said, he believed this would be a proper opportunity for asking a question connected with the Minister of War. He referred to the removal of the Inclosure Commission from the house in which they had been located to make room for the War Minister. He did not think that the Government was aware of the importance of keeping the Commission where it was. He did not mean merely the Commissioners and their clerks, but he spoke in behalf of the public and of the landowners of the country, who were most interested in the question. The Commission had in its keeping some 75,000 documents and maps connected with land. The House and the Government could not be aware that the Commission had been removed already four times, and when it was removed from Somerset House to its present office in Whitehall, it took two months to effect its removal and six months for the rearrangement of its documents, and the arrangement was, at present, most perfect for the purposes of inspection. Neither, he apprehended, could the Government be aware that at least eighty persons were at the office every day inquiring or inspecting, documents relating to titles, copyholds, and inclosures; and in the space of three minutes any one could see the map or document he required.

said, with regard to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), he could only say that the Treasury had used every possible exertion to secure a suitable place for the Minister of War without disturbing the Inclosure Commissioners, and it was not till it was found impossible to obtain a place for the Minister of War near to the other Government offices in Downing Street, that it was determined to remove the Commissioners to St. James's Square, where, he was told, the house was quite suitable for them, and containing every convenience that they now enjoyed. It was of more importance that the Minister of War should have his offices near Downing Street than for the Inclosure Commissioners to remain there.

Mr. Bouverie, I am about to place on the table the Estimate for the present year, ending 31st March, 1855, of the sums required to defray the expenses of the Secretary of State for the War Department; and in doing so I beg to recall to the attention of the Committee what has passed on former occasions upon this subject. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) who, early in the Session, stated his opinion—repeatedly expressed before—that the military departments in this country ought to be brought together, and that a special Secretary of State for the War Department ought to have efficient control over these military departments. A right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite (Sir J. Pakington), and who has been Secretary of State for the Colonies, added his opinion, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, although he was nominally Secretary of State for War, had not the means in his department to carry into effect those resolutions which he might think necessary for the public service. At a later period the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) asked me a question in reference to this subject, and certainly received a very general assent from the House when he said that he hoped there would be a Minister of War. In answer to him, I stated that the subject was under the consideration of the Government. A little later I said that the Government had determined that the departments of Secretary of State for War and the Colonies should be divided, and that further arrangements were in contemplation. I have now to give the Committee a general outline of the changes that have so been made. In the first place, I beg to remind the Committee that I stated that two questions came under consideration together, though of a very different character. The one was, whether in time of war it is desirable to keep united the offices of Secretary for War and for the Colonies; and the other was, whether, with a view to public convenience in the arrangement of the business of the departments, it is desirable to make other changes with regard to the military departments, and to simplify and consolidate the business which they have to transact. With reference to the first question, the Committee is aware that during the late war the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies could devote his time and attention to the business of the war—to the fitting out of expeditions and the other military arrangements—the colonial business at that time occupying only a comparatively small portion of his time. Since the peace, and especially during the last twenty years, the business of the Colonial Secretary has very greatly increased. In almost every colony—even in some of the military colonies—there have been discussions with respect to arrangements for the control of the public expenditure, and many questions, some of the highest and gravest importance, have arisen in our several colonies. It therefore appeared to the Government that, considering that question alone, it was not desirable to keep these offices united, and that, although it was physically possible for a person of great decision, of great habits of business, and of health which should be uninterrupted, to go through the business somehow or other, of the two departments, yet that it was desirable to separate them for the sake of the efficient discharge of the duties of each. The questions that would come before a Secretary of State in each department might be of the utmost importance. The fitting out of an expedition, the troops that are to compose it, the points to which it is to be directed, the means that are to be employed, are all subjects involving questions that would require the sole and undivided attention of a man of the utmost practice in public business. On the other hand, although it might happen that the consideration of ordinary colonial questions might often be postponed, still from time to time there do arise questions that cannot be deferred consistently with the order and with the satisfaction of the Colonies, and which require, both as to their principle and details, the undivided attention of the Secretary of State. On these grounds, therefore, seeing the great war in which we are engaged, the Government thought that these departments should be divided. With reference to the other question—which, as I said, is of a totally different nature—it is one that has from time to time occupied the attention of former Governments. It was not long after Earl Grey's Administration was formed that the Duke of Richmond represented to Earl Grey that it was very desirable to inquire whether the military departments might not be consolidated with considerable advantage to the conduct of public business. A very extensive inquiry was made into that subject by a Commission consisting, besides the Duke of Richmond, of the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) and of Sir James Kemp. There was also employed, as secretary to the Commission, a gentleman of considerable ability, Mr. John Bissett, once Commissary General in the Peninsula. But, although the Duke of Richmond arrived at conclusions in which I was ready to concur, the Government did not think fit to adopt them, in consequence of the practical difficulty of putting them in force. At a later period of time the present Earl Grey, when Secretary at War, assisted by some of his Colleagues, made very extensive inquiries, and proposed a different scheme of arrangements. To that scheme of arrangements, which consisted mainly in placing the Secretary at War in the position, though with the functions and the proper attributes, of a Secretary of State, there were some objections, arising from the nature of the department, and there were also other practical objections of a most forcible nature which were stated by the late Duke of Wellington and the late Marquess of Londonderry. That plan was not adopted, and I do not know that any subsequent Government has proposed any inquiry into the subject. And although, from time to time, up to the present day, several changes have been under consideration, no material or organic change has been adopted. In considering this subject, it has appeared to the Government that the chief inconvenience that we have to complain of is, that, the military departments being divided into several heads, there is no supreme head to administer those departments generally. I have stated on former occasions that I do not think it is any fault that separate official persons should have separate duties, although they may belong generally to one department. As in the construction of this House, for instance, it would be absurd to endeavour to consolidate and join the departments of the mason, the carpenter, and the bricklayer, but it would be equally absurd to have three or four architects, who should give different opinions as to the general construction of the building. What is wanted, therefore, is one supreme head, who should be able to take into his view the wants, the requirements, and the duties of the several departments, and to govern them with full information and with decision, and be able to come to a final conclusion on the subjects which occupied his attention. One of the departments which it is most obvious should be placed under a Minister of War is the Commissariat, which is now a department of the Treasury. There are reasons for that arrangement, connected not so much with the distribution of provisions and supply of arms, or what the Duke of Richmond called the feeding the army, as with the financial operations which the Treasury has to perform in distant parts of the empire. Now, although the Treasury should have the general superintendence of the financial concerns of the public, there does not seem any convenience, but the contrary, in an officer of the Treasury having the regulation of the arrangement and distribution of rations to the troops. That is business which does not properly belong to a department which has the general supervision and control of the finances of the country; it is an executive function of itself, and, therefore, should belong rather to an executive Minister, such as a Secretary of State, than to the department of the Treasury. The Government, therefore, are of opinion that, besides what I have stated as to the general direction of the operations of the war, the Minister Secretary of State for War should take the direction of the Commissariat Department. With respect to other questions, there are many changes which have to be considered; but few which can at once be carried into effect. In considering this subject, I remember that the late Duke of Wellington gave the opinion that the Master General of the Ordnance was properly the officer who ought to be the military adviser of the Government, that he, being in possession of the military wants of the country, should be best able from time to time to give the Cabinet such advice as he should think proper on military topics. But although this is apparently, and may be occasionally, a very good arrangement, it is obvious that it can very seldom be practicable. If you could find on ordinary occasions a general who had taken a political part and held the same opinions as the Members of the Government, supposing him to be in the prime of life, and his opinions in regard to military subjects very generally held in esteem, it would seem very fit, whether he were to be called the Master General of the Ordnance or by some other name, that he should be the military adviser of the Government. But such a concurrence of circumstances is very seldom the case, and we generally find that the mode in which the office of Master General has been supplied is this. You find a man of great military distinction—Sir George Murray, or Sir James Kempt, or the Marquess of Anglesey—appointed to fill the office, a man who has won great honours in the field, and who, therefore, is placed at the head of the Ordnance Department. But this will not suffice for more than the most ordinary occasions. What the Government must look to for the present purpose is an officer who can provide for the homogeneous administration of all the arrangements requisite, including all the civil arrangements connected with the office. For, observe, it is not the case of a military chief merely, a general, however distinguished, placed at the head of the artillery and engineers, and intrusted with the supply of arms and the care of fortifications; there are added to the department great civil functions, which con- nect it at once with the political as with the military duties of the State. For instance, take the subject of barrack accommodation for the troops at home and abroad, which is one of high importance, involving various considerations, and for which Estimates are presented to this House involving very considerable expenditure to the country. But the manner in which that question has been generally conducted is one which makes it very difficult to come to a permanently sound conclusion. I mean, for example, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, finding that there are riots and tumults in a particular district, and being told by persons resident in it that it would be a great security for them to have a garrison at a particular spot for their protection, would naturally take measures to have barracks constructed in that locality. But it is obvious that the question of barrack accommodation in the United Kingdom involves both civil considerations of expense and military considerations as to the stationing of troops at points where they are wanted, and from which a concentration might take place at the shortest notice. So, likewise, with regard to the Colonies. At one time a long and voluminous correspondence occurred, which has been referred to by Earl Grey on a recent occasion, with regard to the best mode of disposing of troops in the island of Jamaica. Opinions were given here on the subject by persons of authority, and those opinions were sent out by the Ordnance Department to the Colony. Reports came back, which were referred to the Treasury. The Treasury then consulted the Secretary at War and the Master General of the Ordnance, and more than a year elapsed without a solution of that question. Now, it is obvious that a Secretary of State for the War Department, having the authority which a Secretary of State has, being also connected with the Government, being by his, office of Secretary of State a Member of the Cabinet, would have brought that question to a very speedy decision; he would have informed himself authoritatively as to what was the salubrity of the position proposed, its fitness for defending the locality from attack, the cost, and all the other circumstances, and, having thus arrived at correct and complete information, he would have been enabled to act at once and authoritatively. Take, again, the question of fortifications; the question of fortifications, both at home and abroad, is one of the very greatest importance. I will not touch now on the question of home fortifications, but I will take the fortifications of distant dependencies—of Corfu, of the Mauritius, with reference to which the Committee on Military Expenditure made a Report, in which they desire the Government fully to consider the subject. It is obvious, that the question of raising or of adding to those fortifications requires very close attention, which attention as obviously is closely mixed up with the policy of the State, the future intentions of the Government as to those Colonies. I remember, with reference to Gibraltar, when I had the honour of being Secretary of State for the Colonies, a Commission was appointed consisting of several high military authorities, and a considerable time passed before they came to any decision. A Master General of the Ordnance, not politically connected with the Government, of course rather hesitates to give an opinion by which very considerable expense may be incurred, without being fully aware of the views of the Cabinet on this subject. A Minister of War would be enabled to collect all the materials necessary for forming a judgment in this case, and before the Estimates for the year were prepared he would have gone over them, and would have informed the Government what measures were in his opinion necessary, and whether it was advisable that any further expenses should be incurred, or whether any retrenchment could be safely effected. So with regard to our West India Islands; several years ago it was found that those islands, having been occupied in time of war by large bodies of troops, had a great number of forts mounted with cannon, which required small parties of artillery to be posted in different places in order to keep them in repair, and questions arose as to the arrangements which should be made for these objects. Upon such points the opinion of a Secretary of State for War would probably be of great use in drawing up the Estimates. With regard to the department of Secretary at War, there are less changes that can be made. The business of the Secretary at War is chiefly one of details; if you have 100,000 men, you have a certain Estimate and various arrangements consequent on that number, and so if you have 20,000, or 30,000, or 40,000. A good deal of consideration is required in order to fix the point at which your establishment should be kept; but that having been done, there are few questions of difficulty which arise. Except in regard to the Commissariat, I cannot now enter into any outline of the official arrangements which will be made. The question has been found one of much difficulty by the Governments of Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne, and I think it better that the head of the department, an active man of business—such as my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle, who is now at the bead of it—should take into his consideration what changes are expedient in the whole department, and should propose them when they are required. With regard to the Commissariat, I see no objection which can be made to the change we propose. I do not see that there is any other change that can be made in the official arrangements, and I will only say that there is no person who is in the Government charged with any department who will make any personal objection to such arrangements as may be thought necessary for the public service, and that whatever arrangement shall be thought desirable, it will be cheerfully acceded to. With respect to another part of the arrangement—namely, that relating to the militia—I think the arrangement prevailing at present is, that the embodied militia comes under the Secretary at War and the Commander in Chief, but the disembodied militia is under the Secretary for the Home Department. As at present advised, we do not think it expedient that any change should be made in that respect; if it should be thought necessary, it can be made at any time; but the present arrangement being one that concerns the colonels of militia, and other officers who are in the habit of transacting business with the Home Department, there appears no advantage in making any other change. The great benefit which I think will be gained by our measure is the separating the civil from the military department, a great part of the business now done at the Board of Ordnance under a military chief being entirely of a civil nature. It appears to me, whatever may be the mode in which you arrive at the result, that the Commander in Chief and the Master General of the Ordnance, if those two offices are to continue separate, or the head of both combined if they are to be united, should have the whole control of the discipline and patronage of the Army, including the artillery and engineers, and that, on the other hand, the civil depart- ments should have the whole of the arrangements that are necessary for the lodging of the Army, the fortifications at home and abroad, the provisioning and pay of the troops. When these changes shall have been effected, the House of Commons will then have before it, on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the War Department, the whole military expenditure of the country. Therefore, if there should be any complaint with respect to furnishing provisions for the troops, for instance, instead of saying that the arrangements of the Treasury have been defective, the House will be enabled to call on the Secretary for the War Department to answer, and will consider him responsible, for arrangements which must at all times entail a very heavy burden on the country. These, Sir, are the general arrangements which are in contemplation. I have already said that I think there are others which must be carried into effect from time to time. It would be impossible to carry them into effect at present, now that we are at the beginning of a war, when the Secretary of State is fully employed by those urgent and important duties which belong to the Minister who is to superintend the military expenditure of the country, and give directions for the employment of our forces. Having explained the general views of the Government, what I have to ask of this Committee, therefore, is to afford time, in order that new arrangements may be carried into effect on the responsibility of the Government. Every question of this kind must be duly weighed by the Government. There are, at present, two offices at the Board of Ordnance usually held by Members of the House of Commons, which are now vacant. There is the office of Surveyor General, and there is the office of Secretary to the Master General of the Ordnance. It is not intended, without full consideration, to fill up those offices. When I say this, I mean it is not intended to fill them up in the way in which they have been filled up hitherto. At present the only information I can give is, that, while we think it is not necessary to keep up the office of Secretary to the Master General of the Ordnance with so large a salary as he has received hitherto, it will be necessary to appoint a Surveyor General for the Ordnance Department. If, however, the Ordnance Department is kept up as it is constituted at present, it may be advisable rather to appoint a person who has special know- ledge with regard to the important duties which belong to that office, than to appoint a Member of this House who is not equally conversant with those duties. I think the efficiency of the department might be served if a change of this kind were made, but I am asking now that the whole subject may be reserved for the consideration of the Government, and I shall put the Vote on that understanding. I should say, however, having regard to the amount of the Vote, that a considerable part of the expense has been already voted. We considered it right that it should come again before the House in the shape of this Estimate, and that it was desirable the House should have all the details of expenditure connected with the department at one time under its observation; but I think to the amount of about 2,000l. a year or more of the salaries contained in this Estimate have been already voted among the Estimates relating to the Colonial Department. There are other salaries—of which I cannot tell the exact amount—which have already been voted under the heads of other departments, the Treasury and the Home Office. With regard to the offices vacant, I should state, first, that the military Under-Secretary was appointed by the Duke of Newcastle when he was Secretary of State for War and the Colonies. As respects the other Under-Secretary, the proposal is to appoint a gentleman to that office that he may conduct the correspondence, and have charge of the arrangements with regard to other offices which must be placed under the control of the Secretary of State. It is at the same time intended, however, that the person who is to fill that office shall be told that he will have no longer tenure of office than until the final arrangements are made; that those final arrangements may provide other duties which he will have to discharge, and that, therefore, for the present, it will be only a provisional appointment. With regard to the senior clerks, the assistant senior clerks, and the junior clerks—three classes of clerks—it is intended that they shall all of them be appointed from offices where they are at present employed as clerks. It is not proposed to appoint any new persons to these duties. There will be a fourth class of probationary clerks, with salaries of from 100l. to 150l. a year. With this explanation, I beg, Sir, to move the Vote of 17,300l. for the salaries and other expenses in the department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for War, from the 12th of June, 1854, to the 31st of March, 1855.

I have listened, Sir, to the statement of the noble Lord with feelings of the greatest astonishment and disappointment. The noble Lord has told us that he has stated the views of the Government. It appears to me, however, that that is exactly what the noble Lord has not told us. I can only understand from the speech of the noble Lord that, with the single exception that the Commissariat is to be transferred from the Treasury to the new department, the Government have formed no views on this subject, and that they have called into existence a new department of the State and have established a new Secretary of State—an officer of the highest class—without having at all determined what are to be the duties of that office, or what are to be the new arrangements upon this subject which, under the force of existing circumstances, has become one of the most important which can come under the consideration of this House. The noble Lord, in the outset of his observations, did me the honour to refer to some remarks which fell from me in a former discussion during the present Session upon this subject. So far as the remarks which then fell from me are concerned, I entirely agree with the noble Lord as to the course of the Government—namely, that now we are unhappily involved in war it has become impossible for any public servant holding the position of Secretary of State for the Colonies adequately to fulfil the duties of that office in conjunction with the duties which devolve upon the War Minister, by whatever title he may be designated. I pointed this out as strongly as I could upon the occasion to which the noble Lord has referred. The noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) and others spoke to the same effect; similar views have also been expressed with the greatest force in another place by my predecessor in the Colonial Office (Earl Grey); and it is impossible for any one conversant with the arduous duties of the Colonial Minister to suppose that that Minister could satisfactorily conduct the affairs of a serious war. But I think the Government ought not to have been content with stating their opinion that now we are involved in a great war the duties of the Minister of War ought to be taken away from the Minister charged with administering the affairs of our Colonies. I think we had a right to expect that, before the Government came down to this House and asked us to vote an Estimate for the establishment of a Secretary of State and of a new department, they were bound to have made up their minds what were to be the duties of that Secretary of State, and how and in what manner the present anomalous and inconvenient management of the Army was to be reconstructed. But the noble Lord has done nothing of the kind. The noble Lord has scarcely dwelt upon two considerations which bear upon this subject, and upon which I for one confidently expected that he was about to enter into the fullest details and to give the most ample explanation. Are the Committee and the country aware—I hardly think they can be—that the present arrangements connected with the government of our military forces may be divided into six different classes—namely, those connected with the Army (the regular Army, that is, of cavalry and infantry), the artillery, the pensioners (who have lately been embodied in a distinct corps), the yeomanry and militia, the Commissariat, and the dockyard battalions? Under the present anomalous government of our military forces every one of these different branches of the military service is under a different head and subject to a distinct authority. The Army is mainly managed by the Commander in Chief; the artillery is managed by the Master General and the Board of Ordnance; the pensioners, I believe, are under the direction of the Secretary at War; the dockyard battalions are under that of the Admiralty; the Commissariat is subject to the supervision of the Treasury; and, as to the yeomanry and militia, I think it would be very difficult indeed to say under whose authority they are. Here you have these six different branches of the military force of the country under six different departments connected with the Government of this country. Then, how is the administration of the Army itself conducted? Why, for the conduct of the Army there are no less than five different departments. I speak now, of course, of what has been the state of things up to the establishment of this new War Department. The Secretary of State for the Colonies was theoretically and nominally the War Minister. You then bad the Horse Guards, with the Commander in Chief; the Ordnance, under the Master General; the Commissariat, under the Treasury; and you had the office of Secretary at War distinct from all. Well, I do think, if this subject was to be broached by the Government, that the Government were bound to have made up their minds in what manner they would amalgamate and consolidate these six different branches of our military forces and these five different authorities, among which heretofore all these branches of our military establishment had been divided. Let me remind the Committee that this is by no means a new subject. It is a subject to which, for very many years the attention of the Government, of Parliament, and of the country has been at different seasons directed. The noble Lord opposite has reminded us to-day of the fact that, so long ago as the time when the Duke of Richmond held office under the Administration of Earl Grey, a Commission was appointed upon this subject, of which Commission the Duke of Richmond was Chairman, and of which the noble Lord himself was a Member. The noble Lord has adverted also to a subsequent Commission appointed in 1836, of which the present Earl Grey, then Lord Howick, and also, I think, then Secretary at War, officiated as Chairman. Of that Commission the noble Lord himself and the noble Lord now Secretary of State for the Home Department were Members. In 1837 this Commission made a very able and elaborate Report. The recommendations of that Report were distinct and strong. They recommended that the anomalous state of things to which I have adverted should be put an end to; that the Master General of the Ordnance and the Commander in Chief should continue to fulfil their present executive functions with regard to the military branches of these two departments; but the Commission recommended that the civil duties of the various departments connected with the Army should be consolidated; that the anomalous and inconvenient duties of the Secretary of State fur the Colonies should be put an end to; that the Secretary at War should be made an important officer, with a seat in the Cabinet, as the responsible War Minister in this House, though not a Secretary of State, the Commission recommending that the directions of the Sovereign for the movements and employment of the troops should still be conveyed through one of the Secretaries of State; and, if I remember right, the Commission also recommended that the Commissariat should be transferred to a new department, and should be taken away from the Trea- sury. The noble Lord told us that, in consequence of objections on the part of the Duke of Wellington, the recommendations of that Commission were not carried into effect; but the noble Lord did not tell us that he, as a Member of that Commission, and having concurred in its Report, now dissents from the recommendations to which he was then a party. I heard nothing from the noble Lord at all to imply that he had changed his mind. The only reason he assigned for not having carried out the recommendations contained in the Report to which I refer was, that the Duke of Wellington objected to them. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: I said that the Duke of Wellington gave very good reasons for objecting to them.] Well, but the noble Lord did not tell us that he dissents from those reasons and did not now concur in the Report of the Commission of 1837; neither did the noble Lord refer to the important fact that in the year 1850 a Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the details of our Army and Ordnance expenditure. Of this Committee the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) was the very able Chairman; it was selected with great care; it contained Members most competent to form a judgment upon the subject intrusted to their consideration; and that Committee recited in their Report the recommendations of the Commission of 1837, repeating those recommendations, and advising that the Report of that Commission should be acted upon. Here you have a third competent authority showing you distinctly how these anomalies might be got rid of, and how the inconveniences hitherto existing might be obviated; but to the fact of the Report of that Committee the noble Lord has made no reference whatever. Perhaps the Committee will allow me, however, to recall its attention to what passed upon a previous occasion, during the present Session, upon this subject. I was one, in common with many other Members of this House, who were greatly surprised that with a war already imminent—a war which too probably will be a very protracted one—the Government had not directed their attention to this subject before Parliament met, while they had the leisure of the recess, and that they were not prepared, upon the meeting of Parliament, to present a complete scheme for the consolidation of these different departments, and at once to put the Army in a position better fitted for the arduous duties upon which they are now embarked than they can be expected to be under their present conflicting and anomalous administration. But the Government had not, as I think they ought to have done, directed their attention to this subject, and had not made up their minds how they would deal with it before the present Session of Parliament met. After Parliament had met, of course this unsatisfactory state of the Government of the Army became the subject of comment and debate in both Houses. It was adverted to with extraordinary ability in the other House of Parliament, while in this House our attention was directed to it by the hon. Member for Montrose (whom I regret not to see in his place), and that debate took place to which the noble Lord has already referred. Let me remind the Committee of the language held on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War and by the noble Lord himself. We complained of the unsatisfactory state of affairs connected with the administration of the Army, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at right made a strong speech in answer to those complaints, declaring that, though there might be anomalies, the existing state of things ought to continue. He referred to the great advantages which arose from the division of labour, deducing from his arguments the opinion that it would be better to go on as we were; and he quoted some opinions expressed by the present Lord Grey upon the subject—

"If," he said," Lord Grey thinks there is a time when no alteration should be made, a fortiori, the present is a moment when, in my opinion at least, it would be dangerous to make such a change as that proposed by my hon. Friend" [namely, a change in the management of the Army, and the consolidation of the various branches of the service]. "At any time I think you ought to proceed step by step. The process should be gradual; but, at this moment, I do not believe you could undertake a more rash experiment than when you are about to enter upon a serious contest, and when you will have the greatest pressure upon your machinery from being engaged in a very hot war."—[3 Hansard, cxxxi. 241.]

The noble Lord followed, with very similar language—

"My right hon. Friend," he said, "has explained the great difficulty and inconvenience that would arise from attempting to carry into effect a new organisation of the departments at a moment when they are all required to make the utmost exertions in the preparation of the expedition now on its way to the East.…. Instead of its being a great public convenience, I believe it would be a great public inconvenience, if the carrying out of these arrangements were to be transferred to any other department."—[3 Hansard, cxxxi. 259.]

In the course of a previous debate it has been announced that the pressure of business upon the Colonial Secretary was so great that the Government intended to add a new clerk to that department, and I then yielded to the force of the arguments used. I believe that the plan then proposed by the Government was a prudent and a wise one, and that it would have been a proper course in the existing state of things to wait until the recess enabled the Government to devote their whole attention to the subject, and to frame some definite plan to lay before Parliament and before the country. I heard with astonishment, however, that during the Whitsuntide recess the reluctance of Her Majesty's Ministers to make any changes had vanished, and that in the course of those few days the Government had determined to establish a new department and a new Secretary of State, and I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the speech of the noble Lord has gone far to prove that his first intentions were wiser than those which he has since adopted. It would have been far better, I think, if the noble Lord had deferred until after the Session the consideration of this subject, and had then framed some definite measure, instead of coming to this House with an imperfect proposal for establishing a new department without having determined, except in one trifling respect—namely, the transfer of the Commissariat from the Treasury to the new War Department—what are to be the duties of that department. The noble Lord has adverted to the subject of barracks and fortifications, but I did not understand him to say that, either barracks or fortifications were to be transferred to this new department—indeed, what I did understand was, that they were to continue to be under the Board of Ordnance. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL expressed dissent.] Well, at all events, I did not understand the noble Lord to express any very decided opinion that barracks and fortifications were to be transferred to the new department, or that the Government had at all made up their minds except with regard to the Commissariat. There is one circumstance, however, which must have struck everybody who has heard the speech of the noble Lord, and I myself listened with the greatest anxiety to hear if anything should fall from the noble Lord with regard to the anomalous position in which they have placed the Secretary at War. The country must have been surprised to find that, when the Government had so far matured their plans as to constitute a new department, the office of Secretary at War was still to be allowed to continue; that that Minister was still to be left at the head of an important public department, and to hold the position of a Cabinet Minister. What authority, I must ask, does the noble Lord find for that arrangement in any of the Reports to which I have just referred? One of the suggestions which has been thrown out by authorities competent to deal with the subject is, that there should be a new Secretary of State, but that he should discharge those duties which had hitherto been performed by the Secretary at War, and that the latter should cease to be an office any longer recognised after the office of the new Minister had been established. Another plan which has been suggested is, that the new Secretary of War should become an important officer, but not a Secretary of State. I know of no recommendation, however, having been made by any Commission in which the simultaneous existence in the Cabinet of a War Secretary and a Secretary at War was urged as advisable. I cannot, indeed, help thinking that the anomalous position in which matters then stood is the strongest proof that can be furnished in support of the supposition that the Government have, from some motive or another, changed their mode of action, in order to add an additional Cabinet Minister to their ranks during the Whitsuntide recess. As a consequence of that step, the Committee are now called upon to vote a sum of money to defray the expenses of a new department, and to contribute to the support of a Secretary of State whose duties it is perfectly clear that even the Government themselves have not defined. I think we have great reason to feel extremely dissatisfied with the statement which the noble Lord has made this evening, and that we have a right to demand that some explanation should be given as to what distinction, if any, exists between the duties of the new Minister and those which devolve upon the Secretary at War, both these functionaries being Cabinet Ministers. I shall, therefore, resume my seat in the hope that before the Government call upon the Committee to grant the Estimate for which they have asked we should receive some explanation upon the changes which have lately taken place in the War Department of a more satisfactory nature than those which have been afforded by the speech of the noble Lord.

I am afraid, Mr. Bouverie, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the astonishment, regret, and surprise, with which he heard what fell from my noble Friend—astonishment in which the right hon. Gentleman usually finds himself when any proposal is made to the House to which he cannot assent—that I shall not be able to remove that astonishment by anything which I am about to address to the Committee; but I hope I shall be able to make clear to the great body of the Committee what are the intentions of the Government, and to defend the course taken by the Government, which has been so impugned by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet said he was surprised that we, who so short a time ago expressed opinions diametrically opposed to making any change in the military departments, should now suddenly propose to make a complete reconstruction of those departments. The right hon. Baronet quoted one or two extracts from a speech that I had made on this subject, in order to show that I, at least, had expressed an opinion that the present system was perfect and ought to continue. I think the Committee will do me the justice to believe that at the time when we before discussed this question there was no want of frankness on my part in stating my opinions on the subject. I have held my present office in the Government on two separate occasions, and having turned my attention a good deal to this subject, I thought it would not be inopportune in me, though not speaking with the authority of the Government, to give a general outline of what appeared to me were the principal defects of the existing system, and of the measures which seemed to me necessary to remedy those defects. Now, it is quite true, as stated by the right hon. Baronet, that I had spoken in reprobation of the arguments used for a consolidation of the military departments, grounded on the misunderstandings which had arisen between the different military and civil officers at the commencement of the present century. Now, a great deal of public feeling has been excited upon this subject, which is entirely uncalled for. We have great difficulties to contend with in dealing with these departments; and I say, let us apply ourselves to that task, but let us first get rid of all those pre-Adamite anecdotes, founded on conversations of old in which some hon. Gentlemen are wont to indulge, but which are wholly foreign to the purpose in hand. What I stated to the House on that occasion was, that, so far from difficulties being caused by the distinctions between the heads of the military department, nothing could have worked more harmoniously; but I also said that I was quite willing to allow the inconvenience of the present system, that the Commander in Chief has not that knowledge of the Ordnance Department, and not that combination between men and matériel, which ought to exist. It is true that, if a fortification be built by the Board of Ordnance, the Commander in Chief may disapprove of it, and that he may not view it with the same scientific eyes as the Ordnance authorities; but I much question if it is always desirable that things should be regarded by scientific eyes alone. I think that it is a great evil to have the separate action of two departments not controlled by one superintending authority, but at the same time that superintending authority is not necessarily to be procured by consolidation alone. For some years past, when there has been work to be done, and the other departments have been much employed, it has been intrusted to the Ordnance, and any one who will look to the Report of the Commission will see what additional duties have been placed upon the Ordnance Department; and, indeed, I am not sure that we do not now suffer from over-consolidation rather than the want of it. What you most want is, not so much the consolidation of the different departments, but one supervising authority, with a view to make all of them act in harmonious combination. I said at that time that it appeared to me the provisioning of our troops in the field and at home by a department which has, practically, nothing at all to do with that subject, but which has a great deal to do with it in reference to the cash supplies far carrying it on, was wrong in principle. I think the department of the Treasury, which is a department of check, but which is not an administrative department, should not be intrusted with a duty of that kind; and I suggested that the direction of the Commissariat should be removed from the Treasury to the military departments. I may here also state that I have expressed my opinion that the Board of Ordnance might be divided into two portions. It is now, practically speaking, divided into the civil and military departments, and nothing can be more distinct than their operation; for, while both are governed by the same man, they are not governed in the same manner. There is, then, a clear distinction between these portions of the Ordnance Department; but to what extent that distinction should be carried is a matter which ought to be carefully inquired into before any decision is arrived at. It is a question of great importance as to whether the Commander in Chief shall have the control over the engineers and artillery, and the Commission of 1837 had recommended that they should be continued under the authority of the Master General of the Ordnance. I have no doubt that there are some sound reasons for that opinion, although personally I have thought that the Commander in Chief is the proper person to command the whole personnel of the army, and, in that discussion to which I have already referred, I proposed that the military portion of the Ordnance Department should be transferred to the Commander in Chief, while the civil portion should continue under the control of the Board of Ordnance. That I thought was a clear and distinct settlement; but that the right hon. Gentleman should have interpreted it as implying my complete adhesion to the existing system, does for the moment inspire me with some of that surprise which so constantly agitates his own bosom, The right hon. Baronet says the Government ought to have been in a condition to act immediately on the spur of the moment in this matter, or not at all. The Report of the Committee to which he has referred was published in 1837. Well, what happened in the case? The Committee came to no decision upon the subject, but there were one or two Reports drawn up by different Members of that Committee; and when the Commission sat which subsequently reported, they dissented from those views, and substituted one of their own. At any rate, therefore, the subject was not so easy of decision as the right hon. Baronet seems to think. This Commission having reported, no Government that succeeded it has ever attempted to carry that Report into effect—and why? Because they felt the change was so great, involving, as it did, the remodelling of every military department, and their consequent consolidation, that unless they had a great deal of concurrence of opinion in favour of that specific plan, and unless there was a great change of feeling, it would be in vain to attempt to carry it out. Four Governments succeeded to the appointment of that Commission, but none of them attempted to make the change which had been suggested. It might be possible to do a great deal, and I hope it is so, at the present moment; but, I must say, at the moment when every department was strained to its utmost, for the purpose of sending out, on a great emergency, a force amounting to nearly 40,000 men, under very great difficulty with regard to ships, but I hope and believe in a state of very great efficiency—if we had chosen that as the time, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet, for carrying into practical effect certain theoretical improvements in this and that particular subject—if we had, regardless of delay, and of the great emergency, set about squaring all these departments to a model suggested twenty-five years ago, the Government would have been unworthy of the position they hold, and unworthy of the confidence of the country. The Government felt, and justly felt, that the first thing to do was that which pressed most. There is no doubt about it, that the duties of a Minister charged with the management of the Colonies, are so great and so numerous as to be incompatible with those of carrying on a war. In former years, when this country was at war, the Colonial Minister, it is true, carried on the war; but for the simplest of all reasons, that he neglected the business of the Colonial Department. But that cannot be done now. That, as I have said, was the first thing to be done, because it was necessary to the efficiency of the service, and therefore we did that first. My noble Friend the Lord President stated, that the Government would then take care, after due consideration, and step by step, to put the new departments on another system, which should free them from the recurrence of acknowledged evils; but he declined to state exactly how he would distribute the various duties, and what changes he would make in the different departments. And he was quite right in acting on general principles; for I may remind the right hon. Baronet that this paragraph appears in the Report of the Committee which sat three years ago—

"Your Committee refrain from pointing out any detailed course of action on this subject, leaving the responsibility of that to those whose official position and authority can alone guide them in applying a remedy to the present state of things."

I stated at the commencement of the Session, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) raised this question, what were my views on the subject generally, and what were the views of the Government. From none of those views have I seen any reason to depart. We have already taken this great step—we have disconnected the Colonial from the War Department. We have, therefore, established an officer who will be the responsible head, who can supervise all these establishments, and who can supervise all the changes which are to be affected in these departments. He will at once have the Commissariat put under his authority. That is a great and important step. He will then have the means of examining to what extent the consolidation of the military and civil portions of the Ordnance can be carried into effect. But if you ask us to put the whole machinery out of gear for the sake of introducing some theory which the right hon. Baronet might easily in a few moments sketch out on a sheet of paper, I say I think the subject is by far too important to be treated so lightly as that; and on such an emergency the Government are bound to feel their way as they go on. They would not risk the efficiency of those departments, on the efficiency of which the safety and success of our arms at this moment so materially depend. The right hon. Baronet complains of the position of the Secretary at War, and says that, in his opinion, the office ought to be abolished, or else that the full control of the War Department should be intrusted to him; and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, that he could not understand how two Cabinet Ministers could be engaged in the military department. With regard to the first complaint, I can only say that the Secretary at War has nothing whatever to do with the management of war. The duties of the Secretary at War are duties delegated to him by the Treasury. The Treasury has the great financial check and control over all the expenditure of the country; but the expenditure of the country is too great and too minute in its details to be susceptible of being checked by any officer of the Treasury, and therefore they delegate to the Secretary at War, with reference to the Army, all the powers which they exercise themselves in respect to other departments of expenditure, and he checks and controls the expenditure with a view to proper economy and efficiency. If, therefore, you have him doing the duties of both departments, he ceases to have any check or control. I have heard the hon. Member for Montrose constantly complain that the management of the Navy was far more expensive than that of the Army. I have no doubt the management of the Army has been far more closely looked into than that of the Navy, because in the case of the Army one man expends the money and another holds the purse; not a regulation can be made by the Commander in Chief without the consent of the Finance Minister, in the person of the Secretary at War; and that is the secret of much of the economy in the military department, which had been practised for a great number of years. If, therefore, you combine the two things, you do away with that whole system of economical control in the management of the Army which has done so much to enhance its efficiency. Again, the right hon. Baronet says you ought not to have two Cabinet Ministers in the War Department. But why does he assume we are going to constitute departments which must be held by two Cabinet Ministers? The right hon. Baronet objects to the office of Secretary at War, and says it is useless, and if it is useless, why not abolish it? I think I have satisfied the Committee that, financially speaking, the existence of the office of Secretary at War is vital to the cause of economy and efficiency in the administration of the Army. The Secretary at War now exercises a very wholesome check over the expenditure of the Army; and I am clearly of opinion that the control which the Secretary at War has over the expenditure of the Army, under the Commander in Chief, ought to be extended to the expenditure which is now under the Master General of the Ordnance, as the Commander in Chief of the Artillery and Engineers. I do not see why the whole expenditure for the matériel and personnel of the Ordnance should not be placed under the control of the Secretary at War. With regard to the office of Secretary at War losing, as the right hon. Baronet complains, some of its importance, that is a subject upon which I will not trouble the Committee, but I think that some additional duties might be imposed upon him, such as moving the Commissariat Estimates, and that the whole of the War Estimates should, as nearly as possible, be laid before the House as a whole. I should be inclined to say, therefore, retain the office of Secretary at War as a finance officer, while those ditties of a half military character which were attached to the office might be transferred from it, such as that relating to the pensioners; but I must still stand out that if you want to continue that which has so much contributed to causing economy in the administration of the Army, and to promote that steadiness by which a financial check has been brought to bear upon the whole of the expenditure, you must maintain the office of Secretary at War as a separate office. With regard to the question, as to whether the Secretary of State for War and Secretary at War should be Cabinet Ministers, that is a point upon which I shall not enter, and, with regard to the general question, I can only say that I have looked at it and considered it with perfect impartiality. So far from attempting to prevent changes being made in the present system, I have urged the necessity of change, and I have in Parliament spoken very freely as to what were the evils to be remedied. I am sorry that the right hon. Baronet objects that there should be two Cabinet Ministers connected with the War Department; but it appeared to me, and I hope that I shall not be thought guilty of self-sufficiency, that, having been for a long time Secretary at War, and having, during that time, received most cordial support from every one connected with the Army, that having bestowed a very considerable amount of attention on this subject, and from my knowledge of the details of the business of the War Office, I thought that my services might be of great value to assist not only in promoting the efficiency of the Army, but also in assisting the Government in arranging in a final and satisfactory manner the various duties of the War Department. I thought, also, that I should not be justified in resigning an office because it had become of, perhaps, a little less importance, and, therefore, I undertook to carry on the duties of Secretary at War, and, if the right hon. Gentleman disapproves of my doing so, I regret it; but I can only say that the assistance which I may have given to the Government shall continue to be given, and I hope that the result will be, that we shall shortly be able to lay upon the table of the House a detailed plan of the entire change. I trust that this House will not deprive the Go- vernment of that assistance and confidence which are necessary to enable them to bring this change to a good issue, by giving their utmost attention to the subject, and by taking every step to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Give us time—that is only fair—and I am satisfied that we can introduce into the military department changes which will promote the efficiency of the service, and which will enable the Government and people to look with perfect confidence, as to efficiency in every respect, upon those forces upon whom now the honour and safety of this country depend.

said, he believed that the explanations given by the noble Lord the Member for London and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War were not calculated to give satisfaction either to that House or to the country. It would appear from those explanations that the only tangible change which had been effected in the case was the transfer of the Commissariat from the Treasury to the new War Minister. Now, he entirely approved of that measure, and believed that it would greatly tend to increase the efficiency of the Army. But that surely was not the only reform they had a right to expect under the new system. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had also shadowed forth a separation of the civil and military departments of the Ordnance. He (Col. Dunne) believed, however, that those two departments were so closely interwoven that it would be very difficult, and even detrimental, to separate them. He entirely approved of the proposal that the embodiment of the militia should remain under the control of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, he had a few words to say upon the subject, although it was one with which he was not much acquainted. He was surprised at the statement which the noble Lord the President of the Council and the right hon. Secretary at War had made, because the Committee had a right to expect that when a new office like that of Minister of War was created, the duties of the office would be clearly defined; but neither the noble Lord nor the right hon. Gentleman had let them into that secret. The noble Lord says—"Appoint the new officer, and from time to time he will consider what duties it will be convenient for him to undertake;" while the right hon. the Secretary at War said—"We cannot tell what duties are to be assigned to this new officer, hut give us time and we will find him something to do, although I may state at once that there will be no consolidation of duties yet." Now that was the sum and substance of the two speeches, which contained no explanation whatever that could he satisfactory, either to the Committee or the country. What he wanted to know was, the nature of the duties which this new Minister would have to perform for the remuneration he would receive and the honour of a seat in the Cabinet. The noble Lord in his ingenious speech was elaborate about the clerks, but he said nothing about the duties of the Minister at War, which was just what the country required to know, but which neither the noble Lord nor time right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to explain, or even to shadow forth. It was only natural to suppose that there would have been a consolidation of the business of our War Department in the newly-created War Secretary. But no such consolidation had, it appeared, taken place, and they had not even been led to think that any such consolidation was contemplated by the Government. It was clear that no attention had been paid in that case to the recommendations of the Committee over which the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) had presided. What was wanted was, not merely that the supervision of the Commissariat should be transferred to the new Minister, but that he should be intrusted with the superintendence of all our preparations for the conduct of the war.

said, this was a clause that he had opposed in the Select Committee, which was very nearly divided in opinion as to its propriety, and he also intended to oppose it on the present occasion. The restrictions and regulations with regard to election expenses, with which, by this Bill, candidates were to be surrounded, were justifiable up to a certain length; but he called upon the Committee to pause before carrying that species of legislation too far. Suppose that an independent man promised to give his support to a candidate, and undertook to get the electors together in a certain district, and in the course of the proceedings gave some refreshment to them, he would be liable to the penalty under this clause if he did not make a return of all that he had expended to the election officer. It was ridiculous jealousy on the part of the Legislature to say that there was any harm in such a thing; he had done it himself, and would do it again. He did not wish to shield any man who had been guilty of bribery or improper conduct, but some respect ought to be shown to that independence and freedom which were dear to all Englishmen. There was no harm in public dinners at which the general political feeling of a county was expressed, all who were present paying for their own tickets; but a man would not be able to make a present of tickets to his friends without being guilty of a misdemeanor according to this clause, unless he sent in the Bill to the election officer. But would this clause take away all opportunities for electioneering demonstrations? No. They would have flower-shows or cattle-shows, and the proceedings would terminate with a dinner, at which the health of the favourite candidate would be drunk. He thought that, although the Bill itself would be a great advantage, this clause was of an arbitrary and tyrannical nature, and he should therefore move that it be expunged.

said, there were various cases to which it was very difficult to administer an exact measure of justice. A candidate might be a person who had no money to spare, but was supported by some great proprietor, who would put down 5,000l., or that sum might be put down by his friends in the county in order to carry his election, and in that case none of the clauses which applied to the candidate would have any effect with regard to the expenditure of that money, and they would lose all the advantages which were derived from the appointment of an election officer. But, while he quite agreed in the necessity of inserting a clause of this sort, he did not see the necessity for imposing so severe a penalty; and in a case in which the expenditure had not corrupted any elector the penalty might not be enforced. He should therefore propose that the word "misdemeanor" be omitted, and that a person offending in the manner named in the clause should only be subject to a 50l. penalty. If this were found insufficient, Parliament might hereafter increase the severity of the punishment.

said, he would recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell) to accept the clause with the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord. If the clause were altogether expunged, all the preceding provisions with respect to the appointment of an election agent would become perfectly nugatory.

said, that cases of very great hardship might occur in Ireland under the operation of that portion of the Bill. Landed proprietors in that country frequently found it necessary to give shelter to their tenants at the approach of an election, in order that those tenants might not be violently carried away, and deprived of the power of recording their votes. It would manifestly be most unreasonable and unjust to render landlords, who had thus protected their tenants, liable to the penalties of the law.

said, that the object of this Bill was to obtain publicity fur election expenses, and he could not see how that end was to be attained without this clause, but at the same time he felt that it would be better so to word the clause as to admit of the fine being mitigated in some cases. Let the wording of it run that the fine should not exceed 50l.

said, he would put a case which, in his opinion, would show how unjust might be the operation of that portion of the Bill. A number of electors might resolve on supporting some favourite candidate without entailing on him any expense; and for that purpose they might treat one another, or pay one another's coaching expenses. It was clear that in such a case those persons ought not to be made liable to the penalties of the law. He believed that the Bill as it then stood would form one of the greatest possible restrictions on the freedom of election,

said, he suspected that what the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) meant was this—certain rich electors conveyed certain poor electors to the poll free of expense, besides paying for their refreshment, and that appeared to him to be nothing more nor less than treating for a corrupt purpose. Unless this were put down, the interference of that House would be of little use, and they would be quite as much in the dark as ever as to the nature of the expenses. He thought the penalty ought to be considerably increased, in a case where thousands of pounds might be spent.

said, he should support the clause. If any expenses whatever were allowed to be paid, except through the election officer, they opened the door to the greatest bribery. A person might spend 2,000l. or 3,000l. in that way if he chose, if he were allowed to spend 2l. or 3l. in bringing up voters. It would be unwise to fetter the exertions of independent electors; but the clause provided for this by allowing any person to pay any amount he chose towards the expenses of the election into the hands of the election officer. A man might wish to bring up fifty or 100 of his own tenantry as voters; and lie had only to obtain the authority of the election officer to allow him to do so. It was true an emergency might arise where a person wished to bring up voters on the spur of the moment, to save the election, and had not time to apply to the election officer; and he would suggest an alteration in the clause to meet this case.

regretted that the noble Lord had consented to withdraw the word misdemeanor. In these cases parties did not mind about money; he thought the only thing to deter them from bribing was the punishment of misdemeanor. The alteration would render the Bill much less effective.

said, he believed that any person subscribing money towards election expenses would be liable to indictment for misdemeanor under this Bill. They were passing clause after clause without considering their effect, and adding new traps and pitfalls to those already existing.

said, he thought the alarm of the last speaker was unnecessary. Hitherto the provisions against bribery had proved wholly ineffectual; now it was proposed that no money should be spent except for lawful purposes, and to secure that the money was only to be paid through an appointed officer. Parties might still subscribe towards the election expenses of candidates, but it must be done through the officer; otherwise the Act would be wholly inoperative. Each man might pay his own expenses at the poll; and if a number combined from motives of economy, such a proceeding would not come within the clause at all. The omission of the punishment of misdemeanor was complained of, but the penalties of themselves he considered were sufficiently high.

said, he feared that the clause would be difficult to carry out; but without some such provision they might as well leave the law in its present state. Even with this enactment he doubted whether bribery would be effectually prevented.

said, he would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether the fact of voters clubbing their money together would not compel them to give an account of their expenses to the election officer? He thought the clause would destroy the independent action of the constituencies.

said, every man was entitled to pay his own expenses, and the mere fact of his joining with another voter in the payment of their common expenses would not bring him within the meaning of the clause. The sole object of the clause was to prevent his expenses being paid by another person without the knowledge or sanction of the election officer.

said, he thought that this was one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill. It was necessary for the protection of the honest voter, would enable them to secure purity of election, and was of still more importance as a protection to the candidate himself. In reply to a question from Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR,

said, he would undertake to propose a clause to this effect—that if, upon the trial of an action to recover these penalties, it should appear to the Judge that the payments bad been made without any illegal intention, it should be competent for him to reduce the penalties to any sum not less than 40s.

said, he still objected to the clause, as interfering with the freedom of election. They had attempted to do a great deal by the present Bill, and he warned them against trying to do more than they were able to accomplish.

said, he would suggest that, as the candidate by a former clause was required to return an account of all claims made on him, the election officer should also make a return of the sums so claimed.

said, the claimants by this clause were directed to send in to the election officer all charges and claims which he or they bad against the candidates, and the election officer was then to make out a return or account of all such claims and charges as should have been paid, or should have been disallowed and not paid. He thought it would be desirable to make the clause more distinct.

said, he did not think the clause would properly bear such a construction. What he wanted was, that an account of what had been claimed as well as paid should be returned.

said, if his right hon. Friend wished, the clause might be amended by inserting the words "of all sums claimed, although the same shall not be allowed or paid."

said, he would suggest that the election officer should be required to account for the money belonging to the candidate which he had not disbursed, as well as the money he had paid away. If, as the clause stood, the candidate paid the election officer 1,000l. towards the expenses of the election, and that he paid away of that 200l. or 300l. as election expenses, he was not required to give any account of the balance—that was to be a matter of private arrangement between the candidate and himself; and he thought, to prevent any collusion or fraud between the parties, the clause should contain a proviso, directing the election officer to give an account of how he had disposed of the balance.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment suggested.

said, all the sums were to be paid by checks, and might easily be traced, but there was no objection to the introduction of the words suggested by the hon. Member.

said, among the sums which were to be returned were those paid into court, or for which judgment had been obtained. If they had to wait until judgment were given on some claims, he was afraid delay might take place, and as there was to be a supplementary account, he would suggest that such sums should be included in it.

said, that all such sums as were paid, or for which judgment was recorded within three months, in which the return was to be made, might be included in the general account; but those obtained after the lapse of three months might be placed in the supplementary account.

suggested that, as this clause seemed to imply the necessity of keeping an office for the purpose of depositing the accounts and returns, and as the next clause provided for the publication of such accounts in the newspapers, the object, which was publicity, might be obtained by the advertisement of the general account alone.

said, that in some cases a considerable length of time might elapse before the accounts could be completed, and it might be necessary, for the purposes of justice, that the accounts should be inspected long before they were published. It might be advisable, therefore, that the accounts should remain in custody where they could be readily inspected, before they were deposited with the clerks of the peace or town clerks.

said, he thought that the officer who was responsible for the custody of the accounts should be required to take care that persons who were permitted to take copies did not play tricks with the original documents; for men with sharp knives and free consciences might easily remove leaf after leaf, and so mutilate the accounts as to render them valueless.

said, he could refer to a case which had occurred under the Municipal Corporations Act, where persons who were entitled to inspect the polling papers at a municipal election, such documents being kept in the custody of the town clerk, had abstracted half the papers, and consequently the election became void. He thought that measures ought to be taken to prevent any equally improper proceedings under this clause.

said, he would suggest that three copies of the accounts should be provided, and that one of them should be kept in safe custody for reference, in case of necessity.

begged to ask, by whom the expenses of this advertising was to be borne? He put the question, because, in his own case, he found the expense of advertising at elections for the county he had the honour to represent (Middlesex) extremely heavy.

said, he feared he could not flatter the noble Lord with the hope that the expense would be borne by any one but the candidates. This was, he considered, a necessary part of the expenses of an election.

said, the clause provided that abstracts of the accounts should be inserted in two newspapers, published or circulating in the place where the election was held; but in many parts of the country there was not a single newspaper published, and he wished to know what was to be done in such cases?

said, he had not prepared this and several other clauses in the Bill, but he thought there could scarcely be any place in the country where newspapers of some kind or another did not circulate.

said, that the advertisements might be inserted in the Times, but the charge for such insertion would cause considerable expense to candidates.

said, he could not conceive what reason there was for throwing upon candidates this expense for advertising. In the neighbourhood in which he resided (Dorsetshire) there were three places returning Members to that house—Lyme, Bridport, and Honiton—in none of which was a newspaper published. It was said that advertisements might be inserted in the Times newspaper. Why, they might even be inserted in a newspaper published in the Orkneys, and a great deal wiser people would be.

said, there were no penalties inflicted for non-publication of these accounts. The election officer was merely directed to do so; but, supposing that he chose to have nothing to do with such nonsense, there was no mode of compelling him to act or of punishing him for neglect. The clause, however, was a specimen of the Bill:—a set of learned Gentlemen got together upstairs to make up a Bill, and this was the good-for-nothing stuff which they brought down.

could assure the noble Lord that the clause which seemed to excite so much of his disapprobation had not emanated from him, nor from any one else who came under the denomination of "learned Gentlemen." It was originally proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and it was inserted in the Bill with the entire approval of the Committee upstairs. Its object, he believed, was to give publicity to the election accounts, and more particularly to the names of the persons who made claims on the candidates. With regard to the number of advertisements, he thought one would very likely be sufficient, and he would therefore propose to substitute for "two newspapers," the words "some newspaper," and also to meet another objection which had been made—to add the words, "published or circulating within the place or county."

said, the object of the clause was to give publicity to the delinquents who made claims on the candidates; but by this clause the claims which were allowed were to be published, but not those which were disallowed. Such an oversight might have been excused in the hon. Member for Manchester, but his hon. and learned Friend ought to have known better. Although intending to take the sense of the Committee on the whole clause, he would still move an Amendment by inserting the words, "or disallowed," and, "if disallowed, by whom claimed."

said, the word "account" in this and in the two preceding clauses would include the publication of the charges disallowed. Still, if this interpretation was objected to by his hon. and learned Friend, he would not oppose the introduction of words to the effect he desired.

said, he totally differed from this interpretation of the three clauses. The words in the clause were, "admitted to be correct;" and was it possible that that would include the claims which had been disallowed?

said, he must advise the Committee to view the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven with suspicion. The question whether the accounts to be published should include Bills, both paid and unpaid, was discussed in the Committee, and it was understood that the object was to give an honest account of the expenses of the election, and not what persons might have attempted to cajole out of the candidate. It was the actual expenditure of each candidate, and that being done, all the check that was desired was obtained. No good would be derived by putting into the papers a string of bills which never could have been paid, and were merely fabulous and dishonest. The clause as it stood was, he thought, sufficient.

said, the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk and the hon. Member for Manchester were entirely at issue upon the meaning of the clause. He (Sir J. Walsh) thought there was a great object to be attained by the words proposed—namely, the stoppage of those fraudulent claims so frequently made for the purposes of intimidation at elections.

supported the Amendment. Though great good, however, might be attained by publication, a great evil would be created also. The principal objects of the Bill would, in his opinion, be attained by making the accounts accessible for three months after the election; after that they should be closed, and with them the chance of vexatious litigation, He should wish to move the substitution of the words "three months" instead of "one year."

said, he thought the Amendment would create the evil it was intended to meet. The candidate would lie under the imputation of not paying the claims against him in the mind of the public. He was of opinion that the publication of the claims allowed would be sufficient, without the publication of those which had been rejected.

said, he could not accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He should, therefore, persevere in his Amendment.

said, he thought the reasons adduced were conclusive against the retention of the clause in the Bill. Every object of publicity was attained by the 28th clause; and nothing but scandal could arise from the clause in question.

said, it struck him that the clause was open to great doubt. With reference to the scandal of publishing disallowed claims, he would remind the Committee that by the 28th clause any elector might go to the election officer, and obtain a copy of all the claims allowed and disallowed, and publish them if he chose to take on himself the responsibility. He thought the publication of the accounts by the election officer was one of the most important features of the Bill. He did not, however, see the necessity of publishing disallowed claims; but if the Committee thought this ought to be done, he had no objection to the proposition.

said, the object of the clause was to invoke public opinion to shame persons from making improper claims. He had no doubt the clause would be beneficial, and he trusted that hon. Gentlemen would not be so carried away by ridicule as to throw out one of the most valuable portions of the Bill.

said, he did not see the necessity of the Amendment, as any elector could get a copy of the claims on application. He rose, however, to call attention to the fact that it was not stated in the clause who was to pay the expenses of publication. As the object was to reduce election expenses, he thought it would be better to pay them out of the borough or county rates, and he should move the insertion of words to that effect.

thought it would be advisable to have all claims published. He objected to compulsory publication in newspapers, as the charge for such advertisements would be excessive. The publication by printed placards, which would be inexpensive, might answer all the purpose.

said, be had reconsidered the Amendment, and having had the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk, would state the exact words he wished to have inserted in the clause. He proposed that the words, "all claims and objected to," be inserted, and at the end the words, "or by whom the same have been claimed respectively."

said, it certainly was an omission that no provision was made for paying the expense of publishing the accounts. He objected to the proposition of paying the expenses out of the rates, as such payment involved an important principle. If the payment was to be so made, it ought to form the subject of a separate clause, or even a separate Bill, and not be introduced at the end of a clause. He considered that the matter might be made clear, as far as the payment by the candidate was concerned, by few additional words.

said, he was at a loss to understand the principle of putting the expenses on the borough or county rate.

said, he believed from his experience of newspaper proprietors there would be great competition to get hold of these accounts and to publish them. They would prove an interesting item of intelligence, and he should be quite content to have no provision with regard to payment for publication. It would be greatly advantageous to the public as well as to the candidates that publication should take place; the public would be great gainers by the publication; and he was quite satisfied to allow the question of publicity to settle itself.

said, he agreed in thinking the newspapers would compete for the publication, but that argument was conclusive against the clause, as a preceding clause provided for one authentic copy being exhibited, from which the newspapers would make publication.

said, it was quite clear the Committee would be guilty of a great constitutional mistake if it cast any burden on the particular body or district which returned Members. The constitutional law was that they were Members, not for the benefit of this or that place, but for the benefit of the nation. If the expense was to be borne by the public, it must come out of the public purse, for whose benefit they sat there, if they sat there for the benefit of anybody, which people out of doors doubted. To throw any expense on a particular place would be recognising that the Member for that place was bound to look exclusively to their interests.

said, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that this was one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill, and he hoped that the Committee would adopt it. It was possible that there might be a competition amongst newspapers for the publication of the accounts; but would any one say that there should not be an authorised publication, or they might not have the accounts correctly given. if the publication was left entirely to the newspapers, one party would publish one statement, and the other party another. For those considerations, he believed the clause would be of great benefit, and he should support it.

said, the Committee must understand that the printing of these accounts would be attended with very heavy expense. He knew from his experience in revising the list of voters of a division of Yorkshire, in which there were thirty-nine polling places, and he had no doubt every county Member knew so too, that there were an immense number of charges for lists that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred were never looked at, and he believed that the expenditure would be a pure waste of money.

said, he must complain that no precaution seemed to be taken as to the character of the person who was to be appointed as election officer. There was no restriction whatever. Any person in the country, let his character be what it might, was eligible for appointment. Now, supposing a person holding this situation absconded with whatever money or documents happened to be in his possession, what means were there of recovering such property?

said, that if the election officer committed such an offence, be would incur the ordinary penalties of misdemeanor, and might be proceeded against. He would remind the Committee, however, that, as originally framed, this measure proposed to appoint a barrister to this office. If the Committee had agreed to that proposal, they would have had in the character and position of such a person an ample security that he was a fit and proper person to be intrusted with the duties of the office. But he found that as soon as a proposal was made that the appointment should he conferred on a barrister, it was met by almost universal disapprobation.

must say that he did not see much use in indicting a man who had gone to America, or who was not forthcoming. But another difficulty presented itself to him. A man appointed as election officer, and to whom documents and money were handed over, might die; it might be very necessary that those documents, and that that money should be in the possession of the candidate in a short time, and yet it might be competent for the heirs of this man to retain possession.

suggested there should be a power of appeal against the nomination of an improper person.

said, he thought that security should be given that the person who was appointed should not be a person who was capable of absconding, and thereby preventing an investigation into the practices that had taken place.

said, the clause required the candidate to give to the election officer in writing the names of his agents. He wished, however, some definition of the word "agent" to be given. Did it include every one who in any way assisted the candidate? It was also stated that current expenses might be paid "by the authority of the election officer;" but the election officer could not be present at all times when payment of money might be necessary. Then, how was his authority to be obtained?

said, it was proposed to omit the words "by the authority of the election officer." As to the agents who were appointed, the candidate would give in their names to the election officer at the time the appointment took place, and he did not see that it would be necessary to define them more particularly.

said, he was afraid that the difficulties stated by the noble Lord the Member for Totness had not been met. If they asked a candidate to name his agents in writing, the candidate was surely entitled to know exactly what was meant by the term. What was the definition of the word "agent?" Did it include persons who might be employed for general purposes, or merely those who were intrusted with the payment of money?

said, the word "agent" as employed in the Bill, meant an agent for the payment of money, and not a person who might be employed for general purposes. It meant one who would manage and direct the expenses of the election.

said, he thought that if the term "agent" meant only one who paid money, it should be so stated in the Bill. As it now stood, it might include every person who did any thing whatever for a candidate. How, in such a case, was the noble Lord to state the names of all his agents in the City of London? It would be impossible to do so.

said, that it was rather hard to ask the Committee to pass a clause directing a candidate to make a declaration, when they did not know what he was to declare. He thought that they should have some more precise definition of the word "agent" than was contained in the clause. He did not see how this clause could be carried out in the case—not a very unfrequent one—in which a person was nominated without his knowledge. He would then be a "candidate," and as such would, by this clause, be compelled to inform the election officer of the name of his agent, although in fact he had none, and knew nothing about the matter.

said, he would suggest that the words "if any" should be inserted after the word "agent." He did this in order to meet the case of a candidate not having an agent.

said, that some provision should be made in this clause to meet the case, in which, in the absence of a candidate, or of his being put up without his consent, some party might be made responsible; he would suggest that such a responsibility be borne by the proposer and seconder of a candidate?

said, he thought that some provision should be inserted to enable some one, in the absence of a candidate, to do what he might and ought to do if present, otherwise the current expenses could not be paid.

said, he also thought that some provision was requisite to meet the case of a candidate nominated without his knowledge. It would, however, be impossible to insert words with that object in the present clause. He would undertake to frame a clause which, if assented to, might be inserted on bringing up the report.

said, he wished to move the following Amendment—

said, he must oppose the Amendment, the effect of which would be to make the law less instead of more stringent than it was at pre- sent, and to introduce an innovation into the law and practice of Parliament. It had hitherto been held that a candidate was responsible in a Parliamentary, although not in a criminal, sense, for the acts of his agent; and if that law were altered a wide door would be opened to bribery and corruption. He was convinced that the law with regard to questions of fact as to the existence of agency was at present well administered by Parliamentary Committees. A candidate who wished to commit bribery would never name an agent for that purpose, and the great check upon bribery now was, that the commission of that offence by a person between whom and the candidate a Committee believed the relation of agency to have been established, was sufficient to unseat a Member. If direct authority from the Member was required to be shown before he could be unseated for the acts of an agent, there was scarcely an instance in which the law might not be evaded. He did not believe that, under the present law, many hon. Members unduly lost their seats; on the contrary, where the hon. Member lost, a great many retained their seats unduly, as, notwithstanding bribery might be clearly made out, it was always very difficult to prove agency.

said, before the House passed the Bill now before it, he thought that they were bound to attempt to apply some remedy to the very anomalous state of the law upon this subject of agency. At present the case of agency rested solely upon the caprice of Election Committees. He did not wish to make any invidious remarks, but he could quote cases in which the most unaccountable decisions had been come to in respect to agency. He knew, for instance, of one case, where a gentleman was unseated solely upon the ground that a man was seen in the same room with him who had been proved to have paid money as a bribe. There was not a tittle of other evidence against the candidate. Now that, he (Mr. Bentinck) submitted, was an anomalous and absurd state for the question to be left in. Under such circumstances, he thought that the Committee were bound, as a matter of justice, to meet the difficulty suggested by the provision of his noble Friend. If the Committee were not prepared to adopt the Amendment of his noble Friend, he hoped that some other clause would be proposed to deal with the difficulty.

said, he doubted whether the hon. and learned Attorney General was right in opposing this clause. The proviso proposed by his noble Friend (Lord A. Vane Tempest) did not say that the party guilty of the illegal act shall not be called upon to answer for his offence, but that before the candidate shall be made responsible for this act of the alleged agent, it must be proved that he had given authority for the act, or that he had sanctioned it after it had been done. He (Mr. Walpole) did not think that the proposed Amendment. was the introduction of any new law, but the revival of an old law which had been permitted to fall into a state of ambiguity.

said, he thought that the Amendment would open the door for much fraud; and candidates would indirectly obtain all the advantages of bribery and corruption, without incurring the responsibility.

also opposed the clause, but expressed a wish that some words could be introduced into the Act of Parliament which would more clearly define the meaning of agency.

said, he should support the Amendment, on the ground that the seat of a successful candidate ought not to be avoided by the act of a person who might be a complete stranger to him, or, perhaps, even an enemy in disguise.

said, he must oppose the Amendment, since there would be great difficulty in proving bribery, if it were to depend upon the admission that direct orders to bribe had been given to the agent or attorney by the candidate.

said, he had given notice to move the insertion of a clause limiting the Bill to two years instead of five, but if he received an assurance from the Government that a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the whole matter, he would not press his Motion. What he complained of was the large amount expended in the collection of the poor rate.

said, that so far from there being a large amount expended, he had found that in those unions where the number relieved in a year was under 1,000, and in which there was the largest proportionate expense, the whole charge for officers of every kind, including clerks and collectors, did not exceed five farthings in the pound.

said, this was a question of centralisation, and he appealed to the House whether it was fair to deprive them of all opportunity of discussion; he should move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he thought there was no necessity for that course, this Bill having been amply discussed in Committee. The attention of the Government would be directed to this subject during the recess, and after the recess they would be ready to assent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the powers of the Poor Law Commission. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) seemed, however, to desire an investigation into the whole operation of the Poor Law in Ireland; but such an inquiry, which had already taken place to a considerable extent, the Government were certainly not prepared to grant. He (Sir J. Young) believed that the vast majority of the people of Ireland were satisfied with the general principle and operation of the Poor Law.

said, that during the last six or seven years numerous petitions had been presented to Parliament, complaining of the working of the Irish Poor Law, and especially of what were called the establishment charges.