and that he, as one of the Commissioners, had already expressed his agreement with the Report and his concurrence in the desire to preserve an office which had been held by so many distinguished sailors who had cast lustre upon the appointment.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that if
1324
the hon. and gallant Member went to a division he would support him. Because Greenwich Hospital refused reform the Admiralty had pushed changes to an unnecessary extent, and in fact were effecting a complete revolution in the establishment. He saw no reason for doing away with one of the prizes of the Royal Navy, and he regretted that it seemed intended by the Government to reduce the establishment, like Haslar or Netley, to the position of a mere hospital for the sick under the management of a Superintendent.
MR. CORRYsaid, he questioned whether the pensioners would not feel it as a degradation that an old and distinguished admiral should be removed from the post of Governor. He was aware that under the Bill the present Governor would not be removed, but no admiral would in future be appointed as Governor.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the scope of the Bill was that for the future, after the death of the present Governor and Lieutenant Governor, there should not remain at Greenwich Hospital great sinecure offices, and he trusted that the House would agree to the plan of abolishing sinecures and supplying their place by a large number of moderate pensions. Pensions of a moderate amount would be given to different ranks of the service, and there would be ten pensions to flag officers of £150 a year each.
MR. LYGONsaid, he must deny that the post of the Governor of Greenwich Hospital was a sinecure. The esprit de corps of the Hospital would be preserved by the retention of the office for a distinguished officer renowned for great services and heroic actions.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that in support of the retention of the office he might advert to the hardships inflicted on admirals serving on foreign stations, where their appointment, instead of being a source of emolument, occasioned great expense to them. If any compensation for that hardship could be given it ought not to be refused. He said this, having been the Chairman of the Committee. Take this one prize of the Governorship away and the principal one was removed. He did not think that other officers in the navy would be jealous by its falling into distinguished hands. The continuance of this office, as a prize for the reward of conspicuous merit, would benefit the profession.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that if this office was to be kept up so much must be deducted from the emoluments of the other flag officers whom it was proposed to benefit by the present scheme. Was the money which it was intended to pay over to the other ten flag officers to be so paid, or was it to go to this great office?
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he believed the majority of the profession was in favour of the retention of the office. He thought that the officers of the navy would much rather have the one great office of Governor retained than that there should be a great number of officers at small pensions.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he thought the profession would regard the abolition of the office with great regret.
MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, the officers at Greenwich Hospital, although they rose in rank, would not rise in pay.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Greenwich Hospital funds were not intended for large salaries for insufficient work. He hoped the House would adhere to the principle of the Bill, which was that as many pensions as possible should be granted.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 53: Majority 4.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the opinion of the Committee having been so evenly balanced on the subject of his Amendment, he should deem it right to take the sense of the House on it again upon the Report.
Clause added to the Bill.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 (Continuance of Superannuation Allowance.)
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he meant to move the omission of the clause—
"Provided that if any Commissioner or any officer who was removed from office was at the commencement of that Act in receipt of any superannuation allowance in respect of any former employment in the Civil Service, he should be entitled to continue to receive, in addition to the annuity given under a previous provision, the amount of superannuation allowance of which he was in receipt at the commencement of that Act, and no more."
If he succeeded in carrying the omission of that clause, he proposed to substitute for it another, of which he had given notice, namely—
"Whereas Sir Richard Maddox Bromley, night Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, and now one of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, will be entitled upon the passing of this Act to an annuity for his
1326
life as hereinbefore provided; and whereas the said Sir Richard Maddox Bromley is likewise entitled to a superannuation allowance in respect of the office of Accountant General of the Navy, heretofore held by the said Sir Richard Maddox Bromley, be it enacted, that the said Sir Richard Maddox Bromley shall henceforth receive the full amount of such superannuation allowance without any deduction in respect of his said office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital or the salary or emoluments thereof."
When Sir Richard Bromley, somewhat broken in health by his devotion to the public service, applied to the Lords of the Admiralty on the subject of his retirement, the Duke of Somerset offered him the position of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, and the correspondence which passed at the time showed what the intentions of the Government were with respect to his emoluments. A Treasury Minute also recorded the high sense entertained by the Government of Sir Richard's eminent services as Accountant General of the Navy during the last thirty-four years. After accepting the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital by Patent Sir Richard Bromley was astonished to find in a few months that the Treasury thought he was not entitled to the full benefit of the position he had held, and that they limited the amount paid to him to what had been allowed him as Accountant General of the Navy only. Sir Richard held that the previous intentions of the Government in regard to his position had not been carried out, and he received the limited sum offered to him under protest. He had taken good legal advice on the subject, and he meant to prosecute his claim to that which he believed himself entitled at the hands of the Government, and which had never before been withheld from those who had occupied his position. But that clause would, by ex post facto legislation, entirely shut the door against his claim. On that ground he proposed the omission of the clause.
Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted."—(Sir Morton Peto.)
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he quite endorsed what had fallen from the hon. Baronet as to the eminent services of Sir Richard Bromley; but what was the real question as to this clause r Under the Superannuation Act an officer already in receipt of a superannuation allowance, on obtaining fresh employment, was entitled only to draw a sufficient amount of superannuation allowance to make up, together with his fres employment, the full amount of

1327
his original emoluments. Sir Richard Bromley had received £1,300 a year as Accountant General of the Navy. He also received £300 a year as Auditor of Prize Accounts. He resigned the Accountant Generalship of the Navy two years ago, and on the same day was appointed Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital with emoluments equal to £818 per annum. The Treasury, in fixing his superannuation, prescribed that he should only draw enough to make up with the emoluments of Greenwich Hospital the original £1,300 a year. He continued to be Auditor of Prize Accounts, and thus received in all £1,600 a year. The effect of the present clause was to entitle him to receive for life the £1,300 a year in respect of his superannuation and the Greenwich Commissionership, and be long as he continued to be also Auditor of Prize Accounts he would in all receive £1,300 a year. In other words he would receive for doing little or nothing during the rest of his life the same emoluments as two years ago he received for, perhaps, the most onerous office under the Crown. He (Mr. Childers) did not think that the House of Commons, if they had any regard to consistency in dealing with the Civil Servants of the Crown, would think of giving him more.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 31: Majority 46.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

FALMOUTH BOROUGH BILL.
On Motion of Mr. BARING, Bill to provide for the discontinuance of a separate Court of Quarter Sessions and a separate Gaol in the Borough of Falmonth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARING and Mr. ST. AUBYN.
Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 200.]

PENALTIES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Sir GEORGE GREY, Bill to amend the Law Relating to Small Penalties, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY and Mr. BARING.
Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 202.]

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION (SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. WALPOLE, Bill to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England to grant Superannuation Allowances to persons employed in their service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WALPOLE and Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE.
Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 201.]

NATIONAL GALLERY (DUBLIN) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. PEEL, Bill to amend the Acts for the establishment of a National Gallery in Dublin, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. LUKE WHITE.
Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 203.]
House adjourned at half after One o'clock.