Sitting of 29 May 1865

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Mining Acts nominated (see p. 73.)
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Kingstown Harbour.
Ordered—Navy and Marines (Wills) *; Navy and Marines (Property of Deceased) *; Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions *; Colonial Marriages Validity *; Colonial Laws Validity *; Kingstown Harbour.*
First Reading—Navy and Marines (Wills) * [180]; Navy and Marines (Property of Deceased) * [181]; Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions * [182]; Colonial Laws Validity * [183]; Colonial Marriages Validity * [184]; Kingstown Harbour * [185]; District Church Tithes * [186].
Second Reading—Greenwich Hospital [113]; Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) [133]; Crown Suits, &c. * [146]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * []; Harwich Harbour* [137]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * [168].
Committee—Constabulary Force (Ireland) Act Amendment [122]; Greenwich Hospital * [113]; Prisons (re-comm.)* [140]—R.P.
Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [177]; Constabulary Force (Ireland) Act Amendment * [178]; Greenwich Hospital * [179].
Considered as amended—Dockyard Extensions * [145].
Third Reading—Inclosure (No. 2) *[145]; Smoke Nuisance (Scotland) Acts Amendment * [139], and passed.

MIDDLESEX INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Order [11th May] that the Report from the Select Committee on the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill do lie upon the Table read.
  MR. DOULTON MR. DOULTON moved that the Report from the Select Committee on this Bill be read and discharged, and that the Bill be withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Order be discharged,"—(Mr. Doulton,)—Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he should oppose the Motion. The Bill contained very useful clauses, and was more in the nature of a Public than a Private Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEstated, as Chairman of the Committee, that two important questions arose in considering this Bill; the first was a claim for a Government Grant, which the Committee were unanimous in refusing; the next was the introduction of clauses such as were contained in the Prison Bill for the religious
  976
  instruction of the inmates, and which the Committee were of one opinion in recommending. It was because these clauses were introduced that the promoters wished to withdraw the Bill.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion, as the Bill contained some very useful clauses, and it was a desirable measure to pass into law, notwithstanding the promoters had withdrawn their support. He was sure the objection taken by the Middlesex magistrates to the admission of Chaplains of various denominations for the purpose of giving religious instruction to the children was one which would not meet with the concurrence of the House.

CAPE COLONY—THE KAFFIRS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as stated in newspapers, that the Governor of the Cape Colony is pursuing a policy in regard to the Kaffirs of which the responsibility has not been assumed by the Colonial Legislature; and whether, in the event of war arising, it might not be difficult under these circumstances to enforce upon the Representative Government of the Colony its obligation to bear the whole burden of internal defence?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he apprehended that the policy to which the hon. Member referred related to the Trans Kei territory. The Governor had made a proposal to give to the Kaffirs who were disposed to settle there an eligible settlement; but that was not a policy which, in his opinion, was calculated to promote a Kaffir war within the colony. On the contrary, it was a policy which the Governor carried into effect upon his own responsibility under instructions received from home; and he was sorry to say that the assumption which the hon. Member's question appeared to convey was not warranted by the facts, as the responsibility of defending the colony had always rested upon this country, only a small contribution being made by the colony.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA—THE RED RIVER TERRITORY.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If any, and what steps have been taken by the Government, since the Report of the Select Committee was presented to this House, for opening up

977
the Red River districts and the valley of the Saskatchewan to settlement under the Crown, and putting an end to the exclusive privileges heretofore claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company in these districts; and if the claim of ownership put forward by the Hudson's Bay Company in the territory lying between Canada and British America, being about two-thirds of our possessions on that continent, be admitted by the Government as well founded; and, if so, on what grounds?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that measures had been taken by every succeeding Secretary of State, first by Lord Taunton, when Secretary of State for the Colonies, who proposed that the Question between the Hudson's Bay Company and Canada, with regard to the western boundary, should be settled by an appeal to the Privy Council; then by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Bulwer Lytton), under the administration of Lord Derby, who finding that Canada disputed the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company to their territory, recommended Canada to try the matter by legal proceedings; then by the late Duke of Newcastle, who entered into negotiations with the Hudson's Bay Company, to establish a Crown Colony in that region; and, finally by himself, who, reverting to the opinion of the Committee of 1857, entered into communications with Canada, hoping to induce them, as the Committee had recommended, to undertake the government and settlement of that territory. With regard to the rights of property in that territory, former Governments, acting under the advice of their Law Officers, held that Her Majesty's Government could not honourably dispute the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, under their Charter. He had not himself referred the question to the present Law Officers of the Crown, but he had no reason to suppose that they would differ in opinion from their predecessors.

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. STANILANDsaid, he wished to make an explanation with reference to some observations that fell from him on Tuesday evening. In speaking of the disturbances which had taken place in St. George's-in-the-East, he had stated that the Rev. Bryan King had joined the communion of the Church of Rome, whereas it was the Rev. Mr. Brown, at one time curate of St. George's, who had been admitted into the Roman Catholic Church
  978
  by Dr. Manning. He had received a temperate letter from Mr. King on the subject, correcting the statement, and he (Mr. Staniland) begged to take the earliest opportunity of correcting the mistake, and of expressing his regret at it, and for whatever pain it might have occasioned.

CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 122.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. W. ORMSBY GOREsaid, that in 1846 the late Sir Robert Peel, with that spirit of liberality and generosity which characterized his conduct with reference to Ireland, and which had in a great measure been inherited by the right hon. Baronet who bore his name, had introduced a Bill on this subject, which was followed by another in 1848, and another in 1857. The Devon Commission of 1844 recommended that the Irish constabulary should be treated as a national force, and thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. If the reasons advanced by the Commission were good in that year for such a course, they were doubly so at the present time. He also complained of the unfair manner in which the force was distributed in the different counties, and especially in Lei-trim, where the proportion was inadequate to the wants of the county. Various modifications had been made, the operation of which had not been beneficial. Since the Irish constabulary had been raised the Government had been able to reduce the number of troops in Ireland from 21,251 in 1844 to very little more than half that force. He maintained that this ought to be treated as a national question. The police, besides enabling the Government to reduce the military force, were also discharging the duties of the revenue police, a force altogether disbanded, thus saving the nation a large annual payment. Believing, as he did, that the Government ought to pay for the maintenance of a force which discharged so many important State duties, he had no hesitation in moving that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. BRADYseconded the Motion, and said that great injustice had been done under the Bill of 1857. He directed attention to the present unsatisfactory distribution of the police force throughout many of the counties in Ireland, particularly in that which he had the honour to

  979
  represent (Leitrim), where, though a heavy police rate was paid, the number of the police was below what it was in other counties of less area, and containing a less numerous population. He considered that the whole police force of Ireland ought to be re-distributed. When the Irish constabulary were first introduced they corresponded to the police force in England. If they had continued to perform the same offices he should not complain, but the fact was that they constituted a second army in Ireland, and a standing army ought to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He should give the Bill his strenuous opposition.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. William Ormsby Gore,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) what the object of this Bill was—whether it was intended to supply an extra police force to the town of Belfast, or whether he intended to effect a re-distribution of the whole constabulary force throughout the whole of Ireland? If the latter he believed it would lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction. He also desired to know whether it was intended to empower the Lord Lieutenant every five years to effect a re-distribution of the police force over the country. If so, he thought that such an arrangement would be most unfortunate. It would be seen by the schedule that the police force of the county of Londonderry consisted only of 120 men, being the smallest number in proportion to the population of any county in Ireland. It had a population of 184,209 and an acreage of 522,800, whilst the county of Kilkenny, with a population of 99,940 had a force of 220 men. There were seven other counties, each of which had a population of 100,000, but in which the number of police was more than in the county of Londonderry. The resident magistrate had complained of the insufficiency of the police force in the city of Derry. His chief object in rising was to draw attention to the remarkable fact in respect to the county of Londonderry that no execution had taken place in it for more than 100 years—the last having taken place in the year 1745, and he had the authority of the late Chief Justice Doherty
  980
  that within that time there had been executions in every other county in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. He had no intention of voting with his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment, but in justice to the county with which he was connected, he thought it necessary to make these few remarks.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he hoped that the House would not refer the Bill to a Select Committee, either of fifteen Members or of five, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns). The only question which such a Committee would have to decide would be the number of police which was to be allotted to each county, and that was a matter which could be much better determined by the executive Government, who, having regard to the extent of each county, its population, the facilities afforded for illicit distillation, and any exceptional circumstances which might affect it, would decide how many men were required to maintain law and order within its boundaries. Every county seemed to be anxious to have as many as possible. ["No, no!"] Well, then, if they desired to reduce the number, he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend would be delighted to meet their wishes. If a satisfactory distribution of the police force was to be carried out, the Government must disregard both the; original schedule and that which had been originally placed in this Bill. The original schedule was fixed in 1848, a period of considerable political excitement; and it was necessary at that time to concentrate large bodies of police in certain counties, in which the tendency to sedition was greatest. One of the most important duties which the police had to discharge was the suppression of illicit distillation, and it was a remarkable fact that in the counties of Mayo and Donegal, which had the smallest number of police in proportion to their size, there were almost as many offences against the Excise Laws as in all the other counties in Ireland.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he trusted that the House would allow him to proceed with the Bill without further discussion, which in his opinion could not produce any good result. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Leitrim, there was no doubt that the force in Leitrim was diminished from the Parliamentary quota allowed by the Bill of the right hon. Member for Kerry. Leitrim, with a population of 144,740 inhabitants, had a Parliamentary quota of

  981
  271. Sligo, with 124,845 inhabitants, had a Parliamentary quota of 201. Monaghan, with 126,482 inhabitants, had a Parliamentary quota of 175. Fermanagh, with a population of 105,768 inhabitants, had a Parliamentary quota of 181. In the three latter cases there was a smaller Parliamentary quota than in Leitrim. He therefore thought that his hon. Friend had made out no case. In the Amendment which he had put on the paper he had revised the schedule to the original Bill and left it blank, leaving it to the Lord Lieutenant to alter the schedule and Parliamentry quota as he might think fit, and as circumstances might occur. The Lord Lieutenant would still have the power when the five years elapsed of increasing the Parliamentary quota in the county of Leitrim or any other county if he should think it desirable to do so. And supposing it was deemed necessary that a larger quota should be given to the county of Leitrim, the Government would offer no opposition. With regard to the county of Londonderry it was rather a compliment to it that peace and order were so well preserved, and that it required so small a number of police to maintain tranquillity therein. He did not think the county of Leitrim had any case to justify its demand for the postponement of this Bill. It was of the utmost importance that it should pass without further delay. His hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Dawson) asked him what the object of the Bill was. Now every one knew that the object of the Bill was to apply a remedy to a state of things that had existed for many years in Belfast to the disgrace of that town, and to the discredit of the whole of Ireland. It would be shown by the blue-books on the subject that in Belfast only four men in the whole police force, amounting to upwards of 100 men, were Roman Catholics. In the municipal council of that town there was only one Roman Catholic. He therefore thought that those who were interested in the preservation of law and order should support him in his endeavour to put an end to such a state of things and to a renewal of those riots which occurred last year resulting in thirteen or fourteen deaths, and upwards of 100 maimed. A Commission of Inquiry was sent down there, and the present Bill had been founded on their Report. The Government treated Belfast with much consideration, but he was determined, as long as he held office, to press on this Bill, because he was con-
  982
  vinced that if they allowed July to come round again without some such measure being enacted, they would have a repetition of those scandalous and disgraceful disturbances which had held Belfast in a state of riot for a period of eighteen days. Several gentlemen of authority of the city of Belfast actually waited upon the Government and requested them not only to abolish the local police force but to proclaim a state of siege in the town of Belfast. He was convinced that this Bill would attain, in a moderate and constitutional manner, all that was desirable. He therefore trusted that his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Hugh Cairns), who he saw was about to do so, would forego addressing the House in this stage, because he (Sir Robert Peel) would have no opportunity of answering him.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the right hon. Baronet had observed that he hoped that he (Sir Hugh Cairns) would not address the House at the present stage of the Bill in order that it might at once go into Committee. He (Sir Hugh Cairns) came down to the House in conformity with the notice standing in his name to move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but not with any intention to trouble the House with that Motion, because since the Bill had been laid upon the table, the right hon. Gentleman had given notice of Amendments which had considerably modified his objections to the Bill. He could assure his right hon. Friend that he had no intention to offer any objections to his Motion. He had merely risen to express his surprise that on a Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill his right hon. Friend should have gone into questions of an exciting and irritating kind.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I beg pardon. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Dawson) what the object of the Bill was.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: The right hon. Gentleman, without the slightest provocation or cause, had gone into questions of a most debateable kind, and, having done so, he said he trusted that no one would answer his statements. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not read the Report, because he stated that the authorities of Belfast had petitioned the Government to abolish the local police force, and to proclaim the city of Belfast in a state of siege and martial law. Now he (Sir Hugh Cairns) gave his most unqualified denial to that statement. There was not

  983
  a word in the Report to justify such an assertion.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. He knows as well as I do that the Government had received a deputation from Belfast during the existence of the riots, asking the Government to proclaim martial law in the town of Belfast.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: A deputation! Who were the authorities of the town of Belfast who had joined in that deputation? He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to mention one. What was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman rising in his place and telling the House that the authorities of Belfast requested the Government to abolish the local force and to proclaim martial law? No doubt some twenty or thirty persons sent a petition to the Government. He did not impugn their respectability. They waited upon the Government asking, what he ventured to think was an exceedingly foolish request—namely, that martial law should be proclaimed, and that the local force should be abolished. There was not one magistrate or member of the corporation among them. The right hon. Gentleman also said that if July came without such a Bill as that being passed, there would be a renewal of the riots. Now the riots did not take place in Belfast upon the July anniversary, nor in connection with that anniversary, as the right hon. Gentleman would lead the House to suppose. He therefore trusted that no such statements would again be made. He was willing that the Bill should go into Committee, believing that many of the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman were excellent. He should not certainly take upon himself the responsibility of delaying this measure, as he was willing to give the Government credit for wishing to maintain peace and good order in Belfast as in every other part of the United Kingdom. So far from throwing an obstacle in the way of this Bill, he would give the right hon. Gentleman his cordial assistance in rendering it as effective as possible.
  MR. W. ORMSBY GOREsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Motion that the Preamble be postponed,
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, as the Bill originally stood there was a schedule attached to it which allotted to Belfast 130 men as the Parliamentary quota. Upon consideration he thought it better to omit that schedule and to insert a new clause in substitution of Clause 3, in which it was provided that the Lord Lieutenant should have the power of altering the distribution of the Parliamentary quota as enacted by the Bill of 1857. In addition to that the Government proposed to increase the total number of the force to 450—that was to say, 320 men in addition to the 130, which would be paid for as in other counties as an extra force—half from the county and half from the Consolidated Fund. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) had an Amendment on the paper, proposing to reduce the number of the force to 400; but considering that it would have to do the night watching, he thought the number named in the Bill was more expedient. However, if the Committee were of a different opinion, he should have no objection to the change. There would be three sub-Inspectors and one Inspector, who would have supreme authority over the force. In fact, he would have very much the same powers as a county inspector. Belfast was situated part in the county of Down and part in the county of Antrim, and it was proposed for the purposes of this Bill only, that Belfast should be a county of itself, and support its own force, like Limerick, Gal-way, Londonderry, and several other large towns in Ireland. He should move the omission of Clause 10, because he did not think it would be just for the Government to give superannuation to the police of Belfast when the local force were not entitled to superannuation out of the borough fund. The Belfast police force would be paid out of the borough fund, and the municipal authorities would be bound to provide sufficient means for carrying on the additional force required to strengthen the Parliamentary quota of the borough.
  LORD NAASsaid, he wished to ask, as it was proposed to omit Clause 3 from the Bill, what would be its effect upon the clause in the Act of 1857 which provided that every five years there should be a general re-distribution of the constabulary over the country—whether it would have the effect of leaving it in the power of the executive Government to vary from time to time the numbers of the constabulary in different counties in Ireland, or whether

  985
  the variation now proposed was only for the present, and then the force to be still subject to the five years' re-distribution by the Act of 1857. He entertained a strong opinion that the mode of re-distribution laid down by the Act of 1857 was a good one, and should be adhered to, and as it was fully discussed in 1857, he hoped it was not intended to re-open the Question in considering this Bill.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he should not have taken part in the discussion, but I for the observation of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) in which he had I entirely, he would not say intentionally, misrepresented what he (Sir Hervey Bruce) stated on a former occasion. He corrected the right hon. Baronet on a former occasion, and he thought the right hon. Baronet, might have accepted his denial, and not have repeated it. He denied that he ever stated that Coleraine was such a disorderly and demoralized place that it required an additional police force. It was discourteous on the part of the right hon. Baronet to make the statement. There was no justification whatever for his assertion.
  MR. LANIGANsaid, that as the extra police force was paid out of the local rates, it was desirable to get rid of them as soon as possible. They could now spare 300 from Tipperary, and he thought the best thing would be to transfer them to Belfast.
  In answer to Lord NAAS,
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was proposed to re-distribute the men in the constabulary as laid down in the schedule of the Act of 1857 for the purpose of this Act only; and when the five years expired, it would then be for the Lord Lieutenant to arrange the distribution according to the enactments in force. The proposed distribution was for the purpose of giving to Belfast its proper quota. With regard to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce), he begged to assure him that he did not in any way mean to offend him by what he (Sir Robert Peel) had said. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. Lanigan), it was no doubt true that Tipperary had too many police, for there was probably not another part of Ireland where there were so many police in proportion to the population as in Tipperary. Tipperary, he was happy to say, was now as tranquil as any part of Ireland. The police force was sent there on a requisition from the magistrates, and if the hon. Member would induce the magistrates to memorialize the
  986
  Government, the latter would be too happy to accept the recommendation and withdraw them. It was no doubt a great hardship for the inhabitants to have to pay £5,000 a year for extra policemen, but they imposed it on themselves. Without a memorial, the Government was powerless to remove the extra force.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, that under the 11 & 12 Vict., the Government had power to withdraw the extra force when they thought fit. There was a difficulty in bringing the magistrates to memorialize, for some of them thought it a good thing to have a police barrack near them and one gentleman would not vote against another. If the Government were satisfied of the peaceful state of Tipperary, it was their duty to withdraw the force, or, if they thought they had not the power, they ought to accept the clause which was proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Lanigan) with a view to give them the power. The police in Tipperary had very little to do, so little that they could not do that little. They had no escort or parade duties, nothing except to amuse themselves, which they did by sitting still and smoking their pipes.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause 1 (Present Police Force shall cease to exist.)
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS SIR HUGH CAIRNS moved the following addition to the clause:—
  "And that the constabulary force of the town of Belfast shall have and discharge all the powers and duties which now lawfully have to be discharged by the police force of the town."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought the Amendment unnecessary. The constabulary would discharge all the duties in Belfast which they performed in Cork and all other towns under the Constabulary Act. The Amendment might have an operation which did not appear at first sight, and might embarrass the action of the constabulary.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, it was necessary that the addition should be made to the clause. Sir Henry Brownrigg, the Inspector General of the Constabulary, had stated in 1861, on an application by the corporation, that in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown the constabulary could not enforce the bye laws of the corporation, and could only discharge the duties imposed under the Constabulary Acts. Now, in Belfast there were a number of local Acts, and without such an Amendment as that he now proposed the constabulary would not be able to enforce

  987
  the bye-laws of the corporation, some of which imposed penalties. The local force was to be abolished, and it was necessary to insert this provision.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment—though he thought it superfluous—if it was the wish of the Committee that it should be added to the clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Distribution of Constabulary.)
  SIR ROBERT PEEL SIR ROBERT PEEL moved to leave out Clause 3, and insert the following clause:—
  (Alteration in the distribution of the Constabulary Force in Ireland.)
  "Whereas it is expedient to alter the distribution of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and to allot to the town of Belfast a proportion thereof, Be it therefore Enacted, 'That it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, with the advice of Her Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland, anything in an Act of the twentieth and twenty-first years of Her Majesty, chapter seventeen, to the contrary notwithstanding, to alter or vary the number of constables and sub-constables for each county, city, or town, specified in the Schedule to that Act, and to include the town of Belfast in the said Schedule: Provided always, That the total number of constables and sub-constables to be distributed shall not exceed the number fixed by the said recited Act, and that the number allotted to the town of Belfast shall not be less than one hundred and thirty constables and sub-constables."
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would explain the rules which would guide the distribution of the constabulary force under the new clause. There were certain districts which were satisfied with very few policemen when they had to pay for them, but which, now that the expense was borne by the Consolidated Fund, wanted every man that could be had.
  MR. W. ORMSBY GOREsaid, the clause it was intended to substitute would give great powers to the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and so long as they discharged their duties fairly and impartially, there would be nothing to fear; but it was said a great deal of backstairs influence prevailed in Dublin Castle. If they could have any guarantee that the clause would be fairly worked, it would be desirable for the Committee to agree to it.
  LORD NAASsaid, if the clause was left out the representatives of Ireland would not know what the distribution of the police was to be. He should like to know the exact reason for striking out the clause.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that after consultation with the corporation of Belfast it was thought desirable to state the number of men to be employed. The Government did not intend to take away any constabulary from any county which was paying for extra men. There was no desire whatever to do anything underhand.
  Clause 3 negatived, and the above Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Increase and Reduction of Numbers of Constabulary by Lord Lieutenant.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELproposed the following Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 26, to leave out from the word "Force" to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "which shall be allotted to the town of Belfast under the provisions of this Act, any number of men, not exceeding three hundred and twenty, which the Lord Lieutenant may think fit to provide for the more effectual preservation of the peace of the said town, and such additional number of men, together with the one hundred and thirty hereinbefore mentioned, shall constitute the ordinary Constabulary Force of the said town."—(Sir Robert Peel.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the ordinary police force of Belfast consisted of 160 local men and 65 members of the constabulary—225 in all. The proposition of the right hon. Baronet would raise the force to a number not exceeding 450—namely, 120 absolutely appointed to the town, and a number not exceeding 320 which the Lord Lieutenant would be authorized to send. The Amendment did not make it compulsory on the Lord Lieutenant to send 320, but it was competent for him to do so. Now, as the appointment of this force would affect the financial arrangements of the corporation, it was necessary to know the precise number of men of whom the force was to consist, because the corporation had to pay half the expense of the extra men. It was true the Commissioners suggested that there should be power to send 120 men, but they had scarcely weighed sufficiently the evidence laid before them. Nothing could be clearer than that according to the evidence the maximum force should be 400, which was an enormous increase as compared with the present number of 225 men. Inspector Hervey, of the constabu-

  989
  lary, had given his decided opinion that 400 men would be amply sufficient to discharge all the duties both night and day, provided certain regulations were slightly modified. He (Sir Hugh Cairns) had gone carefully through the whole of the very voluminous evidence which was taken by the Commissioners, and there was not a single witness, with the exception of Mr. O'Donnell, a stipendiary magistrate, who put the number above 400. He was willing to take the 400 which Inspector Hervey, upon whose evidence the whole scheme was recommended, and that was a much larger force in proportion to the population than there was at Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, or Edinburgh. In some of these towns there was but one policeman to 831 inhabitants, in others but one to 790, while in Belfast there would be one to every 350. The hon. and learned Gentleman then moved that the words "Three hundred and twenty" be struck out of the clause, and the words "Two hundred and seventy" be inserted in their stead.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the words "three hundred and twenty," in order to insert the words "two hundred and seventy."—(Sir Hugh Cairns.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that his proposal would cause a great saving in the local police expenditure of Belfast. At page 10 of the evidence the hon. and learned Gentleman would find recommendations that the police force should be from 400 to 500 for Belfast. He hoped the Committee would adopt his proposal of making the maximum number 450, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not persist with his Amendment. If, however, the Committee were of opinion that the number should be 400, and not 450, as he had no very strong feeling on the point, he would give way.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he thought that the people of Belfast ought to be satisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), as it would reduce the cost of their police.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he doubted whether there would be any saving if the proposal of the right hon. Baronet were adopted, for the superannuations to which it would lead must be taken into account. For several years to come Belfast would have to pay a greater police rate than it had hitherto paid, as compared with Cork. He contended that Belfast ought to have
  990
  a larger police force than even that which was now proposed.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, he thought that in the interest of the men themselves the number should be ample, as the night duty especially was very trying.
  LORD NAASsaid, that all the witnesses examined were of opinion that 400 would do the work perfectly, including night duty. If 400 were ample, they ought to fix that number now definitely that the people might know the strength of their police force.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) would persevere in his intention to give effect to the spirit and scope of the recommendations of the Commissioners, so that any future attempt at disturbance might be at once quelled.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, it was idle to talk of the number of police necessary to quell a riot when it once got to a head. Four hundred and fifty would be just as ineffective for that object as 400. The question was—what is to be the ordinary police force? He trusted that the right hon. Baronet would adhere to the evidence of his own officer of constabulary, who said that 400 were amply sufficient.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to inquire the proportion the 450 men proposed bore to the total population of the town.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that the proportion would be one policeman to every 350 of the population.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the proportion extraordinarily large. In London the proportion was one constable to every 500 of the population.
  Question put, "That the words 'three hundred and twenty' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 61: Majority 21.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Provision as to Officers of the Constabulary Force in Belfast, and their Salaries.)
  In reply to Lord NAAS,
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was intended to send a person to Belfast who would hold the office of Inspector of; Constabulary, but that he would not necessarily be one of the county Inspectors. He would be paid entirely out of the local rates of Belfast.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he had been authorized by the corporation of Belfast

  991
  to propose, as an Amendment, that the salary of the Inspector should be £500 instead of £400 a year.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought the lesser sum quite sufficient, the more especially considering that the salaries of the stipendiary magistrates had been reduced. He could not understand the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's liberality.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he had moved the Amendment with the view of securing the services of a competent person; but if the Government thought they could obtain the services of such a man as was recommended by the Commissioners in their Report, for £400 a year—at which he would be very much surprised—he should most gladly withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Extra Remuneration for Night Duty.)
  LORD NAASsaid, there was a question whether the constabulary were bound to perform night duty in towns or not, and the proposal in the clause, which seemed to recognize that the constabulary were not so bound, seemed to him very objectionable. In some towns of Ireland a large amount of property was nightly exposed to depredation, the constabulary making no effort to protect it, and the consequence was that private watchmen had to be appointed at considerable expense. This was undesirable, and he suggested that this 6d. per night should be added to the general pay of the force, so as to avoid establishing a distinction between night duties and the general duties of the constabulary.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS SIR HUGH CAIRNS moved, as an Amendment, the addition of words limiting the payment of 6d. to men who performed the duty of watching during the whole of the night watch.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was proposed to tell off a certain number of men every day for night watching, and these men would receive 6d. a night. It was not intended that they should receive the money without performing the whole duty.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that whatever might be the intention of the right hon. Baronet, the words of the clause would authorize this payment to the constabulary if they were on duty for any portion of the night. He did not see why the right hon. Baronet should adhere to
  992
  the words of this clause if he could give no reason against the adoption of the Amendment. He hoped the Committee would see the necessity of the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was willing to postpone the clause.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he was anxious that the 6d. should be paid for the whole bonâ fide night watch. Perhaps the maximum number of men to receive it might be fixed.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it might be better to consider whether any additional words were required in the clause.
  LORD NAASsaid, that as the clause now stood the whole of the constabulary might be paid this 6d. per night.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, that Clonmel was practically unprotected during the night.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that he hoped there would be no mistake, and that it was to be understood that the Government took upon itself the responsibility that the whole duties of the night watch should be efficiently discharged by the constabulary. With this understanding he was willing to accept the proposal of the Home Secretary that the point should be reserved for consideration.
  LORD NAASsaid, that perhaps it would be better to postpone the clause and bring up a new one on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Superannuation, &c, of Constabulary.)
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he wished to ask if it were intended to superannuate all the police in Belfast. Were any of them to be drafted into the general police force. It was objectionable to give compensation to such of them as were young men and fit for duty, and to charge such compensation on the local funds of Belfast.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSagreed that it was very hard the town should be burdened with providing compensation for a body of men many of whom were in the prime of life, and were willing to enter the constabulary force. It appeared that all these men, with the exception of fifteen, were under forty years of ago. It also appeared that the objection to receive them into the constabulary was that a number of them were married, and that the constabulary only admitted a certain proportion of married men. He thought that

  993
  if these men were willing to go and live in barracks, the fact of their being married men ought not, under the circumstances, to prevent their admission into the constabulary. It might be said that the clause only permitted the Town Council of Belfast to grant superannuations, and did not compel them to do so. It was not likely, however, that the Town Council would turn off these men without some superannuation or allowance. The Commissioners advised that these men should be taken into the constabulary. He moved to add to the clause the following words:—
  "Provided always, that, notwithstanding any regulation in respect of the appointment of constables to the constabulary force in Ireland, the Inspector General of the constabulary force in Ireland shall appoint to be constable in the lastmentioned force any constable of the said local police force whose age does not exceed forty years, and to whose conduct and character no fair objection can be made."
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he would support such an addition. It was stated that there was a difficulty in filling up the constabulary force to the proper number, and if so that was an additional reason for filling up the deficiency by appointing these men.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that many of those men were married, and the difficulty was that if they were sent to barracks in different parts of the country there would be no accommodation for their wives and families. Of course those who were eligible would enter the constabulary force if they pleased. Until within the last year or so there had been no superannuations of the police out of the borough rates of Belfast.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was of opinion that if the hon. and learned Gentleman read the Amendment again he would hardly think it right to press it. Many of the members of the local force might be unfit for the general constabulary in consequence of their want of sufficient height or sufficient strength. At all events, it was obvious that the matter could not be disposed of now, and without notice.
  MAJOR O'REILLYsaid, the Committee would probably agree in the opinion that it was advisable in such cases to pursue the ordinary course and give due notice of Amendments. He agreed in the spirit of the Amendment, which was, that all eligible men of the Belfast local police force should be taken into the general constabulary of Ireland, so that they might not
  994
  be left with a claim for compensation for the remainder of their lives. He would suggest the insertion of the word "may "instead of "shall "in the Amendment, as some difficulty might be found in dealing with the cases of married men.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he was willing to adopt the word "may "instead of "shall."
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, he was of opinion that the clause would not work. A "constable "was equivalent to a sergeant in the line, and it was proposed by this clause to enlist the privates in the local force as "constables"into the constabulary.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, by the Amendment as it now stood the Inspector General would be authorized or obliged to place the men who were to be reenlisted in "the last-mentioned force;" but that was the Belfast force.
  LORD NAASsaid, it referred to the constabulary force in Ireland.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was exactly under the same impression as his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), and that showed the necessity of giving notice of Amendments.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 struck out.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. LANIGANsaid, that in consequence of 300 additional constabulary being sent to the county of Tipperary several years back, the ratepayers had paid for their maintenance since then £90,000 and upward. It appeared that the Government had no power to withdraw that additional force unless memorialized so to do by the magistrates, and he therefore proposed the following new clause to give the power to the Government:—
  "Whereas by the Act of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 72, s. 5, it is enacted that in all cases where an additional constabulary force shall have been certified by the magistrates of any county at large at any general or special sessions as now by law provided to be necessary for the due execution of the law within such county, and shall be appointed in conformity with such certificate, from and after the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the lord-lieutenant or other chief governor or governors to remove such additional police force whenever the said lord-lieutenant or chief governor or governors shall consider such additional force no longer necessary for the due preservation of the peace in such county."
  MR. BRADYseconded the Motion.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought that the proper persons to express an opinion on the subject were the magistrates, and the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin might not be so well able to judge of the expediency of retaining or withdrawing the additional police. The clause appeared to be a mere recital.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought the enactment of such a clause would be most objectionable. He admitted, however, the grievance to a particular county, as that of Tipperary, of being burdened with a large force when the circumstances which had required its presence had passed away. The Government, however, would consider the matter with a view to providing a remedy for the evil complained of. He thought that where an additional force had been sent to a county on the requisition of the magistrates they should not be removed without their consent.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he thought it extraordinary that when the grievance was acknowledged the right hon. Gentleman should oppose the simple means proposed of remedying it. The clause only gave the Lord Lieutenant power to remove men from any county where they were no longer wanted.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he coincided with the hon. Members for Cashel and Clonmel (Mr. Lanigan and Mr. Bagwell) in the necessity of this clause, as he knew from experience the existence of the grievance it was proposed to remedy. The case was this. A certain number of agents who were, perhaps, magistrates, made themselves so disagreeable as to induce a consciousness of their own personal danger. They therefore called upon their brother magistrates to join them in a requisition to the Lord Lieutenant to have an extra force of police sent down to their district. The police were accordingly sent down, not for the general protection of life and property, but to calm the apprehensions and give confidence to a few individuals who had made themselves obnoxious to some of the people. Now these police were often continued in the district long after their services were needed. It therefore appeared to him to be absolutely necessary to give the power proposed by the clause to the Lord Lieutenant or local authorities to remove this burden off the particular county.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he did not think it desirable to insert such a clause in the Bill. It appeared to him that the police ought not to be withdrawn from any
  996
  place without the consent of the magistrates under whose authority they had been summoned. Where the magistrates were not agreed that the extra police stations were unnecessary they ought not to be abolished; but the number of men might be reduced, as had recently been done in the county of Mayo.
  MR. LANIGANsaid, he would withdraw the clause.
  Schedule struck out.
  On Question that the preamble be agreed to,
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that he hoped the Government would consider the propriety of introducing into the constabulary force stationed in large towns and places a system for distinguishing them by numbers on their uniforms or otherwise, by which the individuals of that force could be easily identified, as in London and other places. Within the last two weeks even cases had occurred in Ireland in which complaints had been made against certain members of that force for misconduct, but in consequence of the great difference of testimony as to their identity the magistrates were in doubt how to act.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the matter should be referred to the Inspector General and considered. At the same time, it was fair to remember that the police in Cork and Galway were not distinguished by numbers, and no complaints had arisen on that score.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.

  [BILL 113.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORE CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would ask the House, if they did not object to the principle of the Bill, to agree to its being now read a second time proformâ, as several clauses would have to be re-considered with reference to the disposition of the funds of the Hospital. If the House would consent to adopt the course he proposed, the Government would present the Bill for their consideration on a future day. He would not now enter upon the details, and his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had already explained the principle of the measure.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Clarence Paget.)
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I do not understand in what position I am placed by the proposition of the noble Lord. I am sorry my hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) is not in the House, as there are several points on which I intended to ask for explanations with regard to the intentions of the Admiralty. I do not wish unfairly to delay the Bill, but I think I had better now state the points which I regard with doubt, and on which I desire to elicit from the Government some statement of what their intentions are. There are, no doubt, faults in the management of Greenwich Hospital which call for reform, and as this Bill professes to reform them, I suppose we ought not to object to it. On one point everybody is agreed: it is that the double government of Greenwich Hospital is bad, and no doubt my hon. Friend is right in putting an end to it. Another point is the intention of the Government to diminish the number of inmates and increase the number of out-pensioners. I have no very strong opinion on that, but I believe from the inquiries I have made there is a general concurrence on the subject, and I am willing to think the proposal is right. But it appears to me that the Admiralty is mistaken as to what will be the immediate effects of their proposal. They are to reduce the number to about 600, it being now about 1,400; but I believe this, upon their own showing, cannot take place until a considerable lapse of time. The proposal is to give out-pensions to all those not absolutely infirm and physically incapable of leaving the Hospital, so that they may live with their own families. This is to be done by granting pensions of 5d. per day, to be raised to 9d. per day after seventy years of age. But at present there are money allowances—in addition to clothing, board, lodging, and all the comforts of the establishment—of 3s., 4s., and 5s. per week; and 5d. per day, according to Cocker, is just one penny less than the least of these sums. I have reason to believe that not more than 100—out of the 1,400 inmates—at the utmost will be willing to accede to the terms offered by the Government and become out-pensioners. The House will see that this raises an important question as to the future government of the Hospital, respecting which I am anxious to have some information from the Admi-
  998
  ralty. I find nothing in the Bill with regard to the future government of the Hospital. I may, perhaps, be told to look at the Report of the Committee, and that it is the intention of the Government to carry out its recommendations. I cannot help thinking it would have been better to have given the mode of government a place in the Bill, because that Report, although laid upon the table of the House, has no authority and gives no power. If, however, I am to draw my information on this point from the Report, I confess it involves me in serious doubt, if it be intended to place it on the same footing as Haslar and Netley, and to make it a mere hospital in the ordinary sense of the word for sheltering sick, wounded, or disabled sailors. This magnificent establishment has always been regarded by sailors who have served their country long and with distinction as a refuge for their old age; but I understand you are to have no Governor. That office, which has been so long an object of ambition to our naval heroes, is to be superseded by a captain superintendent with a staff. I confess that I regard this part of the scheme with very great doubt, and I should be glad to hear that the future government of the institution will be on a scale more consonant with what Greenwich Hospital has hitherto been. Another point on which I wish for information is the intention of the Government with regard to naval officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield says the Hospital was not intended for naval officers, and that naval officers ought not to be there. I cannot subscribe to that doctrine. I cannot conceive that by the words Used in the charters naval officers are excluded; but if it were so, I think by long prescription and long usage officers have a right to a place in Greenwich Hospital. I, for one, should deprecate any change which would deprive such a deserving class of men of the benefits of the establishment. The Bill on this point does not disclose the intentions of Government. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: Look at Clause 5.] Yes; Clause 5 says that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to appoint and grant such pensions as she shall think fit to naval officers, &c, but Her Majesty had that power before, and the clause leaves the House in complete ignorance as to the intentions of the Admiralty on this subject. The Report of the Committee, however, proposes to add to the number of pensions seventy-eight

  999
  additional ones of £50, £65, and £80, according to circumstances, and to flag officers £150 a year, as compensation for the rights which are to be abolished. It is a serious question whether the officers of the Royal Navy will consider that a satisfactory substitute for Greenwich Hospital. But if this plan is to be adopted and pensions substituted, I beg to remind the Admiralty that they have made a serious omission by leaving out all mention of the surgeons, and an important and growing class of naval officers, the engineers. So far as the plan of management of the property of the Hospital is revealed by the Bill, it appears to have been framed on the.principle—"open your mouth, and But your eyes, and see what the Admiralty will give you." The Bill appeals everywhere to a degree of confidence in the Admiralty, which I am afraid this House has always been slow to entertain. I believe there is a necessity for reform, but it appears to me from this Bill as if the Admiralty had set to work heedlessly to alter everything; and with one single exception—that of a want of audit of accounts and a sufficient check on the management—I am inclined to believe the management now is better than that which is proposed to take its place. It is now managed by Commissioners; but those Commissioners cannot take any important step without consent of the Board of Admiralty. This Bill sweeps away Commissioners, Admirals, and Governors, and leaves nothing and nobody but a captain superintendent, who is to be an officer of the Admiralty under their control, and liable to be discharged at any moment. If that proposition be carried out, either the property will be administered by an irresponsible officer, or the whole management will be thrown into the hands of the Board of Admiralty, which is already overwhelmed with work. It would have been much better to have appointed a body of independent Commissioners acting under patent from the Crown, but subject to the check of the Admiralty; and I must confess that the sketch of government made by Sir Richard Bromley, at the request of the Duke of Somerset, was much better. I wish also to express some doubts as to Clause 20, which provides that the cost of managing the Schools and Hospital shall be defrayed out of the sums voted by Parliament for that purpose. Reading the words of the Bill with those in the Report of the Commission, I find that the expenditure of the Hospital is to be included
  1000
  every year in the Navy Estimates; that the amount of that expenditure is to be voted out of the Consolidated Fund, and that the sum so advanced is to he repaid out of the revenues of the Hospital Estates. What possible reason can there be for this confusion of the expenditure of the Hospital with that of the navy? The first duty of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty in moving the Naval Estimates will be to explain that the item under the head of "Greenwich Hospital" has no earthly connection with those Estimates. Then, again, why is this large sum to be paid in the first instance out of funds to be voted by Parliament for the purpose? why cannot Greenwich Hospital, with its enormous revenue, pay its own expenses? This expenditure will increase the Navy Estimates by about £150,000 a year, and on the other side the income, about £180,000 a year, will appear—a blundering arrangement, which appears to me to be very likely to realize the fears expressed in the Minute of the Board of Admiralty of November 28, 1864, which says that—
  "On the one hand there will he a danger that property left for a special purpose will he merged into the general property of the nation, but on the other hand the expenditure will be subject to the revision of Parliament."
  I quite admit that a full statement should be laid on the table of the House of the receipts and expenditure; but I feel that as the matter is now placed there is great danger of the confusion apprehended by the Board of Admiralty in 1864. I ask the House to give its serious attention to another point, and I take the first opportunity of laying it before them. The 13th clause professes to be a general clause, and it is so very general in its terms that I doubt very much if any hon. Member who reads it without being in the secret will understand what it means. It is one that does not generally find favour in this House, and the less it is resorted to the better. The clause, though the Government has not the candour to own it, is directed against one individual—namely, Sir Richard Bromley. It is not the time for me to enter into his case, because my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) has given notice of his intention to take an opportunity of bringing the treatment of Sir Richard Bromley in a specific form before the House; but I have no hesitation in saying that this clause ought not to be allowed to remain in the Bill, and I hope the Government will in good time re-consider it. Serious

  1001
  differences have arisen between Sir Richard Bromley, and I will not say the Admiralty, because they have acted in a fair spirit in the matter, but between Sir Richard Bromley and the Treasury. These differences have raised a question of law, not as to whether he has been treated with generosity, but whether he has been treated legally, and the object of the 13th clause is to deprive him of any remedy he may have at law for the ill-treatment he believes himself to have received. I hope, however, that hon. Members of all parties will say that nothing of the kind ought to have been introduced into the Bill. Sir Richard Bromley is an eminent public servant, and his services have been frankly and fairly acknowledged by the Admiralty and the Treasury. My belief, in common with others, is, that the arrangement which has been made is not only ungenerous and inconsistent with a due regard for his public services, but that it is at variance with the law, and that it can be upset in our courts of justice. Whether he will resort to that remedy it is not for me to say; but I submit that the House ought not to allow a clause to be introduced into this Bill which will for one moment prejudice the right which every man thinks he has of redressing any grievance by appealing to the laws of his country. I am anxious, like many others, to see this noble charity placed on a proper basis, and I hope that what I have stated will be appreciated in the spirit in which I have made it. The observations I have made have not been dictated in any party spirit, but for the benefit of those who are the recipients of the charity.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had to express his gratification at the introduction of a Bill to deal with the gross abuses of Greenwich Hospital, shown to exist by the Report which was presented some time since to that House. It appeared that the number of seamen had been diminishing, while the expenses of the administration had been increasing, until at length every unfortunate seaman was condemned to suffer all the vexation and inconvenience of being in the Hospital at an expense to the charity of £60 or £70 a year, being double what he could live for in greater happiness and comfort in another place. The Government had brought in a comprehensive measure for dealing with the abuses which struck at the root of the evil, but it was so comprehensive that he wished to ask for some explanations of the measure. The Bill proposed to place the whole of the funds
  1002
  of the Hospital under the entire control and management of the Admiralty. They were to have the discretionary power of appropriating the income for the benefit of the officers and seamen of Her Majesty's navy. Some schemes had been laid on the table of the House, but the Admiralty, in the future administration of the affairs of the Hospital, might say that they would be guided by circumstances as they arose, and would regard those schemes as the views only of the moment. The main feature of the present scheme, it was said, was to bring back the Hospital to the original purposes for which the structure was to be appropriated—namely, a place for the reception of persons disabled in body or in mind, and not to make it a mere asylum where the men were to live under a kind of semi-naval discipline. When it was said that this great charity was to be re-constituted upon an entirely new basis, he was entitled to ask the House to consider for what purposes it was originally founded. To ascertain what those purposes were they must look to the original charter and to the Acts which were passed before the completion, of the building, or certainly before the dotation of the Derwentwater estates, which formed the principal part of the landed property now vested in the Hospital. They found that in the first instance the charity was established for the benefit of seamen in Her Majesty's service, and he could not conceive by what rule of construction they applied the word seamen to officers, as was suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. Seamen alone were intended to be benefited by the first charter. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Are not officers seamen?] Officers were persons who commanded seamen, and the old charter showed what were called common seamen in contradistinction to officers. The year after the charter was granted an Act of Parliament was passed, which more particularly defined the purposes of the foundation, and extended its benefits to all seamen, both of the Royal and mercantile marine. The language was of the most comprehensive character, and included mariners, seamen, watermen, fishermen, bargemen, or seafaring men, who, by any wounds or other accidents, should be disabled for future sea service, and not able to maintain themselves comfortably; and relief was also to be given to the children and widows. At that time there were no endowments and no funds for

  1003
  keeping up the Hospital, and a provision was made whereby a deduction of 6d. was made from the pay of all seamen, whether serving the Crown or in any vessel whatever belonging to any of the subjects of England or any of His Majesty's dominions, which clearly showed that the benefits of the Hospital were to be applied to seamen of every kind. In 1697 an Act was passed which showed more conclusively that every kind of seaman was to partake of the benefits of the Hospital, and it directed, in order to prevent favouritism and intrigues, that relief should be given to seamen according to their seniority of registration. So that the seamen of the commercial marine were to have the preference over the seamen of the Royal Navy if they were older on the registry. Another Act was passed in 1723, whereby power was given to the Admiralty to select persons for the benefit of the Hospital. This was in time of war, and doubtless intended to give preference to those seamen who had suffered in the war. Those Acts were all passed before the Hospital was in working and efficient order. An Act was subsequently passed which modified the practice of taking the men from the register, and it was not considered as a necessary precedent for obtaining a pension. Therefore the question arose, what were the rights of the commercial navy to a participation in the benefits of Greenwich Hospital. Between 140 and 150 years 6d. a month was exacted from the pay of the commercial navy towards supporting Greenwich Hospital, until from that and other sources it had accumulated a fund of £2,900,000. That sum was mainly made up from the contributions of the mercantile navy, and when the Admiralty proposed to sweep it away and place it at their own absolute disposal for the Royal Navy, it was but right that that House should inquire whether some consideration ought not to be shown to the commercial marine of the country, and he thought that a very good opportunity offered for their doing some justice to that large body of deserving men who had received but light treatment from the Admiralty. By the proposed arrangement there would be more room than would be required in Greenwich Hospital, and as that building should be kept in reserve for any future contingency he thought the Government would only be doing an act of justice to the mercantile marine if they appropriated a part of the building for the purposes of the present
  1004
  inadequate and inconvenient floating Hospital in the River Thames. When he considered the want of such accommodation, and that most of the sixpences were deducted from the bargemen and lightermen of the River Thames, who were always ready to serve the navy, and in time of war provided many thousands of the finest men of the navy, he thought they had a claim which ought to be somewhat respected by the Government before they appropriated in this sweeping manner the whole of the endowment for the benefit of the Royal Navy. The claims of the seamen ought to be respected when the Government were so sensitive about the claims of the officers of the navy. On what ground were these funds to be directed to the use of the officers of the navy? Why, because they had been employed in mismanaging the institution, and had received the benefit of certain salaries and allowances. Now, he thought that the most shadowy claim that could be conceived. No doubt these officers might have had some claim if they had contributed their shillings or their pounds; but they had contributed nothing whatever out of their pay. He trusted that some assurance would be given that the unoccupied portion of the Hospital would be appropriated to the use of distressed seamen, and that some part of the funds would be appropriated to the maintenance of a Hospital for the merchant seamen of the port of London.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, the second reading of the Bill afforded a legitimate opportunity for making some observations on the faults of commission and omission in the Bill. He thought the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets well deserving of consideration with respect to the claims of the merchant seamen on the funds of the Hospital, but the hon. Member had somewhat overstated the claims of that class of men. The hon. Member admitted that by the Act of 1834 a charge of £20,000 a year had been thrown on the Consolidated Fund in lieu of the seamen's sixpences, and consequently for thirty years they had not paid anything towards the Hospital. That reduced their actual money claim to very narrow dimensions. But as the present was a great scheme for the re-constitution of the Hospital, he thought it worthy of consideration whether a portion of the benefits of the Hospital might not be extended to that body of men. He might be met by the objection that there were

  1005
  no funds for the purpose. But if he could show that a large saving might he effected by the plan which he was about to sketch out, perhaps the House would be inclined to listen to his suggestions. There was one thing to which he entertained a strong objection. He saw in the Bill an unmistakable attempt on the part of the Treasury to escape from the responsibility and obligations imposed upon it by law, and he thought that attempt ought to be strenuously resisted. It had been said that the Bill should be read by the light of the joint Report of the Committee, the Treasury, and the Commissioners of the Hospital. Now, as there was a great principle contained in the 35th clause, he wished to point out the objection which he entertained to it. The Treasury claimed £15 per head on the whole number of men between 600, the future maximum, and 1,400, the present average of inmates—namely, 800. The sum so saved to the country would ultimately reach the very largo amount of £12,000 per annum. He could not understand why the Hospital should be a loser by every man who was discouraged, and in fact precluded, from entering it. The Treasury had always maintained that the country was a gainer upon each pensioner who entered the Hospital to the full extent of any pension to which he might have been entitled from the country. But to save the amount of the pension to which the men had so become entitled at the expense of the Hospital funds was an unjust attempt at evading an obligation, and so strongly did he feel this that it was his intention to move the omission of the clause, and take the sense of the House upon it. He would next refer to a subject which was not dealt with in the Report, and respecting which he hoped he should receive a satisfactory assurance from the noble Lord. He referred to the livings in the gift of the Greenwich Hospital trustees, and as all those livings were in the division of the county which he represented, he took an especial interest in that subject. He was bound to say, without passing any reflection upon the occupants of the livings, who were exemplary men, that the principle on which they had been filled was not altogether a satisfactory one. They had hitherto been considered as places of retirement for the old chaplains in the navy. Now, he did not think that a man who had spent the best portion of his life at sea was always the most competent to perform the paro-
  1006
  chial duties of a remote district in a wild and mountainous region, cut off from that congenial society to which he had been accustomed, nor did he think such a cure an adequate reward for past services. Looking at the matter in either way, he should like to see these livings dealt with in a different manner. He thought they might be sold, and the purchase money applied to increasing the endowments, and providing a retiring fund for naval chaplains. There was one of these livings which stood on a totally different footing from the others. There were eight livings altogether in the gift of the trustees of Greenwich Hospital. Seven of them were situated in one particular district—North Tyne. Inasmuch as the estates in which those seven livings were situated had been sold to the Duke of Northumberland no moral claim strictly attached to the Admiralty as landowners in respect to them. But in regard to one of them—Alston.—their position was totally different. The trustees for the time being of the Hospital were the patrons of the living; they were the impropriators of all the tithes; they were the owners of the royalties; they were the largest landed proprietors in that part of the country, and they derived an annual average income of something like £10,000 from the mines alone. They were bound, therefore, by every imaginable tie, real and moral, to supply the spiritual wants of the population, who were the creators of their wealth. The principle of local claims had been admitted by Parliament, and forced upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He wished to call the attention of the House to the miserable position of the living of Alston, which place was the source of the mining wealth of the Hospital. The full income of the vicar was £191 a year, out of which he received from the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital the large sum of £12 13s. l½d. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: And his half-pay.] Out of that living two ecclesiastical districts had been carved. The Incumbent of Garrygill had a salary of £90, of which Greenwich Hospital contributed £30. The Incumbent of Nent-head had an income of £110, of which £45 was given by Greenwich Hospital, and £45 by the London Lead Company. The whole amount paid by Greenwich Hospital towards the spiritual instruction of the district was very little more than £100. He thought he had stated quite sufficient to show that the amount contributed to the living of

  1007
  Alston was far below what it ought to be. That district was a lead-mining country, and the occupation was an unhealthy one to the persons employed, and as the trustees were exempt from poor rates he thought that something more might be done for a population which contributed so materially to the resources of the Hospital. He had some time ago stated the facts to the noble Duke now at the head of the Admiralty, and trusted that due attention would be paid to the subject. He could not concur in the alarm which was felt by his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) respecting this Bill. The reasons which his right hon. Friend had urged against the Bill were the main grounds on which he (Mr. Liddell) had supported it. On looking into the affairs of Greenwich Hospital, he had come to the conclusion that everything there required reform. An enormous, princely revenue had been wasted in establishment charges and unnecessary expenditure, and not for the benefit of the sailors. His desire was to see the benefits of the institution extended so as to confer the greatest amount of good upon the sailor; and although some remorse might be felt at the idea of such a noble building being cut down to the level of a mere infirmary, he believed that a liberal scale of out-pension, which would enable the men to pass their days in their native places with their families and amongst their early associations, would be preferred by them to their present magnificent but monotonous residence. On these grounds, although he reserved his right to move the rejection of the clause he had referred to in Committee, he did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. J. J. POWELLsaid, he thanked the right hon. Baronet opposite for having raised a discussion of the Bill on its second reading, because a most inconvenient practice prevailed of reserving such discussions until the Motion for going into Committee, by which course important discussions were often evaded. The observations which he wished to make had reference to that part of the Bill which provided how the charities of the Hospital were to be expended. He did not deny that officers were seamen, but he asked whether the word seaman, as used in the charters, or in any Act relating to the Hospital, was ever intended to include officers? No doubt, Lord Nelson and Lord Cochrane were seamen, but no one could suppose that it was ever intended to benefit them by that
  1008
  charter. He thought all the charter meant was that seamen incapable of further service at sea were to be entitled to the benefit of the charter. He feared that, if a different construction prevailed, pensions might be granted out of funds intended originally for common sailors, to officers as well as to common sailors, and that this charity would follow the fate of other charities—the educational charities especially—originally intended for poor men's sons—and be diverted from its original purpose to purposes for which it was never intended. If once they introduced the principle into this charity of granting pensions to officers out of funds unquestionably intended for sailors, they might depend upon it that, according to what had taken place in other charities, great abuses would be the consequence.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTdeeply regretted that the situations of Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Hospital were to be abolished. Speaking from his own early recollections he knew that such offices were looked upon by the young men of the navy as encouragements. The offices proposed to be abolished were important to the dignity of the Hospital as an asylum, and officers of the greatest reputation and gallantry had been selected to fill them. He might, without disrespect to others, instance Admirals Lord Hood, Sir Richard Keats, Sir Thomas Hardy, and the present possessor, Sir James Gordon. A painful feeling would be excited among the inmates if men of high character were displaced and were no longer to preside over them. He did not agree with those who thought that officers were not entitled to share in the benefits of the Hospital. The Hospital was endowed in 1694 by William and Mary, and in 1703 the first hundred persons were admitted into it. That officers were entitled to share in its benefits was proved by an epitaph on an officer who died there of his wounds in 1709—
  "Here lies the body of Mr. PEARCE WELCH, Lieutenant of H.M. Ship Salisbury. In the year 1703, on the 10th of April, they engaged a part of the Dunkirk squadron, in which he lost his lower jaw and part of his tongue by a musquet ball, after which he lived six years, four months, and twelve days, by liquids only. He was First Lieutenant of the Royal Hospital at Greenwich, and died the 22nd day of August, 1709, aged 59 years. His appointment to Greenwich Hospital was in 1704. He died in 1709."
  The Hospital had been endowed by Queen Anne, George I., and by George II.,

  1009
  and by the Royal Navy. Its land had largely increased, and its mortgages were now all paid off, with the exception of an annuity to a female of £1,000. It had been said that the navy had not contributed to the Hospital. The fact was that 5 per cent was paid by the navy on all prize money for the benefit of the Hospital, and there were certain men whose names were on a ship's books called widows' men, all of whose pay and allowances went for the benefit of the Hospital. Up to 1819 no less a sum than £400,000 had been paid to the Hospital as freight money. The sixpences of the merchant seamen did not amount to much. He could not understand, therefore, why naval officers should not be admitted to the benefits of the charity. The benefits of it ought to be given to those who were wounded or maimed, or unfit for service at sea. It was desired by the Government to turn this magnificent asylum—the admiration of the whole world—into an infirmary like Haslar Hospital. The men who went to Haslar returned, when they were able, to their profession; but Greenwich Hospital was intended for those who could never return to their profession. It was not an infirmary, but an asylum for old and meritorious seamen. He hoped he should not live to see it converted into an infirmary. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had told them that it was intended to reduce the establishment to 600 men. It now contained 1,400 men. Unless larger pensions were granted they never would get many of these 1,400 to leave the Hospital. These men were provided with clothing, with food in abundance, and with nurses; and if they left the Hospital how could it be known whether or not they would be provided with all these things? If they were allowed to return to the Hospital his objection to the Bill would be in some degree mitigated, but if they were not allowed to return a great injustice would be done to them. He was himself earnestly devoted to his profession, and should ever deplore the day when the magnificent asylum of Greenwich should be converted into an infirmary.
  MR. HOWARDsaid, he could confirm the remarks of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) as to the bad condition of the parishes from which the Greenwich Hospital estate derived its revenues. In Alston, a parish of more than 30,000 acres, and with 6,000 people, chiefly employed in lead mining, only
  1010
  £100 a year was given out of the estate to the vicar and towards the two chapels there. Yet this parish, in which few people of position or property were to be found, produced £8,000 to the Hospital. This was a very inadequate provision for the clergy, especially as the livings were otherwise wretchedly provided for; and he hoped that out of the revenues of this great estate something more would be done to amend the condition of the incumbents.
  MR. INGHAM, as a Member of the Royal Commission, said, he was of opinion that, though the words bearing on this point were general, the benefits of the charity were intended not for the merchant service but only for seamen in service under the Crown. That officers were not admissible was proved by the history of the Hospital. No doubt many had lived and died there, but they had been employed in the government of the Hospital. The fact that officers were not intended as objects of the charity seemed proved conclusively by one of the old rules, that if a seaman was promoted as master's mate he should be entitled to admission notwithstanding such promotion. He thanked the Government for the Bill. He heartily approved of the abolition of the system of double government, and had no doubt that by unity of action much good would be effected. He was satisfied that the allowing of pensioners to live amongst their friends would result in an increase of their comforts. He could not, however, but regret the superannuation of the Governor, because it would have given him great satisfaction to see some distinguished officer residing at the Hospital.
  MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, that the House was much indebted to the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) for bringing forward this subject. The fact that eight officers were selected out of the first 100 persons upon whom the advantages of the Hospital were conferred proved that officers were intended to share in the benefits of the institution. He should like, however, to know from his hon. Friend whether the officers who he stated were to be liberally compensated were to be placed in their former position on the Navy List. Officers of all ranks had been in Greenwich Hospital, and had subsequently by leave gone on the active list. Among the most famous examples were Lord Rodney and Captain Cook, the great circumnavigator of the globe.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to

  1011
  ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) a question with reference to the medical officers. The Commissioners in their Report stated that there was one branch of the establishment in which no reformation was required—the medical branch. He would ask, therefore, how it was that medical officers in the navy were excluded from participation in good service pensions?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that almost every part of this proposal had been criticized, although perhaps the suggestions were as varied as they were numerous. He would, however, endeavour to answer each of the objections which had been urged against this scheme. With respect to the classes by whom the benefits derived from the Hospital funds would be enjoyed, the present condition of things would remain as nearly as possible unaltered. As merchant seamen had, with a few exceptions, which he would explain, never enjoyed the benefits of the Hospital, they did not propose to extend its advantages any further in that direction. The general principle of the Bill was to maintain the existing proportion between the different classes of officers and men for whom the institution had become available; but, at the same time, to extend its benefits among those classes by a more judicious and economical system of management. The present number of in-pensioners was about 1,000; and he believed that the country generally, while he was sure that the navy itself, would prefer that that number should be increased to 5,000 or 6,000 out-pensioners. They purposed acting on the assumption that Greenwich Hospital was intended, so far as the building was concerned, to be for the future an asylum for infirm, helpless, and wounded seamen, and that seamen were not necessarily entitled to be received as inmates merely because they were in receipt of pensions, and because they were unfit for longer service at sea. Starting on that assumption, their endeavour would be to apply the funds of the institution in the most economical way for the general benefit of the navy; at the same time, taking care not to disturb the existing balance of affairs between the Treasury and the Hospital. Having thus stated the general object which they proposed carrying out, he would proceed to bring under the notice of the House more specifically the manner in which that object was to be effected. Taking their past experience for guidance, they intended providing for as many infirm,
  1012
  helpless, and wounded seamen as they might reasonably expect would require relief. Last year there were in the Hospital between 300 and 400 seamen of this class, and at the present moment they numbered somewhat over 400. They had therefore provided for 600, and that provision they deemed to be ample. The other men, who were not infirm or helpless, would be much better in their own homes than within the walls of the Hospital. The gallant Admiral (Admiral Walcott) had asked if the present inmates, after accepting the out-pension, might afterwards return to the Hospital, and the reply he had to make to that question was this—they could return if they became infirm and helpless or required medical relief. They would give up the out-pension and be admitted.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Would the out-pensioners be at liberty to return if they desired?
  MR. CHILDERS: They would not unless they were fit subjects for the Hospital; they must be either wounded, maimed, infirm, or helpless.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that was precisely what he wished.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was exceedingly glad he had satisfied the gallant Admiral on that point. The next question was as to the mercantile navy. He was a little surprised at the arguments of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), but he might set against them those of the opposite extreme, which had recently been several times urged in The Times newspaper. However, he proposed to take the golden mean, which, perhaps, best suited that House, If by a total change of policy they threw on the Treasury an increased charge in consequence of the non-surrender of the out-pension, it was only just that they should compensate the Treasury as far as they could for the loss sustained. The Treasury took the charge at £15 per head, and in justice he did not think they could abandon their reasonable claim to compensation. But it must not be supposed that merchant seamen had no advantages from the Hospital. At the present moment the men were in receipt of very considerable benefits. First of all their children were admitted to the schools. In the second place a sailor who had joined the navy—supposing he came within the rule as to Greenwich Hospital—if he was wounded or maimed or became helpless he would

  1013
  then and there be entitled to the whole benefits of the Hospital. Besides, by a recent rule the benefits of Greenwich Hospital were granted to the members of the Royal Naval Reserve, either after belonging to it ten years, or after having served three years in the navy. With respect to merchant seamen, it was clear that Greenwich Hospital had never been intended as a retreat for them. The charter distinctly laid it down that those coming within the benefits of the Hospital must be "seamen serving on board the ships or vessels belonging to the Royal Navy," or "by reason of age, wounds, or other disabilities incapable of further service at sea, and unable to maintain themselves." The words of the charter were theso—
  "Whereas it is our Royal intent and purpose to erect and found an hospital within our manor of East Greenwich, in our county of Kent, for the relief and support of seamen serving on board the ships or vessels belonging to the Navy Royal of us, our heirs, or successors, or employed in our or their service at sea, who by reason of age, wounds, or other disabilities shall be incapable of further service at sea, and be unable to maintain themselves, and for the sustentation of the widows and the maintenance and education of the children of seamen happening to be slain or disabled in such sea service; and also for the further relief and encouragement of seamen and improvement of navigation."
  The Act which appropriated the income of the Derwentwater estates to Greenwich Hospital, in 1735, was no less distinct and decisive. After detailing the attainder, the Act proceeded in par 2—
  "And it is hereby further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all sums of money, collected and received by the respective receivers of the rents and profits of the said premises so forfeited and vested in His Majesty aforesaid which were not paid into the receipt of the Exchequer on or before the 25th day of March, in the year of our Lord, 1735, and all arrears of rents and profits of the same premises, due and owing from the several farmers, tenants, and occupiers of any part or parts thereof at or on the said 25th day of March, 1735, and all the rents, issues, and profits of the said premises which shall from and after the said 25th day of March, 1735, grow, accrue, or become due and payable for and during His Majesty's said estate and interest in the said premises (subject in the first place to the payment of the said annuity of £100 a year as the same shall grow due, and of all principal and interest due and to grow duo upon the several incumbrances hereinbefore mentioned), shall be issued and applied, and are hereby appropriated and applied to the uses and for the purposes following—that is to say, in the first place for and towards the finishing and completing the building of the said Royal Hospital for seamen at Green, wich, and after the building of the same Royal
  1014
  Hospital shall be completed and finished for and towards the support of the said Royal Hospital for the better maintenance of the seamen of the said hospital, worn out and become decrepit in the service of their country."
  That description applied to the navy, and to the navy only. But the Merchant Seamen's Fund Act of 1747 was still stronger on the point. The preamble of that Act was perfectly precise on the subject, for, after reciting all the Acts with respect to Greenwich Hospital, it used these words—
  "And whereas the said hospital is not capable to receive nor the income thereof sufficient to provide for the seamen in the service of the Royal Navy who are wounded, maimed, or worn out by age, or otherwise entitled to the benefits thereof, so that the seamen in the merchants' service maimed and disabled in fight have seldom, if ever, been admitted into the said hospital, though entitled thereto, and proper objects of charity. And whereas there is no provision at all made by either of the said Acts for such seamen in the merchant service as are maimed or disabled by accidental misfortune, or for those worn out by age, or for the widows or children of such men as shall be killed, slain, or drowned in the said service."
  It was therefore distinctly recited in that Act of 1747 that no provision had been made for any merchant seaman unless he was maimed or disabled in fight repelling the enemy. That was conclusive on the subject. He might also cite the Out-pension Act of 1762. The preamble of that Act was in these words—
  "Whereas by several Acts of Parliament, sundry estates, rents, and sums of money are granted and specially appropriated for and towards the finishing and completing the building of the Royal Hospital for Seamen at Greenwich, and for and towards the maintenance of the seamen in the said Hospital worn out and become decrepit in the service of their country."
  He might also refer to the very interesting debate which took place on this subject in May, 1834. Mr. Lyall said—
  "Merchant seamen were zealously excluded from the benefit of Greenwich."
  Mr. George Frederick Young Said—
  "The Act of William III. was an unjust one, and it was the duty of the House to redress the wrong committed under its sanction. In Greenwich Hospital merchant seamen had no interest at all."
  Mr. Poulett Thompson observed—
  "It had been said merchant seamen were not benefited, but what quibbling was that when after one day's service in the navy they had a title to the Hospital?"
  Lord Sandon also said—
  "Merchant seamen had no interest in the fund, or at best so remote an interest that they could not comprehend it."

  1015
  On that ground—that they had no interest in the Hospital—the demand for the merchant seamen's sixpences was abolished, and a contribution from the Treasury substituted. That was perfectly conclusive on the subject that merchant seamen had no claim whatever on the funds of the Hospital unless wounded or hurt in repelling the enemy. He might go further, and say that Parliament should pause before it gave merchant seamen a title to be maintained in their old age by the public. They were not dealing with 50,000 or 60,000, but with about 300,000 sailors, and if they laid down the rule that seamen of the merchant service were entitled to maintenance in their old age at the public expense, there would be no end to the claims they would have to meet. As well might spinners or weavers or any other class demand a similar provision. It was quite a different question whether a portion of Greenwich Hospital might or might not be applied temporarily to their benefit; although on that point he declined giving any positive opinion. He had very strong doubts whether such an arrangement would not be objectionable; but that was a different question from what they were now discussing. The regulations as to the admissions to the Hospital would remain in statu quo. The right hon. Baronet said the arrangement as to the Vote for the Hospital in connection with the expenditure was a clumsy one, but he did not see how it could be altered. It was a wise principle that the money to be expended on the navy in the form of pensions should come within the view of Parliament; and, though the process might be complicated under which expenditure from separate funds should be provided by the Votes of the House, it was a sound arrangement, which he hoped to be able to justify in Committee. The right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) objected to the 13th clause as affecting a particular person, which he said the Admiralty had not the candour to own. The effect of the 13th clause was that any person who might be employed in the Hospital or receiving a salary there, and who might also be in the receipt of a superannuation, should be entitled to receive the same amount that he at present received from his emoluments and superannuation combined. That clause, he believed, would be found only to apply to one person, and, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman raised the specific point in
  1016
  Committee the Government would be prepared to state how the clause would affect the interests of that person. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed a doubt whether the in-pensioners would take advantage of the option to be offered under the Bill, but a pensioner of the Hospital who now surrendered 10 d. or 1s. a day would be entitled under the new scheme to, if above seventy years of age, 9d. per day additional, and if over fifty-five to 5d. a day; and under a clause of the Bill, in consideration of certain gratuities they now received, the income of some of the pensioners would amount to 2s. a day. He could not but think that many pensioners would prefer these out-pensions to remaining in the Hospital. He had been inundated with letters from pensioners and sailors from all parts of the kingdom, and he had no hesitation in saying that they were satisfied with the new scheme, and that so far as the word "popular" could be used in such a matter the recommendations of the Admiralty were popular in the navy. The hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had asked whether the Admiralty proposed to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners in regard to the sale of the livings of Greenwich Hospital. There had not been time to prepare a clause on this subject, but he intended to move that the Bill be committed at once pro formâ, and he would introduce clauses providing that these livings should ultimately be sold. The proceeds would be divided into two funds—one to improve the retirement of naval chaplains, and another to be applied to increase the value of the livings, some of which were very ill-endowed. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Angerstein) had asked whether the present officers of the Hospital who were lieutenants and commanders would not be allowed to go back to the active list and to get the benefit of a rise to higher rank. He thought that the officers ought to elect one of two things. The Admiralty were going to give them every shilling they now received from the Hospital, and those who now received payment subject to the performance of any duties would be exonerated from those duties. The House would not have approved a scheme which gave these officers all their present emoluments and also all the privileges of the active list. That would be a most outrageous and extravagant proposition, and one which the

  1017
  Government were not prepared to make. The hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had truly stated that the medical officers had been favourably reported upon by the Commissioners, and the Admiralty were not going to take away any part of their employment. On the contrary, they would probably be more fully occupied than at present. But that was no reason for giving more pensions to that class. As to the number of additional officers who were to receive out-pensions, he would state that while they were going to provide out-pensions for 5,000 seamen, the total number of additional officers who would receive a similar benefit would be only seventy-eight, from captains downwards, and ten flag officers. That proposition was not at any rate unjust to the men, and if any complaints at all were made he rather expected it would be said that the Government had not made sufficient provision for the officers. He had also been asked whether the Government did not intend to maintain the posts of Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Hospital. Now, he trusted that the House would resist the idea of maintaining these sinecures at Greenwich, and appointing a Governor and Lieutenant Governor who had nothing to do but fly their flag there. It was the very principle of the Bill to replace a most expensive staff by the staff actually required for the active business of the Hospital, and to employ the money so saved in increasing out-pensioners of the Hospital. If that principle of the Bill were broken into in the case of one sinecure, it would be difficult to resist others. He was happy to assure the hon. and gallant Admiral, however, that the present Governor and Lieutenant Governor would not be disturbed, and that the flag of the former would remain flying during the life of that very distinguished officer. There was no Amendment to the second reading, and he trusted that the Bill would be read a second time unanimously and discussed in a friendly spirit in Committee.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to know whether the expenditure would be provided by Parliament out of the Consolidated Fund, and what would be the future government of the Hospital?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the expenditure of the Hospital would come under the review of Parliament annually by being voted in the Estimates and repaid to the Consolidated Fund out of the
  1018
  Hospital income. In regard to the future government of the Hospital, he believed it would be precisely the same as at Haslar. There would be a Captain or Admiral Superintendent, and three or four Lieutenants for discipline. All the appointments would be staff appointments, and held for the usual short period.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the Government were about to administer the funds of Greenwich Hospital on a better system than that in use at present. The origin of the Hospital was in the charitable feelings of the Sovereign of the day. The country had enjoyed a large amount of credit for its cheap philanthropy, though it had never given anything to its funds. When they were making new arrangements the claims of the merchant seamen, who contributed their sixpences, ought not to be ignored. In the first American war the merchant seamen were pressed into the service, but in many instances the whole of their services were lost so far as any claim of a pension was concerned. They had now the Naval Reserve, and the men who served in it ought to get a portion of the benefits to be derived from the Hospital. The funds had principally been made up from Chatham Chest, the percentage on freights, merchant seamen's sixpences, dead men's effects, &c. The hon. Gentleman had quoted the Act of Parliament of 1747, and the original charter, to show that merchant seamen were not included in the original design. But different circumstances had since occurred, and it would have been a wise plan to give merchant seamen a share in the benefits, since they had for 130 years paid their sixpence a month to the Hospital. They ought to transfer the establishment of the Dreadnought to Greenwich Hospital. They were not likely to return to the monastic system, which was very properly to be done away with, and they would have ample room for the infirmary in Greenwich Hospital; and he did not see why that infirmary should not embrace the merchant service as well as the Royal Navy. They had at Greenwich Hospital—he would not say one of the most distinguished officers, but the most distinguished officer in the navy—one of the heroes of the Nile, who in two single actions had captured his ship, and who was one of the last of the heroes of the late war. Their admirals of the fleet had not seen anything like the service which Sir James Gordon had seen, and it would

  1019
  be a just tribute if they created him an admiral, to preside over that establishment. When the Bill went into Committee he should move a clause that, in the declining years of his life, some substantial recognition of his services be made.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 179]; re-committed for Thursday 8th June.

COLONIAL GOVERNORS (RETIRING PENSIONS) BILL— [BILL 133.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that he begged, on the part of the gentlemen affected by the Bill, to recognize the interest taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) in the colonial service, as indicated by that measure. The Bill was a step in the right direction, although as it stood it did not meet the real requirements of the case and would not work. In introducing such a measure the first object should be to make it a measure which should give, if not universal, at any rate general satisfaction to the service, and not one the benefits of which would be confined to a very small part of it. These gentlemen were sent out to fill high and important posts, often in unhealthful climes. They were not merely colonial officers, but were the immediate representatives of the Sovereign, and after twelve or eighteen years' service, upon salaries out of which it was impossible for them to do justice to their position and save a sixpence, they returned home to be thrown upon the world penniless unless they happened to have private fortunes. The Bill required an active service of eighteen years from a Colonial Governor before he could receive a pension. In other words, he must have held three separate Governments. But at the present moment he believed there were not more than two officers in the service who would receive any advantage from the measure if that condition were insisted upon. One distinguished officer had served seventeen
  1020
  years and two months, and he would be entirely shut out. Colonial Governments were generally granted for six years, and it was very difficult to obtain three in succession. Moreover, where three were obtained it was still difficult to make out the eighteen years, because something or other perhaps occurred which caused a Governor to be recalled a year or two before his full term, and if he had served but sixteen years when he came back he would not be entitled to a pension. He certainly thought the term ought to be fixed at twelve years, and that after such a period of service as that it was neither to the credit nor the dignity of this country that a Colonial Governor should be left without the means of support, unless he possessed a private fortune, which might not be the case. But these gentlemen would be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would fix the term at fifteen years, which would generally cover the time represented by three distinct appointments. Another provision of the Bill was that no Colonial Governor should be entitled to a pension until he was sixty years of ago. That rule was, he knew, based upon the principle adopted in the Civil Service; but an officer of the Civil Service received regular employment till he was sixty, whereas a Colonial Governor, after holding three appointments, depended upon the will of the Secretary of State whether he obtained further employment or not. Supposing a man to have been sent out at thirty to his first Colonial Governorship, and to have served eighteen years mostly in sickly climates, he would return home at forty-eight years of age. He might ask for another Governorship and happen to be refused it; and then he would have to walk up and down the street waiting for his pension for another twelve years until he was sixty. He would suggest, therefore, that instead of sixty the age should be fixed at fifty, always providing that up to sixty the officer should be required to accept employment if it were offered to him. Another provision of the Bill was that where any officer had administered the government of any colony or colonies, and had also been employed in the permanent service of Her Majesty, but was not entitled to a pension under the preceding clauses of the Bill, the number of years passed in such Colonial Governments should, for the purpose of computing any superannuation allowance to be granted to him under the Superannuation Act of 1859, be

  1021
  taken to have been passed in the Civil Service of Her Majesty. Let them omit the word "permanent" from that clause and not cast a slur on the colonial civil service, time spent in which ought to be allowed to count. He would suggest in Committee a modification of the clause. He saw the other day in that great influential organ of public opinion The Times of the 12th inst., a very able article on that subject, from which he would take the liberty of quoting the following passage:—
  "Now, doubtless, this scheme has been copied from the English Superannuation Act. But, as you will see, the cases are not analogous. The civil servant in England, whether in the Treasury, the Admiralty, or the Foreign Office, is during his whole period of service in the receipt of a salary—a salary, too, which is continually increasing with the duration of his employment. He receives this up to the moment when his pension becomes due. The salary and the pension, so to speak, coalesce. He knows no intermediate condition between that of full pay and pension. But the case of a Colonial Governor is wholly different. He is appointed for six years. When the six years are over he is not sure of being appointed to another Government. He has no absolute right or claim to such a re-appointment."
  The writer went on very forcibly to point out the loss in most cases to which the Colonial Governor had to submit. Well, then, at a time when the colonies were attracting so much public attention, when their relations with us were becoming so much more difficult to maintain, and when almost the only possible link of connection was the appointment of the Governors, it was of the utmost importance in introducing a measure of this kind to satisfy the just demands of those officers. It was a I disgrace to this country that a distinguished officer like Sir Francis Head should be able to say—
  "In short, my deliberate opinion about colonial service is this:—The public, in this department, is the worst master a man worth anything can have. Under the present system there is no career, properly so called, and an able man who devotes himself to the colonies makes a great and serious mistake. It may be, in many cases, that a man cannot help himself; but I speak of those who have an opportunity of advisedly selecting their line of life. It is not a comfortable reflection, after spending the best part of one's life in the public service, to find that the provision thought equitable in other cases is denied specially in yours. Whether a man can or cannot do without it, there must be a certain bitterness of feeling generated by the contrast."
  Well, that was the feeling which prevailed, and which was represented in the great organ of public opinion. It was stated in The Times not Very long ago, that—
  1022
  "The colonial pay for all grades and departments is so small that it is almost impossible to save anything, and few men come home without getting into debt or encroaching on their private fortune."
  It was the knowledge of this which had induced his right hon. Friend (Mr. Card well) to bring in the Bill. He knew a case, and his right hon. Friend also knew it, of a man of distinction whose salary in a climate not very good was only £500 a year. What could such a man representing his Sovereign save out of £500 a year? Salaries, which at one time were £5,000 a year and more, had been reduced to £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000. Seeing that greater efficiency had been shown in no other service, when a Bill was introduced with a view of granting pensions to Colonial Governors whose salaries had been reduced to the lowest point, it should have been of such a nature as to give satisfaction, while it did not call upon the House to give its assent to anything which should appear to be exaggerated. At all events, he would say, let justice be done to gentlemen who had done such services to their country.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought that there were many defects in this Bill. In his opinion it was far too exclusive. It proposed only to reward officers who had passed almost their lives in filling these offices. It was not a continuous service, and a man might serve here and there and have great intervening periods between his different appointments, which would deprive him of a pension; and therefore he thought that the Bill would not give that satisfaction to gentlemen in this service that it was desirable they should feel. He was greatly disappointed that the Bill confined pensions exclusively to cases of length of service. The House should consider how appointments of this kind were made, and that they were different from the rest of the Civil Service appointments. The gentlemen in question were selected exclusively at the discretion of the Colonial Minister, and he might or might not continue to employ them. He (Sir William Jolliffe) could not see why the Minister's discretion should be exercised only in this way, nor why in the case of great and distinguished services he should not have the power to recompense those services. He had the honour last year to bring before the House the case of Sir Francis Head, who many years since rendered services to this country which were quite un-

  1023
  paralleled, and who had for all those years been deprived of any compensation for such services. He had been without employment and without reward. He gave up an appointment of £1,000 and acceptor the Governorship of Canada at a moment's notice. He (Sir "William Jolliffe) was quite satisfied that if the way in which Sir Francis Head left the service was thoroughly sifted, the whole world would acknowledge that he had been treated in a manner that was not creditable to the country, which he had served so well. Last year, he (Sir William Jolliffe) made some observations upon this matter, which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) very kindly considered; and, among other things, he had urged that a Bill like this should contain provisions to meet this particular case. His right hon. Friend made some observations as to granting pensions for distinguished services where the length of time had not been served; and this had raised his hopes in reference to Sir Francis Head. This gentleman had received the highest possible testimonials from Lord Durham and many other distinguished persons, showing that his case was one that merited consideration. He (Sir William Jolliffe) had written to him asking his permission to read to the House a letter which he had been so kind as to address to him, and which letter described the case. Sir Francis, after making some comments upon a speech of Mr. Cardwell, delivered on the 11th July, 1864, said—
  "In the printed Bill now before the House of Commons this morning, no such provision exists; and as no one can be more desirous than I am to uphold the monarchical principle that a reward for public services can emanate solely from the Minister of the Crown, I feel that the only course I have to pursue is, without a moment's delay, to request you to be so good as to state in the House of Commons, in my behalf, that in perfect good humour, and without the smallest complaint, I bow to the adverse decision of the Queen's Government, which excludes me in my 73rd year from any portion of the rewards proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers to be given retrospectively to the bygone services of other Colonial Governors.
  "Although I clearly see that it was quite right to omit in this Bill the intended clause in favour of short 'distinguished services,' which, to colonial secretaries, would always be difficult, as well as invidious, to define; yet, I feel that a short special clause, authorizing the Colonial Minister to weigh my services, instead of measuring them, might, without very much injury to the public service, have been introduced. For if, without troops, I repelled the invasion of Canada quickly, is it not rather hard that I should be excluded from reward, simply for the reason that I was not long enough about it? And is it not harder still that Parliament, after passing a 'Canada Rebel Indemnity
  1024
  Act,' should now proceed to pass a 'Colonial Governors' Pension Act,' deliberately excluding me, who suppressed rebellion, from the indemnification they awarded to those who committed rebellion?
  "Lastly, while the President of the United States, at this moment, is expounding, as a republican doctrine, that 'though murder is a crime, arson is a crime, yet that the greatest of all crimes is treason,' is it not rather strange that the monarchical Parliament of Great Britain should, by two separate enactments, not only pardon, but reward the Queen's enemies in Canada; and, on the other hand, neglect one who, by obediently giving up an appointment of £1,000 a year, has literally sacrificed £27,000, by successfully defending, as Her Majesty's representative, in that remote region, her laws, her territory, and her people?
  "It is possible history may argue that I have been, by my country, roughly dealt with. She shall, however, have no just cause to say, that, insensible of the blessings I have enjoyed, I was foolish enough, and ungrateful enough, to die … discontented."
  The letter was honourable to the writer, and a touching appeal to the justice of the House and the country. In Committee he should make a suggestion, and he hoped it would be possible by some clauses in the Bill to embrace the case of Sir Francis Head.
  MR. MOORsaid, he wished to call attention to the case of a gentleman—a friend of whose abilities he had full knowledge—who for fourteen years had administered the affairs of a district in one of our largest colonies, to the satisfaction of the Government, and whose claim to a pension was not included in the provisions of this Bill. He was sent out in 1839, to manage the affairs of a large district (Port Phillip), which happened at that time to be under the administration of the Governor of New South Wales. He held Her Majesty's Commission, not as Lieutenant Governor, but under the new-fangled name of Superintendent. Then the separation of the district from New South Wales took place, and he became Lieutenant Governor. During that time he was sent under the Sign Manual of Her Majesty to New Zealand. It was admitted by the Government that he had served the country for fourteen years with integrity, assiduity, and success; and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) coolly informed him in a despatch, that because for a certain portion of the time he was only called superintendent of the province over which he ruled, he could not participate in the rights which this Bill professed to give. He (Mr. Moor) challenged the

  1025
  production from the whole series of colonial injustice of a harsher ease than this. He had no authority to advocate this gentleman's case, and he dared say that by advocating it he was doing him injury; because he knew the Governmental mind, and that very often the espousal of the cause of a man who had been treated with injustice resulted in his further damage. This gentleman was not a man of territorial possessions; he belonged to no party; neither did he (Mr. Moor) belong to any party; he was an independent Member. It was of no use to appeal to the sense of justice in the House, because he knew that he could not bring to his support either one side of the House or the other, so that between them both, his friend was likely to go to the wall. But he would appeal to the Secretary for the Colonies, who had had all the papers before him, with his strong hand and kindness of heart, to sweep away the quibbling distinction which had been set up, and introduce some words in the Bill which should have the effect of doing justice to a man who, after fourteen years of faithful service, was blind, poor, and destitute.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, his opinion went even further than any which had yet been expressed as to the serious evils involved in this Bill, and if any adequate amount of support was likely to be accorded, he should seek to throw it out on the second reading. The defects of the measure were threefold. It did not do well, but stintingly, what it professes—that is, what was contemplated in the Resolutions passed last year at the instance of the hon. Member for Honiton, who was the virtual author of the Bill; next, it only made provision for those who had served a certain number of years, taking no account of others, who in shorter periods might have rendered more distinguished services to their country; but its principal defect lay in the fact that it was a retrograde step from the whole of our modern colonial policy. A retrograde step is taken in beginning again to charge colonial services upon the Treasury of England. It would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had delivered so many able speeches on this subject, I to defend a measure opposed to all his expressed convictions. In the last century we tried to make the colonies tributary to this country by converting them into fields for the patronage of the British Crown, and seeking to gain com-
  1026
  mercial advantages from them. The attempt to carry out the policy forcibly lost us the most valuable colonies this country ever possessed, and then we went to the other extreme and became tributary to our colonies paying all the expenses of their Government. It was only very recently that we had become convinced of the fallacy of a system which was doing mischief to the colonies themselves, and that we had again retraced our steps, and said to the colonial subjects of Her Majesty, "You must act like the Queen's subjects at home, and pay your own expenses." Having with difficulty established that principle and induced the colonies to pay their own Governors, we were now under this measure about to resume what is, in fact, a portion of these payments; and, what is worse, to introduce a system of joint payments, which could not fail to operate mischievously. Would not the gold-digging colonies of Australia, when they saw the mother country ready to take this step, reduce the salaries of their Governors? They had already found that they had been paying too much, they had begun the reduction, and they would reduce still more, and the consequence would be that only part of the expense of their own Government would be paid by the rich taxpayers in the colonies, and part would fall upon the already sufficiently burdened English taxpayer. Of all periods for making this retrograde movement it was singular that it should come at the moment when there were hopes that the North American provinces would soon form themselves into a great confederation, undertaking their own defence, assuming their proper position as a great self-reliant country, and being no longer an embarrassment but an aid and a protection to this country. If the five united provinces of North America maintained a Governor for eighteen years, England would pay his pension when he was sixty years of age. This Governor was also to appoint the Lieutenant Governors of the confederated provinces, who, under this Bill, would nevertheless be pensioned here. The colonies now paid their own Governors out of the taxes arising within the area of their Government—that is, out of that portion of the Imperial taxation which was raised within the province of the Governorship, and by the votes of the representative Parliament of the colony; and it would be just as reasonable for a distant county in England—Cornwall

  1027
  for instance—to apply to the metropolitan county of Middlesex to pension out of its rates, for the economy of theirs, the Governor of one of its gaols as for this country to be asked to pension Colonial Governors. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Honiton, that, whoever paid the pensions, they ought to be on a handsomer scale than this Bill proposed; and that any Governor who was strictly a servant of this country, and not of the colony, such as those of past times, and those over Crown colonies, ought to be pensioned on the conclusion of such service. There were many such cases, and it would be miserable policy to deny their claims, and yet to grant them in analogous cases. A proof that the Bill was vicious from its very foundations was afforded by the attempts to lessen the burden that would be inflicted by it upon the country, by shifts such as had been referred to in the course of that discussion. It mattered not what the title of the claimant was; in fact, many other kinds of colonial officers had as good a claim. Probably the worst defect of all was the ignoring of short but distinguished services. A man might have been for the prescribed number of years governing one of our colonies in the very worst manner—plunging the country into a series of Kaffir wars by his injudicious rule; maintaining a Maori strife against the advice of his own Government and the remonstrances of the Home Administration; wasting the treasure and lives of this country in Ballarat riots, and yet, under this Bill, he would receive a pension; while for such a man as Sir Francis Head, who, in a much shorter period, had rendered signal services to this country, no provision whatever was made. Sir Francis Head, in a letter, quoted the words used fey the Colonial Minister last year, to the effect that—
  "No doubt, whatever Bill might be passed on this subject, provisions would be introduced to enable the Government to grant pensions for distinguished services, even though the specified limit of service might not have been reached."
  What was the principle of the Bill? To reward services. If that was so, the reward of distinguished services ought to be a primary consideration. Sir Francis Head had rendered most distinguished services to the country. Men who were rebels when he went out to assume the Governorship had become Ministers before he left. The policy having changed, his ser-
  1028
  vices were ignored. He had given up a lucrative appointment in this country to go out to Canada, when it was thought his services would be valuable there; but when he came back he was neither rewarded nor re-instated in the office of which he had been deprived in this country. The vigour of his administration had effected too thoroughly what he was sent to perform. All the recompense he enjoyed was that of being an honoured subject of the Queen, but a poor man. In the present state of the House, he felt that he would not be supported if he were to divide; but he proposed that in Committee they should insert words to meet the case of distinguished services, and also words to provide that pensions should not be paid by the country to Governors whose salaries had been paid by the colony.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) had very successfully answered the first by the second part of his speech. He could not for a moment agree with his right hon. Friend that from the fact of a Governor's salary having been paid by the colony the Crown should not, therefore, grant pensions for services rendered to it in any part of the world. His right hon. Friend apprehended that the colonies which paid the salaries of those Governors would reduce those salaries when they found that pensions were to be paid by the country; and he had mentioned the case of Victoria as a colony in which the salary of the Governors was being reduced. But why was that being done in Australia? Because the salary of the Governors had been raised to a very unusual amount, £15,000 a year—under pressure of the enormous rise of prices which had followed the discovery of gold there; and now that things were coming back to their level, the same reasons did not exist for the payment of such a salary. But he wished to apply himself to a much larger question. He entirely approved the principle of the Bill, but he asked to whom it would apply. He doubted very much whether it would apply to any one. He concurred with what his right hon. Friend had said with respect to Sir Francis Head, who, no doubt, was a most distinguished public servant, and had not been treated in a manner creditable to this country. He had been sent out at a very critical moment, but instead of being re warded for what he had done in Canada,

  1029
  he was repudiated by the Government, notwithstanding that he had been deprived of an office at home, the salary of which, £1,000 a-year, he might have enjoyed for the last twenty-seven years if he had not complied with the demand which the Government had made of him. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies would take this case into his consideration.
  MR. CAVEapproved entirely of the general principle and object of the Bill. He thought it would tend to make the service more popular, and bring into it a larger number of competent men. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) that the colonies ought to pay these pensions. It might be quite right that as long as they enjoyed the benefit of the services of their Governors they should pay the salaries; but the House ought to look at the Bill in a more Imperial point of view as the means of obtaining a body of public servants upon whom this country could rely for the government of any colony at any time. This measure would also confer a great boon upon a meritorious class of public servants who had received hitherto but little consideration. It was rarely possible for a Colonial Governor to save much out of his salary—a saving Governor was rarely successful. Those who were popular and successful frequently spent part of their private means in addition; and they, too, often returned home, after protracted periods of service, broken in health, with habits formed in a different mode of living, with their friends dispersed or dead, their power and consequence gone, and not even a bare competence to reward them for having spent the best years of their lives in their country's service. He (Mr. Cave) looked also to another advantage from this measure. It was rarely possible to tell he-forehand whether any man would make a good Governor or not. An excellent civil servant frequently made a very indifferent Governor. This Bill took from the Secretary of State all excuse for continuing such a man in such a post, by providing that, if recalled to his former occupation, he should lose none of the time during which this as it were experimental office had lasted. But he was sorry the Bill had not gone somewhat further in the same direction, and allowed the time occupied by Governors in civil employments in the colonies
  1030
  themselves to count as well as the time occupied in the Civil Service at home. Surely ten years in an unhealthy country gave as valid a claim as ten years in Downing Street. He knew an instance of a Colonial Governor who was twenty years in the West Indies, ten of them ns Colonial Secretary in British Guiana before promotion to a Governorship, and though it was true that he was paid by the colony, yet he was appointed to these offices virtually by the Crown, and might be said to have been educated for the high service of this country at the expense of the colony; and it should be remembered that on his promotion he gave up another service in the colony which might eventually have led to a retiring allowance, and when it was considered how much colonial salaries had been reduced, and that there was rarely any half-pay, he thought the colonial time of these gentlemen ought to count for their pension. He also thought that the case mentioned by the Member for Brighton (Mr. Moor) was worthy of consideration. A Superintendent administered the affairs of a colony to quite as full an extent as a Lieutenant Governor, and it would be very hard if an arbitrary variation of title should deprive him of his pension. Hoping the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to introducing words in Committee to this effect, he cordially supported the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he did not concur in the objections raised against the Bill by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire as involving a departure from the principle laid down for the conduct of colonial affairs by recent legislation. There were cases in which a portion of the Governor's salary should be borne by the colonies—as, for instance, that of Australia, which was very wealthy, but he could not see what impropriety there could be in the Imperial Government paying the pension in cases in which the colonies paid the salaries. Every one who had studied the question knew that peculiar difficulties arose in the government of the colonies from the circumstance that, unfortunately, the Governor was frequently a mere puppet in the hands of the Colonial Legislature, and greater difficulties still would arise if he were dependent upon the Colonial Legislature for his pension as well as for his salary. It had been said that we should abandon

  1031
  our colonies, but if we intended to bold them we ought to place the representative of the Queen in a position in which he could command authority, and in which the Queen, whom he represented, would be respected. Of course, it might be said that this would involve a very considerable item of charge upon the Imperial revenue, and that it might be extended still further; but that was a result which could not be avoided. When it was at first proposed to limit retiring pensions to a number of Governors holding first-class positions, he thought the proposition most objectionable. It would be unfair to grant pensions to the Governors of such colonies as Canada and Australia, who received very large salaries and resided in healthful climates, and to withhold them from those who were obliged to live in such places as Gambia and Lagos, whence they returned bankrupt in health and purse. The great merit of the Bill was its very fair and inexclusive character. In reply to what had been said as to the case of Sir Francis Head, alluded to by previous speakers, it would probably be asked, "How can you gauge distinguished services?" That was a difficulty which he was not prepared to solve, but length of service was not the only gauge of merit. If they were to exclude men like Sir Francis Head they would make what, under other circumstances, would be a very graceful act on the part of the Legislature, an act of a very different kind. As to the case of Mr. Latrobe, his exclusion because he bore the title of "Superintendent" was evidently an oversight. It would be far better if a clause could, in the first instance, be introduced into the Bill embracing cases of this kind. The main point of the measure, which he heartily approved, was that it appeared to him to tend both to encourage able men to enter the colonial service and to render them independent both during and after their service.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, no person could have listened to the discussion which had taken place on the measure before the House without feeling that to draw up a Bill of this description was no easy task. When the right hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) commenced his speech it almost appeared as if the Bill had only been successful in displeasing everybody, because it either went too far or not far enough; but as the right hon. Gentleman proceeded, it appeared that he was willing
  1032
  to be even more liberal than the Bill itself, but at other people's expense, and that was only nominally, for in reality it was at nobody's expense. If only those Governors who were paid by the mother country were to receive pensions he was afraid the number would be like Slender's love—"small at the beginning and decreasing on further continuance," because there were few Governors who were paid by the mother country. The Government had to discharge a difficult and divided duty, because while it was their desire to do that which would be efficacious and sufficient for the improvement of the service, it was also their bounden duty on the part of the executive Government to be careful of the public money, out of which these pensions were to come. They, therefore, had to frame rules which should be clear, precise, and intelligible, and to lay them before the House in order that it might be determined how far they should be adopted and how far they were capable of amendment. The Bill was to be of a prospective rather than a retrospective character, as it was intended to act as an inducement to gentlemen of position to become Governors of colonies so that there might be a continual supply of able men who would be capable of upholding the dignity of the Crown. He might say that he during the short time he had held office—as well as the gentlemen who had preceded him in the office he held—had done his best to find persons who were the most diligent, the most able, and in general the best fitted for the office they were to hold. The selection of the Governor of a colony was a matter of the greatest importance, and he vas certain that it was not mainly Parliamentary influence, but a conviction of the value of their services, which led to the selection of gentlemen for those offices. The desire was that those who had acquired a character in the lower branch of the service should rise by merit to the higher posts, and therefore the Government had adopted in this Bill the principle, not of a continuous, for that was impossible, but of a quasi-continuous service. Some hon. Gentleman complained that the Bill proposed to reward not distinction, but merely length of service, but that was exactly the principle of the Superannuation Act which was in force in this country. No doubt there were special cases, such as that of Sir Fenwick Williams, in which Parliament went out of its way and gave a special reward for special

  1033
  services; but in framing an enactment which was to be carried into execution by a Minister of the Crown, it was desirable as much as possible to lay down clear and intelligible rules, and not to place it in the power of an individual under the colour of an Act of Parliament to favour an individual. Acting upon that principle, the Government had proposed that when a gentleman had served for three Governments, or eighteen years, or for twenty-five years, partly in the civil service and partly as Governor or Lieutenant Governor, he should, on attaining sixty years of age, or if after serving for fifteen years he was permanently disabled by ill-health, immediately be entitled to a full pension. There was also a provision that any gentleman more than forty years of age, who had served twelve years as Governor, or twenty years in the Civil Service, of which he had acted for eight years as Governor, or any one who after serving ten years as Governor was permanently disabled, should be entitled to two-thirds of his full pension. The right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) asked with some incredulity whether there were at present any Governors who would be benefited by this Bill. Now, although the liberality of Parliament would extend to those who had already served as well as those who had only partly served their time, it was the duty of the Government in framing the Bill to act on a principle that would tend to elevate and improve the service rather than give a benefit to those who had completed their service under different engagements. There were eighteen persons who would have vested rights under the Bill as soon as it came into operation, but of these two were already in possession of pensions which would render those rights of no value. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: How many had served eighteen years r] The Return before him did not show that. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I believe two.] There were also fourteen gentlemen who, if they completed the services upon which they were now engaged, would acquire a similar right, which made a total of thirty persons to be benefited, showing clearly that this Bill would confer advantage upon a considerable number of persons. He often concurred with his right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Ad-derley) upon questions of colonial policy, and had frequently received from him kind and generous support in that House, and he fully ageeed with him that
  1034
  the burden of the payment of Colonial Governors should be thrown upon the colonies and not upon the mother country, but he could not maintain that there was no Imperial service performed and no Imperial duty discharged by the Governor of a colony. He could not deny that there was some claim upon the Imperial Treasury for services rendered by the Governors of colonies under difficult circumstances. Even within a short time we had had experience that firmness in the discharge of his duty to the Crown was a quality in a Governor which ought to be recognized by the Imperial Government. Practically to deny a pension from the funds of the Imperial Treasury was a denial of that principle. The right hon. Gentleman had supposed the case of the Governor of all the North American provinces after eighteen years' service. But that was an impossible case. The rule was to serve six years in each Government, therefore it would be impossible to ask the colony where he had last served to pay. Where men served, as Colonial Governors did, for six years in one colony, and then for six in another, and then for six in a third, all in different parts of the world, it was impossible to come upon any one of these colonies, and ask it to pay the pension. Was not this a reductio ad absurdum? Was it not clear that pensions must be paid in the manner proposed by the Bill, or not at all? Of the Amendments which had been suggested there were two which struck him as important to be noticed now. The point raised by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Moor) had not yet received from him so much consideration as it deserved, and he must defer giving any reply until the Bill went into Committee. The case of Sir Francis Head and the general subject of distinguished services was discussed in the course of last Session, and he then stated that when the House of Commons had established the principle of giving colonial pensions it would be right to consider whether the question of giving pensions for short but distinguished services should or should not be entertained. In preparing this Bill the Government considered whether it was possible to frame a clause authorizing the Secretary of State to give pensions for distinguished services. It, however, appeared to them that it was not desirable to attempt to prepare such a clause. He respectfully suggested to the House that it would not be proper for it to confer

  1035
  upon an individual Minister of the Crown the power which it now wisely reserved to the Crown itself of rewarding individual services—apart from the length of the period during which they had been rendered—on the ground of distinction. He did not see his way to framing a clause, having that object, with such guards and provisions that it might safely be inserted in this Bill. It would be easy enough to have a special clause for any special case; but what had been suggested was that a general power should be granted to the Minister to select individuals and give them pensions for services which he considered distinguished. In Committee he should be prepared to give a fair and dispassionate consideration to any Amendments which might be proposed; but the Bill had been very carefully considered, and he recommended it to the House, not as a retrograde measure, but as a forward step towards elevating the character of one of the most distinguished and important services under the Crown.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to name the Committee before the holidays, or he was afraid the Bill would not be passed this Session.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he would put the Committee for Thursday, and he would then state what he intended to do with respect to it.
  Bill committed for Thursday.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [May 26] reported.
ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I wish to appeal to the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) in regard to the Bill which, according to arrangement, he is to bring on at to-morrow morning's sitting. That arrangement was made, as he will recollect, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli). I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend is now suffering from a severe attack of the gout, and that there is no possibility of his being in the House tomorrow. Under those circumstances, and as I know my right hon. Friend was de-
  1036
  sirous to express his views on this subject, I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not object to postpone the further progress of his Bill to some future day. I would not ask for a long postponement; but, under the circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consent not to bring on his Bill to-morrow.
  MR. MONSELL: I am sure, Sir, there is nobody in this House more willing than myself to meet the reasonable wishes of the right hon. Member for Bucks. He always shows the greatest courtesy to every Member of this House, and everybody would desire to meet his wishes. It was communicated to me early this evening that the right hon. Gentleman desired that I should postpone this Bill. I replied that I should be most happy to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman if he could assure me that he would be prepared to propose a clause enacting a common oath for all Members, which would contain none of those clauses which my Bill proposed to omit. It was quite obvious that no other course would meet with the assent of the majority of this House, and therefore any attempt to postpone the Bill except on that understanding would be perfectly useless. I stated further, what of course every one must acknowledge, that at this critical period of the Session to postpone the Bill without some such understanding as that would be to sacrifice the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has informed me that he is not willing to agree to those conditions, and therefore, regretting most sincerely the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall be obliged to proceed with the Bill to-morrow.

DOCKYARD EXTENSIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS,
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to express his regret that in the new works contemplated in the dockyards the Government had not adopted the course which had been recommended to them by the Committee of which he had been a Member, as the most economical for completing them in the shortest possible time. Looking to the wants of our navy under the new system of the last few years, there was no country in a worse condition as regarded dockyard accommodation than ourselves, and he was quite sure that if the works had been left to competent contractors they might be executed in four years. As the right hon. Gentleman

  1037
  the Member for Tyrone had pointed out, we were now spending enormous sums in fortifications simply to protect these dockyards, and notwithstanding the objections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend anything which was not raised out of the year's revenue, he could not understand why, if the money to make those fortifications was raised by terminable annuities, the money to make the public works which they were meant to protect should not be raised in the same way. He was quite sure that if his right hon. Friend could be made to understand that a saving of 20 or 25 per cent would be secured by the execution of these works within a period of four years, his acute mind would speedily adopt the course which he recommended.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not hold out the smallest assurance that the Government would adopt the principle of carrying out these works by great loans. He could conceive nothing-more extravagant than, when great works were proposed, to resort to a system which was only entertained in time of war. The greatest consideration had been given to the matter, and he believed that a period of five years would enable them to construct the works with the greatest ease. To shorten the period and to ask for larger annual Votes, in his opinion, would not lead to greater economy. With regard to the contracts, every security would be taken for their proper performance.
  SIR JAMES ELPHTNSTONEsaid, in reference to the debate which took place on a former evening, that he did not think it was right that the Secretary of the Admiralty should come down to instruct the House upon matters of finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception to a proposition which he had ventured to make, and applied to it the term "ignominious" But he remembered that in 1860 the right hon. Member (Mr. Hors-man), in a very able speech, brought the subject of the defences of the country under the notice of the House, and it was notorious that the views of that right hon. Gentleman obtained the assent of Lord Herbert and of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Whether those opinions met with the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not know, but certain it was that the proposition of terminable annuities was pushed on by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It was,
  1038
  therefore, an extraordinary thing now to be told that a policy which had been laid down by the head of the Government in 1863 as the proper policy was an "ignominious" policy. He agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) that if docks were necessary for the navy, they should be constructed at once.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he replied to the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) under protest, because he thought the reviving of debates was an inconvenient practice. The hon. Baronet complained of an epithet; which epithet, however, he had misunderstood in its application to the matter under discussion. The view of the hon. Baronet was that because in a certain case, for certain purposes, in a certain state of the public mind, at a certain stage of the public expenditure, and for certain objects which were supposed to be of urgency, it had been proposed to resort to the plan of terminable annuities, therefore the policy of executing public works upon that principle had been admitted. He protested against that doctrine, as it would lead necessarily to "ignominious" expedients, and he used that term without at all intending to apply it to the hon. and gallant Baronet, who, he was certain, would not propose anything which he thought could be liable to such an imputation. The plan of terminable annuities was resorted to in the instance referred to as an exceptional proceeding, and he had compared it with another case of a similar character—the emancipation of the slaves—in order to show that there were cases in which Parliament might go out of the ordinary course to create an exception according to the circumstances of the time. But that was no reason why all general rules should be broken down. If the rule were to be broken in one case, where were they to stop? The hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), whose absence he regretted on that occasion, made a vigorous speech, showing the danger attaching to such exceptional proceedings, even in extreme cases. Of course, it was a question of degree, but he contended that there was nothing in the present case to justify a departure from the ordinary rule. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), he agreed that public works should be executed in the manner most convenient and advantageous to the country, and the question of applying the charge

  1039
  was a different question, to be settled upon its own merits. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never suggested that any charge should be reduced in order to reduce the expenditure of the year, and the question of expenditure by loans should be most jealously watched. The proposal to raise debentures for seven or eight years, instead of taking votes for the works in four years, took away much of the sting of the proposition to raise money by terminable annuities, and he did not object to it, except that it might be made the means of justifying other and looser politicians for departing more widely from the true principles of meeting the public expenditure from year to year.
  MR. CORRYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had called the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth an ignominious expedient, had placed his justification for having given his sanction to identically the same course in 1860 on the ground of the exceptional financial circumstances of the time, but he did not recollect any such argument having been used in the course of the debates upon the Votes for fortifications. He had referred to the debate, and he found that the late Lord Herbert and Sir George Lewis took part in it, and neither of them regarded the question at issue as one of an exceptional character. The noble Lord at the head of the Government (Viscount Palmerston) was most precise in the language which he used on the subject, and justified the proposal made in the following words:—
  "In private life Parliament, by recent legislation, has empowered and encouraged individuals to raise money by loans, either from the Exchequer Bill Commissioners, or from private companies, for the purpose of effecting permanent improvements upon their landed property, spreading the repayment over a considerable period of time. Now, what is sound policy recognized by Parliament in the case of private individuals cannot be unwise or inexpedient as regards the greater and more important interests of the nation. By raising money by terminable annuities we should prevent that loan from becoming a permanent addition to the debt of this country."—[3 Hansard, clx. 21.]
  That was in 1860, and upon a subsequent occasion, in 1862, when a Bill for raising a further portion of the loan was under discussion, the noble Lord said, in reply to some observations which were made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stamford—
  1040
  "He (Sir Stafford Northcote) objected to the plan because it throws upon posterity a burden which we ought to take upon ourselves. He reminds me of an answer given in the time of Mr. Pitt to somebody who was eulogizing the plan of a 'Sinking Fund,' on the ground that it would be relieving posterity from the burdens of the day. 'Why should we do so much for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?' … The reason why I thought that the proper course was by loan was that these fortifications are permanent works made upon the freehold—they resemble permanent improvements made upon a man's estate, for which the owner is justified in charging those who come after him. He thought on the same principle that as those fortifications are permanent works it was fair to throw, on a certain period in advance, a burden which was too great to ask the House or the country to submit to in the current year."—[See Hansard, clxvii. 945.]
  It was clear, therefore, that when the Government proposed to contract a terminable loan for the construction of the fortifications in 1860 they did so entirely on the ground of principle, and without reference to any exceptional circumstances whatever. He himself, however, quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was a practice which should be resorted to only in rare instances and when great national interests were at stake. He did not think that the parallel the right hon. Gentleman had drawn between the dockyards and the Houses of Parliament was at all in point. It was one thing to charge posterity to some extent with the cost of works for the permanent defence of the country, and another to make it pay for our taste in mediaeval decorations; and he was certain that every one having the slightest knowledge of the subject would agree with him that the extension of the dockyards was, at least, as important to the national defence as the fortifications which had been undertaken for their protection.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he did not think the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were of any force as opposed to the proposal of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Morton Peto) or to that of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone). No comparison could fairly be drawn between the two cases of the building of the Houses of Parliament and the construction of docks, which were intended for the security of the country. The real question was whether the proposed works were to be completed in four years at a smaller or fifteen years at a greater cost. The Government would, he thought, be incurring

  1041
  a grave responsibility by postponing for fifteen years the completion of works which they deemed to be essential for the national defence, especially when the delay was to be attended with an increased expenditure.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government did not propose to spread the construction of those works which they looked upon as of essential importance over a period of fifteen years. On the contrary, all the essential portions of the scheme would be proceeded with as rapidly as was consistent with efficiency. The important works at Portsmouth, for instance, would, he hoped, be completed in five years, those in Chatham in four, at Cork in six, and at Malta in three years. The less urgent works would be constructed at a slower rate.
  Resolutions agreed to.

ARMY—CASE OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL DAWKINS.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to correct a misapprehension which had arisen in the course of the debate on this subject. It had been represented that when Colonel Dawkins was put under arrest and allowed to come up to town he was at liberty to go where he liked and do as he liked.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not at liberty to refer to speeches made in a former debate.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would content himself then with reading the following lelter, which bore on the point:—
  "Ash Camp, June 20, I860.
  "Sir,—I am directed by Colonel Steele, commanding Coldstream Guards, to inform you that you are to proceed to London and remain in your lodgings under arrest until you receive further communication.
  "I have the honour to be, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant,
  "F. G. STEPNEY,
  "Commanding Detachment Coldstream Guards."
  He remained in his lodgings from the 26th of June until the 2nd of July, so it could not be said truly that he was at liberty to go where he pleased.

  NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL.
  On Motion of Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Bill to make better provision respecting Wills of Seamen and Marines of the Royal Navy and Marines, ordered to be brought in by Lord CLARENCE PAGET and Mr. CHILDERS.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 180.]

  NAVY AND MARINES (PROPERTY OF DECEASED) BILL.
  On Motion of Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Bill to regulate the disposal of money and effects under the control of the Admiralty, belonging to deceased Officers, Seamen, and Marines of the Royal Navy and Marines, and other persons, ordered to be brought in by Lord CLARENCE PAGET and Mr. CHILDERS.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 181.]

  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Bill for regulating the payment of Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions, ordered to be brought in by Lord CLARENCE PAGET and Mr. CHILDERS.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 182.]

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL,
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCOE, Bill to remove doubts respecting the Validity of certain Marriages contracted in Her Majesty's Possessions Abroad, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. SECRETARY CARDWELL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 183.]

  COLONIAL LAWS VALIDITY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to remove doubts as to the Validity of Colonial Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. SECRETARY CARDWELL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 184.]

  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Harbour of Kingstown.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 85.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl Poulett, after the Death of his Uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No.3) * (127); Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) * (128); Dogs Regulation (Ireland) * (129).
Committee—War Department Tramway (Devon) * Clerical Subscription (132); County Voters Registration * (116); County of Sussex* (114).
Report—Companies Workmens' Education (131); County Voters Registration * (116); County of Sussex * (114).
Select Committee—Sewage Utilization, Earl of Essex added.
Third Reading—Police Superannuation * (95); Pilotage Order Confirmation *, (67) and passed,

COMPANIES WORKMENS' EDUCATION BILL—(No. 121.)—REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
Clause 1 (A Majority of a Mooting of Three Fourths of Shareholders may Vote Money for Purposes of Education, &c.)
Moved, to leave out Clause 1, and insert the following clause in lieu thereof.—(The Lord President.)
"Any Joint Stock Company or Corporation may by a Resolution passed by a Majority of not less than Three Fourths of such Members of the Company for the Time being entitled, according to the Regulations of the Company, to vote, as may be present in person or by proxy (in Cases where by the Regulations of the Company Proxies are allowed) at any General Meeting of which Notice specifying the Intention to propose such Resolution has been duly given, and such Resolution being confirmed by a Majority of such Members for the Time being entitled, according to the Regulations of the Company, to vote, as may be present in Person or by proxy at a subsequent General Meeting, of which notice has been duly given, and held at an interval of not less than Fourteen Days and not more than One Month from the Date of the Meeting at which such Resolution was first passed, resolve that any Sum of Money, not exceeding that of which such Notice shall have been duly given as above mentioned, shall be applied, either in gross or annually, for such Period as they may resolve, in providing Education, Worship, or Religious Instruction of the Families of the Persons employed by them, and they may also, by any Resolution similarly passed and similarly confirmed, resolve that any Land not exceeding an Acre in any One Vote shall be granted or appropriated, in perpetuity or otherwise, for any of the Purposes aforesaid; and thereupon the Directors or other Persons authorized to manage the Affairs of the Company or Corporation shall carry such Vote into effect: Provided nevertheless, that any such Resolution shall contain such Orders as shall provide for admitting to the Benefits of the Education which it provides the Children of Parents not in Communion with the Church, Sect, or Denomination,
954
according to the Doctrines or Formularies of which Religious Instruction is by the same or by any previous Resolution of the Company directed to be provided."
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKregretted that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) should propose to introduce a "conscience clause" into a Bill with which it had nothing to do. The Bill was simply to allow public companies to do what any private persons or firms could do and ought to do at present—to attend to the educational wants and well-doing of the children of their work-people. He was quite astonished to find there was room for a conscience clause within the four corners of the Bill. It was a conscience clause in an exaggerated form, because the conscience clause was essential only where there was but one school in a town. In the ease of a great railway town like Crewe, where the interests of Nonconformists were carefully watched, and where they had already sufficient schools for their children, some one might be willing to give a sum of money to endow a school for his own sect or denomination. He might offer to pay all costs if the company would only give a bit of land; but this trifling gift could not be made if this clause were adopted, unless provision were made in the same order that all other sects and denominations should be educated at the school. But they are supposed to be all provided for already. The Bill was extremely simple in its character, and knowing something of towns where such schools had been established, there having been such places in the diocese over which he formerly presided as well as those in his present province, he could state that in them never had there been any complaints of the children of Nonconformists being excluded. There were many cases in which schools were kept up by the sufferance of companies, and which a single adverse vote would stop; but they never were stopped, because the want of education was admitted by all, and because education was fairly provided for all. He challenged the noble Earl to point to a single case of hardship. He had always understood that Parliament never fettered the action of any one, unless it also conferred privileges. This Bill only sought to cure an omission in railway legislation, but the proposition of this clause would change a simple act of justice into a controversial measure. He would never advocate any system by which the Church Catechism would be imposed upon Nonconformists, nor could he be a

955
party to the infliction of any hardship upon Dissenters, but he could not consent to this needless clause.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the observations of the right rev. Prelate seemed to imply that the object of the Bill was simply to allow railway companies to do that which individuals had the power to do at present; but, in fact, the Bill applied to all joint-stock companies of every description. Joint-stock companies were associations of persons for certain specific objects, and the Bill would give power to a certain proportion of the shareholders to grant for educational purposes money from funds which had been subscribed by the general body of shareholders. Now, the minority of the shareholders might be, and very probably would be, Dissenters; and he (Earl Granville) maintained that if they did confer this compulsory power upon the majority, it was also perfectly fair that they should accompany that power by the admission of a principle which had already been adopted in the Endowed Schools Bill by the right rev. Prelates themselves—that of precluding the minority, whatever their number, from being compelled to subscribe their money towards the maintenance of schools perfectly exclusive in their character, by which course their children would either be debarred from participating in the benefits of the education for which their parents were compelled to pay, or would receive an education contrary in its character to that of which the consciences of parents and the shareholders approved. It appeared to him to be purely an act of common justice, and he was therefore extremely pleased when he saw the most rev. Prelate rise in his place, knowing him to be one of those enlightened churchmen who shrunk, either directly or indirectly, from bringing any compulsion to bear upon those who did not concur in the doctrines of the Church of England, and averse from any proceeding which could by any possibility be regarded as an attempt to cram those doctrines down their throats. The most rev. Prelate, however, objected to the clause because he did not believe that any hardship was likely to occur. If such, then, were the case, he (Earl Granville) could not see the slightest objection to the introduction of the safeguard which he now suggested. If he thought that the clause which he proposed would in any way prevent the railway or joint-
956
stock companies from establishing schools where religious instruction should be given, and that instruction, too, consonant with the doctrines of the Church of England, he should refrain from proposing it; but he felt convinced that the clause could not by any possibility operate in any such way.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONtrusted that his most rev. Brother would not divide the House on the question, for he thought that after all the question was one in which they might be guided by expediency. If it were really the intention and the practice to admit the children of Dissenters to these schools, he could not see any great harm in acknowledging the fact. He doubted whether a little more agitation had not been excited with reference to this clause from the circumstance that it bore a rather obnoxious name. It did not, however, represent the "conscience clause" of which they had heard so much, but was in reality taken from a measure which at the time of its passing received the sanction of the right rev. Bench.
EARL GREYsaid, there were other large companies besides railway companies—such as iron companies—which would be affected by the Bill, and he thought it most desirable that they should be relieved from the technical difficulty which now existed. The practical effect of the measure would be the same whether the clause were adopted or not, and he hopen the most rev. Prelate would not oppose the Amendment, because its rejection might jeopardize the measure in another place.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was extremely anxious that the measure should pass; but he would venture to urge upon the most rev. Prelate that he should insist upon the Bill in its original form, and not sanction the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl.
On Question, That Clause 1 stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 53; Not-Contents 38: Majority 15.
Amendment negatived.

CONTENTS.

York, Archp.

Bath, M. [Teller.]

Dublin, Archp.

Salisbury, M.

Westmeath, M.

Marlborough, D.

Richmond, D,

Amherst, E.

Rutland, D.

Bandon, E.

957

Belmore, E.

Chelmsford, L,

Carnarvon, E.

Churston, L.

Derby, E.

Colchester, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Crofton, L.

Delamere, L.

Denman, L.

Hardwicke, E,

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Home, E.

Pomfret, E.

Heytesbury, L.

Powis, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Rosse, E.

Kingsdown, L.

Stanhope, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Wilton, E.

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Raglan, L.

Kavensworth, L.

Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Lifford, V.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Melville, V.

Scarsdale, L.

Bangor, Bp.

Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Oxford, Bp.

Rochester, Bp.

Sondes, L.

St. Asaph, Bp.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Bolton, L.

Walsingham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Annaly, L.

Belper, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Devonshire, D.

Somerset, D.

Cranworth, L.

Ebury, L.

Albemarle, E.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Chichester, E.

De Grey, E.

Harris, L.

Effingham, E.

Houghton, L.

Granville, E.

Oxenfoord. L.(E. Stair.)

Grey, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

Saint Germans, E.

Portman, L.

Eversley, V.

Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

Sydney, V.

Seaton, L.

Torrington, V

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Lincoln, Bp

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Llandaff, Bp

Taunton, L.

London, Bp.

Wensleydale, L.

St. David's, Bp.

Wentworth, L.

An Amendment made; Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 131.)

MANNER OF TAKING DIVISIONS IN THIS HOUSE.

  STANDING OEDER PROPOSED.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDrose to call the attention of the House to the Manner in which Divisions are taken, with a view to some Standing Order being passed to regulate the same. On a recent occasion considerable confusion had arisen in con-
  958
  sequence of the manner in which the Question was put. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack put the Question as he was in the habit of doing; but there did not appear to be any distinct rule for the guidance of the House as to what interval should elapse between the putting of the Question and the Division actually taking place. Under these circumstances he thought some Standing Order should be passed to regulate the proceeding. The occasion to which he had referred, though of some importance, was not a very exciting one; but there were occasions when a division might involve the change of a Government, and when noble Lords, either anticipating the loss of office or accession to office, might not regard the matter with indifference. It would, therefore, be well to agree to some Standing Order while no excitement existed. He proposed that the following Standing Order be agreed to:—
  "That when, on the Question being put, a Division is called for, the noble Lord on the Woolsack, or in the Chair of Committees, shall order the House to be cleared. As soon as the House shall be cleared, the noble Lord on the Woolsack, or in the Chair, shall again put the question before the division takes place, and an interval of two minutes shall be suffered to elapse between the order of clearing the House and closing the doors."
  That, he believed, was the practice which prevailed in the other House, and he believed it had been found entirely satisfactory. He moved that the words he had read should be adopted and become a Standing Order.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not object to the proposition, but he would suggest that the proposed Standing Order should be printed, that it might be seen by all their Lordships; and the noble Duke might afterwards move its adoption by the House.
  LORD REDESDALEwas understood to approve the proposed Standing Order.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was very glad the noble Duke had directed his attention to this subject. He thought it important that a Peer who had gone into the Library, perhaps, to consult a book on the subject of the debate should not be excluded from taking part in the division. The noble and learned Lord whose duty it was to put the Question should also be relieved in a moment of political excitement from all responsibility and the possibility of blame as to the time of taking a division. This could at once be secured by the interval of two minutes

  959
  being suffered to elapse between the time of clearing the House and closing the doors. His noble Friend (Viscount Eversley), who had presided in the other House with so much credit as Speaker, could bear witness how well a similar system had worked in the other House of Parliament.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he hoped when this subject was considered, that an effort would be made to define what was the House and what was not the House. On the occasion which had been alluded to a noble Lord sat in a particular portion of what he should have called the House; but it was said he was not in the House, and his vote was refused.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he believed the practice to be, although no formal Resolution had been adopted to that effect, that every Peer who could hear the Question put was to be considered in the House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would consider the subject fully and consult the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Parliaments in regard to this Standing Order. He would have it printed, and bring it forward again immediately after the Whitsuntide holydays.

CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION BILL;

  (No. 132.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee."—(The Lord President.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLINrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. The most rev. Prelate, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he felt some embarrassment in addressing their Lordships for the first time, especially on a subject eminently difficult and delicate, and considering, also, that the interest, the honour, and the well-being of that Irish Church with which he was so nearly connected were so much at stake in the conclusion at which they might arrive. For the neasure itself on which his Amendment was made he could only express the same approbation which had already been expressed in that House. He was not going to praise that which all had praised, which all recognized as a useful, a healing, and a quieting measure; but it was of the manner in which the Bill had been
  960
  introduced that he complained. The noble Earl (Earl Granville), in moving the second reading of the Bill, told them that it had not indeed the concurrence—for he would not admit that for an instant—but still that it had the approval of the Clergy in Convocation of the Provinces of Canterbury and York; but when the noble Earl arrived at that point he suddenly stopped—he made no mention whatever of those two Provinces of the United Church of England and Ireland—Armagh and Dublin. It was true that the noble Earl did not ascribe any importance to the approbation of the two English Provinces, and said, indeed, that their approval of the Bill was altogether superfluous and unnecessary. No doubt in some sense it was so. No one questioned the power of Parliament to pass such a measure as that before them; no one questioned the obligation on every subject to yield dutiful obedience to such a measure so passed; but they might doubt whether, although it was not legally necessary that those Provinces should consent to the Bill, it was not in a higher and more statesmanlike point of view most desirable that their consent should be obtained; and even in the passing remarks of the noble Earl he thought there was a. certain recognition of that. The measure was avowedly a peace-making measure, intended to heal strifes and remove scruples, and he thanked Her Majesty's Government for introducing it; but still who could for a moment have believed that Her Majesty's Government would have introduced such a Bill in a manner that would have been ungrateful and distasteful to the great majority of those whom it most nearly concerned? Could any one have thought for an instant that they would have introduced the Bill in such a manner as to create dissatisfaction and discontent a hundred-fold greater than that which it removed? However lightly the approbation of the English Church might be spoken of, yet all felt and understood that the Bill would not have been brought in without it. Well, what they were doing for the English Church he asked them also to do for the Irish. It was true that the Irish Church was weak not altogether by its own fault, if the Church of England was strong—it might be able only to count its hundreds of thousands while the English Church counted its millions; yet if a principle were involved that could make no difference, and

  961
  a principle was there involved. The English Church had had the opportunity of expressing, whatever value it might have, its concurrence with that measure. It had had the opportunity by Royal licence and permission of framing its canons and declarations in conformity with that which was probably to become part of the statute law of the realm. The Irish Church appealed to them for the same permission. There was in Ireland as in England a Convocation, which had been in abeyance for many years as that of England had been for about the same period. He was not about to trouble their Lordships with and antiquarian researches respecting that Convocation. He would only mention that it dated as far back—it could not date back any further, being called by Royal writ—it dated as far back as Parliamentary Government in Ireland; that from 1625 to 1711 it was repeatedly so summoned; that at its last period of meeting, in 1711, it passed five canons, which, having received the assent of Her Majesty Queen Anne, became part and continued part of the ecclesiastical law of Ireland. He was not at all desirous that that Convocation should be permanently revived—there might be many differences of opinion on the subject of whether that was desirable or not—but he asked that that opportunity should be given to it which was not withheld from the English branch of the Church—namely, that of having a voice in the alteration and amendment of its own canons and subscriptions, so as to bring them into harmony with those of the sister Church of England and with the legislation of the State. Let the Irish Convocation be called together merely pro hoc negotio. He besought their Lordships, who were pre eminently the guardians of all that was historical and traditionary in the constitutional law of the Church and the State—who were pre-eminently the guardians of the weak, feeling that their own privileges were best maintained through the maintenance of the privileges of others, and knowing how many of them believed that the maintenance of the Irish Church was bound up with the best and truest hopes for the future of the whole Irish people—he besought them not to pass that slight upon that Church—not to inflict upon it that wound—not to set that mark of difference between it and the Church in England—not to create discontent and dissatisfaction and heart-
  962
  burnings, and a sense of wrong far more serious, far wider, many times wider, than any evil which they proposed by that measure to remove.
  Amendment moved to leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion for the purpose of inserting
  "This House does not deem it expedient, without the Concurrence of the Convocation of the Irish Provinces of the United Church, to proceed with this Bill so far as it may set aside and supersede the Canons of these Provinces; and that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to convene the Convocation of the Irish Provinces for the Purpose of amending those Canons which relate to the Subscription of the Clergy and to the Oath against Simony, so as to assimilate the Law of the Church in England and Ireland in relation thereto, and so as best to secure the united Action of all the Provinces of the Church."—(The Archbishop of Dublin.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the most rev. Prelate had truly described the measure as one of a peacemaking character. He could assure him that Her Majesty's Government had never intended to introduce a Bill that would give the least offence or cast any slight upon the Church of Ireland. The measure was most earnestly desired, and he must strongly appeal to the most rev. Prelate not to press his Amendment. The late Primate of Ireland, the Archbishop of Armagh, had informed the Government with regard to the revival of Convocation in Ireland, that in his opinion it was not desirable that it should be revived, and the matter was most carefully considered at the time by the Government, who were entirely of the same opinion. Nothing had since occurred to change their views on that point, and therefore it was not their intention to call again into activity the Convocation of the Irish Church. The Government would deeply deplore if they had to abandon that Bill, or to confine its operation to England only, and on the other hand they could not agree to call the Irish Convocation together. He thought either of those alternatives most undesirable, and he trusted that the most rev. Prelate would not persevere in a proposition of so embarrassing a nature.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that he was not prepared to support the Amendment which his most rev. Brother had submitted to their Lordships' consideration. He hoped that a measure of this importance would not be delayed by its adoption. He wished to observe that the Bill contained very great and important

  963
  changes, which were calculated to have a salutary effect. The desire for this measure had clearly arisen from the oppressive form of declaration sanctioned by the Act of Uniformity, by which statute the person making the declaration was bound to declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer. He was glad that for the enactment of that declaration the Church was not responsible—it was the act of the State; and it was very remarkable that the year after the Act of Uniformity passed a declaratory clause was added, at the suggestion of a Committee of their Lordships' House, that the declaration of assent should be understood as to practical obedience and not otherwise; that the assent and the consent were not to all and everything in the Prayer Book, but to the use of all and everything in the Prayer Book. Thus it was now proposed to sweep away that declaration, and to substitute the following for it:—
  "I, A. B., do solemnly make the following-declaration:—I assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of the ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. I believe the doctrine of the United Church of England and Ireland, as therein set forth, to be agreeable to the Word of God; and in public Prayer and administration of the Sacraments I will use the Form in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority."
  He wished to explain that that declaration had been adopted after most careful discussion by the unanimous vote of all the Members of a very large Commission, representing every phase of public opinion on this subject. It had been said that the change involved in adopting this declaration was very slight. On the contrary, it was very large and important; and before the Act was passed the Church and the country ought to consider how much was carried in it. "With regard to the Articles, the old form declared that the Articles were agreeable to the Word of God; the new one will affirm that the doctrine of the Articles is agreeable to the "Word of God; but a question might be raised, as old, indeed, as an Act of Elizabeth, whether all the Articles did contain doctrine—whether this part of the declaration necessarily covered all the Articles. Then, as to the Prayer Book, in accepting the doctrine of the Prayer Book, how much does the subscriber really bind himself to? The Courts have held that to constitute the offence of heresy, some definite
  964
  proposition of the Articles or formularies must be impugned. But words of devotion are not propositions; wishes or aspirations are not dogmatic statements. Therefore, so far as legal decisions went, the Prayer Book would contain little doctrine, however much it might imply. The new declaration would be much less stringent than the old, both as to the Prayer Book and the Articles. He did not urge this as an argument against the measure, far from it; but the change was too great to be passed in silence, and he thought it right to avow that it was great. With regard to the words "so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority," when that part of the declaration was drawn up by the Commission, it was by no means contemplated to leave the lawful authority undefined, and he was afraid that some difficulty might be felt in consequence of the existence of those words. The question might arise what was the lawful authority; and he thought it most important in making a declaration that there should be nothing doubtful in it. He would, therefore, be disposed to move the omission of those words, unless some attempt were made to define what was meant by the expression "lawful authority."
  THE BISHOP OF KILLALOEsaid, he desired to draw back their Lordships' attention to the Amendment which had been moved, and he begged to observe that he adopted every word which had fallen from the most rev. Prelate who proposed it. He was fully persuaded of the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and he thought that all ought to feel grateful for their manifest design to assimilate the ecclesiastical law in England and Ireland. On the other hand, people would look at the whole of the matter, and not merely at the declarations of the noble Earl the President of the Council, who had spoken of the assent of the Irish Provinces of the Church as of no great consequence, while at the same time he was fully aware that the approval of the English Provinces had been sought for to the measure. In point of fact, although it might be alleged the assents of the Convocations of Canterbury and York were not necessary, still they had been asked for in order to facilitate the passing of this measure, and he thought the same course ought to have been taken with regard to the Irish Convocations. He knew, however, that allowances must be made for the difficulties of all Governments. But the Bill as it stood might bear two opposite interpre-

  965
  tations. On one side it might be said that the Legislature regarded as superfluous and unnecessary the concurrence of the Synods of the Church in the passing of the Bill. The Convocations of York and Canterbury, no doubt, had been indulged in their innocent desire to play at deliberation over the measure; but it had not been thought in any way necessary to call for the assistance and advice of the Synods of Armagh and Dublin. He trusted his brethen of the English Church would not lend their countenance to any such interpretation as this of the duty and functions of the councils of the Church. On the other hand it might be said that though by the law of England, by several legislative Acts, and by the declarations of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Irish provinces formed an integral part of the United Church of England and Ireland; yet in reality, and under the rose, this was understood to be merely a civil matter, the Irish Provinces were not called into consultation, while by some it was thought the time was nearly approaching when all connection would be severed, and the Irish Provinces cast off entirely. It could not be expected that the representatives of the Irish Church would quietly accept such views as these, and he trusted that his Brethren of the English Bench, and even a considerable proportion of their Lordships, who thought it of importance that an ecclesiastical measure should have the approval of the Synods of the Church, would be unwilling so to regard the matter. Two classes of subjects were dealt with this Bill. The first was the real difficulty; and it was created by the Act of Parliament imposing the declaration of assent and consent: with that Convocation had nothing whatever to do. The declaration was imposed without its desire, contrary, he believed, to the wishes of the Bench of Bishops, and in a manner distasteful to their Lordships' House. The people, however, of that day had seen their Archbishop murdered, their clergy plundered and driven out of their houses; no wonder, then, that they were disposed to deal sternly with those whom they believed to be the authors of those practices. If this Act of Parliament were the great grievance that was represented, it would be easy for the Legislature to alter their statutes, and allow the Convocations to alter their canons, as they were perfectly ready to do. It was notorious that all the Synods of the Church, if they only obtained licence, were ready to carry out the excellent sug-
  966
  gestions of the Royal Commissioners. He had not a word to say against the Report of the Royal Commissioners, or against the frame and structure of that Commission. It introduced, however, a new era, and set a new precedent in Church matters, when the ecclesiastical advisers of the Legislature, instead of being Synods of the Church, duly convoked, and including in some form or other the representative principle, were to be Royal Commissioners selected by the advisers of Her Majesty. Nothing could be fairer than the way in which the Royal Commission had been constituted; but it must he remembered that a precedent bad in its operation always had its origin in something totally unobjectionable; and he should not be accused of pedantry if he appealed to history for confirmation of this assertion—speaking in that House, and in presence of the noble Earl, who, re-stringing the old harp of Homer, found time, amid the distraction of anxious political life, to sing with old Homeric inspiration "the awful deeds of heroes and of gods." Cæsar, on the occasion of some unconstitutional proceedings against the Catilinian conspirators, said he had no fears whatever under Marcus Tullius—nobody could feel greater confidence than he did in him—but he dreaded that the precedent set by the course then advocated might be used another time for a worse purpose—atque ego hoc non in M. Tullio, neque his temporibus vereor. In like manner, he (the Bishop of Killaloe) had no objection to the manner in which this Royal Commission had been constituted or to any of the Members of which it was composed, nor had he any material objections to their Report, but he did object strongly to the principle that the ecclesiastical advisers of the Sovereign and the Legislature were to be Commissioners selected in this manner. It had always been felt that the Legislature required some kind of Ecclesiastical body to advise and co-operate with it, even at a time when nobody could exercise the functions of a Member of Parliament without being a professed member of the Established Church. On looking into the Journals of their Lordships' House that morning, he found that in the reign of William and Mary, when their Majesties addressed both Houses, and declared their great affection for the Church of England, and their resolution and determination to maintain it, at the same time requesting Parliament to take measures for the ease of scrupulous consciences and for

  967
  improving the position of Dissenters, that House made a respectful answer, which would be found in their Lordships' Journals for the year 1689, praying their Majesties—
  "To issue forth their writ, calling the Convocation of the clergy of this kingdom to be advised with on ecclesiastical matters."
  He was very far indeed from saying that the Convocations of the Church were perfect; Convocation had been often disgraced by sad scenes—but so also had Parliament, he was afraid; and it was not long since they heard that representative institutions were on their trial, and that grave doubts existed whether they could work on. He was not entering upon a general defence of Convocation, but this he would say, as he was forced to speak of the Irish branch, that, although there might have been scenes in it which were to be deplored, there never were any of those unseemly conflicts between the Upper and Lower Houses which had taken place across the water—they always worked together in harmony; and on the last occasion that Convocation sat in Ireland, their final occupation consisted in drawing up canons for the purpose of enabling the Church to work more thoroughly with the Irish speaking population, by the translation into Irish of the Scriptures and Book of Common Prayer. And it was the jealousy of the English Government with respect to such proceedings that formed the immediate cause of the suppression of Convocation. Not once, but frequently, this had been the case with the Church of Ireland. When that Church was most seriously endeavouring to discharge its proper functions and to perform its proper work, it had been stopped by the interference of England, and afterwards the very blame of that cessation from work, of that enforced apathy, had been thrown by England upon the Irish Church. In many respects, no doubt, Convocations were wanting; but it was one of the principles involved in their constitution that they contained a representation of the presbyteries of the Church. In advocating them he was not speaking so much for his own order. The Bishops of the Church—at least the majority of them—were still Members of that House; and it was still possible for the Primate of all England, the Peer, who, next to the Royal blood, was first of all the peerage of England, to get a hearing for a few hurried words on matters of grave importance, even while
  968
  the House was impatient to get to a Bill about police regulations. But he was speaking now of the privileges of the presbyteries, whose peculiar right it was to form a constituent part of the Synods of the Church. That right they traced from the principles of the Constitution itself, and from the representative principle running through all its branches. Parliament, by its legislation, was setting aside that right of representation, in order to substitute for it a Royal Commission, consisting of persons chosen by the advisers of the Crown. He did not know whether the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in introducing this matter to their Lordships had conveyed to their minds a clear conception of one matter. The communication to which the noble Earl the President of the Council alluded was a paper issued by the Primate of Ireland, in the name of himself and of the Bishops of the Irish branch, in which he requested Her Majesty's Government, instead of proceeding by four several Convocations to advise Her Majesty, to call together an united synod of the entire Church. He (the Bishop of Killaloe) quite concurred, in this view, that by far the best way would be to summon a Synod of the entire Church; and he thought that that request was one which should not have been refused, and that would have removed all difficulty from the matter. At the time of the "Union, Mr. Pitt made a distinct statement in Parliament that it was unnecessary to insert any provision for the purpose in the Acts of Union, because it was the inherent right of the Sovereign, as head of both branches of the Church, to call Convocation together whenever he pleased. That, undoubtedly, was what he should greatly prefer; but as that request was refused, the Irish Bishops asked for the next best thing. If there were any doubts or difficulties in the matter, he would suggest that the Amendment should be framed in such a manner as to take the form of a Motion for a Select Committee to consider what was the proper form of recurring to the advice of the bishops and clergy of the Irish Church. For years the Irish Church had been asking for synodical action. At one time they received no answer; then a positive refusal; then that the Convocations of York and Canterbury having done nothing which the Queen would be advised to ratify, her Majesty's advisers considered that there was no necessity for a Convocation of the Irish Provinces. Statesmen had been

  969
  so constantly occupied in checking the usurpations of the Church, that, considering that the danger lay on that side, they neglected to look to the other side. It was not for the interest of the Commonwealth that the civil power should be all in all. The State required the aid of religion to give sanction to its precepts, and unless there were a reference to that higher law whose seat was in the bosom of God, the law of the State would be in vain—if they confined the law to the horizon of this world they would make it mean and brutal, and deprive it of more than half its value. When statesmen had enslaved the Church, deprived it of all freedom of action, and stripped it of al that made it venerable in the eyes of men, they would find the tool to be useless with which they intended to work. A greater folly could not be attempted by any statesman than to turn the Church into a mere branch of the Civil Service, and at the same time to expect it to answer and civil end whatever. The union of Church and State could be maintained without impairing the activity of the Church; but, looking at the matter in a worldly point of view, and the State and the Church as two societies, the union of the Church and State was more desirable for the State than for the Church. It answered higher purposes than earthly ones; it freed the clergy from temptations, which temptations might otherwise be too strong for them; temptations to become slaves to the people or to corrupt and debase their doctrines in such a way as to make them absolute despots.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the Commissioners had certainly regarded it as an axiom in their proceedings that there should be no difference with respect to what was to be recommended for the English and Irish branches of the Church. But he must admit that the Commission had overlooked the practical difficulties which would arise, and which had arisen. The Report did not say a word about Convocation, but they took for granted that, with regard to England, by immemorial usage the alterations of the canons which they recommended would require the sanction of the Convocations of Canterbury and York;—because, though no doubt Parliament, according to the old legal saying, could do everything except "turn a man into a woman," it did not do everything, and one of the things which it was not likely to do was to alter the canons of the Church without the sanction of Convocation. Taking these two things
  970
  together—the necessity of not separating the two branches of the Church, and the necessity of consulting Convocation—the present occasion was one of difficulty. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Killaloe) said there was no difficulty in calling together the Convocation of the Irish Provinces; but there was this technical difficulty, that there were no records of the Convocation of the two Provinces. At the time that Convocations were held in Ireland there were four ecclesiastical Provinces. At the present time he thought that it was practically out of the question to call Convocation together in Ireland for the purpose of obtaining the assent of that branch of the Church to this alteration. He wished to know from the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) whether it was the intention of his amendment that it should be an Instruction to the Committee that the ease of the Irish Church should be postponed and left for further consideration? In his opinion that might be the best compromise; for on the one hand he should be sorry to advise the Irish Prelates to waive the rights of their church, but, on the other he could not agree to postponement of the measure as it concerned England. He attached great importance to the measure; he believed that it had a very good chance of passing this Session, and he was exceedingly unwilling to give up this prospect because of the difficulties of one branch of the Church. He should advise the Irish Prelates not to do anything that would have this effect, especially if they were willing to have the Bill passed and the case of their own branch of the Church omitted from it, and considered on a future occasion.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, that the noble Earl (Earl Granville), in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that the measure was one of kindness and conciliation; and, if so, he asked, why should the Irish Protestants be the only parties excluded from the benefit of a Bill which was declared almost universally to be good? If it would relieve the English Church from a difficulty, why should not the Irish Church have the same benefit r He thought that more time should be given for consideration. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) doubted whether it would not be necessary to call together the Convocations of the four Provinces; but by the Church Temporalities Act it was declared that all powers whatever which were theretofore possessed by the Provinces of Cashel

  971
  and Tuam should be transferred to those of Armagh and Dublin. Any noble Lord? who knew Ireland would, he was sure, concur with him in the statement, that the condition of the Church in Ireland was rapidly improving, and new churches were rising up day by day. He would, with the permission of their Lordships, read an extract from a speech by the late Bishop Jebb of Limerick, in which he stated his opinion in reference to the position of the Church of England and the Church of Ireland. The right rev. Prelate said—
  "One point and I have done. We have lately heard frequent mention of the Church of England and the Church of Ireland. I have myself heard it maintained in various companies, and I have read the doctrine in several publications, that the Church of England stands on a different footing from the Church of Ireland, and that the one Church ought to be treated differently from the other. Now against this doctrine, against any conclusion deducible from it, I most solemnly protest. I know the law knows not of any Church of England; I know the law knows not of any Church of Ireland; I know the law knows of one Reformed Episcopal Church within this realm, the United Church of England and Ireland. The English portion and the Irish portion at the period of the Union were bound together indis solubly, and for ever. They are one in doctrine, one in discipline, one in government, and one in worship. Each portion, therefore, must be treated as the other. Again, if one portion of the Church suffers, all must suffer with it. The Church in England and the Church in Ireland have no separate interests, have no separate being. They must stand or fall together. The United Church of England and Ireland is one and indivisible."
  In conclusion, he (the Earl of Bandon) expressed his earnest hope that their Lordships would aid them in the attempt to obtain what was due to the Church of Ireland.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he could not but think that this matter had been put in a somewhat false position. He believed that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) had not intended to make his Motion as an Amendment to going into Committee, but rather to move a Resolution in Committee in reference to the Irish branch of the Church. He (the Bishop of Oxford) was most anxious not to vote against anything that the Prelates of the Irish Church should think desirable for the maintenance of the rights of the Irish branch; but he must say that he could not vote for this Amendment on the Motion for going into Committee, because he thought that it was most important that this Bill should be at once proceeded with. He would therefore sug-
  972
  gest to his most rev. Friend that he should withdraw his present Motion, and that he should in Committee move either that the clause bearing upon the Irish branch of the Church should be postponed for further consideration, or to move an Address to the Crown, praying the Crown to call Convocation together, and thus allow them in a constitutional manner to alter the canons of the Church. He must, however, strongly deprecate the doctrine that the supposed exigency of the Irish branch being used in such a way as to give rise to a taunt that it acted upon the progress of the English branch as a retarding power; and he thought that a persistence in this Resolution would expose it to that imputation. This would be to put his Irish brethren into an altogether false position; and it would tend to do harm to the cause of the Irish branch of the Church. He confessed that he did not see any great hardship in postponing this matter in reference to the Irish branch until next year, it being no new thing that legislation for the Irish Church should follow that for the Church of England. It was not true that the canons of the two branches of the United Church were now identical—they were different in important points, and they needed to be brought closer together; but there was no necessity for that agreement in the time and manner of legislation which was now contended for. If the Prelates of the Irish Church wished to sec the constitutional mode of Church action established in Ireland, let them bring that forward as a proposition by itself; and not place it as an obstruction in the way of direct. English legislation. As the case at present stood, many of the English Prelates would have to vote against their Irish brethren. They did not, however, wish to be placed in that position, and therefore he trusted that the most rev. Prelate would withdraw his Motion, as he could bring it forward in another shape in which the English Bishops could give it their independent support.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONjoined his request to that of his right rev. Brother, and upon this strong ground—that they were by this Amendment requested to ask for the Irish branch of the Church that which had not been conceded to the English branch. They were, moreover, asked to stop legislation for England, and to pray that Her Majesty would be pleased to call Convocation together in Ireland for the purposes named in the Motion. But they had made no such Address to the Crown

  973
  in reference to England; and although when Convocation was sitting it had been understood that it would not be unacceptable that they should consider this question, there had been no attempt on their part to stop legislation until this had been done, and therefore the Irish Church claimed what the English Church had not claimed. What had been done was conciliatory to the Irish Church. The two Primates of Ireland had been placed upon the Commission, they had been consulted upon every step taken, and there was a strong feeling on the part of the Commissioners that the English and the Irish Church should be treated in the same manner. A strange error had found its way into the usual organs of public opinion, that it was the wish of the Commission that the Irish Church should be treated differently from the English Church; but when he expressed his own conviction that upon the maintenance of the Irish Church depended greatly the prosperity not only of Ireland but also of England, and when he stated that there was a kindly feeling exhibited, he believed, by all the members of the Commission towards the Irish branch of the Church, he did not think it unreasonable that they should ask the most rev. Prelate not to claim for the Church in Ireland that which had neither been accorded to nor claimed by the Church in England.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLINsaid, he regretted that his ignorance of the forms of the House had led him into a course he had not intended to take. He certainly had not intended to oppose any obstacle in the way of legislation, but simply to move his Motion as a first Amendment in Committee, with permission of the House, he would strike out the first six lines of his Motion, and begin with the words, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the Motion in that form would have precisely the same effect. If it were moved prior to going into Committee it would stop the progress of the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLINwithdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn; then the original Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Declaration of Assent.)
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD THE BISHOP OF OXFORD moved to
  974
  strike out the words at the conclusion of the clause—
  "I will use the form and the said hook prescribed, and none other, except so far as altered by lawful authority."
  After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Oath of Allegiance).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdrew attention to the fact that this clause was not in conformity with the recommendations of the Commission. He trusted that in this, as in all other cases, their recommendations would be carefully followed.
  LORD LYTTELTONhoped that the House would not be led into the belief that the Commission attached to all its recommendations the same importance, or that it advocated such strict adherence to its recommendations in regard to this clause as in the case of Clause 1.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the state of the law on this subject was somewhat complicated. The clergy took the oath of allegiance and supremacy only; but there was also the oath of abjuration. Two or three years ago an Act was passed substituting for the three oaths another oath; but it was held by some of the Courts that inasmuch as the clergy only took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy the recent Act did not apply to them. The subject was very much discussed in the Commission whether it would not be better to get rid of all differences in the oaths; that there should be but one oath in lieu of the three; and that that should be taken by the clergy instead of the two they were in the habit of taking. He thought that a very desirable change; but if it was at all felt that this was any departure from the recommendations of the Commission, or that it would in any way endanger the passing of the Bill, it would be much better to strike out the clause.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that rather than endanger the Bill he would withdraw the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 132).
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.