said a Bill had been introduced on this subject, which the Government did not pledge itself to support, but promised to take into consideration certain alterations which had been introduced in its provisions. He wished to know from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department whether those alterations accorded with his views.

The alterations had been inserted in this Bill at his request. But since that, many representations had been made to him by Recorders, well worthy of consideration. He had doubts as to the expediency of passing such a Measure; for, under the Municipal Act, he found the Secretary of State for the Home Department was entrusted with powers with which it was now proposed to invest other parties. He thought it would conduce more to the public convenience to allow the responsibility to rest where it was.

after reading the following Notice, which he meant to move:—

"Return of the names, offices, places of birth, salaries, and ages of all persons holding offices in the Customs, Excise, and Post Office Departments of the United Kingdom, with the dates of their Appointments, and present location,"

said that when the House considered that the sum expended in the collection of the Revenue, bore no inconsiderable proportion to the Revenue itself, it must be admitted that the appointments to such offices should rest on a fair principle. He was of opinion that many changes might with advantage be made in the regulations under which offices were distributed. He should like to see official service made as much a profession as the Church or the Bar, the candidates for which should be well tested by previous studies and probations. This principle had been tried by experiment; in the Treasury, the Excise Office, and the War Office examinations had been instituted with the best effect, but the plan had not been carried out to so great an extent as might have been clone with advantage. His motive for asking for this Return was the conviction impressed on his mind, in common with that of many others with whom he had conversed, that the Irish nation had not been fairly dealt with in the distribution of patronage. Every situation of the least importance, in the Army, State, and Law of Ireland had been conferred on Englishmen, of high rank and superior talents it might be, but not higher or superior to those of many Irishmen who were equally well calculated for the duties of such places. The Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, the Inspector General of Prisons, the Secretary to the Post Office, the Commissioners of the Public Works, Police, and Poor Laws—the officers of the household, down to the least important among them, were almost all English. If it were the object of good Government to knit more firmly the connection between England and Ireland, and to remove the prejudices existing between the two countries, it could not be considered a matter of indifference that Irishmen should be treated with a partial neglect, unlike that favour which was shown to Englishmen or Scotchmen. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving as above.

should decidedly object to the Returns. He could not infer either from the Motion or the speech of the right hon. Gentlemen what was the precise object he had in view in calling for these returns. The greater part of his speech, indeed, had no immediate connection with the Motion. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the appointments which had taken place to the principal officers of of Government in Ireland, and argued that a due proportion of these had not been conferred on Irishmen. The hon. Gentleman remarked that the Secretary for the Post-office in Ireland was not an Irish- man. No, but the Secretary for the Post-office in Scotland was an Irishman. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said the head of the Police was not an Irishman. No; but he had been called upon to appoint two heads of the Police in England, and both the persons selected were Irishmen. He had never thought it necessary to inquire whether they should be Englishmen, Irishmen, or Scotchmen; he had thought that the two men best qualified for the performance of this duty were a distinguished military man and a person of the legal profession, and it so happened that the two persons appointed, one twelve years ago, and one at the present moment, to the head of the Metropolitan Police, were Irishmen. How could any inference be drawn from such a statement as that made by the right hon. Gentleman? Suppose an Englishman or Scotchman should say, we have not had justice done to us in China, where the most distinguished civilian employed in that service, Sir Henry Pottinger, and the General in the command of the forces, Sir Hugh Gough, were Irishmen. Whom did Ministers select for its chief command in India? Sir Hugh Gough was appointed. The principle that was acted upon was that all persons justly entitled to appointments were considered eligible. The return called for by the right hon. Gentleman would throw no light on the point to which his remarks were directed. If the right hon. Gentleman were to ask for the regulations established with respect to the appointments to offices, as concerned the age of the parties, the length of service required, and so on, there was no general Return that could be called for, exemplifying the principle on which they were made, which he (Sir R. Peel) would not give with pleasure. He found that in the Custom-house and water-guard there were 11,000 officers employed; in the Excise, 6,000: in the Post-office, 3,000; and in Revenue, 2,000: making a total of 22,000 persons, the age and name of each of whom it was proposed that the House of Commons should require. Suppose that an Irish officer had been employed in England, and had two or three sons born to him during the period of his stay, who afterwards obtained places, of course the return would show them to have been born in some place in this country, although their parents were Irish, and to all intents and purposes, they themselves were Irish. If the hon. Gentleman got these returns, who was there in the House that would move the printing of them? If the hon. Gentleman thought that injustice had been done in any particular case, let him specify that case, and call for inquiry; but he must protest against such a Motion as the present. He could not sanction any such principle. He did not believe that when any person was called upon to appoint an individual to a public office any inquiry was ever made as to what was the place of that individual's birth. He did not believe that the cirsumstance of any man's being born in Ireland would create the slightest prejudice against him. They were asked to call upon 22,000 persons to state the localities of their birth— he had shown that such a return would lead to the most erroneous inferences being drawn; but it was not upon that ground that he opposed it. He thought it was not right in the House to sanction the principle upon which this Motion was founded. We were all subjects of the same Sovereign, were all united in the enjoyment of the same rights and privileges, and we ought not to admit any distinctions as to locality of birth. On that ground, he opposed the Motion.

challenged contradiction when he stated that the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the only instances which were to be found of Irishmen who were at the head of departments — the two officers at the head of the Metropolitan Police, and the Secretary for the Post-office in Scotland. [Sir R. Peel: The last appointment to the United States. He did not deny that some Irishmen were appointed to situations of authority, but he still declared that all the higher situations in England and Ireland were filled by English and Scotchmen. Of 80,000l. a year paid to official departments in Ireland, 60,000l. was paid to Englishmen and Scotchmen. He believed that even greater disproportion prevailed in the appointment of inferior officers, and the Return sought for would show whether he were right or wrong. He did not want the testing 22,000 names; but the right hon. Gentleman could give a Return of the different clerks and officers, which would show whether he was right or wrong. He had been told that there were not three per cent. of Irishmen among them. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no opportunity of making these Returns. The same reply had been made by the Secretary to the Admiralty to him, (Mr. F. French,) when he had moved for a similar return respecting the Navy. He believed such a Return could be made, and that it would show that of the hundred appointments that had been made by Lord Haddington, not one had been given to an Irishman. He thought his right hon. Friend was entitled to the Return, and he regretted the refusal of the Government.

felt reluctantly obliged to oppose the Motion. Everything that tended to keep up the national distinctions between, England, Ireland, and Scotland, was wrong, and on that ground he opposed the Motion. The Return with respect to Naval Officers would lead to most unjust and unfair inferences. It was not the disposition of the Irish to go to sea, and consequently the proportion of Irish Naval Officers was small as compared with Englishmen and Scotchmen. In the Army and the Colonies he believed a fair proportion of Irishmen was to be found. He thought the Motion would be attended with unpleasant and bad results, and he trusted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend would withdraw it.

said, that with regard to the Admiralty, he could confirm what the hon. Member stated, that they (the Admiralty) published a list of all the Officers in their service. With regard to the promotion at the Admiralty, the only question asked was, "Has he great interest?" not whether "Is he an Irishman, a Scotchman, or an Englishman?" but he who had the largest amount of interest, had the best chance of promotion, and of obtaining employment.

thought the Return should be made to show the manner in which, and the patronage under which, appointments were made.

said, that the Motion of his right hon. Friend at least showed that there was a strong feeling that Irishmen did not get that fair share of patronage to which they were entitled. He trusted that in the future distribution of patronage a fair proportion, not only of the higher offices, but of the minor appointments, would fall to Irishmen.

Motion negatived.

moved an "Address to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to lay before this House, a copy of all Commissions, with the names of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the working of the Anatomy Act, and also into the official conduct of any Inspector or Inspectors of Schools of Anatomy for England, Scotland, and Wales, with the dates of each Commission, and Reports (if any) of the evidence taken by the said Commissioners."

said that this was a subject of peculiar delicacy, and perhaps, above all others, most unlit to be discussed in a popular assembly. All his official experience had confirmed his impression that the Act was a well devised measure. He need only recal to the recollection of the House, the state of things previous to the passing of that Act. There was hardly a burial place in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, the sanctity of which was not violated; and to such a sum had the price of a dead human body risen, that life was not safe. All these evils had disappeared. That most revolting traffic connected with the violation of the grave was at an end. The supply, before so inadequate for the wants of anatomical science, was now amply sufficient, and he hoped that discussion on the point would be avoided. He had had a quarterly return made to him, which it was his duty to inspect, and like all his predecessors, he could answer for its accuracy. Some irregularities had from time to time been brought under the notice of the Secretary of State. Commissions of Inquiry had been issued— evidence had been taken—Reports had, in some instances, been made—in others it had been thought better to confine the information to the Secretary of State. If any subject could with advantage be left to the Government, this could. He did not ask for a blind confidence; but he deprecated all noxious agitation of the subject. It was notorious that the evils which this Act of Parliament was passed to remedy had disappeared. The schools of anatomy were sufficiently and regularly supplied; outrages on public decency were avoided; and it was his opinion, that the greatest possible inconvenience would arise from the production of the Reports to which the hon. Gentleman's Motion was directed; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would support him in refusing the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

said, that when he brought forward a Motion on this subject some years ago, he was met by a statement that it was under the consideration of the Commissioners. If they had maintained the delicacy which the hon. Gentleman wished them to maintain, they would not have procured the retirement of Dr. Somerville. The right hon. Baronet had sometimes selected rather extraordinary phraseology; there was the expression about "Jack Cade legislation," which had been commented upon by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, and now he had applied the term noxious agitation to a Motion brought forward by one of his own supporters.

said, that the term noxious agitation was not applied to the Motion of his hon. Friend, but to certain petitions which had been presented, emanating from a Mr. Roberts.

believed that there was not a more ill-used man in the country than Mr. Roberts, who had conferred great benefits upon anatomical science. The right hon. Baronet might smile, but Mr. Roberts had testimonials to the value of his exertions from distinguished quarters —amongst them Sir G. Sinclair, Dr. Somerville, and Mr. M'Murdo, and even the hon. Member for Kendal himself had at one time admitted the value of Mr. Roberts's discovery. Mr. Roberts had done nothing more than that for which the public were much indebted to him— he had brought to light certain shameful and scandalous violations of the Act of Parliament.

entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department, that nothing could be more noxious than agitation upon this subject. As one of the Commissioners who had been appointed by the first Commission to investigate Dr. Somerville's conduct, he (Mr. Warburton) stated upon his honour, that in his opinion and that of the Commissioners, Dr. Somerville had conducted himself in a manner highly conducive to the interests of science. He also knew Dr. Somerville had not been permitted to retire with a payment of 100l. but he had been dismissed receiving a sum of 100l. He could not know what was the report of the second Commission; but, if he was not very much mistaken, it was a complete and honourable acquittal of Dr. Somerville from all the charges which had been brought against him.

felt bound, after what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. French), to state that the conduct of Dr. Somerville had been submitted to a second Commission, and that its report was a complete acquittal of Dr. Somerville.

reminded the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department, that it did not necessarily follow that all agitation on a noxious subject should be noxious agitation. He admitted that this was not a fit subject for popular discussion, but he assured the House that he had not laid Mr. Roberts's petition on the Table until he had carefully purused every statement it contained. If Mr. Roberts had been engaged in noxious agitation, that agitation had been shared in by Sir A. Cooper, Sir B. Brodie, Mr. M'Murdo, Mr. Grainger, Mr. B. Cooper, Mr. E. Stanley, Mr. Partridge, and Mr. Todd. Unless the evils of which the Petition complained were remedied, it would be his duty on a future day to call the attention of the House to the substance of those complaints.

Motion withdrawn.

rose to move, pursuant to his notice, the following Resolution:—

"That this House taking into consideration the exemplary conduct of the people during the exhibition of the Cartoons last year, and whenever they have been permitted to public edifices, and their general disposition to improve by the contemplation of Works of Art, approve of the following recommendation of the Select Committee of this House on National Monuments in 1841:—'That your Committee strongly deprecate any course which could create an impression that Churches were at any time to be considered merely in the light of places for the exhibition of Works of Art; but it is their opinion, that as, by increased facilities of admission to the inspection of mere Works of Art, civilisation has been encouraged and public taste improved, so a more free admission to religious edifices, under proper regulation, may be made conducive, not merely to the gratification of curiosity and the acquirement of historical knowledge, but to the growth and progress of religious impressions, by leading the mind of the spectator from the contemplation of the building to a consideration of the views with which, and the purposes for which, it was originally erected, and is still maintained. Your Committee entertain a hope that arrangements may be made by the Cathedral Authorities, to allow the larger portion of Westminster Abbey, and of St. Paul's, and other Cathedrals throughout the country, to be open freely to the public daily; and, especially on Sundays, reconciling such free admission with the due and undisturbed performance of religious services, though it may be required to continue a small reduced fee, or other sufficient restriction, in regard to the Chapels, and smaller or more intricate portions of those edifices. Your Committee think it right to add, that if the greater freedom of admission to those Churches should lead, as it probably must to an increase of the number of officers employed in their superintendence, the additional expense ought to be defrayed from other funds than those belonging to the Cathedrals.'"

The hon. Member said he should now introduce a much more agreeable subject to the House than that which had just been under discussion, and he hoped the House would allow him to state the objects he had in view by the Resolution he was about to submit to its consideration; he wished to make use of those means which the country possessed for the improvement of the minds of the labouring classes, and to create in them impressions which no language could convey; he thought the House would agree that of late years, a great change had come over the national character, and that though some years back it was supposed that the mass—or what was designated as the mob—could not be trusted with access to the Museums or to collections of the Fine Arts, yet experience had shewn they might be admitted to view the most valuable Works of Art without the slightest risk or danger, injury or damage, to those collections. The notion that the English people were only fit to be trusted in particular places— that Museums were only intended for the visits of the rich, and that those collections so calculated to improve the mind, and promote science, should only be open to men of birth and fortune, had wholly gone by, and the result of the lest ten years had shown that Englishmen of all classes might safely be permitted entrance. The boon which had already been granted had been acknowledged with the deepest satisfaction by the working classes. He had so frequently expressed his opinions on the matter, that he did not feel it necessary to repeat them. He would only mention one or two authorities to show the importance of the subject to which he wished to call attention. The directors of the British Museum, of the National Gallery, the heads of the Woods and Forests charged with the superintendence of the royal palaces, and many of the possessors of valuable collections, had come forward and granted concessions which had been the means of affording rational amusement to the labouring classes of the community, and, if any person doubted the improvement in the national character, which has been the consequence, he would refer to a statement he held in his hand from the Commissioners of Police, pointing out the manifest change, and stating that now one single policeman was sufficient where formerly six had been necessary. In answer to a question put to them, as to whether the public might be admitted with safety into Westminster Abbey, they stated their perfect confidence that the indulgence might be granted as to the British Museum, and that good order, and a desire to preserve and protect all that was therein contained, might be depended upon. If the benefits which had been granted to the mass of the community with respect to public places in general had been duly valued, if the character of the people had been thereby changed as it were so that now our public gardens were with safety planted with flowers, and the waters in the parks stocked with valuable birds, he believed that every man must agree, that removing the restrictions on access to works of art would still further change the public character, and tend to produce a higher taste for art, and introduce a pure class of enjoyments. The indulgence which had been given in these respects to those who had formerly been excluded, furnished them a great deal of matter for thought, and prevented the people from spending their time in idleness and dissolute habits. Under these circumstances, he did say, that they were justified in coming forward to ask for the public, free admission to the cathedrals of the kingdom. In his view, these cathedrals had been built for public objects; and, in corroboration of this, he could not do better than read some observations of Mr. Addison, contained in the Spectator, No. 415. The hon. Member then read a passage to the effect that—

"We are obliged to devotion for the noblest buildings in the world; that the contemplation of them filled the mind with vast conceptions; and that there was to be seen every thing calling up majestic ideas, and implanting a sense of awfulness and reverence in the mind of the beholder."

These were the statements of Mr. Addison on this subject, and his views were confirmed by the persons who were examined at great length before the Committee. What he was now anxious to effect was, to carry out the wishes of Her Majesty, who, in one month after Her Accession to the Throne, commanded Lord John Russell to use every effort to open the Cathedrals to the whole of Her subjects. Nobody could have urged the case more strongly than the noble Lord, in the letter which he wrote to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and also to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, in pursuance of Her Majesty's command. In reply, they stated their anxiety to effect the object; but nothing had been hitherto done. He regretted to say that the public were only able to enter those buildings to see the works of art contained in them when they went with money in their hands; as if they were going to a show with a person with them to point out what was to be seen. He had no wish to interfere with religious duties; he wished to see persons attending the Cathedrals for these purposes alone, and not for the purpose of seeing the place at the time of worship. If any one would go to St. Paul's, he would find nothing but crowding and jostling there, and the accommodation for worship not enough for one-tenth of those who attended. He did not wish to prevent persons attending worship; but what he complained of was, that parties were not admitted to see the building without paying, and, though at Westminster Abbey the price was only 6d., still that was too high. At stated hours, and under proper rules and regulations, the public ought to be admitted. The result would be beneficial for the admission implying a degree of self-control would to that degree operate as an education, and, if the public were admitted at other parts of the day, and not during worship, there would not be seen those scenes of crowding and jostling which were now so common. The public mind was much drawn to the subject. He had lately seen three or four letters addressed to the editors of public papers wishing them to exercise their influence against the present system. He was sorry thas the representations of Lord J. Russell had not been more effectual, but perhaps he was able to use persuasion only. In his (Mr. Hume's) opinion the Cathedrals were public buildings, and the Dean and Chapter for the time being had only a life interest in them; and consequently they ought not to be permitted to destroy the unity of the architecture by the erection of buildings or monuments at their pleasure. He thought the present mode of erecting monuments was bad; he saw the statues of military and naval men raised in the temple of peace, surrounded by all the emblems of war, and he thought that the Government ought to exercise a control in this matter; and, taking the view of Mr. Addison, in the passage he had read, he thought the Government, if the management of the interiors of the Cathedrals was neglected, ought to see that a due superintendence was maintained; that the fabric should be maintained, that every alteration should be consistent with the architect's original design: and, in fact, he would remove all unsightly erections, looking to the Government to find a proper place to put them in. He wished that the Cathedals might be made the means of softening the manners of humble life. Self control, in his opinion, was more valuable to that class than any other knowledge that could be got, and the more the public were occupied in visiting these public buildings the more probability there would be that they would obtain a perfect control over their characters. He wished next to call attention to the opinions of men of science and character, and of great experience in this country, particularly in connexion with buildings of this class. The opinion of such men had been asked as to the probable result of free admission, and whether it would produce any injury to the buildings. First, the opinion of the Commissioners of Police had been taken at large before the Committee upstairs. Mr. Britton, the author of Britton's Cathedrals—than whom there was no man in this country or any other, better acquainted with the subject, because he had passed a long life in collecting the best means of perpetuating the history of these buildings—stated, on being asked what was the result of his observations on the conduct of the public in buildings of this kind, that it was considerably improved—indeed immensely improved; so much so, that if he had been absent from the country for several years, he should not have believed they were the same people: and he added, that the only drawback he knew of on those occasions had been the having charges to pay to the vergers and their servants. Allan Cunningham, the author of Lives of British Artists, in his examination, declared that the public had no notion of destroying; that they were very much delighted with works of art; that numbers of men generally seen there were of the class usually called the mob, but that their behaviour did not justify the title, that shoemakers, joiners, and all sorts of artisans were in the habit of visiting these places. He also stated his opinion, that in the presence of a sensible man as an attendant, there could be no danger in admitting the public to Westminster Abbey two or three hours a-day. Edwin Wedlake Brayley, the historian of Westminster Abbey, who might be said to have been for years connected with that Cathedral, stated that he had never observed the least disposition to do mischief when there was the greatest crowd. All three, in their evidence before the Select Committee of the House, were decisive in their opinion, that for the sake of public morals and public refinement, it was expedient that Cathedrals should be thrown open, and that, under proper regulations, it might be done with the utmost safety to the monuments and the buildings. He (Mr. Hume) did not wish to put his claim on any pecuniary ground alone, but he could show that the House of Commons had voted money for the rebuilding of the dormitory and for the building of the Prebends' houses: upwards of 45,200l. since 1823 had been voted in this way. Then, for repairing Henry VII.'s Chapel, 42,000l. had been given on Petition in the four years 1807, 1809, 1810, 1811. At Westminster Abbey he was bound to say there was a great disposition to meet the wishes of the public; but be had rather the effect he wished should be a voluntary act, than brought about by anything like compulsion. He had received from the Bishop of Wells an answer to his application to this effect—that he was most friendly to the Measure, under due regulations. That answer he (Mr. Hume) thought highly creditable to the Bishop and to those who concurred with him. The Bishop of Winchester stated that orders had been given by the Dean and Chapter that facilities should be allowed for seeing the Cathedral; but he (Mr. Hume) was not aware what had been done. The present Bishop of Norwich, directly he had taken possession of his See, had given directions that the Cathedral should be open to the public, without charge, for one hour every day in the week. In former times the cathedral of Westminster had been much more accessible than at present, and he had been informed by Lord Melbourne and the late Lord Wrottesley, that when they were boys at school, only one part of Westminster Abbey was closed, and to that part the price of admission was merely 2d. or 3d. The memory of Jeremy Bentham, who left Westminster School in 1760, went even further back, and was directly confirmatory of the testimony of Lords Melbourne and Wrottesley. The object of his (Mr. Hume's) Motion was to induce the House to adopt the opinion which the Select Committee, over which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some time since presided, had expressed, and he confidently expected that the present Government would follow up the exertions of the last in carrying into effect the wishes of the Queen. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, had given his uniform support to all attempts to enlighten and improve the people by means of this kind, and as he was an enlightened patron of art, he (Mr. Hume) had no doubt that he would advocate a Motion which had for its object such an improvement of the national taste as would better enable it to understand and relish works of art. He concluded by moving his Resolution.

seconded the Motion, and expressed his warmest thanks to the hon. Member for Montrose for the singular zeal and perseverance with which now for so many years he had pursued this object. The communication to which the hon. Member had referred from the Dignitaries of the Church in almost every part of the country showed that, so far from being opposed to the Measure before the House, it met with their heartiest concurrence. We cast a most unmerited reproach upon the population of this country if we said that they were unworthy of admission to, or incapable of appreciating, those works of art with which their country was adorned, and which were alike the wonder and the admiration of the world. Whether it was from our communication with other nations, or from the increased attention which had been recently given to the subject, he did not know; but he thought that that feeling of exclusion— that idea of in-competency upon the part of the public to understand what was beautiful and lovely in art—was gradually giving way before a better system of things. Certain it was, that in any part of the Continent, whether you visited Catholic or Protestant countries, it mattered not, the public monuments were liberally thrown open to the public at large. In Catholic countries, more especially in the South of Europe, all the religious edifices were freely opened: people of all creeds had unconditional ingress and egress whensoever they pleased; and it could not be doubted that the feeling of admiration caused by the magnificent architecture around, the beauty of the paintings and the sculpture, or the impressiveness of the music, was the means of imbuing the people with a sense of religion and devotion. The time had now come, when it could not be denied that the people of England were completely worthy to be admitted to our public monuments and works of art. If he wanted an instance, he might refer to the admission to the Cartoons; thousands after thousands entered there at their pleasure, and not a single scratch was made on one of the pictures. Tranquillity, order, and peace marked their presence, and, more than that, improvement was going on; and if such were the case in this instance, why dispute it amongst the cathedrals? He thought it might be laid down as a principle, that it was idle to think of encouraging art unless they encouraged a love of art amongst the people, and upon that principle alone, if on no others, he was of opinion, that unreservedly, and at once, without apprehension, the public should be admitted into the noblest of our cathedrals. What made the people of this country what they were, but the constant recalling to their minds, by the history of past ages, and exhibiting to them in pictures, and by works of art, the glorious deeds of their ancestors which stimulated them on to follow in their footsteps, and to emulate their fame? Let us take a pattern from the French. No sooner had the Revolution passed over than they began to reflect upon the value of that which they had destroyed, and at the period of the Restoration they began to take measures for the preservation of their national works. The French Minister, who now held so high a place in the French Cabinet, and whose many virtues, combined with his genius and judgment, had gained for him the esteem and admiration of all who could appreciate such qualities, had appointed a Commission for the preservation of the public monuments in that country. He could see no reason why England, with a constitution not dissimilar from that of France, and with a Government like that of France, anxious to watch over the best interests of the people, should not appoint a similar Commission. That was an idea which he should think worthy the consideration of the House, and he was sure that the right hon. Baronet opposite, from the protection which he had on more than one occasion extended to art, and from the encouragement which on every occasion both in and out of that House he had given to every exertion made to further the progress of art in this country, would endeavour to emulate the fame of the illustrious Statesman to whom he had already referred. Upon these grounds, wholly agreeing in what his hon. Friend had said, and anxious to see it carried out to that completeness of which it was capable, he gave the measure his most hearty concurrence and most cordial support.

said, the only difference between the debate to-night and upon former occasions, as far as he could perceive, was, that it was now taken in April instead of, as usual, in July or August; for the rest, the speeches and arguments made use of appeared to be precisely the same as those employed upon former occasions. He objected to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose upon two grounds: 1st, inasmuch as he proposed to deal with these cathedrals as if they were national property; and 2dly, because he did not admit that such interference would, as the hon. Gentleman contended—promote the intellectual, moral, and religious good of the people. What was meant by calling the cathedrals national property he was at a loss to understand. They were not endowed by the nation, nor was there a single instance, with the exception of St. Paul's, of a cathedral being built by the nation. [Mr. Hume: Parliament gave the Property.] Parliament gave the property! The utmost he had ever heard the greatest latitudinarian contend for, was that Parliament transferred the property; but even that he would not admit. He contended that at the period of the Reformation the individual bishops and clergy who previously had possession of these cathedrals transferred them to a purer and a better faith. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Montrose that, if he succeeded in the attempt in which, before, he had so often failed, it would be the means of civilizing, enlightening, and Christianizing the people. Even if he could agree in that proposition, it would still remain a matter for consideration how far in agressing with it, they were not also bound to attend to the vested interests of those who might be affected by it. He could not, however, admit that there was any intimate connection between intellectual and moral goodness; for it had been almost invariably found that in the times of the highest intellectual greatness of a nation, there had likewise existed the greatest masses of corruption; and in individual cases the highest talents were often accompanied by the greatest personal depravity. Looking, therefore, to history and experience, he should say that it was not the surest mode of enlightening the people in Christian doctrine, to make them skilful judges of the merits of a statue or a picture. If he could not agree to this, still less could he agree that it was fitting this House should interfere with that management which the Law and Constitution had confided, in respect of each cathedral, in the Dean and Chapter. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated no case of the abuse of this power; but, on the contrary, had been compelled to admit, whether in consequence of his frequent Motions upon the subject, or from other causes, he did not say, that great facilities at present existed for the admission of the people to Westminster Abbey. Formerly the charge to view the whole of the building was 2s. 3d.; now it was open for 6d. [Mr. Hume: that is half-a-day's wages.] Sixpence was no doubt a large sum for many labourers, but still he could not see how it could be reduced, inasmuch as the Resolution of the hon. Member itself implied that some sum was necessary. Here were the words: — "Though it may be required to continue a small reduced fee or other sufficient restriction in regard to the chapels, and smaller or more intricate portions of those edifices." Some payment, therefore, was to be required, and some expence to be incurred, in order to protect these buildings. The consideration, then, remained, whether individuals were to pay for the delight, or whatever it was, which they experienced from visiting these edifices, put of their own funds, or whether it was to be paid out of the general taxation of the country. If it were to he continued at all, he (Sir R. Inglis) must say that he should think it ought to be paid by those who were immediately interested in the receipt of the advantage. He was not one of those who for a single moment would pay any regard to that portion of the public income which might be expended in paying the cost of a free admission of the people to the public monuments of this country. Neither should he attach the slightest importance to any expenditure which tended to the permanent good of the people. His own objection to the present Motion was that it interfered with the private rights and authorities, without effecting any adequate public good. He could not refrain from noticing the declaration made by the hon. Member for Montrose, that incongruous monuments ought to be removed from the metropolitan cathedrals. It might be all very well for the hon. Member to say that; but when such a declaration was heard, it was a difficult thing to avoid asking by whom were those monuments erected? It was said, fairly enough, that nothing could be more incongruous than monuments existing in St. Paul's which were made up of images of devastation and war — that it was absurd to place such statues in a house of peace. Again, he would ask, by whom were these monuments raised? Surely not by the Dean and Chapter. On the contrary, it was well known that those monuments had been raised by successive votes from that House, proposed by successive Governments: He agreed with the hon. Member that nothing could be more incongruous than to have a Christian church filled with statues of heathen gods and goddesses. He, for his part, regarded such exhibitions with great dislike and aversion. He regretted that they had ever been introduced, and he assented to their removal. He should not be favourable to the removal of any monument that had been placed over any grave —those which stood over the remains of the persons whose fame they were intended to commemorate ought to continue there. But with regard to a considerable portion of the monuments in St. Paul's Cathedral the case was widely different. They did not cover the remains of the parties to whose memory they had been raised. Groups, in which Mars, Bellona, and Neptune held prominent places, might very advantageously be removed without any disrespect to the dead, or any offence to the living. There could be clearly no impropriety in removing those to other places. He might be allowed to instance the monument executed by one of the greatest of British sculptors to the memory of Watt. Surely, there was no one with a particle of religious feeling who would not at once say that that monument might advantageously be removed; there was no one could fail to regret that it had ever been introduced. No man of any faith could help feeling that that monument, and others like it, were misplaced. He therefore was not prepared to deny that it might be expedient to remove many monuments which had been placed in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's during the last century and a half. The right hon. Member who seconded the present Resolution made a suggestion which, it was to be hoped, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would not think unworthy of his consideration: he meant the appointment of a Commission to take charge of the public monuments— and perhaps of something more than the mere public monuments—so far as that could be done without any invasion of the rights of private property. For example, the owner of Stonehenge might do as he thought proper with it,—there was no law to prevent him. A danger of that kind was, however, so remote, that no one need take the trouble of guarding against it; but it would readily be recollected, that not a great many years ago an individual removed the Logan stone, another memorial, perhaps, of the same age; but the Admiralty interposed and compelled him to restore it. He should not perhaps have troubled the House with these observations, if he had not thought it right to state the points on which he agreed with the hon. Member. In conclusion, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would not overlook the statements which had that night been made, and that he would not disregard the suggestions which had been thrown out. His right hon. Friend, both in that House and out of it, had exerted his influence for the encouragement of the arts, and in promoting the taste of the people.

would not follow the hon. Baronet into his dissertation on the Logan-stone of Cornwall, or into the theological subject, which, as he thought, had been unnecessarily obtruded upon this occasion; for when he looked at the Resolution proposed he found nothing which had reference to the speech or justified the reproof of his hon. Friend, except the sentence which regarded cathedrals as national property. There was nothing in the Resolution advocating the opinion that the moral and intellectual improvement of the people was of more importance than religious rites. The proposition only asked the House to confirm by its collective authority what had already been declared by a recent Report of the Committee of the House, and which had received the implied consent of the noble Lord at the head of the late Government, and continued to receive the unwearied support of his right hon. Friend at the head of the present Government. He deemed the reception of any fee at the doors of a place of public worship a gross desecration. When his hon. Friend who had just sat down spoke disparagingly of intellectual improvement, surely he did not mean that the persons who had raised these great works did not intend to excite intellectual emotions. Those buildings were erected for far higher objects than simple worship; and to exclude the people was as far as possible to nullify the intention of the noble founders, and to render buildings, which were the pride of our country, morally and religiously, useless. What was the meaning of allowing such noble buildings to stand unless indirect feelings were to be excited—feelings which those who raised those buildings understood far better than did the present generation, or the hon. Baronet himself? For such a purpose the question of money was not an object. If the Government would say that they would provide a police, and preserve at first the necessary decorum, the people would become habituated to these objects, and would soon become their own police. Knowing the small desecration which took place on the Continent, he could not say that Englishmen were less fit to visit St. Paul's than a Frenchman to view Notre Dame, or an Italian St. Peter's. With reference to the character of the monuments, he believed that the Chapter of St. Paul's had recently come to the decision not to admit any more heathen designs. In this they had gone along with public opinion; but he thought that the removal of national monuments already placed there, was a very different question, and required the most grave consideration on all sides. If they removed the monuments already existing, others might not be raised, and though hon. Gentlemen saw the evils of the present state of things, they must also see many evils on the other side. With every respect to the religious services celebrated in the cathedrals, he did not see any objection to the admission of the public, nevertheless he was not one who was of opinion that Englishmen were alone unfit to enter these edifices.

having had frequent opportunities of considering this subject, and of watching the free admission of the working men and artizans of this country, did not see any reason to retract the opinion which he had given upon this subject on former occasions. He thought that every admission to the cathedrals of this country, which could be given consistently with the preservation of the works of art and of the monuments, could have nothing but a beneficial moral effect. The admission to those ancient buildings, which were the proofs of the pious disposition of our ancestors, and of the desire of those who possessed great wealth to do honour to the Creator, was calculated to excite and to produce nothing but good feelings and a good result. His hon. Friend (Sir R. H. Inglis) had said, and said truly, that great refinement and civilization had existed in conjunction with great public profligacy, and he said also that persons of great intellectual acquirement were not always impressed with a deep feeling of religious Obligation. All this was very true, but it seemed beside the present question whether the emotions which would probably be excited by the free admission to these buildings were likely to produce a good effect. Supposing his hon. Friend's argument good for anything, it would go much further, and would prove that they ought to check civilization and refinement, because they were connected with much profligacy. He thought that these admissions were calculated to correct mean and vulgar habits, to withdraw from debasing pursuits, and to refine and improve the mind. He would not contend that it would necessarily impress persons with the truths of religion, they must come from other sources; but it could not do other than good—promoting civilization and refinement. If it stopped there, if a religious character must be derived from other sources, if the good was not complete, let them at least derive the most advantage in their power. As far as public and political results went, he thought that, to allow the working classes daily access to those monuments might increase their interest in the maintenance of the public institutions— they would regard with veneration those monuments, and be impressed with those feelings which gave permanence to the Constitution. Therefore, as far as the moral results upon the dispositions of indi- viduals, and as regarded public, political, and social results, he confessed that he contemplated with great satisfaction the admission of the humblest classes of society to view these monuments. He thought that admission might be granted without incurring the risk which was some times supposed. At present, in Westminster Abbey, great facilities were afforded for the admission of the public during the performance of divine worship, which were not accorded at other times. What was the consequence? Those who went to view the works of art rather impeded than encouraged the growth of religious feelings. Then a certain part of the day was set apart for those who paid a certain amount of money. His strong impression was, that if certain days and certain hours were set apart for the unrestricted right of admission, that right would not be exercised to any inconvenient extent; the public would act on the principle which governed themselves; having an opportunity of seeing most things in this great metropolis whenever they liked, they postponed their visits. He, therefore, thought if the public had the right of admission, it would be taken advantage of by those who felt an interest in the works of art, but at the same time not to such an extent as would interfere with the safe preservation of the monuments. Arrangements too might be made to prevent damage. It was possible that depraved characters might do evil if there were a free admission without corresponding precaution; but the feeling of the great majority would be that they would act as their own police. Nine-tenths of the parties admitted would be among the foremost to wish for some restrictions. But if they looked at the result of free admission to public exhibitions and works of art—to the British Museum, to the National Gallery, and to Hampton Court, he thought the general result of the experiment of free admission to the public showed that there was no very great risk of its abuse. In the course of last year, a person of disordered intellect, without being able to account for his motives, had injured a valuable painting in the National Gallery; but the same thing might have occurred if there had been a charge for admission. The sum charged for viewing Westminster Abbey had been reduced from 2s. 3d. to 6d., and no ill consequence had followed; and therefore he thought that if a further reduction took place no injury would follow. He saw nothing but good in the admission of the public, if proper regard was had to the reverence of the place, which must excite emotions calculated to civilise and refine the minds and improve the habits of those who were admitted to view it. At the same time, entertaining, as he did, these sentiments very strongly, it was impossible for him to vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member, on grounds entirely apart from the opinions he had expressed. This was a proposition that the House of Commons should concur in the Resolution of a Committee of the House on National Monuments in 1841. Was it intended to found any claim of interference upon this Resolution? The existing law gave the control over these Monuments to certain authorities. They had given the Bishops in some cases, the Dean and Chapter in others, rights which partook of the character of freehold, and had made them the guardians of those public Monuments for public purposes; they had made them responsible for the exercise of a prudent discretion as to the right. If they thought this guardianship thus bestowed wrong, let them attempt to control it, but by law, not by Resolution. Nothing could be more dangerous than for the House to attempt by inadequate means to effect a certain object. He wanted to facilitate and encourage free admission, and with good will. He saw a great disposition on the part of the Deans and Chapters of the Cathedrals to encourage free admission. He believed the present authorities of Westminster Abbey were desirous of giving every admission which they thought consistent with the performance of the duty reposed in them as guardians of the Abbey. They did not wish to set themselves up in opposition to the authority of the House; but if the House, by inadequate means, tried to control, let them not be too sure, that another feeling might not rise up— that this was to be a question of the exercise of right which they were bound to contest. Suppose that feeling arose—suppose the Dean and Chapter saw it would be wise to resist, foreseeing that this might be the foundation of some further claim, and thinking it their duty to resist in the beginning, and acting in furtherance of those particular duties which had been assigned to them, they might disregard the Resolution of the House; and suppose they felt it necessary to resist the vote of the House, this Resolution would have no effect. But even if they wished to proceed by Resolution, the proposition of the hon. Member was not definite enough. They took the Report of a Committee which sat some years since, and did not say anything indicative of what they wished, but stated merely that they agreed with the Committee. But what had that Committee stated? His hon. Friend, who was such a decided partizan of that Committee, viewed with something approaching to horror the receipt of a fee at the door of a church; and he was absolutely going to concur in a Resolution that it was quite fit to receive a reduced fee in regard to the chapels and smaller or more intricate portions of the edifice—for that was a part of the statement of the Committee. He (Sir R. Peel) always disliked these attempts to solve difficulties by Resolutions; they tried it the other day with duelling. If they could not enforce their Resolutions, they were only lowering their own authority, and depreciating their own jurisdiction, by acting upon a principle of that kind. If they thought it desirable to alter the law, let them bring in a Bill for that purpose. The people of this country knew that by the Constitution they were bound to obey the law, and let not the House of Commons tell them that the Resolutions of that House were to have any similar effect. If they attempted to establish such a principle, by that very spirit of liberty of which they were proud, and which they ought freely to encourage, they would ensure opposition. They had a right to lay down Resolutions with respect to the Government, for they were responsible; but persons who are independent of them, and who held rights by the same force which gave the House of Commons itself the rights it possessed, would be disposed to resist such an encroachment upon the liberties of the people, and, therefore, he said, a mere Resolution indicative of the opinion of the House of Commons was a dangerous course for them to pursue. He repeated, that if they thought the law required amendment, let them amend it; but he begged them not to put on their journals a resolution which admitted of being set at defiance. Concurring in the general proposition of the hon. Gentleman, but believing that the hon. Gentleman's proposition was more likely to defeat the object they had in view, rather than encourage it, he did hope the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion; at any rate he hoped the House would well consider before it adopted an abstract opinion of this nature, and pause before it acted on that which he thought a dangerous principle, and calculated to lower the authority of that House.

explained that the hon. Member for Montrose having stated, that the introduction to works of art led to civilization, elevated the character of the people, and almost christianised them, he contended that the experience of history and individuals did not justify that conclusion; but he only contended that admission should not be so general as the hon. Gentleman wished. He thought there should be a charge for admission, although it might be low.

said, the right hon. Baronet had advocated the principle, but opposed the Motion, but he thought that it was important that the opinion of the House should be expressed by voting upon the resolution. The public should be admitted gratuitously into the public edifices of the country, which in many instances were historical records: for instance, on the monument of Edward the Confessor, in Westminster Abbey, facts were recorded which were not revealed in any other way. The right hon. Baronet had not expressed an opinion upon the beneficial effect which must result from the appointment of a Commission to protect public monuments, which had done so much credit to France. [Sir R. Peel: Does the hon. Gentleman expect me at once to propose such a Commission?] He merely said it was an important point which the right hon. Baronet had not noticed: he did not expect him at once to adopt such a course.

said, the effect of this restriction on the admission of the public into the Cathedrals was shown in the numbers that had visited the British Museum and the National Gallery, compared with the numbers that had visited St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey. It appeared that 25,000 persons had visited the Museum on Easter Monday, 22,000 persons the National Gallery, whilst only forty-one persons had been admitted into St. Paul's, and between 200 and 300 into Westminster Abbey, on that day. He thought this was a matter greatly to be regretted, and that the clergy mistook their own interests in not making the admission more free than it was, to the sacred edifices, from visiting which the people might derive much moral instruction. The public should be admitted on week days free of expense rather than on Sundays, because unlimited admission then would interfere with devotion and tend to disorder. Hon. Members had said something about the removal of monuments erected in the reigns of Queen Anne and the Georges, which were supposed to be of rather a heathenish character. He, for one, had no objection to see the emblems of war placed over the tomb of a soldier, for he thought such a person might be a very good Christian.

fully concurred in the propriety of the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view in submitting his Motion to the House; but he saw many difficulties connected with it. The chief one was, that the House should not interfere with the rights and privileges of the Church. Already Parliament had tied and bound the Church, and yet blamed it for not acting; already had they gagged the Church, yet they condemned it for not speaking. It was quite true that during the last 100 years many most absurd and incongruous monuments had been introduced into the Cathedrals. In St, Paul's, there was a monument to that mighty Christian moralist whose memory must last as long as there was any virtue left to appreciate his worth—Dr. Johnson—whose labours were constantly directed to the purification of the literature of the day from its tendency to mix up mythological with Christian illustrations; yet his tomb was neither classical nor Christian in its character. Any one would suppose that an overgrown Hercules was placed there, instead of a representation of Dr. Johnson. Could the learned philologist have seen it before his death, his eloquent indignation would have prevented its entrance into the Cathedral. The monuments to naval and military heroes were for the most part justly censurable, being adorned with guns and bayonets and other implements of war, in most violent opposition to the spirit of religion. What was inscribed on the tombs of the heroes of Poictiers and Agincourt? Nun nobis Domine. But in St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey it seemed to be altogether forgotten that there was a God of battles who had directed the valour of the dead warriors, whose monuments were not in harmony with the place, nor the men whose memory they were intended to perpetuate. Our Cathedrals and Churches ought not to he made sculpture galleries for the people to gaze at; if such were the object with the present exhibitions there, their taste was not likely to be improved by the sight. The temples of religion ought to be kept open for the purpose of devotion wily; and they ought to be open, not on one day only, but on every day, from sunrise to sunset.

said, this debate had begun about half-past six or seven o'clock, and, although they were all agreed upon the principle of the Resolution, it was still continued to that hour. They were all agreed that the people should have the freest access to all the numerous sacred places throughout the land. He was of that opinion. But he did not think the House of Commons had any right to interfere with the privileges of the Church, and, consequently, he must vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. The hon. Member for Hull had said, that if free admission to the Cathedrals were permitted all day on Sunday, there would be a great crowd and a great crush. Let any of those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Motion that night only go to St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey, and repeat their orations there, and they might depend upon it, there would be neither crowd nor crush.

thought the doctrines of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University, not suited to the present times. The whole House had agreed to the principle of the Resolution, with the exception of that hon. Member. Even the hon. Member for West Sussex, who had never, since he had been in Parliament, assented to any proposition of his, had expressed his cordial concurrence in his views upon the present occasion. However, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, who who had also fully supported the principle for which he contended, but who had pointed out some practical difficulties with respect to the formal adoption of the Resolution by the House, he thought he should damage the object he wished to promote if he pressed it to a division.

Motion withdrawn.

said, that previous to the Easter recess, he had given Notice of a Motion on the subject of a class of men whose claims he considered had been very much neglected by the Government. It was then his intention to confine his Motion to the circumstances in which the officers who had served in the Peninsular War, had been placed, and to have called the attention of the Government to the services which they had performed, and to the claims which they had on the gratitude of their country. He had no wish to dictate to the Government the line which they should adopt on this subject, but to leave them to act as they thought best, although he did not know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to agree with him or not, still he anticipated opposition, and, under these circumstances, he found that he should not be able to follow the course which he had originally intended; he had, therefore, determined to call upon the House to address the Crown, praying Her Majesty to he graciously pleased to confer an honorary distinction on the surviving officers of the Peninsular Army. He perhaps might be told that it would not be either proper or respectful to address the Crown, and if he entertained such an opinion he certainly would not have so shaped his Motion. He repeated, that he had no wish to dictate to the Government. But under the circumstances in which the officers of the Peninsular army who had served in those never-to-be-forgotten campaigns had been placed, he conceived that it was his duty, as a Member of that House, to call the attention of Parliament to the services of these men; and humbly, but sincerely, to advocate their claims to some mark of public distinction, and at the same time to leave it to Her Majesty's Government, the House, and the country, to determine on the merits and claims of those gallant officers. He might be told that the time had elapsed when such a Motion should be brought forward, and that so many years had passed away since the termination of the Peninsular War, that it was impossible to recollect the details of what had then taken place, or to ascertain upon whom these distinctions ought to be bestowed. He might also be told that there was one who would advocate this case if he thought that the claims of these parties called for it, and who must feel the deepest interest in the matter; he alluded to that great and illustrious man who commanded throughout these campaigns so honourably to himself and so gloriously for his country. He believed, that as far as the Duke of Wellington was concerned, no blame was attributable to him for not interfering. In the first place he would advert to what had taken place previous to that great man succeeding the Duke of York in 1828, as the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army. He believed that it was an invariable rule on the part of the Duke of Wellington never to ask for re- wards or marks of distinction for himself, or for any officer of the British Army serving under him, but he confined himself to recommending officers for promotion, or to have some mark of distinction conferred on them, when he was desired to give such recommendations by the Government at home. It should also be recollected, that at the time the Duke of Wellington assumed the command in chief of the Army, medals and orders of distinction were not so generally distributed as they had been since. Those distinctions had in the British service been sparingly distributed in comparison with the rewards bestowed in the Armies of the other countries in Europe, in many of which it was the custom to bestow medals and other marks of distinction with an unsparing hand. He did not think, therefore, that at that time the Duke of Wellington was called upon to interfere. Again, when an application was made to the Duke of Wellington to interfere and obtain this distinction, in 1840, he had ceased to be Commander-in-Chief, and was at the time in opposition to the Government: he, therefore, declined to interfere, considering himself merely as a private individual. The noble Duke might then have said, that the matter should be left entirely in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, and also that he did not choose to solicit a boon from a Government to which he was engaged in systematic opposition. That distinguished man was now Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, and a Member of the British Cabinet. If, therefore he could be induced to interfere, no doubt the object would be at once obtained. Whether the opinion entertained by that illustrious man on this subject was favourable to the object of this Motion he could not tell; but, if it was not, he (Sir A. L. Hay) should much regret it. Of this, however, he was sure, that the officers of the Peninsular Army must ever be held in the greatest respect by that great man, and that no one could entertain a stronger opinion than himself, that they deserved well of this country for the services that they had rendered. He was not going to call the attention of the House to all the circumstances of the Peninsular War; but there were circumstances connected with the character of that Army which might have escaped recollection. He, therefore, felt that he was perfectly justified in mentioning some few points in reference to it. He, in the first place, would advert to the feeling with which the Duke of Wellington regarded this Army at the close of the glorious campaigns in which they had been engaged. That distinguished man, in the address which he issued to the Army on taking leave of it at Bourdeaux, said:—

"Although circumstances may alter the relations in which he has stood towards them for some years, so much to his satisfaction, he assures them he will never cease to feel the warmest interest in their welfare and honour, and that he will be at all times happy to be of any service to those to whose conduct, discipline, and gallantry, their country is so much indebted."

Such were the words of the Duke of Wellington on taking leave of the Peninsular army, and he (Sir A. L. Hay) conceived that those words should always be recollected in connection with the services of that army. For his own part, he conceived that this was a case which was mixed up with the best interests of the country, for he felt that if our soldiers did not receive such marks of distinction, after such services as were performed during the Peninsular war, there would be wanting a proper stimulus for future exertions in the service of the country, and the proper inducement would not exist to induce future armies to engage in such glorious enterprises. He would not compare this case with the medals or rewards bestowed on an army which had fought and gained one great battle, they were deserved; hut this was a case in which an army had been engaged in many campaigns, and had repeatedly met the most formidable armies that Europe had hitherto seen, and, after repeated triumphs, at last placed, step by step, a Ducal Coronet on the brow of the greatest soldier this country has ever produced. He therefore trusted that the Government and the House would support him in the proposition which he was about to submit. He knew that many, if not all the officers, who had served through these campaigns felt aggrieved that, while others had received rewards and medals for having been engaged in a single battle, they had been passed over. Was it to be allowed that the officers of the British Army, who had been engaged in constant contests with the enemy for six long years, and who by their gallant deeds had succeeded in destroying one of the greatest dynasties that had ever existed, should be forgotten, and that the history of their deeds should go down to posterity, accompanied by the fact that they received no reward or mark of distinction for their glorious services? He was aware that he might have been told formerly that a Motion to confer honorary distinctions on officers of all ranks in that army would be too extensive; but since, it should be recollected that a mark of distinction had been conferred on all the officers that served in the battle of Waterloo, although many of them had never seen a shot fired previously, or on that day. Where, however, he would ask, would the Duke of Wellington have been at that battle, had not a portion of the infantry of the old Peninsular Army been with him? Previous to that battle, he found that the Duke of Wellington, in a letter to Sir Lowry Cole, said—"I wish I could bring everything together as I had it when I took leave of the Army at Bourdeaux, and I would engage we should not be the last in the race." Again, in another letter written before the battle of Waterloo, he wrote—"I have got an army, very weak and ill-equipped, and a very inexperienced staff." Now, he considered that it was a very remarkable fact that in the despatch giving an account of the battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington mentioned the regiments which distinguished themselves on that occasion, and he particularly noticed the Blues, Life Guards, 1st Dragoon Guards, the division of Guards, the 28th, 42nd, 79th, and 92nd, all Peninsular regiments. He would now proceed to state the opinion of the Duke of Wellington as to the effect of medals and marks of distinction on officers engaged in successful battles with the enemy. In addressing the House of Lords on the Motion for a vote of thanks to Sir C. 'Napier and the army in Scinde, the noble Duke said,

"It happens to me to know that Sir Charles Napier, on the morning of the second battle, received from the Governor-General his approbation of the conduct of the troops at the battle of Meannee, and the announcement that the rewards for their services would follow, and this was, I believe, a great inducement to the exertions of the troops, which were afterwards crowned with such success."

It was well known that several of the officers who served in some of the regiments in the Peninsular war in a subordinate rank were now in the command of regiments, and yet they bore no mark of distinction for the victories in which they were engaged. The only distinction which had been conferred was, that the regiments engaged in that campaign bore on their colours the names of the victories which they had concurred in and mainly assisted in achieving. He would proceed to read the names of those officers now in command of regiments who served in the Peninsula, but who had not received medals for their services, because at that time they were not of sufficient rank. It was well known that the Duke of Wellington did not approve of the mode in which the grant of medals and other distinctions were made to officers serving in the Peninsular war, as being too limited in its extent, and not just in the manner of distribution. He did not mean to say that there were not other officers quite as worthy of distinction as those he was about to mention, but he felt that he must confine himself within a limit. He found that the following Peninsular officers were now in the command of regiments:—Colonel Cavendish, 1st Life Guards; Colonel Chatterton, 4th Dragoon Guards; Colonel Jackson, 6th Dragoon Guards; Colonel Sir Joseph Thackwell, 3d Light Dragoons; Colonel Vandeleur, 10th Hussars; Colonel Stawell, 12th Lancers; Colonel Brunton, 13th Light Dragoons; Colonel Townsend, 14th Light Dragoons; Colonel Lovell, 15th Light Dragoons; Colonel Cureton, 16th Lancers; Colonel Persse, 16th Lancers; Colonel Grant, Grenadier Guards; Colonel Walton, Coldstream Guards; Colonel Scott, Fusileer Guards; Colonel Considine, 10th Regiment; Lieutenant-Colonel Squire, 13th Regiment; Colonel Bolton, 31st Regiment; Colonel Boys, 45th Regiment; Colonel Wodehouse, 50th Regiment; Lieutenant - Colonel Elliott, 51st Regiment; Colonel Fane, 54th Regiment; Colonel Logan, 63d Regiment; Colonel Stretton, 64th Regiment. He could also mention Colonel Whinyate's Royal Artillery; Colonel W. G. Power, Royal Artillery; Colonel Dyneley, Royal Artillery; Colonel Cator, Royal Artillery; Lieutenant-Colonel Blachley, Royal Artillery; Colonel Macdonald, Royal Artillery; Lieutenant-Colonel Jones, Royal Engineers; Lieutenant-Colonel Reid, Royal Engineers: Lieutenant - Colonel Wells, Royal Engineers. He might also mention the following distinguished officers, who had served throughout the Peninsular war, who had received no marks of distinction or medals for their services during those years:—Major-General Hon. H. Lygon, who served in the 16th Dragoons, severely wounded; Lieutenant-General Clitherow, Scotch Fusileer Guards; Major-General he Earl of Westmoreland, 56th Regiment; Sir Edward Bowater, Guards; Major-General Reeves, 27th Regiment; Sir Archibald Maclean, 94th Regiment; Sir William Warre, aid-de-camp to Lord Beresford, Major-Gen. Mercer, 3d Guards; Major-Gen. Lambert, Grenadier Guards; Major-General Brotherton, 14th Dragoons; Major-General Sir James Reynett, 52d Regiment; Major-General Browne, Deputy Adjutant-General; Major-General Aitcheson, 3d Guards; Colonel Paty, 94th Regiment; Colonel Shaw Kennedy, 43d Regiment; Colonel Bowles, Guards; Colonel Townsend, 14th Light Dragoons; Colonel Lovell, 15th Hussars; Colonel Edward Mildman, 4th Dragoons; Colonel Scott, Fusilier Guards; Colonel W. Drummond, Guards; Lieutenant-Colonel M'Pherson, 17th Regiment; Colonel Churchill, aid-de-camp to Lord Hill, killed in India: Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson, 50th Regiment. There were the names of many other gallant officers which he could cite, but he did not wish to fatigue the House. He, however, considered the subject as a matter of great importance, and he trusted that the House would bear with him when he proceeded to enter into some further details. He perceived an hon. Member opposite who had arrived at the high rank of Major-general in the Army, and who, on one occasion in the Peninsular war, was all but mortally wounded, and yet that distinguished officer has received no medal. He knew many officers who had served throughout the whole of that War, and who had been most severely wounded, and yet had received no medal or mark of distinction. He would mention two or three cases of highly meritorious officers who had not attained high rank. For instance, Captain Charles O'Neill served with the 83rd from 1809 to the close of the war, was present at Talavera, Busaco, Oporto, Fuentes D'Onor, two sieges of Badajos (at the latter severely wounded), was at Salamanca, Vittoria, the Pyrenees, Nivelle, Orthes, and Toulouse. Again, Captain Humbley, of the Rifle Brigade, was present at Roleia and Vimiera; at the battles of Coruna, Barossa, Salamanca, Vittoria, the Pyrenees, Nive, Nivelle, Orthes, and Toulouse —five times wounded severely. Again, Captain Lister, of the 74th Regiment, was present at Fuentes D'Onor, siege of Badajos in 1811, siege of Ciudad Rodrigo, siege and capture of Badajos in. 1812, battles of the Pyrenees and Orthes; received a contusion from the bursting of a shell on the left thigh, while leading the grenadiers of the 74th in storming the main breach at Ciudad Rodrigo; dangerously wounded in the right arm and through the lungs at Badajos, severely wounded at Orthes, his right arm being broken to pieces near the socket, and from which he nearly bled to death. He could refer to many other instances of a similar nature which occurred during the Peninsular war, where officers who had distinguished themselves had nothing to show for the part that they took in the war but their wounds and infirmities, but he was unwilling to detain the House. He, however, observed that almost all the glory and reputation which had been since acquired by the British army was founded in the services which had been performed during the Peninsular war. The Peninsular army had many difficulties to encounter that were not generally known, but history will record its proceeding from triumph to triumph until every object was obtained. It was well known that at the battle of Waterloo the French troops were not what they had been, for the morale of the troops had been much reduced. His right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir H. Hardinge) well knew that in every succeeding battle in the Peninsula, the French army came up with less confidence to contend with our troops. No one could give a better account of this than his right hon. and gallant Friend. To give an idea of the character of that Army, he would advert to a circumstance which occurred at that sanguinary but glorious conflict, at which his right hon. and gallant Friend was present, and the successful result of which he (Sir A. L. Hay) believed was mainly attributable to the conduct of his right hon. and gallant Friend. The historian of the Peninsular war, Colonel Napier, says in his account of the battle of Albuera:—

"1,500 unwounded men, the remnant of 6,000 unconquerable British soldiers, stood triumphant on the fatal hill."

He would now proceed to advert to the services of some officers to whom he had previously alluded, who had distinguished themselves in the Peninsula. Colonel Jackson, of the 6th Dragoon Guards, served in the Peninsula from April, 1809, to the end of the war in 1814; was present at the battles of Oporto, Talayera, and Busaco, the action of Redinha, battle of Fuentes d'Honor, first siege of Badajos, action at E1 Bodon, siege and capture of Ciudad Rodrigo, siege and capture of Badajos, battles of Salamanca, Vittoria, the Pyrenees, the Nivelle, Nive, and Bayonne. Colonel Wade was Aide-de-Camp to Sir Lowry Cole, and served throughout the Peninsular war, and was wounded at Albuera. Colonel Sir Robert Nicholl, 88th Regiment, served through the whole Peninsular war, from 1809, was present at the passage of the Douro, the battles of Busaco and Talavera, siege of Badajos, battle of Vittoria, battles of the Pyrenees, Nivelle, Nive, and Orthes, actions of Vic-Bigorre and Tarbes, and was very severely wounded at the battle of Toulouse. Colonel Considine, of the 43d Regiment, was in the action of the Coa, battle of Busaco, actions of Pombal, Redinha, Casal Nova, Foz d'Aranaz, and Sabugal, sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajos, at the latter shot through the lungs and wounded in the leg, battle of Salamanca, Pyrenees, passage of the Bidassoa, attack at Vera, and battle of the Nivelle, where he was dangerously wounded by a musket shot, which broke his left thigh close to the hip-joint; Colonel Considine is now on full pay, 10th Regiment. To show the nature of the service which the army in the Peninsula was called upon to perform, he would read an extract from a dispatch of the Duke of Wellington, giving an account of an affair which occurred on the heights of El Bodon, on the 25th of September, 1811:—

"The enemy moved a column consisting of between thirty and forty squadrons of cavalry, fourteen battalions of infantry, and twelve pieces of cannon upon Fuente Guinaldo. This force attacked the 5th and 77th Regiments, under the command of Major-General Colville. The 5th and 77th were formed in square; the enemy's cavalry rushed forward, and charged three faces of the square, which halted and repulsed the attack. The conduct of the 5th Regiment, commanded by Major Ridge, in particular, affords a memorable example of what the steadiness and discipline of the troops, and the confidence in their officers, can effect in the most difficult and trying situations. The conduct of the 77th, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Bromhead, was equally good; and I have never seen a more determined attack than was made by the whole of the enemy's cavalry, with every advantage of the assistance of a superior artillery, and repulsed by these two weak battalions. The conduct of Sir C. Colville was beyond all praise."

Colonel Jackson, 6th Dragoon Guards, an officer to whose services he had previously alluded, was Aide-Camp to Sir C. Colville on that occasion. He wished now to show the brilliant achievements of this army during another portion of the service which it had to perform. That distinguished officer Sir J. T. Jones, of the Royal Engineers, gives the following description of a scene, which a portion of the Peninsular army was called upon to perform at the siege of Badajos:—

"In ordinary military reasoning, such a spot would be considered as secure from assault, but the efforts of British troops occasionally set all calculation at defiance; and when a few years shall have swept away the eye-witnesses of their achievements this night, they will not be credited—particularly the escalade made by General Leith, which is here minutely detailed, not as an undertaking generally to be followed, but as marking what it is possible for brave men to effect. The bastion of San Vicente, which Major-General Walker's brigade, and, subsequently, the whole of the 5th Division escaladed, had an escarpe thirty-one feet six inches high, defended by a flank with four guns in it, at the ordinary distance; the palisades of the covered way were entire, the counterscarp wall eleven feet nine inches deep, and in the ditch was the commencement of a cunette, five feet six inches deep by six feet six inches broad. The troops were discovered when yet on the glacis, and a destructive fire opened upon them. The enemy were fully prepared, and behaved well, inasmuch as no one gave way till overpowered; yet the troops successfully escaladed the face of the bastion, neglecting entirely the flank. There were only twelve ladders originally supplied for this attack, and some of that number were not brought up."

With respect to the Motion of which he had given notice, he was quite ready to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, if the Government would undertake to do justice to the officers whose cause he had thus attempted, however feebly, to advocate. It would be perfectly easy to do what he proposed, which was simply this, to give medals to all the surviving officers who had actually served in the great actions of the Peninsular campaigns; and in the case of such Peninsular officers as had died since the close of the war, to transmit the medals they had earned to their families. This was a subject of very general interest to the Army, for it was to be recollected, that no fewer than eighteen regiments of British cavalry, and sixty-eight of infantry had, at various periods, served in the Peninsula during the last continental war, and had its glorious recollections inscribed on their colours. Besides those Peninsular officers who were still in the army, there were others who had, as was his own (Sir A. L. Hay's) case, retired from the service. If it were suggested that the House of Commons was not the proper quarter in which to bring forward this proposition, he would beg to state that this was not the first time such a proposition had been made there. On the 29th June, 1815, Mr. Wynne, certainly a great authority as to the rights and privileges, and proper mode of proceeding of that House, proposed that amedal should be given to the officers and soldiers of Waterloo, of the same material alike to officers and to men, which showed that what he now proposed is a legitimate subject for the consideration of the House. He would now conclude with putting his Motion, and he trusted it would be supported by the right hon. and gallant General opposite, who wore on his breast the blazon of nine victories. The hon. and gallant Gentleman moved that an Address be presented to the Crown, that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to confer an honorary distinction on the surviving officers of the Peninsular army.

said, he had been re-quested to second the Motion, and his only regret was that the duty had not devolved on some one more competent to execute it satisfactorily. He should support the Motion because he believed the Commander-in-Chief was favourable to it; but if it were otherwise he should regret it, because he thought it important that the views of the officers of the Army should coincide with those of the Duke of Wellington on all subjects relating to the Army. After the long and able speech of his hon. and gallant Friend, it would be unnecessary for him to enlarge upon the question under the consideration of the House; but, at the same time, he could assure the House that the result of the present Motion was looked to with intense interest by Officers of all ranks in the Army. This feeling was entertained as well by Officers who were entitled to decorations as those who were not, and he would mention one circumstance with respect to the decorations which had been awarded to the troops in India. Lord Ellenborough had granted, and properly, medals for meritorious services in India, and that being the case, why should the heroes of the Peninsula remain undecorated? He could state that Major Grant of the Engineers, had been in thirty- three engagements, and was three times wounded, and he would ask the House whether it must not be mortifying to that gallant Officer to find himself at Her Majesty's levee and see Lieutenant Joyce, of the British Auxiliary Legion, decorated, while he (Major Grant) was without decoration? It should be recollected that foreigners could not discriminate in such cases, and it was on that ground that he thought the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend deserving of support, and that he should second his hon. and gallant Friend's Motion.

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had advocated the claims of the Peninsular officers with very great ability and temper. There could be no difference of opinion between him and the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the eminent merits of the Peninsular army. That Army had performed services which could never be forgotten by the country; but he could not admit that the country was chargeable with insensibility or ingratitude, because the officers of that Army remained undecorated in the way the hon. and gallant Member wished. Thirty-four or thirty-five years had now elapsed since the period in question, and many of the distinguished officers who had just been named were at that time holding an inferior rank, and, according to the regulations then in force in the Army, were not in a position to receive the distinctions which, in other respects, they had well entitled themselves; and however great their individual merits, nothing, as it appeared to him, had now been stated which rendered it necessary for the House of Commons, after the lapse of so many years, to interfere with the results of what were then considered, by the Army at large, and by the Government of the day, sound and beneficial regulations. It was to he borne in mind that the gallant operations of the British army at that period were not confined to the Peninsula. The officers and troops who served under Abercrombie in Egypt had received no such honours as those proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for the Peninsular officers; yet had they performed services not less distinguished, not less gallant; they were the men who came first into contact with the veteran troops of Napoleon. Again, the troops in India, under General Harris, under Lord Lake, the Duke of Wellington, and others, had received no such distinctions, and for this simple reason, that it had not been the custom to give them. In America, in India, in Egypt, brilliant services were performed by our troops, gallant actions preceded and followed the Peninsular campaigns, but no such distinction as this now proposed had been awarded; yet the country had not been charged with ingratitude on that account. In 1812 and 1813 medals for distinguished conduct in Spain were given to the extent of 1,300, among no fewer than 766 officers—officers of all ranks —which medals were allotted according to the regulations in force at that period, and which were generally supposed to be the best adapted for stimulating the zeal of the officers, though not given in the indiscriminate manner which afterwards prevailed. And not only were medals given, but, inconvenience being found from wearing them in some cases, there being officers who had entitled themselves to so many as seven, eight, nine, nay, ten, an order was issued in 1813, that officers should receive crosses or clasps, in lieu of so many medals, two, three, or four, as the case might be; and further, with the same view, the Order of the Bath was extended, and 300 officers, of the second and third class, were nominated to the Order of the Bath. These distinctions gave the greatest possible satisfaction to the army at large at that time; but the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member, while in itself surrounded with many and complicated difficulties, even if carried out, would still fail to give satisfaction to the Army. In 1840, in answer to a memorial from a number of officers, the Duke of Wellington said at the time he had faithfully reported to the Government the services, as well of the Peninsular army generally as of individuals; that the subject had been fully entertained at that period, then twenty-five or thirty years past, and that full justice had been, as it had been conceived, done; and that he had exercised no further influence over the question then, and had no power or wish to do so now. It had been distinctly stated in the various military circles and journals, that any such proposition as that now made would not satisfy the Army generally; that doubtless the Peninsular army had performed great services—greater than any other British army —but that the British army in other parts of the world had also performed great services, and that therefore injustice would be done, and dissatisfaction created, were the Peninsular army alone to receive these distinctions. The principle upon which the superior officers obtained the dis- tinctions was that of giving them, not merely to the bravest, but to the person who had the responsibility of the command, and who received it, not alone in his own name, but in that of the regiment he had led on to victory. If the House consented to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the result would be, that in all future warfare medals and honorary distinctions must be granted to all services and persons engaged in it without discrimination, and such a system of reward would soon become one of little value. It is true that medals had been granted within the last two years to the troops engaged in the operations in India, and in his opinion, nothing could possibly be more politic and wise than the granting of those medals when the peculiar circumstances attending all those operations were considered. He believed it to have been quite proper and wise to grant medals to the troops who fought under General Sale at Jellalabad, and Generals Nott and Pollock at Candahar and Cabul, after the previous disasters which had befallen to the army at Cabul, and there was no doubt that the conduct of General Napier at Meannee and Hyderabad earned for his army the decoration they gained on that occasion; but the case which the hon. and gallant Officer opposite had put before the House was of a different description from any of those. The Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend opposite would, if carried, only give medals to the Officers who fought in the Peninsula, including those who were dead, whose relations were to receive them. Now, if they were to establish that principle, how could they in justice omit others? Should they not give medals to the Officers (or their surviving relatives) who fought in Egypt, who fought in the East Indies, at the Cape of Good Hope, in Java, at the Mauritius? It would be impossible to agree to a Motion of that kind, without extending it to all the Officers of the Army and their relations, who had equal claims. He had received a letter from an Officer, in which great dissatisfaction was expressed at the very idea of the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend being carried, inasmuch as the Officers who served in other places with equal zeal considered themselves to have an equal claim to those honours with the Officers of the Peninsula. He would say that no man could be more appropriately selected to bring forward the subject than the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir A. Leith Hay), who had himself served in the Peninsula. But he would ask, why not extend the principle, if they agreed to that Motion? And he would ask another question. If the House agreed to this Motion, why should they confine the granting of the medals to Officers? Why should they not extend it also to the soldiers who were engaged in the Peninsula? The letter to which he had previously referred, put that question; it asked why were the proposed honours to be confined to Officers alone, to the exclusion of the common soldiers, instead of following the precedent which was set in the case of the Waterloo medals, when the whole Army engaged, from the Field-marshal to the drum-boy, received the same medal. The Motion was one which would not, he believed, be pleasing to all the Officers of the Army, and it was mentioned in several military publications as one which would not be pleasing to the Army. Would it not be looked on as injustice if, after the precedent of the Waterloo medals, the Government advised the Crown to cause a distribution of medals to Officers who fought in the Peninsula, and to omit the soldiers? His hon. and gallant Friend, when introducing this Motion, alluded to the exploits of those soldiers which had placed a ducal coronet upon the brow of their Commander. Now, no one was more inclined to admit, and no one more fairly admitted than the noble Duke, the debt of gratitude which he owed to those men; but it ought to be also recollected that they owed a debt of gratitude to the noble Duke, for the manner in which he directed their operations, and by his skill and ability secured victory for their arms. He should repeat, that he did not see why the hon. and gallant Officer had omitted the soldiers in his Motion, for they were deserving of those medals also. The same objection could not be made to the Motion, which the hon. and gallant Commodore (Sir C. Napier) had given notice of, for in that Motion it was proposed to grant the distinction both to Officers and men who had been in particular actions. That notice would go upon a better principle, but he thought it would produce, as well as the Motion before the House, great inconvenience if carried. Now if the relatives of Officers were to get those medals in order that they might be kept as heirlooms, how could they find out the surviving relatives of all the soldiers who had served in the Peninsular war, and had died within the last thirty-five years. The surviving relatives would, in this case, have the same claim as the Officers, and how were they to find them out. In the case of soldiers who served at Vittoria and Salamanca, and who had been subsequently killed, how were they to find out the relatives of those people. He had no doubt that if that principle were carried out, they would have to include 50,000 soldiers for the Peninsular army alone; and if they then went a step further, and included all the soldiers who had served in Egypt, India, and America, since 1793, they would have at least 250,000 to whom or to whose relatives medals ought to be given. He confessed he could see no way in which they could get out of that labyrinth. He put it to the House whether the Government could recommend this course. The Government had every disposition to accede to the just claims of the Army and Navy, and in fact that had been stated by the hon. and gallant Officer in introducing his Motion. The Government fully appreciated the eminent services of the Army engaged during the Peninsular war—an Army of which it had been truly said, that "They never occupied a position which they did not keep, and they never attacked a position which they did not carry." He appreciated as fully as any one the merits of those officers, but he had stated to the House the reasons which prevented him from agreeing to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.

could not agree to the principle, that because justice had been delayed for thirty-four years, it was too late now to grant that reward to the officers and men who had served their country in those battles. It was not at a former period common to give those medals to the men so much as to the officers, but after the battle of Waterloo the medals were equally distributed amongst the officers and men, and it struck him that with such a precedent the Government might give medals to the officers and men who served in the Peninsula. The right hon. the Secretary at War had stated that if they were to give medals to the officers and men who fought in the Peninsula, they should also go back and give medals to those who had been in Egypt and America. He would say that they ought to go back to Egypt and America and give those honours which were due to the officers and men. It was better late than never, and it was never too late to do a good thing. The right hon. Gentleman said, that if they carried out that principle, there would be at least 250,000 men to whom, or to whose surviving relatives, medals should be granted, and that would be a great difficulty. It should be recollected that it was not the business of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Leith Hay) to take the mode of carrying this Resolution into effect out of the hands of the Government, and to show them how it ought to be done—he would leave that to the Government. He would show, however, a very plain and simple remedy for the difficulty which the right hon. Secretary at War had adverted to, and it was this, let the medals be given only to the surviving officers and men, and it would be then perfectly easy to distribute them, but they could not accomplish it in the other way, for it would be impossible to find out the wives and children of all the soldiers who had died, perhaps, some of them twenty or thirty years ago. All great actions ought to be commemorated by a medal, and the Order of the Bath could be reserved for cases of particularly distinguished service. The affair of El Bodon to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had referred was a most brilliant affair, in which a small number of cavalry and infantry resisted the attack of a great force of the enemy. Even the battle of Meannee was nothing to it, for at Meannee they were opposed to East Indians, whilst at El Bodon they were opposed to well-disciplined French soldiers. With respect to the arrangements under which distinctions were awarded, he knew of a case in which a post captain, who brought his brig into action, was deprived of the honour which another officer, bringing another ship into the same position, would have obtained. If an officer were commanding a detachment guarding the baggage when an action was going on, that officer had no right to a medal for the action in which he did not take a part. It was just the same case as if a fleet were going into action, and some ships were ordered to detach themselves, and go out of the line of battle on a particular service. He would say that the officers and men of those ships which were not in action ought not to get medals for the action in which they took no part. It was calculated to prove very advantageous to give medals for great actions, for the officers and men who were in those actions would feel a pleasure in showing those rewards of bravery when they went home amongst their friends, and thus a feeling in favour of the Military and Naval Services would be excited. It was unnecessary to remark how much was thought of such distinctions by officers and men. When the Duke of Wellington, after having the Garter conferred on him, was asked to return the Order of the Bath, he wrote home to say that he wished to keep it, but his request was not granted; and it was not till afterwards, when a new arrangement was made, that he received it again. When Picton was refused a title, he said if they put a Coronet in a fortress he would soon get it out, as soon as any one else. He would mention another case with reference to the granting of distinctions for bravery in battle. An Austrian midshipman and an English midshipman were both approaching an enemy's fort, and in their anxiety each to be first, they absolutely commenced a race, the British midshipman arriving first. In this case there was no distinction granted by this country to the British midshipman, but he got one from Austria. Now, in such a case, the mere granting of such a decoration as a bit of ribbon would have given the midshipman who had so distinguished himself an opportunity of showing to his friends the reward of his bravery. Lord Exmouth, writing home, said of another midshipman, that his ardent spirit carried him under the batteries of the enemy, where he lost half his boat's crew. [An hon. Member: Sir W. Gossett was there too.] He was glad to hear it, and he regretted that there had been no medal given to him, as he was sure he deserved it. There was one suggestion which he (Sir C. Napier) wished to make: he thought that where an officer, who was a Knight of the Bath, was killed in battle, his widow should be allowed to wear the Order. Let them consider what a spirit such an observance would instill into the hearts of her children. It would be a most valuable distinction if well applied; but, as at present given, he had seen it bestowed for mere trifles, and the result was, that it was not now worth that [the hon. and gallant Commodore snapped his fingers.] The present mode of disposing of it destroyed its value. He was of opinion that great advantage would arise from granting medals.

mentioned the case of an officer named M'Gregor, who had served twenty-eight years, for a considerable portion of which he had been a non-commissioned officer, his character stood very high, and his late commanding officer, Colonel Penefather, said that there could be no better soldier. He obtained a promotion, and served as a commissioned officer for some time; he was engaged in the late war in Scinde, and he had died recently, leaving a widow and four daughters by a former marriage, totally unprovided for, and who were now in a state almost of starvation. His widow applied to the Horse Guards for the pension to which she conceived she was entitled, but was refused, as her husband had not served ten years as an officer, according to an arrangement which had been made in 1830. That was a case of very great hardship, inasmuch as he had served twenty-eight years in the army.

said, that other cases of a similar nature had occurred, and they were, as was rightly stated by the hon. Member, affected by that regulation of 1830. In three or four cases the operation of this order was perceived to be manifestly unjust, for it debarred the widow of a pension unless the officer was killed in action, or had served ten years, the object of the order was to serve officers, for it would prevent an officer who entered at sixteen marrying before twenty-six. In the case, however, to which the hon. Gentleman opposite alluded, where the officer had served so long before obtaining his commission, it would not be just towards the widow to debar her of the pension.

regretted to be obliged to oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer. He thought that however well merited the distinctions proposed to the officers of the Peninsula, the carrying into effect a Motion of this kind would create dissatisfaction throughout the army at large. What right had that officer whose good fortune it had been to have been engaged in those actions to have a preference to other officers who were engaged zealously discharging the duties to which they had been appointed by their commanders? He thought that if distinctions of this kind were to be conferred, they should not be confined to one branch of the army.

said, that although he had come down with the intention of supporting the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, yet having heard the observations made by the right hon. and gallant Officer, the Secretary at War, who must be most zealous for the honour of the service, he felt himself bound to ask that the Motion might not be pressed. The value of honorary distinctions was very much affected by the time and manner in which they were conferred. For his own part, the same distinction for which, if to be bestowed on the spot, he should fight to the last drop of his blood, he should regard, if delayed for a series of years, as a bauble unworthy of a child's acceptance.

concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend, that the carrying this Motion into effect would be a great injustice. He had witnessed gallant actions in various parts of the world, and he thought that it would be the greatest injustice to distinguish the officers of the Peninsula alone. At the same time, he must acknowledge their services to have been transcendant. But he had seen brave services performed with equal zeal in every part of the world, and he thought it would be wrong to make any distinctions. If it had been the practice to give medals in the early part of the war, those who were present at the battle of Trafalgar, at the action of the 1st of June, and at the battle of Copenhagen, would all have been entitled to medals, but it was not at that time the custom either of the service or of the country to give medals. Previous to the battle of Waterloo, the last great battle fought had been fought ten years before. If they went back to bestow medals upon the officers and men who had been engaged in all the great battles of the last war, they must go back to a period of more than half a century. The question was, would the Government be justified in going back so far? He thought that to assent to the Motion would be attended with very great difficulty.

having done his duty by bringing the subject under the consideration of the House, and being conscious of the impossibility of succeeding in the object in opposition to the will of the Government, would not press the Motion to a division.

Motion withdrawn.

said, he rose to move for a return, showing the dates of the appointments of Stipendiary Magistrates, from the 2nd day of March to the 15th day of April, 1844, both inclusive. In continuation of the unnecessarily voluminous returns already furnished by the Government, which, however, though voluminous, were incomplete, Mr. O'Brien's name was not in them. Keenly as he felt the absence of his noble Friend, Lord Morpeth, whenever Irish questions were discussed, he felt it more particularly now, in undertaking the vindication of the character of his noble Relative the late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, a character unassailed, until it was attacked by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department the other night; because in addition to his bringing far more information and weight to the justification of his noble Relative, he was sure that Lord. Morpeth would be eager to share in whatever responsibility attached to the appointments which had been made, and so far from being ashamed of the number of Magistrates added, would, in common with the late Lord-Lieutenant, regret that the increase had not been carried farther. It was needless to enter into the general question of the desirableness of Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland, for there was no fact more notorious, from the days of Arthur Young down to those of Captain O'Driscoll, than the maladministration of the law in Ireland, and the consequent want of confidence of the people in its administrators. He would therefore at once proceed, with the permission of the House, to read to them the charge, though he was aware that such a proceeding was contrary to the usual practice of the House, in order to enable them to understand his reply. The right hon. Baronet had said on a former evening, that "the number of Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland. in 1838,1839, island 1841,under the administration of the noble Lord and his colleagues had amounted to fifty-nine; that in the estimate for 1841, there were fifty-nine Stipendiary Magistrates only in Ireland, but that at a previous period, in June, 1841, the Estimates having been passed, the noble Lord and his colleagues bethought them of the expediency of adding to the number, that on the 15th of June they added one, that they added two on the 28th of July, two on the 6th of August, one on the 16th of August, and that on the very day on which Lord Melbourne resigned the seals of office to Her Majesty, the late "Lord-Lieutenant elected one on that very "day. That thus—after the Government "was a condemned Government—not con-"tent with adding seven Stipendiary Ma-"gistrates in these three months—in the "last gasp of an expiring Government— "they appointed one Magistrate on the very "day they left office." On a former occasion, some time since, when, amongst others, he expressed his disapprobation of the dismissal of the Magistrates, Lord Eliot did him the honour to reply to him, and he did not insinuate any improper motives in those appointments, as a reason for their dismissal; but, on the contrary, said that the tranquillity of the country rendered them unnecessary. It was only now, three years after that period, that the right hon. Baronet first brought forward charges of this kind. Now, with respect to the first fact stated by the right hon. Baronet, that in the years'l838, 1839, 1840, and 1841, the number of Stipendiary Magistrates was fifty-nine. This very statement was inaccurate, for on the first of June, 1839, there were fifty-six instead of fifty-nine Magistrates; on the first of June, 1840, there were fifty-eight; and on the first of June, 1841, there were sixty-two. The right hon. Baronet said that on the 13th of June, 1841, the noble Lord (the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland) bethought him that some addition to the number of the Stipendiary Magistrates was required; yet the above figures showed that the increase was gradual, as the preservation of the peace of the country seemed to require, and not upon any sudden thought; the Government from time to time removing Magistrates from districts where it was thought they were no longer required, and appointing them in others where their services were called for. With respect to the appointment of the seven additional Magistrates of which the right hon. Baronet had complained, he was prepared to show, to the satisfaction of the right hon. Baronet, and of the House, that they were all appointed upon the representation of the authorities of the several districts, as to the difficulty of procuring the attendance of local Magistrates. The noble Lord read the following statements of new and additional appointments of Stipendiary Magistrates made by Lord Fortescue in the year 1841: —

"Feb. 13. Kenmare, County Kerry.—This appointment was made in consequence of local disputes and disturbances occurring among the fishermen on the coast of Kerry. Mr. Roche, resident magistrate at Tralee, was desired to inquire into the origin and cause of continuance of those disturbances, and he reported that there was no chance of bringing them to a satisfactory termination as long as the adjudication on the merits of the dispute was vested in the local magistrates, who were supposed by the parties engaged in them to be personally interested on the one side or the other. There was also a general want of magistrates to attend the petty-sessions. Lord Kenmare, the Lieutenant of the County, entirely approved of this appointment.

"Feb. 13. Newtown Hamilton, County Armagh: —The reasons for this appointment are given at length in the returns: the murder of Mr. Powell, and the wild nature of the country round Newtown Hamilton, were the grounds assigned by Lord Gosford and the magistrates of the county for calling on the Government to make this additional appointment.

"Feb. 13. Drumlish, Longford.—The reasons for this appointment are also detailed in the return. The propriety of the appointment was urged on the Government by Lord Clements, Sir William Lynar, then resident magistrate at Mohill, and Baron Lefroy. This appointment was discontinued in the first instance by the Government of Lord De Grey but upon a strong remonstrance, made by persons of all parties, it was eventually continued. Mr. H. King, Lord Lorton's son, was one of those who signed the memorial.

"May 11. Craig, County Carlow.—The very limited attendance of magistrates, and the impossibility of procuring it for the different petty sessions in the district bordering on the counties Kilkenny and Carlow, was the ground for their appointments. The necessity of it had been previously urged on the Government by Lord Besborough, then Lieutenant of Carlow, and it was again brought forward by Lord Duncannon, the present Lieutenant of the county. The opinions of many residing in the neighbourhood, and, among others, of Mr. Tighe, of Woodstock, were sought for by the Government, and found to concur in the propriety of the appointments; and Mr. Green, the stipendiary magistrate of Kilkenny a gentleman whose conduct has been highly eulogised by all parties, having been directed by the Government officially to report on the circumstances of the case, was strongly in favour of the appointments being made.

"May 11. Doughbeg, County Donegal.—This is one of the wildest and most isolated districts in Ireland; it was one of the few places in which illicit distillation was still carried on. There was no magistrate whose services could be made available. A conflict had taken place between the revenue police and the people, in which a woman had been shot. Colonel Brereton, the head of the revenue police, declared that unless a stipendiary magistrate was located in the district, he did not. consider it prudent, nor would he be justified, in continuing the station in the district.

"August 6. Ballyshannon, County Donegal.—

The conflicts and violence of the disputes respecting the fisheries at this place have been, unfortunately, sufficiently notorious in Ireland; an additional force of nearly seventy police was kept up solely in consequence of the excitement arising from these conflicts. It was deemed absolutely necessary by the Government to have a responsible authority upon the spot.

"August 18. Tallow, Waterford.—This appointment was made in consequence of memorials presented to the Government complaining of the great want of Magistrates to carry on the business of the Petty Sessions. It may be stated that so far was this appointment from being made for the purpose of providing for some friend of the Government, that the gentleman appointed (Mr. Alcock) was one who, from dissatisfaction with Lord Fortescue's Government, had withdrawn from public life, but that Lord Fortescue, from his previous knowledge of Mr. Alcock's utility and services as a Magistrate in Waterford, still thought it right to confer the appointment upon him."

At this distance of time he had had some difficulty in ascertaining all the particular circumstances which had led to these appointments. He was fortunate in being able, with respect to the last, to read the following letter from the Vice-Lieutenant of the county to Lord Stuart de Decies:—

"That in consequence of frequent disorders occurring in the town of Tallow and the district, there being no resident Magistrates, application was made at a General Quarter Sessions, conformable to the statute for consolidating the Petty Sessions of Tallow with the Petty Sessions of Lismore, still much inconvenience arose from bringing prosecutors to such a distance from their homes, and a memorial was forwarded from the inhabitants of Tallow and its vicinity, to which Mr. Keeley and the Rev. Mr. Jackson affixed their names, as well as others of the most respectable of all creeds and classes, soliciting the appointment of a Stipendiary Magistrate. The prayer of the memorial was not in the first instance granted; and not until a considerable period had elapsed, and a very strong memorial laid before the Lord Lieutenant in the second instance, was the solicitation acceded to. Being the official channel through which the memorials passed, as Vice-Lieutenant of the county in your Lordship's absence, I can Touch that not until absolutely required for the preservation of order, did the appointment of a Stipendiary for Tallow take place."

And the following passages from a letter of that noble Lord's, the Lieutenant of the County of Waterford:—

"If you remember, there was a very bad spirit prevalent in Tallow a few years ago, in consequence of the inequitable assessment to which the town and adjoining town lands were subjected under the old valuation. And until Mr. Croker accepted the commission, which for a long time he declined doing, scarcely a possibility of holding the Petty Sessions with anything like punctuality at the former place. This was a source of great uneasiness to me, and I did all I could to persuade both Croker and Moore, but for a long time in vain, to take out the Commission."

They did so after Lord de Grey's accession to office. In regard to the appointment of Mr. Alcock, the last Magistrate who had been appointed by Lord Fortescue, and who had not been re-appointed by the present Government—it happened that this Gentleman had been personally discourteous to that noble Lord. He had, therefore, no claims upon the noble Lord for the appointment, save those which arose out of the consideration of his services and abilities as a Magistrate. Mr. Alcock was a Liberal, but not a Repealer, and had been, as testified in several letters, with which he would not trouble the House, a most active and useful Magistrate in the four counties of Wexford, Waterford, Tipperary and Kilkenny. His conduct as a Magistrate had been spoken of in highly complimentary terms in memorials signed by Magistrates, Clergymen, and others of the most respectable classes, and of all parties in the county of Waterford, praying for his re-appointment, and in an address from persons of all ranks and parties at Glenties, the station to which he was attached (which Lord Ebrington read) but Mr. Alcock seemed to think that his not having been re-appointed must have been owing to some imputation supposed by the Government to rest upon his character. He wished, therefore, in compliance with a request from that Gentleman, to ask the noble Lord whether this was the case, and whether, as it was shown in the case of Mr. O'Brien, that discourtesy to the late Lord-Lieutenant was no bar to such an appointment in the eyes of her Majesty's Government, he might hope to see Mr. Alcock re-appointed, but if Lord Fortescue had wanted to give him an appointment, there was the case of a gentleman under his consideration just before he left office, whose place would have suited Mr. Alcock quite as well as the one which he received, with regard to whose conduct Lord Fortescue had formed a strong opinion, but he declined acting upon it at that moment, and contented himself with leaving the whole case with a minute expressive of the view he had taken of it for the decision of his suc- cessor. The noble Lord (Lord Eliot) would at once understand the case to which he alluded, he would not be more explicit for fear of inflicting needless pain upon the Gentleman referred to, but he mentioned the circumstance to show conclusively that Lord Fortescue could have no corrupt motive for creating a new station. Having gone through these particulars, he was free to say that he was quite sure that the right hon. Baronet, in the observations he had made to the House upon this subject, had no intention to give pain to an old friend, and once a political supporter; but he must say that the right hon. Baronet having, perhaps through inadvertence, allowed so long a time to elapse without making any of these charges, he thought it would have been better if he had exercised the self-denial of refraining, on the recent debate, from making them, and had allowed the matter still to slumber in the oblivion in which he had so long suffered it to rest. Thanking the House for the kind attention with which it had listened to him on the present occasion, he begged to move for the returns of which he had given notice.

said, that, as a general rule, he certainly thought a strict adherence to the orders of the House in reference to past debates was a salutary rule, and under ordinary circumstances he should have been prepared to have applied it against the noble Lord on the present occasion. He thought, however, that the circumstances of the present case were so peculiar, and the motives which actuated the noble Lord so creditable, that it would have been improper to have interrupted him upon a mere point of order. With regard to the ground of complaint of the noble Lord, it certainly appeared to be true that in a few slight particulars he had been inaccurate in his former statement on the subject of these appointments; but this very inaccuracy of his, and what it had led to, showed, in his opinion, how unadvisable it was to depart from the rules of the House, and to raise an adverse debate on words reported to have been used in a former discussion. The circumstances under which he (Sir J. Graham) had made the statement now complained of were these. He followed in debate the noble Lord the Member for London, who had made a most powerful speech, occupying three hours in the delivery, and embracing a great variety of topics, including the whole policy of the present Government in regard to Ireland. Amongst other points he censured the Government for their conduct in regard to the Stipendiary Magistracy of Ireland, observing that he should be inclined to recommend that the number should be increased, and that he thought it highly imprudent to reduce the number. He happening to sit next his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, that noble Lord handed him a return which appeared to contain a complete and triumphant answer to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London upon this subject; and he (Sir J. Graham) having hastily ascertained its contents, used them against the noble Lord substantially, as appeared in the Report read by the noble Lord opposite. The substance of what he (Sir J. Graham) said was, that the maximum number of Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland under Lords Norman by and Fortescue down to the 13th of June. 1841, was fifty-nine. It appeared that he was correct, taking the 13th of February instead of the 13th of June; for down to the above period the maximum number of Magistrates was still fifty-nine. He had also stated that between June and August, 1841, seven additional Magistrates had been appointed. What was the fact? Between the 13th of February and the 28th of August, only four new Magistrate stations had been erected, and eleven new Magistrates had been appointed by the late Government; which clearly showed that seven additional Magistrates had been appointed in the last six months of their Administration. It was also true, as he had stated, that Mr. Alcock had been appointed in the month of August 1841, on the 27th day of that month, the very day on which Lord Melbourne ceased to be Minister. It was also true, as he had stated, that under Lord De Grey's Administration the number of Stipendiary Magistrates had never been less than sixty; a number greater by one than the number employed by Lord Normanby, while he was Lord Lieutenant, greater also than the number employed by Lord Fortescue until the last six months of his Government, when with such marvellous haste a large number of new appointments was suddenly made on the ground of an alleged necessity.

while agreeing with the right hon. Baronet that the strict rules of the House should in general cases be adhered to, thought, at the same time, when attacks of this kind were made, it was most proper that an opportunity should be given for refuting them. The right hon. Baronet had complimented his noble Friend (Lord Ebrington) on his courtesy in the manner of bringing forward his Motion, and had expressed his regret that he had not been able to do so on the previous occasion when the subject had been before the House. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet would permit him to say the same thing of him, that if he had made his statement on the former occasion, in the same spirit as he had on the present, there would not have been any occasion to complain of his noble Friend. But at that time, there was no insinuation that could be thrown out that was not taken advantage of by the right hon. Baronet as against Lord Fortescue, and used in that covert and powerful manner of which no man in the world, perhaps, was so great a master as himself. Now, what were the facts? It was said that in 1841 a vote had been taken for fifty-nine Stipendiary Magistrates, and that the return which had been made would show that up to the time of the Estimates being laid on the Table the Government of Lord Fortescue had no intention of increasing the number of Stipendiary Magistrates. Now, it was a powerful fact and an unanswerable argument on this point, that no such estimate—no such return existed. There had been no such estimate, nor had any such vote been taken. This was a strong fact, when it was recollected that the charge brought against the Government of Lord Fortescue was that of jobbing in regard to those magisterial appointments; it was a strong fact that that charge had been made upon an estimate twice alluded to that did not exist. There had been a return of the number of Magistrates in actual service at the time, but there had been no return to justify the right hon. Baronet in making the assertions and insinuations which he had made. [Sir J. Graham admitted there was no such estimates.] Yes, that was now admitted. The question whether it were necessary to appoint additional Magistrates was one of policy, but that was not the point. The question was, the charge which had been made against Lord Fortescue of making those appointments for the purpose of creating patronage. First, they had got rid of the estimates; and now they came to the details of the creations, and here the dates of the ap- pointments were important. On the 15th of June the right hon. Baronet said (on the former occasion), you were a condemned Government, and, knowing it, you made these appointments. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that now, for he had the dates of the several appointments before him. It bad been the policy to make a gradual increase in the number of Magistrates. In 1839 two new stations had been created, and two abolished. In 1840 five new stations had been created but two had been suspended, and one permanently abolished, the number being increased actually by two in 1840. Then they came to 1841, and they found the Lord-Lieutenant continued his policy of gradually increasing the Stipendiary Magistrates; but when did he create the new stations, for that was the point? The greater part of them in February, or shortly after. Five new stations had been created before the 15th of June, and two only after that period. But the right hon. Baronet's statement went to the appointments, and he said, that they were made subsequent to the 15th of June. The Lord Lieutenant having made the new stations, and appointed some of the old Magistrates to them, was obliged to fill up the vacancies; and though the right hon. Baronet would have the House believe that it was after the 15th of June that the increase to the number of Magistrates took place, it must be remembered, that the necessity for that increase had occurred previous to that time. When they increased the number of stations, they, as a matter of course, created a necessity for an additional number of Stipendiary Magistrates. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the last appointment made by the late Government, that of Mr. Alcock, but that was to fill up a vacancy. The Tallow appointment was made on the 18th of August, as the right hon. Baronet had stated, the day on which Lord Melbourne went out of office. That might appear remarkable to any person who was unacquainted with the usual practice in such cases, but every man who was acquainted with official liability, knew that it was not unusual to make appointments on the last day of the Government remaining in office. He was not making any charges or accusations in this respect, he merely wished to show what was the rule, and it was this, that if any vacancy occurred while the Govern- ment remained in office, that Government filled it up as a matter of course. If there were any doubt upon this point, there were on the Table returns of the appointments made in 1835, when the change of Government took place; and he found, from those returns, that, although the Government of which the right hon. Baronet was a Member, went out of office on the 18th of April, that appointments were made to offices that fell vacant several days after. He did not state this as any charge against the Government, but merely to show, that it is a general rule, and a mere matter of course. I rind, too, from those returns, that on the 1st of April, 1835, a Mr. Despard was appointed a Police Magistrate in Ireland. I do not know whether the Government were then a condemned Government or not. Another appointment was made on the 20th of April, he being at that time in the Treasury, and sitting in the Secretary's room. If it had been A. or B. that had made the insinuation, I should not have been surprised, but he was astonished that a man of so much official experience as the right hon. Baronet should have resorted to such a catch_clap, when he must well know that it is the constant practice, up to the last moment of a Government remaining in office, for them to fill up the vacancies that occur. But, whether the last moment, or the first, the Government had no right to fill up any office, if not required for the public service — and if in this case the offices to which the appointments were made, were improper or unnecessary, they had a right to complain against the Government for making the appointments. He would suggest to the right hon. Baronet to be more careful in future, and to pause before he ventured in this way to attack his old Friends.

was anxious to explain shortly the circumstances of the case as he was responsible for the statement made by his right hon. Friend. The noble Lord had stated correctly that two years ago, when this matter was before considered, he (Lord Eliot) had contented himself with acting upon the defensive. He stated then what he thought would be considered a sufficient ground for reducing the number of Magistrates in Ireland, and that was the ground of economy. He had satisfied himself that it was not necessary to have more than fifty-nine or sixty Magistrates; and, having been called upon by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make every reduction that was possible, it was his opinion that the services of seven Magistrates might be dispensed with. Scarcely a newspaper had issued or a speech been made since that period that had not contained some attack upon the Government for taking that step. The great organ of the Whigs, the Edinburgh Review, had joined in the attack. This had led him (Lord Eliot) to suppose that the matter would not be passed over in Parliament and he had, in consequence, made some memoranda upon the subject; and when he heard the noble Lord opposite blame the Government for the course they bad taken, he gave to his right hon. Friend near him the documents, the substance of which his right hon. Friend had laid before the House. He (Lord Eliot) thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring) had failed to prove that his (Lord Eliot's) right hon. Friend was wrong in what he had stated. The error arose from the following circumstance:—In 1841 he (Lord Eliot) found eleven new appointments; eleven new Magistrates had been appointed, when there were only four vacancies; and, consequently, there must have been an addition of seven new Magistrates. There were on the 1st of January fifty-nine; when he (Lord Eliot) obtained office there were sixty-six. The only error made by his right hon. Friend consisted in his saying that the seven were appointed between July and August, whereas they were appointed between February and August. But the right hon. Gentleman had not stated correctly the fact as to the appointments made during the last three months of the late Government; there were, in reality, three new stations appointed. The right hon. Gentleman had also ingeniously glossed over the case of Mr. Alcock, who was appointed, on the 18th of August, to a station only ten days old. The noble Lord stated that there was good reason for sending down Magistrates for temporary emergencies. That might be; but he (Lord Eliot) did not see the least use in making a number of new appointments in consequence of a riot amongst a number of fishermen, or anything of that sort; and though he was far from saying that there should not be a sufficient number of Magistrates for the due administration of justice, yet he did say, that beyond that they should not go; and if sixty had been found sufficient for the last three years, whilst there had been famine riots in one part of Ireland, Poor Law riots in another part, together with the Repeal agitation—considering all these circumstances, he did not certainly think that there were sufficient grounds for making an increase of seven in the six months preceding August, 1841. That that increase had been made was evident from a return which he held in his hand, headed "Constabulary of Ireland—Return of Stipendiary Magistrates upon the 1st of January, 1841," and dated "Constabulary-office, Dublin, 20th of May, 1841." That return was laid upon the Table of that House on the 20th of May, 1841. It stated the number of Magistrates in Ireland on the 1st of January, 1841, and, though dated the 20th of May, it contained no statement that would lead one to imagine that any addition to the number was about to be made or was in contemplation by the Government. He therefore thought his right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in what he had said; for he maintained that the late Government did, within the last six months of their administration, and, after boasting of the tranquillity which had reigned throughout the country, make an addition of seven and in the last six weeks of three Magistrates, one of those being upon the very last day of their holding office; and what his right hon. Friend had stated was, that it was neither a usual nor a justifiable step upon the part of a Government to create an entirely new office upon the last day of their administration.

thought the question was not one of mere accounts, but of a very grave and palpable nature; and that question was whether the charge which had been made by the right hon. Baronet opposite against the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of having prostituted his patronage for unworthy purposes was, or was not true. It was a very grave charge that had been made, and he was not surprised at his noble Friend, who naturally felt jealous for the honour of his relative, as well as every one who was acquainted with Lord Fortescue, who bore as high a character as any one who ever entered the service of his country—he was not surprised, he said, that the charge of the right hon. Baronet against that man should excite the feelings, not only of the noble Lord, but of every one who heard it. He would ask every one who had heard the subsequent discussion, whether that charge had not completely broken down, He could well conceive that the right hon. Baronet might, in the heat of debate, and when speaking upon documents put into his hand but five minutes before, be liable to mistake; but surely, after the illustration of facts which had since been given, the right hon. Baronet should fairly and freely have admitted that his statement was not borne out by facts, instead of attempting to defend it by the trumpery arguments which the House had heard. He was surprised also at what had fallen from the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. The noble Lord had spoken beside the question, and had wholly avoided it—the real question simply being, whether there were any facts before the House to warrant the House in coming to the conclusion that Lord Fortescue did improperly make the appointments which had been referred to during the last few months of his Administration. The right hon. Gentleman talked as if it were not material whether the appointments were made between February and August, or June and August. Why that constituted the whole gravamen of the charge; for it had been proved that, instead of seven new appointments, there had been only two during the last few months of the Administration. That did away with the whole charge, especially when it appeared that Lord Fortescue was only acting upon the principle which his predecessors had laid down, of gradually increasing the number of Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland. But he was really ashamed of arguing the question upon these details. He put it boldly to the House and to the country, whether there were any circumstances to warrant the right hon. Baronet in making the grave charge which he had made against Lord Fortescue. Then, when the right hon. Gentleman talked of "Estimates," they were told that it did not signify whether accounts laid upon the Table relating to Magistrates were Estimates or Returns. When one spoke of an Estimate, it was supposed to imply an account of what might be wanted; a Return, on the other hand, of course, did no more than contain the actual state of things as existing at the time of its date. He merely stated these things to show how it was, partly by insinuation, and partly by a variation from facts, sought to bolster up an unfounded charge. It had not been attempted to be said that one appointment had been improperly filled up—they bad heard nothing of that sort. Applications had been made to the Government from men of all political opinions, calling on it to make these appointments, and he was certain that if Lord Fortescue had not made them, there would have been a charge made against him of having neglected his duty. Upon the whole, he could only congratulate his noble Friend upon the result of this debate. Every impartial man who had listened to it must come to the conclusion that the noble Lord's noble relative stood entirely clear of the charges against him of improperly using his patronage.

said, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman rendered it necessary for him to say a word or two. The right hon. Gentleman found it convenient to raise the suspicion that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had in the first instance, without being called on to do so, made an attack against the noble Lord who administered the Government of Ireland. His (Lord Stanley's) right hon. Friend was replying on the spur of the moment to a charge which the noble Lord the Member for London made against the present Government, which was, "that the Government had unduly diminished the number of Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland when they ought to have increased them." The answer to that was, that so far from having unduly diminished the number of Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland, the Government now had a number quite equal to the number appointed at any time during the Government of Lord Normanby and Lord Ebrington, with the exception of the last six months of Lord Ebrington's Administration. That was the charge, and that the answer. And then his right hon. Friend, availing himself of a paper handed to him by his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, said, "If you dispute the facts I will show you what the numbers were." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton said the Appointments were necessary. In 1839, 1840, and 1841, the number of Magistrates varied from fifty-seven to fifty-eight, and at no time was the number higher than fifty-nine or lower than fifty-seven. But in the last six months of Lord Ebrington's Government seven new Magistrates had been added to the Stipendiary force of Ireland. There might be a cause or not for this; but at that time the late Government was boasting of the increased tran- quillity of Ireland. Three of these new Appointments were made after the 28th of July vice other Magistrates who were appointed to new stations, to Donegal, Ballyshannon, and Tallow. These Appointments were made on the 28th Of July, the 6th of August, and the 28th of August. He did not say that the noble Lord, then the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland might not have had perfectly good reasons for the Appointments. [Mr. M. O'Ferrall: That is the whole case.] No, it was not the whole case, taken in connexion with this debate. Of those seven new Magistrates thus made in the last six months of Lord Ebrington's Administration three had been made within six weeks of the Government's leaving office, and whilst they were boasting of the tranquillity of Ireland.

said, that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had been betrayed into a statement which was not borne out by the facts. He asserted that the late Government had appointed a number of Magistrates exceeding the estimate, and that they made those Appointments solely for the purposes of patronage. If the right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he did not mean to convey such an imputation, much of the present discussion might have been spared, but the right hon. Baronet attempted to justify his statement, and it was of that that he complained. Then the noble Lord opposite came to the assistance of his Colleague and told the House that these Magistrates were appointed between the months of June and August, 1841. Now, the returns showed that there were only two, Mr. Savage and Mr. J. Drummond. Besides that Mr. J. Drummond was not a new appointment. The House must see that no Government could venture to leave these situations vacant. No one could say from day to day what might happen. Mr. Croker and Mr. Moore, two gentlemen fully qualified for the office of Magistrates, refused to take out a Commission of the Peace under a Whig Government, and the appointment became, therefore, unavoidable.

concurred with the right hon. Member for Portsmouth in thinking, as to all Administrations, that though they might have tendered their resignations, they still were entitled to make any appointments which the exigencies of the public service might require; and these appointments they were undoubtedly entitled to go on making until they were actually superseded by the entrance into office of their successors. It was always the practice to fill up vacancies. Peerages promised by a Minister's predecessors in office had been granted, though no instrument had been signed or sealed on the subject. The moment it was proved that those peerages had really been agreed to by the out-going Minister, he having taken the pleasure of the Crown on the point,—the moment that was proved the Ministers in power agreed to confirm the grant, and thus respected the engagements of their predecessors. Occurrences of this kind constantly took place. But the question now before the House merely arose out of a new appointment, and an hon. Member opposite said, that if his right hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department had candidly admitted that his statement was erroneous the present debate might have been spared. His right hon. Friend admitted everything of which he was convinced. He could make no admissions respecting that of which he was not convinced. The, charge against the present Government was, that, for the purpose of reviving the old magisterial authority, they bad reduced the number of the Stipendiary Magistrates, and that they had attached undue importance to the re-establishment of the local and unpaid magistracy. To that the answer of his right hon. Friend was complete. It had been clearly shown that no reduction of Stipendiary Magistrates had taken place. In the three years which preceded 1841 there had been seven new appointments, not seven vacancies filled up, but seven new stations created. At one time the number of the magistrates was fifty-nine, and at another sixty-six. That fact the Return showed, and with, that Return in his hand no one could deny that seven new stations had been created. He would not say that this or that appointment was wrong or was right; but to this he would call the attention of the House,—that the Stipendiary Magistrates were paid out of the consolidated fund. If proof of the necessity for a Stipendiary Magistrate were required when the parties who were to make application for his appointment were not to pay him, then there could be no doubt that applications urging the necessity of the appointment would come in most numerously signed, and that of the necessity of the appointment there would be offered not only moral, but mathematical proof. He would merely add, that there had not been the least evidence to impugn the statement of his right hon. Friend, and he was fully justified in saying that not only seven magistrates had been appointed, but that seven new stations had been created.

had heard the original statement with much pain, for he thought that it went to convict Lord Fortescue of what might be called a rank job. The right hon. Baronet might not perhaps have said that seven new magistrates were appointed, but he said what implied as much. The noble Lord, the Member for London, impugned some of the appointments to the magistracy made by the Government, upon which the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department turned round on him and imputed jobbing in those appointments to the late Government. Such a charge was as unfounded as it was unworthy; and he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend, the Member for Kildare that the right hon. Baronet ought not to have made a charge against the late Government which he was not prepared to substantiate. [Sir J. Graham—I said nothing about it.] He wished the right hon. Baronet had said nothing about it from the outset. The course he had taken had by no means redounded to his official accuracy. He (Mr. Hawes) admitted that a strong impression had been made on his mind to the prejudice of Lord Fortescue's Government in respect to these appointments, but the result of the debate had been to remove that impression from his mind. Under these circumstances he had felt it his duty to stand up in his place and say that the right hon. Baronet's accusation was not borne out by any fact he had alleged.

in reply, said, that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had proved himself incorrect in every respect. He was incorrect in the number of years. He was incorrect as to the number of magistrates appointed during those years. He was incorrect in his insinuation of motives, and he was also incorrect in his estimates. He had re-insinuated his charges against Lord Fortescue after the disclaimer of his noble Colleague, with what success the House might judge. Had he not done so, he would not have said another word on the subject after that disclaimer. As the other right hon. Baronet, however, had insinuated that nothing was more easy than to get up requisitions, he could state that no appointment was made by Lord Fortescue except upon requisition, and that in no case was a requisition promoted, either directly or indirectly, by the late Lord-Lieutenant.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at a quarter-past one o'clock.