Sitting of 7 June 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Special and Common Juries nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [June 6] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Courts of Law, &c. (Salaries and Expenses).
Ordered—Investment of Trust Funds.*
First Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals)1* [196]; Investment of Trust Funds* [197].
Second Reading—Lis Pendens* [153].
Committee—Bankruptcy* (re-comm.)[131][R.P.]; Judgment Debtors* (re-comm.) [132] [R.P.]; Bankruptcy Acts Repeal (re-comm.) [133] [R.P]; Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)* [49]; Inclosure (No. 2)* [186]; Bridges (Ireland)* (re-comm.) [140].
Report—Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)* [49]; Inclosure (No. 2)*[186]; Bridges (Ireland)* (re-comm.) [195].
Considered as amended—Court of Chancery (Ireland)* [180].
Third Reading—Railway Companies* [164], and passed.

STORM WARNINGS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether any and what action has been taken to restore "Storm Warnings," consequent upon the Deputation of Members of Parliament to the President of the Board of Trade?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEreplied, that since the deputation the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) the President of the Board of Trade had communicated personally with General Sabine, the President of the Meteorological Committee. A letter had also been written asking whether it might not be possible for that Committee to meet that desire for some warning of apprehended danger from storms which had been so strongly urged. General Sabine had expressed his willingness to do so, as far as practicable, and the Committee now had the subject under consideration. It should be remembered that this Committee consisted of scientific gentlemen named by the Royal Society, at the request of the Government, as most competent to conduct these inquiries; they gave their time, labour, and talents gratuitously; they were appointed because a Government Department felt itself incompetent to deal with a purely scientific matter; they were responsible for the results of the expenditure sanctioned by Parliament, and it must be left to them to decide what could and what could not be done in the practical application of the present results of meteorological science.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to know, whether the Committee had expressed their willingness to undertake the; subject of Storm Warnings?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEreplied, that they were willing to do so as far as possible, and that the subject was now under their consideration.

INSPECTION OF SHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in reference to the Copies of Memorials "on the subject of disasters at sea and their prevention," presented to the House this Session by the Board of Trade,
1732
it is intended to take any steps to carry out the recommendations or suggestions contained in such Memorials; particularly in reference to the urgent want which is represented to exist of Inspectors of Mercantile Shipping?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in reply, said, the subjects referred to in the Memorials were under the consideration of the Board of Trade, with a view to future legislation. The question of inspecting ships about to go to sea was one of great difficulty. In the first place, no complete inspection could be made by the Government without relieving the owners of their responsibility to shippers, insurers, passengers, and others; which, after all, was the very best security. It was not easy to establish a system of inspecting thoroughly every loaded merchant vessel before she went to sea, without seriously impeding the trade of the country. At the same time it was worthy of consideration whether any safe steps could be taken in this direction by ordering a survey in cases where there was ground for suspicion, and where complaint was made. Except in the case of passengers and crews, even this was more for parties interested than for the Government. As regarded passengers, they were already cared for; as regarded the crew, they were not obliged to proceed to sea if the ship were unseaworthy. But this was often a question difficult to determine; and the Justices who were called on to decide were often very much at sea themselves. It was under the consideration of the Board of Trade whether, in case of allegation of unseaworthiness, the Justices should not have the assistance of the Board of Trade Surveyor, to enable them to decide whether the crew should or should not be compelled to go to sea.

ARMY—CAPITATION GRANT TO VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Capitation Grant due to Volunteers for the year ending the 30th November, 1866, has yet been paid; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, and whether it may not be prevented for the future?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, the present state of the issuing of the Vote for the Capitation Grant is as follows:—The sum of £120,000 was voted on account

1733
at the commencement of the year, and of that amount £76,000 has been issued for the efficient service of last year, while the remainder is in course of being issued. There has been, and I am afraid there will continue to be, a certain delay which arises from different causes, one of which I explained on a former evening. These monies are not issued till they are applied for, and when applied for it is necessary to examine the accounts in each case closely. Of course this investigation causes delay.

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

NAVY—THE "GREENWICH SIXPENCE."

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the case of the old Seamen who paid the Greenwich Sixpence before the year 1834. The merchant seamen were a patient and enduring class, and when they united to complain of a grievance the probability was that the grievance would prove to be a real one. Formerly the seamen in the merchant service had to contribute sixpence per month towards the funds of Greenwich Hospital. The old seamen whom he represented in this instance, believed that they had a claim upon the country on account of the sixpence per month which they had paid to the funds of Greenwich Hospital out of their wages. This payment was discontinued in the year 1834, on account of its manifest injustice. Though so many years had since elapsed, the seamen concerned had not forgotten their claims. A few months ago there sprang up an agitation in the northeastern ports, that they ought to receive what they thought to be their due. The genuine character of the agitation was shown by the petitions which had been presented in respect to it; those petitions had not been hawked about; signatures had not been canvassed for. Yet in the course of a very short time the petition at Shields was signed by 430 old men—the lowest term of service of any one of them being thirty-three years. The petition at Sunderland was signed by 330 old men, whose average age was sixty-six years. There was something almost pathetic in
  1734
  the sight of the signatures and the marks scrawled over a long roll of pages of copybooks rudely pasted together. He thought he should best perform his duty by simply laying their hopes and wishes before the House, without moving any Resolution for a Committee. The demands of the petitioners were so small that they might be almost covered by the expenses of a Select Committee and a couple of blue books. He would be content to leave the subject to the just consideration of a Government which, rightly or wrongly, was considered by the seafaring classes as peculiarly favourable to their cause. The sum involved was an extremely modest one; but in the eyes of these poor old seamen it assumed very different proportions, and was a grievance that they considered to be by no means a contemptible one. Their case was this:—The sixpence per month contributed out of their wages was or was not accepted with the intention of its securing some prospective advantage to the merchant service. If it was not so intended, it was great injustice that the men should have been called upon to contribute to the expenses of Greenwich Hospital. If it was intended that the payments should accrue to the ultimate benefit of those who made them, these old seamen were prepared to prove that they had never received any compensation or advantage whatever in return for the sixpences deducted from their wages. A Committee which sat on the subject in 1844 reported that it was just that the men should receive, in some shape or other, re-payment of their contributions. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), when President of the Board of Trade, had acknowledged that these poor men had a moral claim upon the Government. The scheme of a sort of naval infirmary at Greenwich Hospital for the benefit of the merchant service did not meet the views of the petitioners, who would rather take out their claims in tea, coffee, butchers' meat, and little comforts. It might be said that the State never refunded money; but the petitioners said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be just as willing to pay conscience money as they saw by the advertisements in The Times he was willing to receive it. They pointed to the precedent of the Indian officers, and though they had no spokesman in this House connected with their body, no clever lawyer who would advocate their cause, and no

  1735
  funds with which to carry on agitation, he hoped that this very poverty and want of advocates would induce the House and the Government to lean to their side, and not at their age postpone the relief to which they were entitled.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought there was no class to whose grievances the House would lend a more willing ear than our merchant seamen. If there were doubts — and there were doubts — surrounding the question, it would be better to give the seamen the benefit than allow them to feel that the House was unwilling to listen to their complaints. In the first instance, he had doubted whether they had a valid claim, but having given as much attention as he could to the subject, he had seen reason to modify that opinion. Looking to the Charter, it was to be remarked that the foundation of the Hospital was not simply an act of Royal munificence; it was a sagacious and deeply-laid scheme of policy, framed with a view to draw into the Royal Navy a constant and regular supply of seamen. The objects set forth were four in number. First, the relief of aged seamen of the Royal Navy and those disabled or maimed in that service; secondly, the sustentation of their widows; thirdly, the maintenance and education of the children of those who might be slain or disabled in the Royal service; and fourthly, the further relief and encouragement of seamen. The words in which this last object was set forth "further to provide for seamen," showed that, though a preferential claim existed in favour of seamen in the Royal Navy, yet that something else was contemplated in behalf of seamen generally. He thought, therefore, the claim now put forward was a valid one, provided all the claims of the Royal Navy were satisfied, and there were surplus funds out of which to meet it. In this position he was fortified by the highest authority—that of the present Controller of the Hospital Estates (Mr. Lethbridge). He said, when examined before the Royal Commission of 1860, that though seamen of the Royal Navy were the first objects of the charity, merchant seamen were not under all circumstances excluded. A Member of that Commission (Mr. Ingham) asked—
  "If they register themselves they will be entitled to the benefits of the Hospital?"
  To which Mr. Lethbridge's answer was—
  "Provided there was room. I think it was held out to them as an encouragement to come in and register, that they should have the benefits of
  1736
  the Hospital extended to them as far as the funds would go."
  It was admitted, therefore, that the merchant service was entitled to share in the benefits of the Institution after the claims of the Royal Navy were exhausted, always supposing that a surplus remained. The Charter and the statutes clearly laid down the preferential claim of the Royal Navy, and in practice the Admiralty had always acted upon that principle. He did not suppose that there was a case in which a merchant seaman had been admitted as such, unless he had been disabled in fighting the Queen's enemies. The House must not suppose that because their direct claims had not been recognised they had not received extensive indirect advantages. More than half the boys in the upper school at Greenwich had been sons of merchant seamen, and they received an education costing £30 a year. An inquiry was made in 1835 by direction of Sir James Graham, and it appeared that of 2,500 pensioners then in the Hospital, 1,000 were men whose average service in the merchant navy was thirteen years, who had paid £4 4s. 6d. to the funds of the Hospital, in the shape of the monthly sixpences, and whose average residence in the Hospital had been eleven years. The average service of the pensioners in the Royal Navy was at that time sixteen years. In the face of these facts it was impossible to say the merchant service had not derived benefits. He was perfectly satisfied to leave the decision of the matter in the hands of the House, believing that it would exercise a fair and unbiassed judgment in the matter. He could not help complaining that the Correspondence on this subject between Sir James Graham, Lord Auckland, and Sir Richard Keates, in 1831 and 1834, which he had moved for a considerable time ago, had not yet been furnished. If it was produced now it would be of very little use, inasmuch as the purpose for which these papers were required would have passed away.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, that seamen, when they had been some years in the merchant service, joined the Royal Navy. After a few years' service they became prematurely incapacitated, and then sought refuge in Greenwich Hospital. That was one argument adduced to show that the sixpence was not paid without consideration. The other was the chance of getting children into the schools. These arguments failed to satisfy the House that it was just to continue the payment of the

  1737
  sixpence, and it was abolished. None were received in the school but the children of those in some way connected with the navy. As the compensatory benefits no longer existed those who paid the sixpence up to 1834 had paid it without consideration, and legally and morally they were entitled to some return.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished, as he had the honour of introducing the Bill under which the Greenwich Hospital Fund was now administered, to remind the House of what took place in the debates which arose upon this subject. The question now raised by the hon. Member was introduced, the whole thing was gone into very carefully, and the House decided that there was no case whatever for this appeal. In the first place, inasmuch as the whole of the revenues of Greenwich were now appropriated, if this claim were allowed it must come as a distinct charge on the country. But on the merits of the claim itself—if it was true that in 1834 the sixpence a month which had been previously contributed by the merchant seamen was remitted, it was also true that the contribution made by the seamen of the Royal Navy was remitted likewise. If therefore the remission had produced effect in the one case as to the claims of the contributors upon Greenwich Hospital, it ought to have produced an effect in the other. As no one had contended that because the contribution made by the sailors of the Royal Navy was remitted they were therefore excluded from the benefits of the Greenwich Hospital, so, on the other hand, it could not be maintained that the seamen of the merchant service were deprived of any privilege to which they were entitled while they paid the sixpence a month. But the fact is that when the merchant seamen's sixpence was remitted in 1834, the main argument for the remission was that the merchant seamen had no claims and no possible interest in the Hospital. How, then, could the House be asked to compensate them for the loss of that in which they had no interest? In 1711 an Act was passed defining clearly the purposes to which Greenwich Hospital should be applied. It appeared from the Preamble of that Act that no seamen could be admitted to the Hospital except those who had served in the Royal Navy, or who had been wounded in action against an enemy. An Act was passed subsequently extending the benefit of that provision to persons wounded in action against
  1738
  pirates. That right existed at present. Those who had served in the Royal Navy, having also served in the merchant service, were entitled just as much as they were before 1865 to the Greenwich out-pension and the benefits of the Hospital. He should be glad to do all he could for the benefit of the merchant service, but he certainly did not think the claim now made could be entertained.
  MR. CORRYsaid, that so much had been said by his hon. Friends who had preceded him that they had left him little to say upon the subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trevelyan) stated that it was asserted by those whose interests he represented that the merchant seamen's contribution was instituted for the benefit of the merchant seamen. The fact was it was instituted not for their direct, but for their collateral benefit. He could not show that better than by reading an extract from a letter addressed by Sir Richard Keates, Governor of Greenwich Hospital, to Sir James Graham in 1831. Sir Richard Keates said—
  "This assessment on merchant seamen was evidently not made with a view to their having any direct advantage from Greenwich Hospital in return, but rather upon the broad principle of protection and security afforded to the merchant shipping and commerce of the country by the navy, for whom the Hospital is provided. This fact is established by the preamble, and, indeed, the whole terms of each Act of Parliament relating thereto, wherein it is explicitly stated that the benefits of Greenwich Hospital shall be for seamen maimed, wounded, or worn-out in the King's service, and it is thus limited for the express purpose of giving encouragement to seamen voluntarily to enter themselves for that service."
  But, though the contribution of the merchant seamen's sixpence was not established for their direct benefit, there could be no doubt that, even directly, they had derived benefit from the Hospital more than proportionate to the amount of their contributions. He held in his hand a letter from Lord Auckland, also addressed to Sir James Graham in 1834, as to the great benefit which merchant seamen received from the institution. Lord Auckland said—
  "The merchant seaman contributes to the support of the Hospital, and is not as such, unless wounded in action with an enemy or pirate, entitled to admission; but one day of service under the King gives him a claim to all its benefits, and, in fact, the age, sickness, and decrepitude which find refuge in the Hospital are acquired in the merchant service in a much greater proportion than that service contributes to its support.

  1739
  Out of a revenue of £140,000 the merchant seamen contributes £21,000, and of 2,710 men in the hospital upwards of 1,000 have served in the merchant service, averaging in it thirteen years each man, while in the school are 117 children, whose fathers have never served in the navy. It is false, therefore, to say that the merchant seamen receives no benefit from the hospital; hut, even if it were so, the tax upon him (or, as it may be more properly stated, on his employer) may be justified as due for the protection which he receives from the King's navy during war, and his exclusion from the Hospital, unless after service in the navy, may be supported as an encouragement to him to enter the King's service, and as auxiliary to the wish which exists of connecting the two services and of finding substitutes for the severity of impressment."
  If further proof was required that Greenwich Hospital was not looked upon as an institution established for the benefit of merchant seamen, it would be furnished by the Report of the Commissioners on Greenwich Hospital in 1860, from which it appears that special provision was made for the merchant service by an Act passed in 1747 for the express purpose of providing separately—
  "For the relief and support of married and disabled seamen, and the widows and children of such as shall be killed, slain, or drowned in the merchant service."
  It was clear, then, in the first place that the merchant seamen's sixpence was not levied for the benefit of the merchant seamen; and, in the next place, that if it were they had already derived more advantage than would be equivalent to the amount of their contributions. He would ask the House, therefore, not to consent to the claim put forward by his hon. Friend, although he could assure him that, if he thought it would be defended on any principle of justice, he would be the last person to oppose it.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he did not think that any one who had addressed the House had alleged that the merchant seamen had any legal claim, because, if so, they would have a legal remedy without having recourse to Parliament. The claim was put forward upon equitable and moral grounds, and was one of substantial justice. A large sum of money had been compulsorily exacted from the merchant seamen without their having any further claim upon the fund which those exactions established. With regard to the 1,000 inmates of Greenwich Hospital in 1834, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) as having served in the merchant navy, it must be remembered that their admission was not in any way consequent on their having been in that
  1740
  service, but on their having afterwards been in the Royal Navy. In his borough (Sunderland) there were about 400 disabled seamen, who in early life compulsorily contributed sixpence a month for a period varying from twelve to thirty years to this fund. They, though now in penury — about thirty of them being in the union workhouse — were not allowed to share in its benefits. There was no charge of maladministration. He admitted that according to the terms of the Charter, the object of which was evidently to induce merchant seamen to pass into the Royal Navy, the benefits of the fund might be restricted to the latter service. But that was a very insufficient ground for exacting contributions from them to a fund in which they had no legal claim to participate. He hoped the Government would consider whether some concession could not be made in favour of these disabled seamen, some of whom were verging on 100 years of age.

SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY EDWARDSsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member in charge of this Bill to postpone it till after Whitsuntide? Many Members were much interested in the measure, and it was likely to lead to a long debate. There was little probability of its coming on before half past ten, after which hour the hon. Gentleman had promised not to proceed with it.
  MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he was very anxious to take advantage of every opportunity of forwarding the Bill, especially considering the difficulty in which private Members were placed this Session; but he could not withstand the representations which had been made to him, and would postpone the measure to the 26th of June.

DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND. OBSERVATIONS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he rose to call attention to the distress which, according to communications that had reached him, now prevailed in the Western portions of Mayo and Galway. The districts to which he referred extended from the town of Galway, along the Northern part of the bay, and the entire Connemara district, embracing all the islands and coast of Clew Bay as far as Westport and Newport, including the Arran Isles and the large island of Achill.

1741
The peasantry of this district occupied very small portions of land of indifferent quality, and since he first put a Question to the Chief Secretary on the subject he had received further communications and had seen statements in the public press describing the lamentable condition of the people. In the Clifden Union, as well as in other localities, outdoor relief was refused, although a gentleman, who had visited the workhouse, found the ninety-nine beds occupied by 153 inmates. The normal condition of the peasantry of that portion of Ireland was remarkable. In the best of times they were not well off; they had no security for the continued occupancy of their farms, and, in the absence of leases and of compensation claims, no incentive to improvement. He held a document, signed by sixteen Roman Catholic clergymen of the district, in which they stated that the condition of the people required immediate relief. They felt themselves imperatively called upon, having examined the condition of the large population of the district, to call the attention of the Government to the imminent danger in which these people stood of dying by starvation. The distressed people experienced great difficulty in getting outdoor relief from the Poor Law authorities, and were told, when they asked for it, that the workhouse was open. That was the condition of the people in the central portion of the district. In another part the people were living principally upon nettles, gathered in the fields. He did not wish to indicate to the House that the local authorities were wilfully neglecting their duties; he merely wished to call attention to the facts as they stood. Great difficulty was experienced in getting outdoor relief; while if the people went to the workhouse their land would remain uncultivated, they would be unable to pay their rent, and would become confirmed paupers, and a permanent burden on the rates. A little timely relief would enable these people to continue a life of industry; but this relief was withheld, and in one parish (the Rev. Mr. Corway's) it appeared that a poor person walked fifteen miles to and from the house of the relieving officer, but could get no aid. He wished to know if no steps had hitherto been taken in the matter; whether the Government were prepared to take any steps to discharge that first duty of a Government by preventing the people from perishing of want in a land where
1742
there was plenty? He would conclude by asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Poor Law Commissioners, or if he, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, received any communications as to the distress now said to prevail in the western portions of Mayo and Galway; and, if so, if his attention has been called to the difficulty experienced in inducing the local authorities to extend outdoor relief; or to the crowded state of the Clifden Union Workhouse; and, whether any steps have been taken to induce the local authorities to carry out the Poor Law Act in a spirit of generosity, or to prevent the evil consequences of their hesitating to do so?
LORD NAASsaid, it had been his duty, in consequence of the representations made to the Government, to institute accurate inquiries into the condition of the people in the district in question. It was quite true that considerable pressure had existed this year among the poor inhabitants of the district, caused by the lateness and inclemency of the spring, and by the fact that some of the people had been obliged to give to their cattle a portion of that sustenance which they had expected to be able to retain for their own use. A careful inquiry had been made respecting the state of the districts included in the Westport Union and Connemara. In the Westport district the people possessed, during the winter, a considerably larger number of cattle than usual. Therefore, at the end of the long winter, they found themselves not only with a much diminished supply of food, but with a larger number of cattle. The Government had directed the intelligent Poor Law Inspector to make inquiry into the state of things. He had traversed both districts. A gunboat had been placed at his disposal, and he had thereby had the opportunity of visiting any part of the coast where his presence might be required. With regard to the Westport Union, a meeting had been held of the Roman Catholic clergy, at which resolutions were passed, which were forwarded to him and formed the foundation of the iuquiry to which he referred. The Inspector found that the state of things in the Westport Union was, on the whole, satisfactory. The average rate levied in October last on the whole of the union amounted only to 1s. 9d. in the pound. In one electoral division of the union of Louisburgh it was only 1s. 2d., where a few years ago it was as high as 5s. In Oughterard it was 10 d. In Kilmeenagh

1743
it was 1s. 4d. On Clare Island it was 1s. 8d. In the electoral division of Westport itself, the only division in which it was high, it was about 3s. in the pound. Notwithstanding that the rate was struck in October, the sum of £800 was still standing to the credit of the Westport Union at the bank, so that there was no indication of such an amount of pressure on the rates as the resources of the district were unable to meet. The workhouse itself contained accommodation for nearly 1,000 persons. On the 25th of May this year it had only 204 inmates. On the same day in 1865 the number of inmates was 180; in 1866 the number was 165. There were therefore ample funds and sufficient workhouse accommodation at the disposal of the guardians. There was an indisposition on the part of a large portion of the population to enter the workhouse. It was the habit of the people to submit to considerable privation before they took advantage of the relief afforded by the poorhouse. The Boards of Guardians in Ireland possessed, however, very considerable powers in administering outdoor relief. The attendance both of the ex officio and elective guardians in this district was regular, and the general business of the union was well-conducted. It rested with the guardians to say whether they thought it necessary, under the circumstances, to take advantage of those provisions of the law which authorized the granting of outdoor relief. He did not think it would be either prudent or wise for the Government to interfere with the representatives of the ratepayers, who were responsible for the proper discharge of their duties. The duty of the Government was to throw upon the Poor Law Guardians of the district the responsibility which naturally belonged to them, and not to interfere with their administration of the law. Great evils might arise from any direct interposition on the part of the Government, who would thereby assume a responsibility which they would be unable to discharge. That could only be justified when all other means had completely and entirely failed, and when the guardians and local authorities had neglected to perform their duty. From the letters he had received, it appeared that some of the large proprietors were fully awake to the distress that existed, but which they believed to be temporary, and had given orders for a considerable amount of drainage works, which would
1744
afford employment to the people. The distress could be met in a much better way by means of these useful works than by any other means. He was afraid that in the Connemara district poverty prevailed to a greater degree than in any other part of the West of Ireland. Some weeks ago he had directed inquiry to be made, and he had received a Report from Dr. Brodie, the Poor Law Inspector, stating that there was some appearance of distress among a large portion of the population. In consequence of this state of things, the Government had consented to set on foot three or four works in connection with fishery piers, that could be undertaken under an existing Act of Parliament; but which, in the ordinary course of events, would not have been undertaken for one or two years. These works, he believed, would give a considerable amount of employment, and help to mitigate distress. With regard to the actual state of things in Connemara, he had learned, within the last few days, that the Poor Law Inspector had visited that district. That officer, accompanied by the medical Inspector of the district, went to some of the islands near the coast; and though they certainly found considerable poverty there, the impression left on their minds was that there were no symptoms of fever or those other diseases which were the invariable accompaniments of severe distress. The people of the islands they visited seemed to be about as well clothed as usual, though that might not, perhaps, be saying very much. In one of the islands there was a considerable number of cattle. The Inspector took care to visit every family on these islands where it was likely that any distress existed, and he pointed out to the relieving officer three or four cases which he thought demanded immediate attention. In one place, on the main land, the Law Life Assurance Company was found to be giving employment to some 300 men, while there was work laid out for many more, the wages offered being from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per day, which was considerably above the ordinary rate of wages of the country. Many persons, however, did not appear to have availed themselves of the employment thus offered to them, for the reason that they were mostly small holders of land, who were not in a position at the moment to engage in work, being occupied with the tillage of their own farms. By-and-by, when their home work was finished, they

1745
would be able to do so. There had likewise been considerable preparations made for the manufacture of kelp. The Inspectors visited another part of the union, and found 200 men employed at the rate of 1s. 6d. a day. The Poor Law Inspector reported that the health of the people was good, and there were no symptoms of fever or dysentery in the district. Dr. Brodie visited the island of Innisboffin, where he found a considerable amount of poverty, but no actual privation. He found that exertions had been made by the proprietors to give employment to the people engaged in fishing, by agreeing to take all the large fish they caught off their hands, provided they took the payment partly in money and partly in meal. An English gentleman had also offered to purchase as many lobsters and shell-fish as could be caught. Dr. Brodie visited Ballinakill and Cuskilly, and in the latter he found there were 200 men employed at 1s. 6d. a day. On the same day Dr. Brodie met Mr. Robinson, the agent of the Law Life Assurance Company. That gentleman assured him that care would be taken to keep drainage and other works going, so as to employ all the people who resided on that company's estates. A very large supply of Indian meal had been imported into Galway, and twenty-five tons of that article were sent to Clifden two or three days ago in the ordinary course of trade. There were only 194 persons in the workhouse of that town, while there was accommodation for 800 or 1,000. There had been some complaints of an insufficiency of bedding in the workhouse of Clifden. He found, from a telegram received that day from the Poor Law Commissioners, that a considerable quantity of articles for bedding had been ordered from Dublin. He thought he had said enough to show that, as far as they could judge, the Poor Law authorities, the proprietors, and the great majority of the persons to whom they could look for the relief of that temporary distress were now doing much for that purpose. The Government felt that it would be overstepping the bounds of its duty if it held out to the inhabitants of those districts that it was its intention to provide for their support. The Government would continue to remind the persons connected with the locality of their duty in that matter. The House would be of opinion that the Government was taking a dangerous course if it created the impression
1746
that it would undertake duties which could only, with safety, be performed by the Poor Law authorities and the proprietors of the district.
MR. BRADYsaid, he felt disappointed at the speech of the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, because he had expected to hear that the Government were about to do something to relieve the distress. The noble Lord said there had been a large importation of Indian meal into Galway; but he did not tell the House how the people, who were now starving, were to acquire means for the purchase of that meal. It was very well to say that the proprietors would buy all the fish that was caught; but the poor people along the coast were wretchedly provided with boats, and of course it was impossible they could extemporise boats for this occasion. The noble Lord said the state of the people's health was satisfactory, and that fever and dysentery had not made their appearance; but neither disease made its appearance in the first stages of privations. If the extreme poverty which existed was allowed to continue and increase, fever and dysentery would soon make their appearance. He trusted that although the noble Lord did not think it the duty of Government to support the people, he would effectively remonstrate with the Boards of Guardians upon the necessity for a faithful discharge of their duties.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

(1.) £3,722,700, to complete the sum for General Staff and Regimental Pay, Allowances, and Charges.

(2.) £890,000, to complete the sum for Commissariat Establishment, &c.

(3.) £420,000, to complete the sum for Clothing Establishments, &c.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £446,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of the Barrack Establishment, Services, and Supplies, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1867 to the 31st day of March 1868, inclusive.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he objected to an item for the cleansing of cesspools, as, by a little ingenuity and trouble, the

1747
expense might have been saved. In this Vote it was proposed to grant £2,000 for the purchase of billiard tables, and to this Vote he entirely objected. If the officers' pay was insufficient—and he confessed that he thought it was a miserable pittance—by all means let it be increased. But he objected to the British taxpayers being called upon to provide them with billiard tables; and if the answer of the Government was not satisfactory, he should move that this sum of £2,000 be omitted from the Vote.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the mantle of the late hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) appeared to have fallen upon the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, though he did not mean by that to complain of the manner in which he criticized the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman first alluded to the cost of the cesspools; but surely he would allow that it was most necessary for public health that these cesspools should be constructed. As regarded billiard tables the House last night decided to grant a sum of £3,000 towards the construction of billiard-rooms, and he hoped that they would not now refuse to grant £2,000 towards the purchase of the tables to furnish those rooms with. It was perfectly true—indeed, no one seemed disposed to deny—that the pay of officers in the army was quite insufficient, and greatly below what their position required. Were it not for the high spirit which animated those who entered the army, it could not be officered on the terms that it now was. The gentlemen who thus served their country were not only poorly paid, but they were subjected to the influence of all kinds of climates. They, therefore, well merited the best consideration that could be shown to them in the shape of providing harmless amusements which would help to lighten their lot, and reconcile them to tedious and onerous duties. Large sums had already been expended with the view of ameliorating the condition of the soldier by providing the means of innocent recreation. All that was now proposed was to do something similar for the officers. Under these circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, or if he did, that the House would not agree to it.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he had heard some prophecies with regard to the length of time which the present Government would remain in power. He was satisfied that
1748
whenever they did get into a scrape, it would arise from the increases they were making in the Estimates. Both the Army and Navy Estimates of this year exhibited a great increase. He believed that officers would repudiate the representation that the supply of billiard tables would constitute an inducement for men to enter the army. The adoption of the item would place the officers of the army in an invidious position. The matter was not of great importance in itself, whether the billiard tables were purchased by the Government or by the officers themselves; but it involved a principle of some magnitude—namely, the introduction of an entirely new expense into the Estimates. These were unquestionably large enough at present. He saw no reason why the public should now be made to pay for billiard tables, seeing that the officers had for many years provided them at their own expense. If the principle were once recognised where were they to stop? Might not arguments as good be advanced for making the country pay for cricket, croquet, or any other popular game? He hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with his Motion. If the Government succeeded in passing the Vote the question of its rejection would be raised year by year, and the matter would create considerable discussion out of doors.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, He hoped the Government would persevere with the Vote. Although officers had billiard tables of their own in their own quarters, they could not carry them about everywhere they were sent. It was far preferable that they should have them provided in their barracks, than that they should be compelled to obtain the amusement they required at the public billiard-rooms. It would prevent young officers from going to the common billiard tables and there meeting blackguards and low characters, such as were to be found at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and the like towns.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSconcurred in thinking it desirable to induce officers not to frequent common billiard-rooms. On that account he voted last night in support of the item for barrack billiard-rooms. But it did not follow that Parliament should also furnish the rooms with billiard tables.
MR. MONKsaid, he thought that if £2,000 were all that was required, there was no necessity for dividing the House. If it was a Vote requiring to be annually

1749
supplemented, it would require to be carefully considered.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the matter should be argued upon its own merits, and that the smallness of the officers' pay should not be made an argument for agreeing to the Vote. If the army was really underpaid, the question should be properly debated, but this could be no justification for purchasing billiard tables. He would like to know from the right hon. Baronet whether the regulations applicable to the repair and maintenance of barrack furniture would be applied in the case of these billiard tables, supposing they were granted. If these rules were applied to the tables, he should not object to the Vote. Otherwise he would suggest that the Government should withdraw it for this year.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that when he had incidentally mentioned that the pay of officers in the British army was inadequate, he never intended to found any serious argument upon it. He had merely employed it as an illustration to show that the officers were eminently deserving of the indulgence proposed to be given to them by the Government. With regard to the other portion of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, he apprehended that Parliament having agreed to build billiard-rooms if it sanctioned the procuring of these billiard tables, they would necessarily become part and parcel of ordinary barrack furniture, and would come under the regulations applied to such furniture. The tables would remain at the stations where they were placed, and when a regiment left for new quarters they would be charged a fair sum for any damage that might be done to the tables during the time they had used them.
SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he should support the Vote. He was sure the War Department would not be extravagant in providing amusement for the officers of the British Army. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the question of retaining as few regiments in camp during the winter months as possible.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it was very well to talk of this as a small sum. This was only the beginning of a system which they would never hear the last of, and which would bring discredit on the army itself. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £2,000—the sum proposed for the furniture of the billiard-rooms.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he
1750
thought it would be rather invidious to withdraw this item to provide for the recreation and amusement of officers, when so much had been done in the shape of recreation rooms and grounds for the soldier.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, if it were the fact that the provision and repair of billiard tables came within the rules applicable to barrack furniture, he should no longer oppose the voting of the sum asked for that purpose.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he was not disposed to vote against the grant of £2,000 for the purpose specified. But if this expenditure was to go on, and the large sum of £60,000 was to be drawn upon in future years, he thought the sense of the Committee should be taken on the Vote.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that £2,000 would purchase about twenty-two billiard-tables. That number would not go far among the British Army. He did not know whether it would be necessary to repeat the Vote next year. In all probability it would be in a diminished form. He might remind the Committee that these were not his Estimates. They were drawn up by his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel).
MR. MONKsaid, he had heard quite enough from the right hon. Baronet to induce him to vote with the hon. Alderman.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Item of £2,000, for the Furniture for Billiard Rooms, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Lusk.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 72: Majority 60.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(5.) £28,000, to complete the sum for Divine Service.
(6.) £14,000, to complete the sum for Administration of Martial Law.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary for War to the fact that repeated applications had been made for a Vote for the erection of a military prison at Aldershot, but without any result.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the suggestion was natural, and he would consider it before next year.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £195,600, to complete the sum for Hospital Establishment, &c.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask

1751
why there had been such a large increase last year in the number of staff surgeons?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would inquire into the matter.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether his attention had been called to a new ambulance waggon which was very highly spoken of by competent judges The correspondent of The Times at the Paris Exhibition, a gentleman well qualified to express an opinion on the subject, stated that the English show of ambulance requisites was a poor one.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had not seen the ambulance waggon to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but he would give his attention to the matter.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that photographs of the new ambulance waggon were published in Colonel Reilly's Report.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) £561,600, to complete the sum for Disembodied Militia.
COLONEL H. H. FANEsaid, he wished to asked the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention had been called to the defenceless state of the Militia storehouses, and of the large quantity of arms in possession of that force, arising chiefly from so small a proportion of the permanent staff being resident within the said stores in many instances; and whether, if his attention had been so called, he proposed to call upon the county authorities to provide increased accommodation for a larger number of non-commissioned officers and men?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that after the occurrence at Chester, the Government had sent an Engineer officer to visit all the Militia establishments throughout the country, and to report on their condition. The inquiry had not yet concluded, but reports had been received from a number of Militia establishments. In several of those places, though the state of the defences was not what it ought to be, it could be remedied at a small expense. But that was not the only question. He was sorry to say there was a larger and more difficult question to be considered—namely, whether the different Militia establishments ought not to be so arranged as to accommodate a larger staff than they could now accommodate. The difficulty in the matter arose from the fact that the Government had not power, under the Militia Act, to oblige counties to provide the necessary accommodation for the Militia Staff. The
1752
powers under the Act were only permissive. The question was one which must be considered. He hoped means might be found of providing for the Militia Staffs that accommodation which they ought to have.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that if the Government thought the Militia establishments ought to be better defended, there should be a National Vote for the purpose. The expense ought not to be thrown on the counties.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and of the Committee, to improvements which he thought might be introduced into the Militia service. During the past week there had been a meeting of Militia officers, and they had called the attention of his right hon. Friend to alterations which, in their opinion, would increase the efficiency of the service. One of the great defects of the present system was the deficiency of officers, and there were many circumstances which rendered it extremely difficult to obtain subalterns. The Militia had to compete with, the Volunteers. The latter service enabled officers to dispose of their time more freely than they could do in the Militia. It was no wonder, therefore, that many officers preferred to enrol themselves in the Volunteer corps. The officers of the Militia were obliged to attend one month in every year at the headquarters of their regiments to be billeted in inns and public-houses, and to lead a life not altogether agreeable to gentlemen holding their social position. At the same time there was a feeling in favour of the service. He wished to suggest that some little alteration should be made in the allowances to officers, in order to enable them to accommodate themselves at the head-quarters of their regiments in a more convenient manner than they could at present. In his own regiment, the wealthier officers had contributed large sums for establishing a system of barracks; but if any officers could not afford to pay for barrack accommodation, they were billeted in inns and public houses, and put to serious inconvenience. He believed it was the unanimous opinion of the officers of the Militia that a very slight amount of additional accommodation would materially improve that branch of the service. If his right hon. Friend would consent to give a moderate allowance to officers instead of billeting them, the reluctance which now existed to entering the force

1753
would in all probability cease. There was another point he wished to submit to the Committee. Since the Militia was embodied many officers had changed their residence, although they still remained attached to their old county Militia, the consequence being that they had to go great distances in order to perform their duties. He thought that the travelling expenses of officers might with great propriety be increased, and that they ought to be paid their railway fares from their bonâ fide residences to the head-quarters of their respective regiments and back again. There was another point to which the attention of his right hon. Friend had already been directed, relative to the obtaining of greater efficiency in the Staff of Militia regiments by inducing non-commissioned officers, more active than pensioners, to join the service. At the present time the great body of the Staffs of Militia was formed of pensioners who had seen twenty years' service. Although they did their duty admirably, there was no denying that it was a great detriment to the service that younger men were not obtained. It was thought that if a system of pensions to the Staff were established younger soldiers and men of greater activity would be induced to join the service. The system of billeting the Militia in towns was creating a considerable sensation in various parts of the country. The billeting of his own regiment had been productive of considerable inconvenience. The corporate body of the town in which it was quartered had suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that the inconvenience might be remedied by the establishment of barracks for the regiment. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take these various matters into consideration.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he attached great weight to the opinion of his hon. and gallant Friend upon this subject, because he was an officer of great experience. He had had the pleasure of receiving a few days ago, and again to-day, very influential deputations of officers commanding Militia regiments. The present great deficiency in the number of Militia officers was an important matter. Owing to various causes, Militia regiments were very short of officers, and he believed nowhere more so than in the county (Lancaster) with which his hon. and gallant Friend was connected. There were few matters to which he attached more importance
1754
than the maintenance of our national Militia. He was most desirous to do everything he could to increase the efficiency of that ancient, constitutional, and most valuable force, which was our best Army of Reserve. He could therefore assure his hon. and gallant Friend that he would take into his most serious and most favourable consideration the points which had been urged upon his attention. The Estimates being already prepared, he was afraid he could do nothing at present. He could, without hesitation, promise that he would do everything that was fairly in his power to induce gentlemen of respectability to become officers in our national Militia.
Vote agreed to,
(9.) £60,000, to complete the sum for Yeomanry Cavalry.
(10.) £241,000, to complete the sum for Volunteer Corps.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to refer to a Return he moved for in the early part of the Session, which was headed "Volunteer Capitation Grant." That Return was the Report of a Committee of Volunteer officers to the Secretary of State for War. Some years ago it fell to his lot to bring before the House the position of the Volunteer force, which, when first started, was almost self-supporting. The Government, it was true, gave some slight assistance in the form of drill-sergeants and adjutants, but still in the main it was a self-supporting body. Subsequently it appeared that although a large number of men were willing to serve as Volunteers, still the expenses bore so hardly upon them that unless some State assistance were given the force would probably dwindle away. The result of his bringing the matter before the House was that a Royal Commission was appointed, under the presidency of the late Speaker of the House of Commons, the present Lord Eversley. That Commission reported in favour of a Parliamentary grant of money to be paid, not to the Volunteers, but for the use of the regiments, at the rate of so much per head. Having had the honour to form one of that Commission, he might state that the feeling by which they were animated was that the Volunteers should cost the country as little as possible. Accordingly they recommended that the capitation grant should be fixed at £1 per head. That was in 1863. Since then the Volunteer force, instead of falling off, had

1755
steadily increased. There was an increase in the Estimate as compared with last year, and that of last year showed an advance upon the preceding year. An increase in the Estimate indicated an increase in the number of Volunteers, and also an increase of efficiency. The Vote was increased by the augmentation of the capitation grant, for Volunteers made efficient, and by the augmentation of the sum paid in extra 10 s. grants for efficiency in shooting and other acquirements. The Report upon any great review of Volunteers showed that in the opinion of those who made the inspection the Volunteers were increasing in efficiency. Probably the last official Report published was the most favourable of all. Recently letters had been received from Volunteer officers in different parts of the country, stating that the capitation grant was not sufficient to meet the expenses of the corps, and that unless some further Parliamentary aid was given the probability was that the forces would diminish in numbers, as the capitation was fixed at a sum less than was required to maintain them in efficiency. The subject was brought before a meeting of metropolitan officers, held at the offices of the National Rifle Association, and the following Resolution was adopted:—
"That, in the opinion of the meeting, it is desirable that a deputation should wait on the Secretary of State for War to draw his attention to the fact that the necessary expenses of Volunteer corps are not at present covered by the Parliamentary grant, which has to be largely supplemented by subscriptions of officers and men, and to state at the same time that a strong feeling is believed to pervade the Volunteer force that those who freely and without pay give their service to the State should be relieved from the necessity of such personal expenditure."
The meeting was attended by thirty-six metropolitan officers, and the committee took such steps as appeared to be necessary for bringing the matter before the Secretary of Sate for War. It appeared, however, desirable to apply a test which could leave no doubt as to the necessity of further State assistance being given. Therefore a circular letter was addressed, through the medium of the National Rifle Association, to all the commanders of corps in the country. There were sent out 1,260 circulars, which asked for immediate replies to the question whether the resolution read was concurred in or not? There had been received 655 replies, and only twenty-one expressed a qualified dissent. All the
1756
rest declared the necessity for further assistance, and suggested various ways in which it should be given. The great majority of the replies were in favour of an additional capitation grant, to be expended at the discretion of the commanding officers. The numbers of the committee were then increased by the addition of such Volunteer officers as were in town and as could be got to attend. They proceeded to consider the replies they had received. They were unanimous in the recommendation that the addition to the capitation grant should be £1 for efficients. The committee included the Dukes of Sutherland and St. Albans, Earls Spencer and Vane, the Earls of Denbigh, Airlie, Durham, and Londesborough; Viscount Hardinge, Lords Whamcliffe and Suffield; and the following Members of Parliament:—Sir John Simeon, Colonels North, Hastings Russell, Knight, Morrison, Akroyd, Croland, and Fordyce, Majors Vivian and Dillwyn, Captains Bass, Young, and Malcolm, and Sir Hedworth Williamson. In their Report the committee said—
"The experience of eight years has, however, conclusively shown the insufficiency of the grant, and the consequent heavy personal expenditure entailed on the Volunteers. One captain, in a private letter to the chairman, states that his company has cost him £500, and it is confidently believed that there are very many instances of similar, and, indeed, much larger sums, being expended by officers in support of their corps. The expenditure that is generally entailed upon officers renders it difficult to find men willing to accept commissions. The choice is thus limited, and, unless an additional grant is made, there is in many cases immediate danger of a collapse of a portion of the force. Assuming, then, the facts as stated to be true, the question is, what should be the amount of the additional grant? It appears to the committee that an additional sum of £1 for efficients, retaining the present 10 s. for extra efficiency, would suffice; and they would venture to urge that such increased grant should, if possible, be proposed in the current year."
If it were thought desirable that the prescribed number of nine drills for efficiency should be increased to twelve, that increase would be gladly assented to by the Volunteer force. One point he wished to press was, that the additional grant, when earned, should be expended at the discretion of the commanding officer, and that he should not be tied down as to the manner of its disbursement. The money was given to promote the efficiency of the regiment, and it was to be assumed that the commanding officer would spend the money in the way most likely to attain, that

1757
efficiency. On this point and another the Committee in their Report said—
"With regard to the money grant, its expenditure, when earned, should be at the discretion of the commanding officer. Its payment should not, it is thought, be kept back, as at present until all the money earned in the previous year has been expended; and it is further the opinion of the Committee that the capitation grant should be paid to the credit of the corps as soon as possible after it has been earned. At present, in all cases a period of not less than six months is allowed to elapse before the money for the past year is received, and in many cases this period extends to twelve months."
It seemed to them only just and right that as soon as the money had been earned it should be paid. Sometimes the corps were out of pocket for as long a period as eighteen months. The days were passed when it was necessary to make a speech in favour of the Volunteer movement. The Government relied on the Volunteer force as a means of national defence, and their calculations and Estimates were based on the fact that there was a force of 180,000 Volunteers. As he believed the proposed increase to be a moderate one, he hoped that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would take it into his favourable consideration. One unfavourable reply had been received from him. The substance of it was that he had received and considered the Report of the Volunteer officers, and that it was too late to comply with its recommendation this year. It was important, if possible, to give at least a portion of the recommended increase this year. Since the Report was made letters had been received by other officers and himself, urging them to press the matter on the Secretary of State for War, and stating that much depended upon an addition being made to the grant in the present year. Several Members of Parliament had spoken to him, and had said, "I hope when the Estimate comes on you will say something urging the Secretary of State for War to do something for us this year." Although the reply already received was unfavourable, it held out a hope that the subject would be considered next year. He trusted it would receive favourable consideration at the earliest possible opportunity.
COLONEL C. H. LINDSAYsaid, he could endorse all that had fallen from the noble Lord. The Report read embodied the almost unanimous opinion of the Volunteer service of the country. The question was of such vital importance to
1758
the service, that he hoped the Secretary for War would at once promise to propose the increased capitation grant in the Estimates for next year. Throughout the country it was felt that the force could not be maintained without an additional grant to meet its expenses. He commanded one ofthe metropolitan corps, the St. George's Rifles, which was one of the well-to-do regiments, being entirely composed of first-class tradesmen of the West End. The result, as regarded the capitation grant in his case, was that in 1863–4 the expenses were £787 10 d.; the capitation grant £484. In 1864–5 the expenses were £936; the capitation grant £486. In 1865–6 the expenses were £1,020; the capitation grant £495. The result in the three years was that the expenses were £2,742, and the grant £1,465, so that the excess of expenditure had been £1,278. Yet there had been no lavish expenditure in the corps. Nothing had been spent beyond what they were obliged to spend. How was it possible then to carry on a Volunteer corps, under these circumstances, without an additional grant from the Government? The pressure was harder upon country than upon metropolitan corps. He deprecated the delay which now took place in paying the grant, and the frequent disallowance of items. A great deal of trouble was given, for every voucher had to be looked over and checked. Whenever there was any item which had reference to the band or to shooting—two requisites in reference to the Volunteer force—such items were invariably disallowed. Although they could not hope to have any additional assistance from the Government this year, he hoped that the Secretary for War would consider the matter in reference to it next year. The expenses of bands—without which the Volunteers would have no musters—and the expenses attendant on rifle shooting pressed severely on the various corps. Since the capitation grant, the honorary members, who used to subscribe to his corps, had naturally withdrawn their subscriptions, so that the corps was really a loser by the grant. In asking for an additional grant he did not consider that he asked for any favour. The Volunteer force was a great national institution, and if it was to be maintained in its present efficiency he was justified in asking for further support almost as a right.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that the House ought to feel somewhat ashamed to

1759
find that Volunteer officers were obliged to make these appeals. The Volunteer force had done more to insure the safety of the country than any measure which had been adopted in England for many years past. The Government should grudge no assistance to those who had given time and money to support it, and who, like the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), had shown the most gallant perseverance in carrying the movement forward and making it popular. He had heard much said about the quantity of Returns required by the Government from Volunteer officers. As their time was valuable it was not desirable that more trouble should be given to them than was necessary. The proposal that Government should give £1 extra for efficients was an extremely moderate one. He felt satisfied the House would willingly give more if it were necessary. He also hoped that the delay complained of in supplying the money would be remedied. In reference to Volunteer reviews, they were to a great extent conducted by regular officers. What they wanted to render the Volunteer movement really efficient was, that there should be a Volunteer Staff to do all the duties that the ordinary Staff now performed. That, of course, could not be done without incurring some expense; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take this subject also into consideration. The Volunteer force should be complete in itself; but it could not be considered complete unless this branch of the service was added to it.
MR. SIMONDSsaid, that as the commander of a provincial corps, he could corroborate what had been said as to the falling off in the subscriptions of honorary members since the capitation grant was made, and also as to the difficulty in getting money from the War Office, and the round-about way of getting it. They had to produce receipts for the whole expenditure before they could get any portion of the allowance. He suggested that the Government should contribute something towards the expenses of camping out, which he was assured on high authority was a most valuable training for the Volunteers.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that the Volunteer Engineers had considerable expenses beyond those which other Volunteers incurred. If their efficiency was to be maintained it was necessary that some extra grant should be made in their favour.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that the Volunteer force ought to remain a Volunteer
1760
force. If the expenditure on their account went on increasing in this way, they would become by-and-by more expensive than the regular army. Everybody put his hand in his pocket for the Volunteers. It was not only the officers, but everybody else, and especially the railway companies, by carrying the men at cheap rates, who contributed to the Volunteer force. They were, no doubt, a very useful corps; but if the Vote for them went on increasing as it had done, the country would begin to consider whether it would not be advisable to have a certain number of regular troops instead of the Volunteers. The hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) said the Volunteers ought to have a Staff, which would make them a little army in themselves. He differed entirely from the hon. Baronet. Some of the Volunteers received a return for their services to the country. Local tradesmen were highly honoured by being members of a Volunteer corps. One was a captain and another was a colonel, and thus distinction was obtained for what they gave to the country. All the credit of the Volunteers was given to them in anticipation of what they might do in the time of danger, but he would advise them not to raise the feeling of the country against them on a matter of expense.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that the system of getting as much as possible from private persons in support of the Volunteer force was a system of riding the willing horse to death, and was no less ungenerous than unjust. Originally persons were willing to contribute sums to their local Volunteer corps in the way of capital. But, however liberal they had been in the first instance, they had by no means intended the corps to be an annual charge upon them. It had been always expected that as soon as the country had shown its appreciation of the idea of establishing such a force, and had firmly established it on the Volunteer principle, the Government should step in and consolidate and support it. If invasion were apprehended, the first force called on would be the Volunteers. Such was their efficiency, and the readiness with which they could be mustered, that they would be under command in less time than the Militia. Yet the Government grant was notoriously inadequate. To endeavour to secure a force of 150,000 at the price of 5,000 of the regular army had an aspect of meanness, and the injudicious economy

1761
practised tended to weaken the efficiency of the Volunteers. Would any one say that 5,000 regular troops would be equal to 150,000 or 180,000 disciplined Volunteers in case of an attempted invasion? If the Volunteer force did not exist, the country would require the Government to increase the number of regular troops in the country. Therefore it would be good economy to attend to the representations which had been made in favour of an increase in the allowance to the Volunteers. He knew of many cases where able officers of small means had been obliged to resign their positions simply because they were unable to afford the expensive luxury of being Volunteer officers.
MR. COWENsaid, that to keep the Volunteer force together there should be some further grant, and that the Secretary for War should take steps to have it paid without making the officers wait so long for it. In his own instance, such was the delay and trouble that he had found it best to give a cheque for the amount, and then wait patiently until he could get re-payment from the Government. If the Volunteer force was to be kept efficient, something more must be done by the Government. He could bear testimony to the readiness with which private persons contributed to the establishment of Volunteer corps at the beginning; but it was in the belief that they would not be called upon to contribute to their maintenance. The country had now an efficient Volunteer force, and if they wanted to keep it together, there should be some further grant by Parliament.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) that it was no longer necessary to make a speech in praise of the Volunteer force, so that his silence in this respect must not be construed into a want of appreciation of a movement which had excited the wonder and admiration of Europe. The memorial which had been introduced by his noble Friend, who had done so much for the Volunteer force, was of a most important character, and deserved the earnest attention of the Government. This it should receive. He hoped he should not be misunderstood when he said that some caution was necessary in the matter for fear the force should lose something of its voluntary character. It should be remembered that the movement was commenced strictly on the volunteer principle.
1762
Every Volunteer supplied his own uniform and accoutrements, and to some extent his own arms. It seemed to be only in accordance with the spirit of the country that the force should be maintained by those who joined it. We had now—and long might we retain it—a very powerful Volunteer army, which, counting the whole number enrolled, amounted to 180,000 men. But instead of being, as it was at the commencement, supported strictly on Volunteer principles, it was an army which cost the country, by Vote of the House, £360,000 a year. In addition to this, his hon. and gallant Friend behind him had told the Committee that there were other disbursements falling upon officers with money at their disposal and public spirit to apply it to the requirements of the service. His noble Friend argued, and with great force, that even this grant of £360,000 a year from the national funds was inadequate to maintain the movement at the desired state of efficiency, and he proposed certain additions to the capitation grant. What would be the result in money of those proposals? He believed, and his noble Friend would correct him if his estimate was erroneous, that those proposals could not be carried out at a less cost than £160,000 a year, which would make the total contribution by the State towards the support of the Volunteer force upwards of £500,000 annually. He was by no means prepared to say that this might not be £500,000 well spent. But he was sure his noble Friend would agree that it was impossible for him, as head of the Military Department, to give a promise involving the sanction of such additional expenditure without consulting the other Members of the Government. He said it with regret, but he was obliged to say decidedly, that under all the circumstances of the present moment he should not feel justified in holding out any hope that additional grants could be given for the current year. But before the Estimates for another year were framed, he would consult the other Members of the Government upon the subject, would take the opinion of his Colleagues, and consider with them how far the nature and character of this movement were such as to make it their duty to consent to this additional expenditure. He must guard himself carefully against the supposition that he undervalued or in the slightest degree failed to appreciate the loyalty and spirit of the Volunteer force. But he could

1763
not concur with one expression used by his noble Friend, that it was the main resource to which we must trust for the defence of the country. He could not, for a moment, put aside the value of our old Constitutional force, the Militia. The statement of his noble Friend as to the long arrears in the payment of the capitation grant he had heard with regret and with some difficulty in understanding exactly what was meant. It was not creditable to those charged with the management of the fund, it was not creditable to the country, that such complaints should be made with any reasonable grounds. In consequence of questions having more than once been put in the House upon this subject, he had sent for one of the leading officials in the Financial Department of the War Office to know what the facts really were. It was essential to the character of the Government to clear up the matter and to leave no just cause of complaint. The information he then received was not altogether consistent with the statement made by the noble Lord. It was to this effect—Capitation payments were not made until they were demanded by the responsible officers entitled to ask for them. In accordance with the practice of every well-regulated department, investigation took place as soon as the demand for money was made, and before it was paid, with the object of ascertaining the exact state of the accounts, and the balance remaining in the hands of those who were to apply the money. Nobody, he felt sure, could take exception to inquiries such as those, and beyond the time necessary to obtain this information no delay took place, and no delay ought to take place. His noble Friend had alluded to one important paragraph in the memorial in which it was desired by the officers of the Volunteer force that the amount of this capitation grant should be intrusted to the battalion officers, and should be at their exclusive disposal. A proposal of this nature was at present under the consideration of the War Office. Though no final decision had yet been come to, he was disposed to think that a good deal of difficulty and delay would be got rid of by acceding to the suggestion, and by placing the money in the hands of the various commanding officers to be disposed of at their discretion and on their responsibility. At present he would not commit himself to any actual promise on the point, but he was not without hope that it might prove
1764
feasible to meet the wishes of the Volunteer officers, and that without delay.
LORD ELCHOsaid, there were one or two points upon which he wished to say a word before the Vote passed. His right hon. Friend had talked about the force losing its voluntary character. No doubt his right hon. Friend had rightly said that at first it was imagined that the force might be maintained by voluntary subscriptions, and the hon. and learned Serjeant had stated that everybody was in the habit of putting his hand in his pocket to support the movement. But "everybody" meant very few people indeed, who were getting "small by degrees and beautifully less." The real facts of the case were these:—A certain number of men had taken upon themselves the duty of serving their country, which every Englishman was bound to do. Some put their hands in their pockets to assist them. The men themselves came forward and gave their time and services ungrudgingly. So much for that point. The next point to which he wished to refer was this. His right hon. Friend had said that he had held up the Volunteers as the force upon which the country must especially rely for its defence. If he had said so he certainly did not mean it, nor should a word fall from him derogatory to the Militia. He looked upon the Militia as the backbone of our defence. What he meant was that we had this Volunteer force of 180,000 men. But if we had them not, could we, considering the great armies maintained abroad, be satisfied with 90,000 Militiamen as the whole force, plus the regular army in the country, for the defence of England, Scotland, and Ireland? He thought the answer of his right hon. Friend would be "No." Therefore the right hon. Baronet did rely, in a great degree, on the Volunteer force. It was because of that force that we could do with a regular army so small and with a Militia of only 90,000 men. He wished that the position the Volunteer force took up in this matter should be distinctly understood. They did not ask this grant as a favour or as a right. The ground upon which they came forward was this:—The force existed. It was sanctioned. It had increased in numbers and efficiency. A Committee, the names of whose members were a guarantee of their fitness, had gone searchingly into the question, and had deliberately formed the opinion that unless this grant were given we could not hope to maintain the

1765
Volunteer force at its present amount. They did not ask it as a right or a favour. They simply thought it their duty to lay the matter before the House of Commons. It was for the House of Commons to consider whether, as a commercial undertaking, it was worth their while to maintain the Volunteers as a part of the defence of the country.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £32,000, to complete the sum for Enrolled Pensioners and Army Reserve Force.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he took that opportunity to answer a question which had been put to him last night, which he was then not able to answer, with re-ence to the proportion of officers that passed the Staff College, and who received Staff appointments. He was now able to say that, out of 111 officers who had passed the College, 71 had received Staff appointments.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday next; Committee to sit again upon Thursday next.

BANKRUPTCY ACTS REPEAL (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 133.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Mr. Solicitor General.)
BANKRUPTCY ACTS REPEAL (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 133.]

  COMMITTEE.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that when this subject was last under the consideration of the House, he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to some of its provisions. He thought the question he then raised so important that it ought to be considered before proceeding further. He had therefore put upon the Paper the Notice of an Amendment he was about to move on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair, which would raise the question, whether they, in consolidating and amending the Bankruptcy Laws, were to have one set of laws for one class of society and another set for a different class. The line of distinction was drawn on no principle—on no rule of right or consideration of justice. This arbitrary and capricious
  1766
  character in the state of the law they owed to the fact that for the last twenty-five years their legislation had gone on at hap-hazard, was crude, and ill considered. There was no department of the law or its administration which was in a more unsettled and unsatisfactory state than the law of bankruptcy. Within the last thirty or forty years they had three or four new systems and schemes. One after another of these had proved failures. But if, with all their past experience, they were to have another failure, it would be more conspicuous and discreditable than all that had gone before it. It had been said that the best guarantee for the liberties of the subject was when the poorer classes were subject to the same laws as the aristocracy, for then the influential classes would take care that the laws should be well administered. But here the richer classes were proposing to pass a law which exempted themselves from the punishment of imprisonment for debt, while they left the poorer classes to the operation of a law of a comparatively harsh and arbitrary character. The history of the matter was somewhat like this:—Some twenty-three years ago the attention of Parliament was drawn to the deplorable sufferings of the poorer classes who were imprisoned for small debts. They passed a law that imprisonment for debt under £20 should be abolished. It was soon discovered that this law, however humane in its character, did not give sufficient protection to the creditor against a fraudulent debtor, and next year the breadth of the power was somewhat contracted. Provision was made that the debtor should be summoned before a County Court Judge, and interrogated. If there was anything fraudulent in his conduct he was liable to imprisonment. He might also be ordered to pay by instalments. If he failed to pay any of those instalments he was liable to be imprisoned. That law could not be called unfair, for at that time the insolvent debtor, not a trader, was subject to a similar law. So matters continued till the bankruptcy reform of 1861. One of the provisions of that Act, was that if any person was imprisoned for a debt of more than £20 the officers of the Bankruptcy Court were to visit him in prison. They were to get him out of it as quickly as they could on his surrendering his property. If he had been guilty of any impropriety his future-acquired property was to be made answerable for his debts. He (Mr. Ayrton) had

  1767
  asked on that occasion, why the poor debtors under £20 were not to have the same advantage? The noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury) who then, as Attorney General, had charge of the Bill, said he would bring up a clause that would extend the same benefit to the poorer debtor. He did bring up such a clause, and he wished to ask the Attorney General why that clause had not been preserved in the present Bill? He believed he could answer the question by anticipation. The clause had been left out because it was found to be of no real advantage to anybody, and to be totally useless for its purpose. Although in 1861 the imprisonment for debt was abolished, as far as the upper classes were concerned the abolition was not to the extent since proposed. The Committee upstairs took a comprehensive view of the matter, and arrived at a Resolution that imprisonment for debt should be absolutely abolished. This decision was arrived at without exception or reservation. It was true the Committee recommended that a debtor about to leave the country might be apprehended; but this was only for the purpose of securing the right of his creditors to property he might otherwise carry away with him. Every step of the present Bill was fraught with injustice; it was said that there were cases in which damages had been recovered for injuries where debts had been contracted under circumstances more or less immoral, fraudulent, or criminal; that the delinquent in such cases by the surrender of the property would escape. No doubt that would be so under the project of the Committee if the Committee had stopped there. But imprisonment for debt, as understood by the Committee, was the power of a creditor to imprison a debtor simply for the purpose of extorting money. The Committee saw no reason why a debtor should not be imprisoned for a criminal offence against the creditor. The Committee intended that such debtor should be punished, but punished criminally. The Attorney General had not appreciated, or at least adopted, this view of the question. He proposed that if any person was adjudged to owe £20, even if it were for a most aggravated assault or immorality, he should be imprisoned for six months, unless he sooner paid the money, the Judge having no discretion with regard to criminality of conduct on the part of the defendant, and that after the six months the defendant was to be free, his property only
  1768
  remaining liable. This appeared to be indiscriminate injustice. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to have been misled by looking back to the old insolvent law, instead of the recommendations of the recent Committee. Even the old insolvent law had some redeeming points. On the application of a debtor for discharge, the Judge looked into the cause of action and the conduct of the debtor, and if he saw fit had power to award him imprisonment. In this Bill similar power was given to the Judge. But then the sentence ought to be a criminal sentence. In what position did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to leave the unfortunate person who incurred a debt to the amount of £50? The Attorney General said that if a man owed, it might be, 100 debts, it might be of small amounts, he should be liable to a particular code of law. But if he contracted only one debt not exceeding £50, or several not exceeding £100, he was to be treated differently. In one case the debtor was to be summoned before the County Court Judge and ordered to pay, perhaps by instalments. If he made default in one of those instalments he was to be liable to forty days' imprisonment, to be repeated till he had paid the last farthing. Under the other law—the law for the rich—the debtor was to be exempt from imprisonment, but was to surrender his present property, and be liable to an order for future payments. The gross injustice of the scheme of the Attorney General was that the bankrupts of the better class, instead of being liable to be sent to prison, would only have their property made liable to their creditors; while the lower class of insolvents, as he had pointed out, might be sent to prison. The awards of the County Court sufficiently showed that this would be no imaginary inequality. The average every year of persons summoned for small debts in the County Courts was 120,000. Against 20,000 of these commitments were made out, and 8,000 were actually imprisoned. But not one in 200 of these persons wire imprisoned for frauds, such as would render the better class of insolvents under the Attorney General's scheme liable to incarceration. The law ought to be made general and uniform for all classes, and they should all be equally exempt from imprisonment for debt. The Select Committee had desired that there should be a separation between the administration of the debtor's assets and the proceedings for punishing him for

  1769
  his delinquencies. They held that the administration of the assets was a matter so purely formal that a County Court might deal with it. Their object was to leave the whole question of the administration of the assets to the creditors, whose property they became by the bankruptcy; and that that business should be treated, without unnecessary delay, trouble, or expense, as an ordinary commercial operation, conducted by the agent whom the creditors might appoint for the purpose. If, however, the scheme proposed by that Bill were adopted, it would be impossible that the simple plan recommended by the Select Committee could be carried into effect, and all the evils and complications which they wished to get rid of would be revived. He regretted, therefore, that these clear and simple views had not been followed in this measure in their entirety, though he admitted that they had been followed in part. On the grounds that he had enumerated, and in order to record his protest against a scheme which would so invidiously distinguish between the treatment of the better and of the humbler class of insolvents, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is unjust to pass this measure by which any insolvent person who has contracted a debt amounting to £50, or several debts amounting to £100, shall be discharged from liability for all his Debts, except as regards his future acquired property or earnings, to the extent of half the amount of his debts, while insolvents who have contracted debts to a less amount will be liable to repeated imprisonment to compel them to pay their debts in full,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he desired to thank the Attorney General for the pains he had evidently taken in preparing his measure, and for the courtesy with which he had received the suggestions that had been made to him by the mercantile community. In discussing the question it was necessary to consider in what respect the present law of bankruptcy was faulty. The state of the law, as far as the mercantile community was concerned, was most unsatisfactory. It was expensive, it caused great delay, and it was framed to give undue advantage to the debtor, to the detriment of his creditors. His idea of the right administration of bankruptcy
  1770
  was this—that the mercantile portion of the affair should be confined to the creditors. The bankrupt's assets were really the property of his creditors, to whom alone should be confided the task of realizing and distributing them. The necessity for resorting to a Court of Law should be as rare as possible. The creditors should go to such a tribunal only to record their proceedings, and should appeal to a Judge only when a difficulty arose which they were unable to solve. The present Bill went to a certain extent in the right direction. The Attorney General proposed that as soon as the insolvent debtor was made a bankrupt, his creditors should be called together, that they should elect a trustee — who would in most cases be a commission agent—in whom the property of the debtor should be vested, and whose duty it would be to realize and distribute it. The hon. and learned Gentleman further proposed that a small committee of creditors should be formed, who should act as inspectors, to see that the trustee performed his duty properly. The property of a debtor should, as soon as he committed an act of bankruptcy, be looked upon as the property of his creditors. He ought from that moment to be regarded as a trustee for their benefit. He was sorry to find that that obnoxious officer, the official manager, was still to be retained. Under the Scotch law there were no provisional trustees, and he did not consider them necessary. He also objected to the continuance of the office of messenger. As to the office of accountant in bankruptcy, he was afraid no one official of that kind could, even with a large staff, perform the duties which were discharged by the corresponding officer in Scotland. The more we could utilize our County Courts in those proceedings, the more pleased the mercantile community would be. He regretted that the Bill proposed to make the jurisdiction of the district bankruptcy courts co-ordinate with that of the County Courts, for some confusion would probably be the result. He should prefer having one Judge of a superior court to take cognizance of matters in London to having three Judges in the metropolis. If the three Judges must be retained he would suggest that one of the three should be made superior to the other two. There was in the Bill too much reference to the London Gazette. Some means might be devised by which separate notices might be abolished and a serious

  1771
  expense in the winding-up of bankrupt affairs avoided. The Bill contained no provision for winding-up the estates of deceased insolvents. That was an omission of which he had had communications from the country requesting him to take notice. He objected to the debtor's making himself a bankrupt. To enable him to do so was to give him a power which it was unwise to confer. He looked upon it as entirely a matter for the creditor how the estate should be realized. There was no doubt considerable anomaly, as had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), between the way in which small debtors and those who owed large amounts were dealt with. But he was not satisfied as to the expediency of altogether abolishing imprisonment. In many cases the only power which a creditor had over a debtor, who, perhaps, having fradulently obtained goods from him, set him at defiance, was that of being able to have him arrested and placed in prison. There seemed to be a vulgar error that he could be kept there. He might soon obtain his discharge through the medium of the registrars in bankruptcy, who made frequent visits to our prisons with the object of releasing those who were confined for debt. With reference to the payment of 10 s. in the pound, he regarded that point as one of difficulty. Under the existing state of things a premium was held out to fraud and dishonesty, and many men who, having behaved in a most reckless way, became bankrupts, lifted up their heads in the world in a few months after in a manner perfectly scandalous. The great difficulty was how such cases were to be met. The Bill of the Attorney General appeared to stop short of that true reform which he thought advisable. There were many clauses in the Bill which he considered objectionable, but it might be made satisfactory. Therefore, he should not oppose its going into Committee. If the Attorney General would follow the example of his Chief, and accept suggestions from all sides of the House, it was possible that the measure might emerge from the Committee in a shape to be of lasting benefit.
  MR. BARNETTsaid, he should regret the success of the Amendment if its success were to have the effect of stopping the progress of the Bill. He concurred in many of the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) with respect to
  1772
  the mode in which fraudulent practices should be punished. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer) had pointed out that the Court of Bankruptcy was not a fit tribunal to take cognizance of criminal acts. Still, it must be borne in mind that those acts were brought to light by the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court. Under the clauses of the Bill, having reference to the powers of the Judge, nothing could be easier than to transfer the cognizance of such criminal acts to the proper Court to take notice of them. The powers conferred on the Judge would enable him to direct a criminal prosecution to be instituted. The question would arise as to who should be at the expense of the prosecution. One would not desire to see the expense saddled on the creditors. As the case would be one of public morality, the expense should be borne in some respects by the country. The Bill deserved much approval, and he hoped that, after being sifted in Committee, it would, as respects its principal features, become law. The Act of 1861 had failed to give satisfaction, because creditors had no confidence in its working. There existed a strong feeling that some kind of punishment should be held out as a means of preventing the frequent occurrence of men running into debt without any reasonable prospect of discharging their obligations. They were no better than thieves, and should be treated accordingly. With respect to the present power of imprisoning for debt, it was a fair question to consider how far it was advisable to retain it in the case of the smaller class of debtors. The House had pretty well made up its mind that imprisonment for debt should be abolished in this country as far as possible. He much preferred the present Bill to the Bill of last year, and hoped that a careful consideration of its different provisions would enable the House to render it a measure satisfactory to the public.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had had no intention of saying one word on the general provisions of the Bankruptcy Bill. But he now wished to make a few observations as the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had raised a question of great interest. The Attorney General had told him in private that he did not think the Bill afforded a favourable opportunity for raising that great question. He concurred in that opinion. A great many thousands of persons were annually in

  1773
  prison for very small debts under the County Court system. They were so imprisoned, not simply as debtors, but in a way equivalent to and under the same conditions as fraudulent debtors. They were under the same gaol regulations, according to the rules of the Secretary of State. Therefore year by year there was going on a serious injustice, which probably his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would designate as a relic of a barbarous age in connection with imprisonment for debt. This practice was being continued against small people under what he had almost called false pretences. A pretence was made that the man was in contempt because he did not pay his debt in the way the Court ordered him to pay. He was put into prison and treated there as if he were a fraudulent debtor. He did not think he had at all overstated the case. He therefore hoped the Attorney General would give this matter his consideration and see whether it was fit and proper that thousands of people should be in gaol under this state of things, when laudably, as he believed, the hon. and learned Gentleman was acting in the true direction for getting rid of the greater evils of the system. He could not understand why a man who £100,000 and did not pay it was to go scot-free, while the wretched man who owed £5 should be locked up at the rate of one day for every shilling, under the authority of the County Courts. He saw many of these poor people in prison every time he went there, and he felt there was something wrong in the law which continued such a state of things. He had felt strongly on the subject for many years, and the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman almost compelled him to express his sentiments on it. He had no intention to press the subject now, because he believed this was not the proper time, but he cordially concurred in the opinion the Resolution expressed.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought they would be almost better without any Bankruptcy Law at all than with the clumsy complicated machinery it was so difficult to apply. Commercial men had no time to look after bankrupts and punish them as they deserved. The law should be as preventive as possible. The great evil was that men not fit to take the command of business got into debt, became bankrupt, got through the Court with ease, then re-commenced business, and
  1774
  became bankrupt again. That was a bad system, and deserved severe reprobation.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had discussed the Resolution moved by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and although he did not anticipate any opposition to going into Committee to-night, he wished to say a few words on one or two points which appeared to be misunderstood. First, as to whether the right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that this Bill continued that punishment by arrest on final process which existed before the 7 & 8 Vict. He maintained that it did not. This was not the time to alter those most important statutes under which the Small Debts Courts were constituted. Their powers did not extend to imprisonment on final process at all. It was not by any means correct to say that small debtors were imprisoned, while larger debtors went free. In 1845, after they had abolished arrest for debts under £20, it was found utterly impossible to get these debts without some other process. What occurred under the 9 & 10 Vict.? The leniency under that Act to the small debtor was extraordinary. In the first place, instead of a rigid rule that he should have execution against his goods at a certain time, a Judge had to say whether he should pay in lump or by instalments—whether, in case of ill-health or other causes shown, he should be excused for a certain time. Then there was the utmost latitude to the Judge to say in what instalments and at what time the debt should be paid. It was entirely different when the debt was above £20. In the Superior Courts of Law, if a debt above £20 was recovered, execution was issued, and the debtor's goods swept away unless he paid the money, and that without any special clauses in the Act of Parliament, or any discretionary power. The leniency had been shown to the debtor who owed less than £20. He did not find that there had been any difficulty in working that Act. The County Court Judges said they might just as well abolish the County Court Acts altogether unless they had power to oblige the debtor to pay by instalments. It seemed absurd to say that a man who was in the receipt of £3 or £4 per week should not be compelled to pay the 3s. or 4s. per week which he was ordered by the Court to pay in discharge of a debt he had

  1775
  incurred. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who spoke of having found so many debtors imprisoned under sentences of these Judges, would have also found, if he had inquired, that most of them were justly imprisoned in consequence of their own perversity. It might be a question whether the Small Debts Act or the County Courts Act ought to be repealed; but his conviction was, that if the clauses abolishing the power of ordering payment of a debt by instalments and imprisoning the debtor in default of payment were to be repealed, the creditor would be left without remedy, and a most unsatisfactory state of things would ensue. Persons who owed an amount of 10 s. or the like were not persons to whom the Bankruptcy Laws could be applied, and the creditor was often as poor a man as the debtor, and could as little afford to lose the money. It was correctly stated that the Attorney General had departed from the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Bankruptcy. He had done so advisedly, because he thought that many of those recommendations could not be carried into practical effect. The details of the Bill could be better discussed in Committee than in its present stage.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would not divide the House upon the question, but he wished that his Amendment should be negatived, so that it might be placed upon the records of the House.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday nest.

  INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HENRY B. SHERIDAN, Bill to remove doubts as to the power of Trustees, Executors, and Administrators, to invest Trust Funds in certain securities, and to declare and amend the Law relating to such Investments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY B. SHERIDAN and Mr. AYRTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 197.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Thursday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment* (146); Agricultural Employment* (147); Consecration and Ordination Fees* (148); County Treasurers (Ireland)* (149); National Gallery Enlargement* (150); Colonial Bishops* (153).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Police* (135).
Report—Policies of Insurance* (151 & 152); Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts Amendment* (128); Chester Courts* (77).
Third Reading—(£14,000,000) Consolidated Fund*; (£1,700,000) Exchequer Bonds*; Public Works Loans*(137); Contagious Diseases (Animals)* (139); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation*(117); Intestates Widows and Children* (120), and passed.

PROOF OF FIREARMS.—QUESTION.
EARL SPENCERasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to amend the Proof Acts this Session, so as to make them more applicable than at present to breech-loading arms. His reason for bringing the subject forward was that the manufacture and sale of firearms in this country were regulated by Acts of Parliament, and that upon those Acts persons who used firearms depended for their safety. In 1855 an Act of Parliament was passed relative to this subject, which contemplated the probability of changes becoming necessary. In 1862, the then Secretary of State for War introduced certain Amendments, and the time had now arrived when it was necessary to make further Amendments in the law. Since 1862 great improvements had taken place in small arms, especially with regard to breech-loaders, and the attention of scientific men in Europe and in America had been largely turned to this subject. He

1729
believed that some doubts existed as to how far breech-loaders were affected by the present Proof Acts, and he would therefore ask his noble Friend whether the law was clear upon the point? He had, however, been induced to ask the Question which he had put upon the Paper because there were at present a great many different kinds of cartridges manufactured; and, as the safety of a breechloader depended partly upon the nature of the arm and partly upon the nature of the cartridge, a breech-loader which was perfectly safe with one kind of cartridge might be unsafe with another. A great many accidents had taken place in consequence of using breech-loaders and cartridges which did not correspond with each other. A noble Friend of his, for instance, had been seriously injured by using a metallic cartridge with an arm which had been found perfectly safe with a paper one. Indeed, an arm was not always safe, even if employed with the same kind of cartridge, for a great many breeches had been blown open by using cartridges which, though similar to those with which the gun had been proved, were faulty in construction. The subject was one of great interest and importance to the public, and well worthy attention.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, there were two Companies, who acted practically as one in this matter, to whom all the arrangements for proving gun barrels had been intrusted almost from time immemorial. By the Act of 1855 these Companies were empowered to frame bye-laws amending their powers with reference to the proof of gun barrels, which, after receiving the approval of the Recorder of Birmingham in some cases, and of Her Majesty's Secretary of State in all cases, would have the force of law. It would not, therefore, be necessary to make any alteration in the law as it at present existed. These Companies had, of course, noticed the consequences which had attended the introduction of breech-loaders and the change in the construction of arms, and had proposed certain alterations in their bye-laws to meet the case, which were at present under consideration of the Secretary of State. The change proposed would, he hoped, give increased security as far as the proof of gun barrels was concerned. He was afraid, however, that would not afford security in the case of the cartridges, because the manufacture of cartridges was a trade entirely independent
1730
of the gunmakers. He had not yet heard of any precise plan by which that security could be obtained, but it was to be hoped that the manufacturers of cartridges might be able to come to an understanding amongst themselves, in the same manner as the gunmakers had done; so that by the adoption of recognised marks on cartridges the public might be able to ascertain without difficulty with what arm any particular kind of cartridge might be safely employed.

PROOF OF FIREARMS.—QUESTION.
  NEW PARISHES AND CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the New Parishes Acts and Church Building Acts—Was presented by The Archbishop of YORK; read 1a. (No. 146.)
  AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to regulate the Employment of Children and Young Persons in Agriculture in England—Was presented by The Lord PORTMAN; read 1a. (No. 147.)
  CONSECRATION AND ORDINATION FEES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the Establishment of a Table of Fees to be taken on the Consecration of Churches and Burial Grounds and on the Ordination of Deacons and Priests—Was presented by The Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 148.)

  COLONIAL BISHOPS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to remove Doubts as to the Effect of Letters Patent granted to certain Colonial Bishops, and to provide for the Disposal of Property upon the Death of such Bishops—Was presented by The Duke of BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS; read 1a. (No. 153.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday the 17th Instant, at a quarter before Four o'clock.