asked the Under Secretary at War whether any steps, and, if any, what steps, had been taken by the War Department to improve the armament of the cavalry, artillery, or other troops, by providing them with a breech-loading arm?

said, that several kinds of breech-loading weapons were under the consideration of the Ordnance, but that some time must necessarily elapse before the officers intrusted with the examination of them could recommend that any improvement should be adopted.

asked the Under Secretary for War whether there was any objection to lay upon the table copies of any letters or despatches that had passed between Lord Raglan and the Minister for War relative to the wants of the army in the Crimea?

objected to the production of portions of correspondence between Lord Raglan and the Minister at War relative to the wants of the army in the East. It ought to be left to the Government to determine at what period the correspondence should be produced; and be- sides, the appointment of the Committee would obviate the necessity of its production.

Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman objects to produce the correspondence?

said, he begged to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the salaries of the chaplains attending the army in the East were fixed during the past year by a War Office regulation at 10s. for the Church of England, 7s. 6d. for the Presbyterian, and 5s. for the Roman Catholic, for the performance of their respective duties; and if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to make any alteration with a view of placing the clergy of each denomination on a footing of equality while engaged in this arduous service?

said, that certain regulations were made prior to the chaplains being sent out to the East. The Presbyterian and Church of England clergymen were paid at the rate of 16s. per day, with rations and allowances. Some of the clergy of the Church received 100l., in addition to 100l. paid by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. The Roman Catholic clergymen were paid at the rate of 150l., in addition to the rations and allowances given to the other clergymen. The difference in amount arose in consequence of the different scale of living to which the various clergymen had been accustomed.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War whether those sergeants of regiments of militia who are now pensioners from the army, and who have volunteered for foreign service, will be allowed to count that service towards increase of pension?

said, the staff sergeants who were serving with the militia would receive, in addition to their pay, 1s. 6d. per day. Those who had volunteered for service in the East had been given a bounty of 3l., of which 2l. had been paid down, and 1l. expended in necessaries. Those who continued in the militia for twenty years would receive a pension in the militia in addition to that for their service in the army; but their services in the Mediterranean would not be allowed to count in addition to their service in the army.

said, they had no chance of living to that time, for they were old men at the present time.

said, he would beg to inquire of the hon. Under Secretary of State for War, whether any arrangement has been made to send either to Scutari or to the camp in the Crimea those surgeons of militia regiments who have volunteered their services in accordance with a circular addressed to them from the War Office; or, whether any arrangements have been made to send out the civil practitioners who have offered their services?

said, that a circular had been sent from the War Office to the surgeons of militia regiments, requesting to know whether they were willing to proceed to the East. That circular had not been out more than eight or ten days, and he was informed that no offers had been as yet made in answer to those circulars. With regard to the sending out of civil practitioners to the East, the head of the medical department had been authorised to procure the services of ten practitioners to serve in the army and the hospitals, and an establishment with twenty surgeons was in course of erection at Smyrna.

said, he wished to ask whether the Government had made any inquiry into the salubrity of Smyrna, which he believed to be the most unhealthy part of the Levant?

said, in reply, that Smyrna had been represented as an unsuitable place for the establishment of a hospital; but, before its establishment, commissioners had been sent out, who reported it as favourable, and the salubrity would depend upon the interior management and arrangement of the hospital itself.

Sir, I trust the noble Lord at the head of the Government will excuse me for putting a question without notice. There is a rumour that Her Majesty's Government have received intelligence of the death of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia. I wish to ask if such intelligence has reached the Government.

Sir, two telegraphic despatches have been received—one from Berlin and the other from the Hague—stating that the Emperor of Russia died in the course of this forenoon.

said, he wished to ask whether any successor had been appointed to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. F. Peel), who recently held the office of Under Secretary for the Colonies—whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill with respect to the Australian constitution—and whether the Government had received any intelligence of serious disturbances having occurred in the colony of Victoria, as stated in the third edition of the morning newspapers?

said, that no Under Secretary for the Colonies had yet been appointed. The right hon. Gentleman was probably aware that no successor could be appointed at present, as only two Under Secretaries could sit in the House of Commons. Notice had been given of the introduction of a Bill to allow a third to sit in that House, and if the Bill should receive the sanction of Parliament, the appointment would at once take place. In reply to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, he had to state that the Government had at present no intention of proposing any measure with reference to the Bill for creating a constitution for the Australian Colonies. The attention of his noble Friend the Member for the City of London would, however, be directed to the subject. The delay in this matter had been unavoidable, and the Government had not yet received the definite decision as to the views of the different Legislatures of Australia. With reference to the third question, all he could say was, that no official information had been received with respect to any disturbances in Victoria.

having moved that the House at its rising should adjourn until Monday next,

said, he would take that opportunity to call the attention of the House to the position in which Irish busi- ness stood, and the very great injustice which had been done, both to Ireland and her representatives, by the mode in which that business had been neglected. He had no wish to raise any imaginary feeling of injustice done towards Ireland, but he certainly considered that every effort at legislation for that country by independent Members had been most unfairly dealt with by the Government. He had before him a vast number of Bills which had been introduced at different times for the amelioration of the social and commercial condition of Ireland. The first was the Jurors Bill, brought in last Session by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside). The Government at the end of the Session stopped that measure, and said they would prepare a Bill of their own on the subject. They did so, and he found that no less than three-fourths of the provisions of the Government Bill were actually taken from the measure introduced by his hon. and learned Friend. Well, that Bill had been laid on the table, and from week to week up to the present time he had waited to see it proceeded with, but he had waited in vain. Another subject of deep interest to the people of Ireland was the fisheries. Bills on that subject had been brought in during the years 1823, 1824, and 1825, and yet nothing had been done, nor did he know what were the intentions of the Government upon that highly important subject. Then came the Landlord and Tenant Bills; how had the Government acted with respect to them? Two Bills were introduced on the subject last Session, but neither of them was adopted. Those two Bills had this Session been embodied in one measure by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Shee). The first part of that Bill had been adopted, but the second part had been rejected. Considering the manner in which these several measures had been treated by the House and by the Government, he said—and said advisedly—that it was hopeless for the people of that country to look to Parliament for justice; he therefore appealed to all the Irish Members to rally together and insist by their combined efforts that measures which had been so carefully prepared and so long desired by the people of Ireland should become law.

said, he was not at all surprised at the appeal which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the hon. Members below the gangway, in order to enlist them under his banner. It was, however, for them to consider how they would answer that appeal. But he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not dealt fairly by the sense in stating that Ireland was treated less well in their deliberations than any other part of the United Kingdom, and that Irish measures were neglected by the House. He thought he could honestly appeal to hon. Members as to whether the portion of time which was taken up during the last Session by Irish Members upon Irish subjects was, at least, as great as could be reasonably assigned to that part of the United Kingdom. He did not grudge it, but, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would refresh his memory and look back to history, he would find that his complaint was neither just nor well founded. He was sure the House of Commons duly appreciated the importance of Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom; and more especially, in consequence of the circumstance of the present time, he was assured, if the attention of the House were called to any legislative improvement that could be made in the condition of that country, that there was not a Member in it disposed to treat the matter lightly, or to refuse giving due attention to whatever might be brought under the notice of Parliament to promote the interest of Ireland. With regard to the Bills to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, he had, in the first place, made it a grievous complaint that all Irish Bills had been postponed. Now, on that point, he would appeal to the candour of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and ask him whether that postponement might not fairly be attributed to the circumstances under which the Gentlemen who had been sitting on the Ministerial benches for the last month had been placed, when all the legislative functions of the House had been in a state of abeyance? It was impossible that measures of any importance could be submitted to Parliament for discussion unless the Members of the Government who were more immediately responsible for such matters were present to discuss them. He was therefore sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not consider it at all unreasonable that such measures should be postponed until they had a Secretary for Ireland and the law officers for Ireland in the House ready to discuss them. With regard to the Jury Bill, the great complaint on the part of those who originally brought in that Bill was, that the Government had pirated three-fourths of the measure and embodied it in their own Bill. Now, he thought if he had proposed a measure that had not been successful, and any other Gentleman had subsequently introduced a Bill on the same subject and had taken three-fourths of his own, he should rather be disposed to thank him for what he had done than to blame him. It would be an acknowledgment of the good judgment he had evinced in framing his Bill. Then, with regard to the Fisheries Bills, they were not brought in by the present Government, but by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not think the mere fact that such Bills had been postponed was a just ground of complaint by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or evinced a disposition on the part of the House to treat the interests of Ireland lightly or with indifference; on the contrary, it was rather a proof that they were disposed to give a liberal consideration to every measure connected with that country, without, in the first instance, prejudging its merits. Now, with regard to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, the great complaint, as he understood, was, that the provisions of that Bill were most dexterously interwoven with those of two other Bills, one of which was and the other was not likely to pass the House, and therefore that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sergeant Shee), either in connivance with the Government, or actuated by some evil disposition with regard to Ireland, endeavoured to obstruct his own measure by tying to it two Bills, one of which was sure to cause the failure of the other. This, however, was a matter with which the Government had nothing to do. It would be far better for the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and the hon. and learned Serjeant the Member for Kilkenny, to settle it between themselves, and afterwards the right hon. and learned Gentleman could come before the House and state his complaint. The Government were not responsible for any interruption of public business which had arisen from causes beyond its control, and he thought he was quite justified in asking for the forbearance of Irish Members to allow this measure to stand over until the Irish Government was properly represented in that House.

said, he had listened with close attention to the noble Lord, but had failed to discover the slightest argument in favour of the course adopted. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin never charged the House of Commons with not having attended to Irish business, for he believed there never was a body more favourably inclined to consider questions affecting the interests of Ireland. What he complained of was, that every Irish Member was kept in a state of doubt, uncertainty, and inextricable confusion with respect to what was to take place, or what the Government intended to do for Ireland. Irish Members were sometimes accused of drawing upon their imaginations, but he thought the noble Lord had drawn upon his imagination when he stated that last Session the House had been day after day occupied with the consideration of Irish measures or the discussion of Irish questions. What measures—what questions, he would ask? He knew of none which had so engrossed the attention of the House. At present, through the operation of the Incumbered Estates Court, an enormous quantity of land was daily changing hands in Ireland, but the Landlord and Tenant Bill had a retrospective clause, the effect of which would be that persons buying such estates would be liable to burdens which they did not at present contemplate; and, therefore, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend was quite justified in calling upon the Government for explanations, which, however, he was sorry he had not been able to obtain. As to his right hon. and learned Friend applying for assistance below the gangway, he thought hon. Members who occupied that position were likely to find the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) much more squeezable than Lord Derby, for when the fate of Lord Derby's Ministry depended on supporting the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny's Bill, he said he would not do so, and the fate of his Ministry was decided by that answer. It was of the last consequence to know what the Government intended to do, but, perhaps, his right hon. and learned Friend was too pressing in asking the noble Lord to explain his intentions when he, perhaps, had not yet formed them.

said, he would, in a few words, explain the course which he had thought it right to pursue, and he must be allowed to say that he thought the noble Lord had acted very wisely in giving no answer to the hostile question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier). He certainly was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland under Lord Derby's Government should get up in the presence of his right hon. and learned Friend and blame him (Mr. Serjeant Shee) and the Government for having sanctioned the Tenants' Compensation Bill containing retrospective clauses. The Government of Lord Derby was composed of some of the most eminent lawyers who had ever held office in this or any other country—Mr. Blackburne, Lord St. Leonards, and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin; when it was probable they could keep their places by so doing—and after they had even permitted their Attorney General to charge those who supported the Landlord and Tenant Bill, containing retrospective clauses, with confiscation—they themselves brought in Bills containing retrospective clauses. [An hon. Member: No, no!] Did the hon. Member deny it? He would read a passage from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, in proof of his assertion. That right hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny it. [Mr. NAPIER was understood to say that he did not.] That admission was enough, and would save him the trouble of reading the extract which he held in his hand. Nothing could be more distinct than the recognition of retrospective compensation by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What happened afterwards in respect of these Bills? They were referred to a Select Committee, and discussed for two or three months, and the result was that the Government of Lord Aberdeen proposed a modification of the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, providing that compensation should be limited to those improvements which were visible on the surface of the soil, and also that every tenant who made improvements should be entitled on eviction to compensation by money payment. The Bills went to the House of Lords in that shape. A correspondence then took place between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and Lord Donoughmore, and the result was, that the House of Lords passed all the Bills sent up except one, and then the right hon. and learned Gentleman endeavoured to persuade the House of Commons to pass the other Bills without it. When the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) was appealed to on the subject, he said, I intended to pass Bills which should be good for the landlord and good for the tenant; but if they send down that which is good for the landlord, and refuse to pass that which is good for the tenant, I will have nothing to do with them. What had been done during the present Session? Last Session he had proposed a Bill, founded upon one which had been frequently introduced by Mr. Sharman Crawford. That Bill was lost, and in order that he might not in future be called unreasonable, he gave notice on the last day of the Session that he should propose the adoption of the very Bills which the country had approved of. He took the Compensation Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill, and put them together. He would not allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin to get only one Bill passed, and that the Landlord Bill, without taking any notice of the Tenant Bill. To avoid this, he had put the two Bills together, but he had taken care that the Tenant Bill should go first, and the Landlord Bill next, on the same principle by which children were told that, if they would take their rhubarb, they should have a lump of sugar afterwards. The noble Lord at the head of the Government wanted a strong Government, but he would not have it until he had the liberal Irish party with him, and he would not have their support until he settled the Irish landed question. He hoped that the noble Lord would be able to make a unanimous and a strong Government which could settle this question at once and for ever.

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had faithfully followed the advice of the noble Lord, who had advised the Irish Members to fight out their quarrels among themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made, for some unknown reason, a violent attack upon the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, and had further attacked, or rather threatened, the noble Lord himself. He (Mr. French) did not see why the noble Lord should express surprise at the question which had been put to him, for Irish Members had always complained of the periods selected for the transaction of Irish business. Not only were Irish Bills brought forward at inconvenient times, but they were generally unintelligible. That arose from the fact that there was no person conversant with Irish law spe- cially employed to prepare these Bills. The Lord Advocate of Scotland was assisted by a Parliamentary draughtsman well acquainted with Scotch law, and the consequence of that arrangement was that Scotch Bills were usually well received by all parties. He certainly was of opinion that Irish Members might postpone their questions until the Government representatives of that country were present, but he would submit to the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether it would not be advantageous to give the Secretary for Ireland the assistance of some person well acquainted with Irish law in the preparation of Bills connected with that country.

said, that some hon. Gentlemen appeared to be seeking to make political capital out of this question. He thought it was not unreasonable that Irish Members should defer their questions till the Secretary for Ireland was in his place, but it was singular to find that the Government had placed on the orders of the day an Irish Bill—the Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Advances Bill—for second reading. That Bill should certainly stand over till the Secretary for Ireland was in the House; and, moreover, Members ought to be told when the business relating to Ireland would be taken.

said, that he rose to perform what was to him a disagreeable and a painful duty—namely, to propose to the House to make the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the condition of the army before Sebastopol a Secret Committee. In submitting this Motion to the House, he wished to make a few observations, not because he had any doubt as to the wisdom of the course which he was now recommending, but because it was one which might be open to misapprehension and misconception out of doors. As there might be some misapprehension and misconception as to what was intended, he would explain what was really meant by making the Committee a Secret Committee. According to a celebrated formulary, these were the courses which they could adopt:—They might either make it an open Committee—admitting the public as well as Members of the House—or they might exclude the public but not Members; or they might appeal to the House to make the Committee a secret one. The Members of the Committee had come to the conclusion that secrecy was requisite, but as to the mode of obtaining that object there had been some difference of opinion. The majority of the Committee considered that secrecy would be best obtained by doing it effectually, that is by shutting out, not only the public, but Members of the House. Two members of the Committee thought that the better course would be to shut out the public and to appeal to Members of the House, saying that they thought secrecy requisite, and that they hoped no hon. Members would break in upon that secrecy. The majority, on the other hand, thought that that would not be the wisest course, and he (Mr. Roebuck) had been requested to appeal to the House to make the Committee a secret one. It must be understood, in so doing, that the Committee had no intention of putting an end to all publicity. When the investigation was concluded, and when the Committee had considered the evidence, it would make a selection of such portions of the evidence as could be printed without detriment to the public service. In making this appeal to the House, the members of the Committee, and he (Mr. Roebuck) amongst the number, felt that they were appealing to the House to show confidence in their discretion. The House had submitted to them a very difficult and delicate subject of inquiry, and they wished to make the investigation not only a complete investigation, but, at the same time, to make it useful and safe for the country at large. They felt that they could not make that investigation a safe and searching one if they had not the power of keeping secret that of which they might be informed from day to day. They felt if they allowed the public to come in, every particle of the evidence given before them might be published in the newspapers as soon as it was propounded. Accusations against individuals would go forth, and answers might be given some time hence, but the individuals would necessarily remain subject to those accusations until the answers could be given. He (Mr. Roebuck) had himself considered that this was an inconvenience to which individuals must submit if the public interest required the sacrifice, but there was a still graver question behind, and really, in giving to the House their reasons for the request which the Committee now made, he felt this difficulty— that the very reasons which suggested to them the propriety of the course which they were now recommending almost precluded him from stating to the House what those reasons were. He would only shadow them forth. We were at present allied to a great Power, which was giving us assistance from day to day in prosecuting the war in which we were engaged. Now, to maintain that alliance complete, and to maintain a perfectly good understanding between the two nations, was, he was convinced, the wish of every man in that House; but to do this, and, at the same time, to give every man who came before the Committee perfect liberty to defend himself as he best might, they found to be impossible. This difficulty had pressed upon them, and in meeting it they had only to throw themselves on the consideration of the House. They asked the House to have confidence in them—to have confidence in their discretion and honesty of purpose to make this a searching inquiry, and to blink no question really submitted to them, but, at the same time, to protect the public interest. In so doing, they had thought it their duty to come to the House, and he appealed, as the humble spokesman of that Committee, who now threw themselves on the consideration of the House. He said to them, "You have delegated to us a difficult and important task; you have had such confidence in our discretion as to submit to us this very difficult inquiry; have further confidence in us; depend upon us that we intend to make the inquiry complete, and depend upon us to take the wisest course for that means." He felt himself unable really to express all that he felt upon this occasion—the difficulty of the task was so great, and the rocks around him beset his path on every side. He was not one whit inclined to question the wisdom of the House in appointing the Committee. The good that they had done was already manifested; the good that they might hereafter do would, he was sure, fully compensate for all the difficulties which they might encounter; and, if the House would concede to them the secrecy which they asked, he was sure that they should be enabled to fulfil the desire of the House, to make the inquiry searching and complete, and to propound a reform—for reform was wanting—which should result to the advantage of the whole community. They should be enabled to do that, if the House, having confidence in their pru- dence, would grant them the secrecy which they asked.

said, he wished to state, in a very few words, why he dissented from the present application to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Chairman of the Committee, had not, he thought, quite rightly represented the feelings of the Committee upstairs—at least, he had not quite rightly represented his (Lord Seymour's) feelings. Hon. Members might imagine, when they saw the Committee coming back immediately to the House and asking for the power of secrecy, that upon going into the Committee they had suddenly discovered some State secret of so dangerous a character, so perilous in its nature, and so alarming, that they were overwhelmed with horror at what they had discovered, and had run back therefore to the House to beg that they might be allowed to bury it in eternal silence. But, to tell the House the truth, they had nothing to conceal, for as yet they had discovered nothing. They had not seen a single witness or heard a single statement on the subject; and the House, therefore, was in exactly the same condition in which it was when the Committee was moved for. If it were now necessary to have the Committee secret, it was then equally necessary; but they were told at that time that it was the public who wanted this full inquiry, and that the whole subject was to be brought before the public. But now it seemed the inquiry was to be secret. There might, as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had stated, be three sorts of Committees—one open to the public as well as to Members—and he should have been glad to have adopted that course in the present case, for he thought that it was upon most occasions the preferable course. In this instance, however, it might be impossible to do that, because in the first place the room would be so overcrowded with the curious and the interested that the Committee would be impeded in their inquiry. Obviously, also, there would be reports spread about by persons over whom they had no control, which would be both unfair to individuals and inconvenient to the public service. Another course was to make it a completely Secret Committee. If that were done, questions would be asked and answers given under that plea, which would not be asked and answered if the Committee were a public one. But then it was said, that having got that information, the Committee would strike it out. Was the House aware how that was to be done? The only way in which it could be done was, by the unanimity of the Committee. Then, if a Member moved that certain words—reading them all—stand part of the evidence, a division would ensue, and they would appear upon record as part of the proceedings of the Committee, with the additional fact of a division upon them to draw attention to them. For this reason a Secret Committee must withhold its proceedings from the House. In this case such a course would not be satisfactory. Undoubtedly, the inquiry was a difficult one; but having entered into it they must proceed with it, and he thought that the best way to do so would be to take the third course—which was the ordinary one—to trust to the discretion of the Committee. He had served on many Committees when the public had been excluded and Members admitted, and he was bound to say not only that the Members had not published what had been stated in Committee, but that he had often received very great service from their presence. Were the advantages of an open inquiry to be given up for the sake of secrecy, when, in point of fact, there would be no secrecy, for in this case the evidence and the proceedings of the Committee must be laid on the table of the House? The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) had shadowed out darkly the motives for preserving secrecy, and the shadows were so strong that he would not throw any further light upon them to deepen their shades. As regarded the public, the question resolved itself into two phases—was the public interest in the proceedings of the Committee to be sacrificed? or, if charges were made against any individual, should they be published throughout the country before any answer could be made to them? That difficulty he did not believe would be diminished, but, on the contrary, rather increased by the attempt at secrecy, and, in his opinion, that attempt would give rise to discussions out of doors, and while creating a vast amount of suspicion, would answer no good purpose whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that all the Committee were of opinion that secrecy was requisite. Now, he did not understand that such was the case. No doubt there might be certain questions which it would be necessary to consider the propriety of putting, and answers might be made which ought not to be made, and, if such answers were made, it would of course become the duty of the Committee to consider how to dispose of them. That such should be the case resulted from the nature of the inquiry, and was evident before the Committee was voted. It was said that if Members of that House were admitted into the room they would betray the proceedings of the Committee; that he did not believe, for if it were likely that Members of that House would betray what was going on, was it not equally probable that Members of the Committee would do the same? It was only natural to ask, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Let the House fairly consider the case. Was there any reason to suppose that, if the Committee considered it inexpedient that their proceedings should be published in the daily press, by shutting out the Members of that House they would quite exclude the influence of the press? He did not think that it would be so, and the exclusion of Members of the House would not prevent circumstances from oozing out; and if circumstances did ooze out, although it might have occurred through the instrumentality of a witness, who, considering his evidence of importance, might give it to the newspapers, still each Member of the Committee would feel a sort of stigma upon him, and would feel humiliated that the proceedings of a Committee which had been enjoined to secrecy should obtain publicity. In his opinion, the best course to adopt would not be to attempt the introduction of secrecy. He had looked back to authorities for Secret Committees, and had found that very few had proved satisfactory. Committees upon banking or upon commercial matters were of a different nature, because there was not the same public anxiety for immediate information as existed in this case. He would only add that if the House should decide upon this being a Secret Committee the responsibility would rest with them, for, for his part, he did not think that any benefit or advantage would arise from adopting that course. It would lead to questions being put which would not otherwise be put, and in that respect would be injurious. If, however, the House of Commons should think otherwise, he could only state that he was prepared to do his best to carry on a searching inquiry, and his energy should be devoted to the task as completely, if the Committee were a Secret, as if it were only a Select Committee.

said, he wished to express to the House the feeling he entertained upon this subject. Several Members of that House had, like himself, when the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward his Motion, opposed that Motion, not more upon grounds founded upon their opinions with regard to it than because they foresaw the difficulties which would inevitably arise if the House of Commons acceded to the appointment of the Committee. To many hon. Members it was obvious that such a Committee could not proceed one step without encountering great difficulties, and the result had proved that, on the very first day after the House had granted that Committee, it had become involved in difficulty. The noble Lord (Lord Seymour) had pointed out some of those difficulties, but he had not stated the case as he (Mr. W. Patten) considered that it ought to be submitted to the House, and he had made a mistake as to what would be the nature of the inquiry. He (Mr. W. Patten) had had the honour of serving on a Secret Committee some years back, and he thought that it was very necessary that every Member should know how the proceedings of a Secret Committee were conducted. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that if the House granted a Secret Committee it ought to place the highest confidence in the judgment and discretion of the members of that Committee; no other course could be pursued: but in the present instance there was at once this dilemma, from which it was impossible to escape, that motives of public policy might require one course of conduct to be adopted, while absolute justice to individuals might require a completely contrary course. He would take as an example one particular case—that of the Duke of Newcastle—and he would take that case because the vote of that House had peculiar reference to that noble Duke. Whatever might be the feeling in that House with regard to the vote at which it had arrived on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, the feeling out of doors undoubtedly was that that vote was a direct censure upon the Duke of Newcastle. ["No, no!"] Why, several hon. Members, in the course of that debate, had absolutely avowed that they looked upon the Motion as a vote of cen- sure on the Government. Well, then, he would assume that it was a vote of censure on the Government; but it was the Duke of Newcastle who had the conduct of that branch of the public service which was chiefly under discussion, and must therefore be considered to occupy a prominent position as regarded that vote of censure. The noble Duke had accepted that vote as a vote of censure, and had in consequence resigned the office which he held, and in so doing he acted in accordance with what was the general opinion of the public. Well, the House had appointed a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Government in supplying the army in the Crimea, and the conduct of the Duke of Newcastle, even in an inquiry into the subject of transports, must necessarily be more or less implicated. Questions might be put to him implying charges from which he might think it to be his duty to defend himself by any statement which it might be in his power to make, but then the Committee, if it were secret, would have to decide whether they would report to the House or suppress the statements which the noble Duke might consider it necessary to make in his defence. He did not wish to say one word against any member of that Committee. It appeared to him to be composed of gentlemen of high talent and experience, but he held in his hand a list of the members of that Committee who sat on the first day, and he found that of the nine who had supported this application for secrecy five had voted in favour of the Motion for censuring the Government; and when it came to be a question as to whether the answers of any persons implicated should be published, that question might be decided by those members, and would, as such might be the case, the Report of the Committee be received with perfect confidence by the House and by the country? That was a difficulty which ought to have been foreseen, and he might say that he had never heard a debate in which the arguments were so entirely on one side as in the debate upon the Motion for the appointment of this Committee. There was a course which the House might have taken, and which generally was taken when difficulties like those now apprehended were involved in an inquiry. In such a case the House generally defined as minutely as it could what the objects of inquiry were, so as to keep the Committee strictly within bounds. Now, if the object of this investigation was really to ascertain how the transport service and the supply of necessities to the army had been conducted, there would have been no great difficulty in defining it, with a view to avoid the great dangers which had been shadowed forth. That course, however, had not been pursued, and the House must now decide for itself upon the question submitted to it. His vote would depend upon the arguments which might be addressed to the House upon the subject, his object in rising having been simply to point out that the greatest injustice might be done to individual character, which might possibly be shipwrecked while the Committee was pursuing this inquiry.

I have the honour, Sir, of being a Member of this Committee, and, as I am a party to the application now made to the House, I wish to state shortly what are my views upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire has stated that this Committee is viewed as an attack upon the Duke of Newcastle.

No, no! Those words certainly did escape my lips, but I corrected myself, and said that the vote of inquiry was viewed by many Members as a direct censure upon the Government, of which the Duke of Newcastle was the most prominent Member as far as the conduct of the war was concerned.

I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has retracted his original statement. For my part, I disclaim now, as I have before disclaimed, any intention of attacking any individual. But the speech of the hon. Gentleman has not been one addressed to the question now before us, as to whether this shall be a Secret Committee, but, on the contrary, was a speech confined entirely to a discussion of the propriety of the vote come to by the House for the appointment of this Committee. The noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) tells us that the application of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield is not founded on any State secret that has come before the Committee, and with regard to which secrecy is desirable. Now, that statement seems to me quite superfluous. We have discovered nothing new, indeed, for the very simple reason that we have not yet commenced our inquiries; but the first step we had to take was to consider, as it is ordinarily called, the proceedings of the Committee; and when we began to consider what those proceedings were to be, we were all of us (including, I think, even the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman opposite) deeply conscious of the responsibility under which we laboured in the discharge of the duty confided to us. It was upon a full consideration of this responsibility that we came to a decision, which I think I may say was also unanimous, that the public ought to be excluded from our proceedings. So far we were quite unanimous. The question now before us seems to me to be whether the House of Commons does or does not adhere to the opinion expressed by so large a majority, that this inquiry ought to be a complete and a searching inquiry. The opinion of the majority of the Committee is that we could not do our duty to the public, that we could not make this inquiry a searching one, that we could not conduct the investigation in a manner which would enable us hereafter to make such a Report as the House and the country had a right to expect, if the public were admitted, or if, in fact, the Committee were not made a Secret Committee. The House has confided to us a most difficult and responsible duty. It is a duty which we are willing to undertake, but we are only willing to undertake it upon terms which will enable us to discharge it satisfactorily. There are two requisites to secure that object which we are bound to consider. The first is, that this inquiry, delicate and difficult from reasons which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has alluded to, should be conducted with due care, circumspection, and prudence; the second is, that it should be a complete and searching investigation. Now, I submit to the House, as the opinion of the large majority of the Committee, that we cannot comply with these two conditions unless this is a secret inquiry, and unless we prevent the insertion, from day to day in the public papers, of selected portions of our proceedings, together with those comments upon the evidence which would be the inevitable result of such publicity. Upon this point, I repeat, the Committee are unanimous. There, then, arises the question which has been stated by the noble Lord (Lord Seymour), whether we are to exclude from our deliberations both the public and Members of this House. Now, where were the noble Lord's arguments upon this point? He says, if I understood him rightly, that if this is to be a secret Committee in that sense, we shall be led into a line of examination in which we should not otherwise indulge. Whatever confidence, therefore, the House may feel disposed to place in the Members of the Committee, it is clear the noble Lord does not share that confidence. For my part, I can imagine no reason—and the noble Lord has certainly stated none—why, if this is to be a Secret Committee the line of examination should not be the same as that they would pursue under other circumstances. Then, again, the noble Lord has told us that, supposing the inquiry to be a secret one, we shall still be unable to prevent the public from becoming aware of our proceedings, because nothing can be expunged from those proceedings except upon motions to that effect, and after divisions thereupon, which motions and divisions would be duly recorded, so that in one way or another the objectionable matter, whatever it might be, would be eventually brought before the public. Now in this I believe him to be entirely mistaken, for the Committee, it seems tot me, would have absolute discretion as to what part of the evidence they would lay before the House, and absolute power to deal as they thought fit with such portions of that evidence as, with a due regard to, individuals or other delicate considerations, they might consider it desirable should not, be made public. So far, however, as my vote in the Committee has been given, and so far as it will be given in this House, I have not the least intention of suppressing the evidence that may be taken before the Committee. On the contrary, I think it desirable that the evidence should be published, and my chief reason for urging the House to place confidence in this Committee, and to enable us to conduct our inquiry in such a manner as the justice of the case requires, is that we must inevitably touch upon matters of very grave importance. The feeling of the country and the feeling of the army has demanded this inquiry; the House of Commons has granted it; and it will depend upon the gentlemen by whom the investigation is conducted to take care that the public interest shall receive no injury, and that injustice be not inflicted upon individuals whose conduct must be canvassed before us. Now, I have no reason to distrust the discretion of hon. Members, but I submit that it may not be always desirable that Members of this House should have an indiscriminate right in any numbers, and at all times, to attend the investigations of this Committee. I know that occasions have arisen upon such Committees when a wish has been express- ed that those hon. Gentlemen who were not Members should retire, and when that wish has been disregarded. I hope, therefore, the House will take these facts into their consideration, and that they will come to the conclusion that the evidence taken before this Committee shall not be made known before our investigations are complete and our Report is drawn up. This, as I have previously said, is the strong feeling of a majority of the Committee, and I cannot help hoping that, knowing this, the House will so far place confidence in the Committee as to concede what they desire.

Sir, on a former occasion the House was so indulgent as to listen with patience to many reasons which I thought it proper then to adduce against the progress of this inquiry; but the country having loudly demanded an inquiry, and this House, the representative of the public, having appointed a Committee to prosecute that inquiry, I bow to their decision, and it would ill become me to repeat or to refer to arguments which, at the right time, I offered in vain. I think rather that, occupying again a private station, it becomes me, as taking part in this deliberative Assembly, if difficulties have arisen, and if there should be any degree of danger in this inquiry, to offer my opinion freely as to the best mode of avoiding these dangers, and of conducting the inquiry upon which the House has determined. I therefore shall abstain from any further reference to the former debate, or to any of the arguments which I then used. It does appear, certainly, somewhat extraordinary that at the very first meeting of this Committee, composed only of eleven Members, of whom nine were present, and in whom the House has been called upon to place implicit confidence, a great difference of opinion should have arisen among them. So great is the difference of opinion that already a division has arisen among the Members composing the Committee. Upon the very threshold of the inquiry, on the very day the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) is voted into the chair, the Committee find themselves involved in such very great difficulties that really, in spite of all that has been said, it now becomes the duty of this House to rescue the inquiry from the disgrace of falling into the hands of a hole-and-corner Committee. Now, it is not a bare Report with which the House has been presented. Though terse, it is very pointed, and contains the reasons which have induced a majority of the Commit- tee to make their recommendation to the House. It says that, in the opinion of the Committee, the objects of the inquiry will be best attained, injustice to individuals will be best prevented, and the public interests will be most surely protected, if the Committee be made a Secret Committee. Secrecy, in the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Committee, is the sure mode of prosecuting the inquiry in the most safe manner, of best protecting the public interests, and of most surely avoiding injustice to individuals. Now, Sir, with all respect for the opinion of the majority of that Committee, I demur to all their three reasons. I know that if this inquiry is to be prosecuted—and it is quite right that I should now assume that it is to be prosecuted—the public interest will best be promoted, the inquiry will best be conducted, and injury and injustice to individuals will be most surely prevented by the Committee not seeking the shelter of secrecy, but conducting the inquiry openly before the world. I stated on a former occasion—and I may just refer to it in passing, as I wish to guard myself against misapprehension—that I could not shut my eyes to the very considerable danger which would attend even publicity; but I know no ground, except the discretion of the Members of the Committee, why the inquiry should not be conducted under the eye of the public, for where danger to the public interests begins there the inquiry as conducted by them ought to terminate. That is the limit which ought to be fixed to the inquiry, and beyond which the public ought not to demand it to be pushed. With respect to precedents, I will not touch upon the ground taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), further than to observe that all the precedents upon which he relies, if I mistake not, relate to great naval and military operations, which had been brought to a close before an inquiry was instituted. Certainly, with reference to these precedents, I do not remember that my right hon. Friend cited one in which a Committee of secrecy was appointed. The last inquiry was an inquiry at the bar of this House, in a public manner, at the close of the Walcheren expedition, into the conduct of that expedition. There was, certainly, attending that Committee of inquiry a Committee of secrecy, but it had no reference to the conduct of the officers employed, being merely a communication on the part of the Government of certain information which it was not thought expedient to lay before the public. In fact, this information formed no integral part of the inquiry, but was merely an appendage to it. Now, I must shortly remark to the House that it is important they should observe how different has been the view taken in the House of the composition of the Committee. By several majorities, and those narrow ones, the naval element has been excluded. Nothing could be more fair and honourable than the statement of the Chairman of the Committee as to the mode adopted with reference to the inquiry. The matter has been studiously and carefully balanced—balanced with reference to party, and balanced by agreement. Last night, by a small majority—I believe it is not irregular for me to name an hon. Member in reference to the appointment of a Committee of this kind—last night Sir John Hanmer was chosen, and he will probably form the pivot on which the inquiry may be said to turn. The hon. Member is selected as the makeweight in this Committee, holding, as it were, the balance of ingredients so compounded and so neutralised, that reason, truth, and justice are almost suspended. It is, therefore, of the very highest importance that we should take care that the sacred cause of truth and justice is not injured by an inquiry conducted by a Committee so composed. Nothing can be more true than what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, as to the rule of this House with respect to Secret Committees. If this House adopts the Report of the Committee, and gives its fiat to secrecy, its whole power and control over the future conduct of the inquiry are gone, and gone for ever. There can be no appeal to this House on the part of any Member composing the Committee—there can be no Report except by the concurrence of the majority of this Committee of eleven. What was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) is most true, with regard to these proceedings. I have great faith in publicity, as the great check where the cause of justice is at stake—and why is any tribunal here involving the conduct of public men, the character of admirals, of generals, and of statesmen, to be conducted on principles different to those which prevail in our courts of law? In our courts of law—life and property—and what are dearer than life and property—namely, the character and position of men in society, daily become the subject of investigation before our tribunals, and it is the life and spirit and the very soul of justice that publicity shall pervade and check all these proceedings. The sacred cause of justice itself is promoted by it. Bystanders constantly afford the means of contradicting false evidence, or suggest the means wanting to complete evidence. This tends to promote the cause of truth and justice, and, if the same principle be adopted in a Committee of this kind, I am convinced it will have the same effect. I believe the object of the Committee is, to satisfy the desire of the public, that an investigation should take place. I believe that that desire on the part of the public is an honest desire to have the truth ascertained with a view of correctives being applied to mal-administration, and I do not believe that there is anything whatever vindictive in that desire. Perhaps the House will pardon me, if I say that we, the representatives of the people, acting upon the desire of the public, are influenced by somewhat different motives. Party feelings and party objects have mingled in our discussions in reference to this subject. It is impossible to deny it. It is patent on every side; the existence of those feelings, swaying even the judgment of the most honest men, will interfere, unless you take due precautions, with the justice of the investigation, and I know no check so strong as that the name of every person who puts a question shall be known to the public. His motives will be well understood, his words will be well weighed, and thus the salutary check of public opinion will be brought to bear upon the inquiry. I also conceive that, the inquiry itself will be infinitely more guarded when every witness knows that what he says before the Committee is certain to be subject to the ordeal of publicity and the consequent ordeal of public opinion. Well, then, what is the assertion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington). He has reminded you, and he has reminded you rightly, that, if you make this a Secret Committee, your power over the inquiry is gone, and it will depend entirely on the vote of a majority of that Committee—perhaps upon the vote of the one Member nominated last night—whether any questions that may be thought inconsistent with the secrecy required shall be expunged and altogether omitted. Indeed, I know no reason, if such injustice should sway a majority of the Committee why even extracts from the answers of a witness may not be given. The power of this House, Sir, in the matter will be gone, and it will depend upon the Committee whether they report the evidence at all, or whether they merely report the result produced on the minds of the majority of their body. Nay, even the proceedings of the Committee need not be reported to the House. You need not know who voted in favour of the Report, whatever it may be. It may be the report of only a single Member, and yet it will carry with it all the authority of a Report of this House. I am well aware that implicit reliance is to be placed on the honour of Members of this House. If the House decrees that the Committee is to be secret, I do not believe that intentionally any member composing that Committee will betray the secrets which pass in the Committee. But still, even if they I keep a constant guard on all they say in public and among their friends, it must be remembered that witnesses will be examined over whom they can have no such control. The witnesses will easily ascertain, from the questions put to them, what is the tendency of the inquiry, and what are the feelings of the persons who question them, and they, not being placed immediately under your control, will infallibly disclose the proceedings of the Committee. Now, Sir, my belief is, that between No. 17 upstairs and Printing House Square a whispering-gallery will be established, which, day by day, will disclose to the public, in a manner that I think most exceptionable—namely, partially and imperfectly, what takes place before your Committee of secrecy. Now, Sir, I have an affection and a desire to maintain the character and the position of this House stronger than any other feeling which actuates me. That mace—that "bauble"—[pointing to the mace upon the clerk's table]—contended against the sceptre of the Stuarts and overcame it. In my time the Reform Bill was carried by a majority of this House, despite the opposition of a majority of the House of Lords. Now, Sir, I entreat this House well to weigh the consequences of a conflict with the press of this country. If the House embarks in that conflict—["Oh, oh!"]—I have before said that, with the permission of the House, I would express my opinion as a private gentleman in a deliberative assembly, amid great public difficulties, and that I would warn the House of what occurred to me as dan- gers to be avoided. Now, Sir, what I wish to say is this—that if this House does give an order of secrecy, and if that order of secrecy is constantly and deliberately violated, you will be lowered in public estimation if you have not the courage and the constancy to give effect to your decision. But, if you are going to enter into a conflict with the press of this country, you must gird up your loins and prepare for a serious struggle; and I warn you, that in that conflict you will not succeed unless you are backed by public opinion. My belief is that, if you engage in such a conflict, as matters now stand, I you will not succeed. I will say more—that I think you ought not to succeed, because I believe that the public interests will not be promoted by your order of secrecy. Public opinion will be grossly violated by it, and justice to individuals will be placed in the utmost jeopardy. I have I told you of the danger of your entering into an encounter with the press, without reason or justice on your side, and in violation of public opinion; but is there no other danger to be avoided? Have you considered your relative position with reference to the House of Lords? The House of Lords have, I believe, notified to you—at least, I saw the messenger here just now, though I am not aware whether his message has been delivered—that they have given their consent that one of their body shall attend the Select Committee of this House, if he should think fit to do so. You change the character of your tribunal. You convert it into a secret tribunal. Are you sure that the House of Lords will consent that one of their Members shall attend a secret tribunal? Your Committee now becomes, not a court of justice, not a court of inquiry, but an inquisition, composed of eleven inquisitors, five of whom have prejudged the question which will be mainly at issue before them. I know not what the decision of the House of Lords may be, but I warn you how you come into conflict with the press of this country and with the privilege of the House of Lords in such doubtful circumstances; depend upon it your position will be an unenviable one. I could, if I thought fit to detain you, multiply instances of many coming dangers which I foresee from your proceedings; but I think the two which I have mentioned incidentally, as lying on the very surface, are enough to warn you to be cautious in the proceedings you are about to take. If Mi- nisters, admirals, generals, are to be tried—if their conduct is to be submitted to this ordeal—if further sacrifices be necessary—immolate, I say, in the face of day. Do not smother and stifle persons' reputations, which have hitherto stood the test of time, in No. 17 upstairs. Act as become the representatives of a free and generous people, who never seek concealment for their thoughts or for their actions. What they dare to do they are ever ready to avow. There are, perhaps, dangers in this inquiry. I shall not revert to them. I stated them at too much length on a former occasion. I am willing to intrust the inquiry to the eleven gentlemen to whom you have committed it, if you will keep over that Committee the convenient check of publicity. I shall look upon that inquiry with apprehension greater than I shall state if you should, in an ill-omened moment, come to the decision to-night that the proceedings of that Committee shall be secret. In that case I see dangers innumerable; I think the object for which the Committee was granted will not be obtained; and I entreat the House carefully to pause before they give effect to what I must consider a most injudicious recommendation.

said that, when the question of the appointment of a Committee was brought before the House, he had felt it his duty to express his opinion that it would give rise to great inconvenience, and would shackle the Executive. The appointment of the Committee, as was well known, was carried by a large majority, and the Government themselves stated that they would accept that vote as a vote of confidence or no confidence. The House was, therefore, obliged to deal with the question as it was placed by the Government, putting aside its merits. Upon that vote the Government went out of office. If the question had been brought forward since the present Government had been in office, and if they had placed it on the ground of a vote of confidence, he would have felt little difficulty in determining in what way he should give his vote, for he could not say that either the House or the country felt much confidence in the existing Administration. He had entertained objections to the appointment of the Committee, because he did not think that the Executive Government could be carried on by men whose conduct was under criticism in a Committee room upstairs; but that objection had been re- moved by the retirement from the Administration of those members of the Government whose conduct had been impugned. The House having decided that inquiry should be prosecuted by a Committee, it was his duty to ascertain in what way that inquiry could be conducted with the greatest advantage to the public interests, and in a manner to secure the results which were expected by the country. He had been somewhat astonished to find that the two hon. Members of the Committee who had voted against the secrecy of the inquiry, were Gentlemen who had voted against any inquiry at all, and that, too, on the ground that the appointment of such a Committee would be a mischievous and dangerous proceeding. He supposed, however, that they had some reasons for thus ostentatiously showing the country that they were now voting against secrecy. He was still more astonished at the line of argument pursued by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) and some other hon. Members. The noble Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) had asked whether any new facts had come to their knowledge? He (Mr. Layard) would at once reply, that new facts had come to their knowledge. The three right hon. Gentlemen near him had stated the other night that, if they were put upon their defence, that if this inquiry were prosecuted, they might be compelled to enter into very delicate matters, and to call in question the conduct of our Ally. They then expressed a strong opinion against the appointment of the Committee, but to-night, forsooth, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) contended that the Committee should be an open Committee, and that all dangerous questions might be avoided, although it was only the other night that he told them they would have to enter into transactions which had taken place between the Government of this country and our Allies. One objection to the inquiry being an open one was, that it might affect private character, and that was, undoubtedly, a strong objection; but still that was not the objection which would influence his vote, for he looked rather to the question of danger to the public interests in connection with our relations with our Allies. It was said that secrecy was a novelty, but so was our alliance and union with France—the union of the two armies in one great enterprise was a novelty. There were three courses open to them. The first was, to prosecute the inquiry by a Committee open to the public. What was the objection to that course, putting aside any question with reference to private character? They talked about private character, but was our Ally to be criminated, either directly or indirectly, without having an opportunity of defending himself? A right hon. Gentleman had insinuated that we were not the guilty parties; he did not mean to say the right hon. Gentleman would throw blame on our Ally, but that was the inference which must be drawn, and we should then be in the position of carrying on the inquiry, our Ally not having the means of defending himself, without knowing to what mischief it might lead. These being his objections to an open Committee, they applied equally to a Committee at which the Members of this House would be allowed to be present. The country would not consent to a half-and-half measure; they would either have one thing or the other. This was a great question; it affected every man in the country; there was not a cottager who did not feel as deeply upon it as any Member of that House, and the public would not be satisfied if they were excluded when Members of Parliament were admitted. He wished to make no insinuation against any Member of that House, but he would remind them that Committees had sat before now to which Members alone had been admitted. Such a Committee sat last year, seriously affecting the character of some Members of the House, and what was the result? Why, the most scandalous accusations were spread abroad against those gentlemen whose conduct was the subject of inquiry. Would the right hon. Gentleman make no distinction between eleven Members, who were directly responsible to the House, and 600 Members, any of whom might come into the room, and who were under no responsibility at all? If the Committee were strictly secret, of course if anything transpired they would know exactly the persons who were accountable for it. Then, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), said the press would be against us; but he must say that was an appeal to a popular prejudice which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have avoided. His hon. and learned Friend had given notice of this Resolution last night, and, if the press had been so opposed to it, would not the press have spoken out upon the subject this morning, before the House could come to a decision? If the press took so deep an interest in the question—if it at- tached such importance to the inquiry being an open one—would not an expression of its opinion have appeared this morning in every newspaper? Would not a strong appeal have been made to the public, such as the leading papers knew how to make? Would not an appeal have been made to that House to reject the Resolution? But no such appeal had been made, and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to get up a feeling upon the question for party purposes. The press had too high a sense of the immense interests at stake in this question, to cry out after a majority of the Committee had decided that it should be a Secret Committee; it had too deep a feeling of responsibility to compel the House by public clamour to adopt a measure dangerous to the public interest. The character of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck), who had for so many years been connected with the popular party, was sufficiently well known to be a guarantee to the public that the Resolution of the Committee had not been adopted upon light motives. No man had more to lose than himself (Mr. Layard) by having voted in its favour; but he would not be a coward. When he saw that an act of duty was necessary, he would perform it, and he firmly believed it was essential to the interests of the country that this should not be an open Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had repeatedly told them that they must rest their defence upon the conduct of our Ally; the right hon. Baronet has also used the expression that the inquiry must "run up" into our connection with France. If that were so, our Ally must either rest under the accusations made against him, although they might be calumnious, or the right hon. Gentlemen must be refused the means of justifying themselves, should the inquiry be an open one. He had, therefore, with great regret, and after mature deliberation, being fully aware of the ingenious arguments which might be urged by the right hon. Gentleman, who, he knew, would take the opportunity, if possible, to damage his character in the eyes of the country, arrived at this conclusion, but nothing would compel him to withdraw from the opinion he had formed. He had now stated his motives for voting in favour of the Resolution; he did not regret having voted for it, and he thought it his duty to stand by that Resolution.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down appeared to him to have exemplified, by a circumstance that happened during his late visit to the Crimea, the absolute necessity of having this inquiry a public one. If he recollected aright there appeared in the papers an accusation by the hon. Gentleman the most galling and the most offensive that could be made by any one man against a gallant Admiral employed by this country. If he recollected aright, though, perhaps, he might be partially mistaken, there appeared to be a certain amount of mystery over the whole transaction; but it appeared an accusation was made by the hon. Gentleman against a gallant Admiral in our service, and he believed he made that accusation on the ground of having seen some letter, which letter he believed was made public, on which be put a construction which he thought justified him in making the accusation. Thanks to the publicity given to that letter by the press, the statement of the hon. Member went abroad, and it met the eye of the gallant Admiral who was accused, who immediately gave notice that he would have this accusation fully and publicly canvassed, so as to enable him to give it a full and public contradiction. Now, what was the result? It appeared that there were some other letters which had not been published, but there was published what appeared to him to be a retractation and an apology by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury. Now let them apply that to this case. Might there not be some other letters, some other evidence that might be produced before the Secret Committee which would bring Members to come to a conclusion equally erroneous, but which the parties could not, in consequence of that secrecy, have an opportunity of contradicting. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) had stated that the people of this country and the army had demanded an inquiry. He should not stop to ask whether the army had demanded the inquiry, but of this he was certain that that gallant body of men would scout the idea of an inquiry into their case being made in secret, and of accusations being made in secret, however beneficial the result of the inquiry might be to themselves. If he had the high honour of being connected with any public office, with any command of the army or navy, he certainly should refuse to give a single answer to any question put to him by a Select Committee. He would throw himself on the generosity of the country; he would appeal to his countrymen, and he believed that appeal would not be in vain.

I hope, Sir, I may be allowed to trespass for a few moments upon the time of the House after what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman, and I appeal to the House to say whether it was good taste on the part of the hon. Gentleman to introduce a subject perfectly irrelevant to the question under discussion, more especially after I had done all in the matter to which he referred that, as an honourable man and a gentleman, I could do? The circumstances to which he alluded have been so misrepresented—for I have allowed myself to be made the victim of misrepresentation rather than bring the case before the public—that I entreat the House to allow me to tell them exactly how matters stand, at least so far as I am personally concerned. First of all there was no letter whatever from me in the public press, dated" from the main-top of the Agamemnon." But there was a letter written from the Agamemnon, the ship in which I was then staying. Now what was the history of that letter? I had been travelling with a gentleman for nearly six weeks, and consequently living with him upon terms of the greatest intimacy. When he left me, a few days before the battle of the Alma, I agreed to write him an account of what was passing, as a friend, not as a gentleman connected with the press, although he was certainly connected with the press, but with that portion of it with which I had before been, if not upon hostile, at least not upon very friendly terms. For that gentleman I have the greatest personal esteem, and I entirely separated him from his profession. I wrote him two letters, which were sent by the same post—one of them containing various facts which might have been published by any one. At the end of it I added a short sentence to the effect "That he was at liberty to make use of the facts, but not to print the letter in full." There was no reflection whatever in that letter upon the character of Admiral Dundas. But there was a private letter attached to it—a letter most strictly private, most strictly confidential—in which those remarks were made that gave offence to the gallant Admiral. I have been unjustly accused of having betrayed confidence in making these remarks; but supposing even that I had intended them for publication, how far could that accusation be justified? What was, their history? A captain in Her Majesty's Navy brought a letter to a table at which were present fifteen or twenty persons, civilians as well as gentlemen belonging to the navy. That letter was read publicly, and it contained an expression which led me to say in my private letter, that Admiral Dundas was rejoiced at the sinking of part of the Russian fleet. My letter was unfortunately published. The moment I heard of the publication of this letter I went to Admiral Lyons, at whose table Admiral Dundas's letter had been publicly read, and explained the circumstances to him. I also went to the gallant captain to whom Admiral Dundas's letter had been written, and said, "This is a most unfortunate thing, and I am ready to offer you an ample apology. I am not responsible for the publication of a private letter, and can only regret that a letter should be published which was not intended for publication." That apology—apology I will not call it, but that explanation—was accepted by that gallant captain. With Admiral Dundas I had no communication, as he was absent at sea, although I sent a message to him. When I came back to this country I was perfectly willing to do what I have since done. When an hon. Member opposite (Admiral Walcott) declared some some time ago that I had accused a British Admiral of want of personal courage, I was taken aback. So little did I believe that anything I had said reflected on the private character or personal courage of Admiral Dundas, that such an interpretation did not strike me as being possible. Sir, I would not accuse any Englishman, much more an officer of Her Majesty's navy or army, of a want of personal courage. Why, good God! from the highest to the lowest, every man in the navy is ready to display the highest personal courage. I was told afterwards that such an interpretation was attached to what I had written, but all I can say is, that I never meant to insinuate anything of the kind. Sir, I repeat that, so little did I conceive that such a construction was possible to be attached to what I had written, that it did not occur to me to do what I have been ready to do at any time since the matter was pointed out to me, namely, to give the fullest explanation here in my power on that point. However, various reports were circulated that some legal or other proceedings were going to be taken against me; and what was the course I took? I told the hon. Member (Mr. Drummond), who acted as Admiral Dundas's friend, that I was ready to give any explanation with regard to those words which had been construed into a reflection upon Admiral Dundas's personal courage or character, and that I would explain what I have now stated in any way he liked. Well, the moment the hon. Gentleman came to me I said, "I do not want any lawyer-like dealing. I hope Admiral Dundas is an honourable man, and that I am an honourable man. Let us take a pen and ink, and whatever you dictate to me as a man of honour I will sign." I had no wish to shelter myself under the plea that the letter was a private one. Well, I sat down and wrote at my hon. Friend's dictation the explanation which has been published. I said, "Take it, and say I was ready at first to do what I have done now." Admiral Dundas explained that he had said he rejoiced at the sinking of the Russian fleet, because the Russians had spared us the trouble of doing that which we were ready to do for them. I was willing to accept that interpretation of Admiral Dundas. [Mr. DRUMMOND: The word "rejoice" was not in the original letter.] Well, that was the construction I put upon it. I accepted that interpretation, and wrote the letter that has appeared. I did then hope that no hon. Gentleman in this House would have taunted me any further on this subject. I may have shown some indiscretion in writing the passage in question in a private letter to a private friend, but I hope the House will believe that I have acted throughout strictly as an honourable man and a gentleman.

said, he must beg to state, in explanation, that he did not mean to attack the hon. Member for Aylesbury; and if he had spoken warmly, it was out of regard to the gallant Admiral, his friend. He had only referred to the matter as illustrating the danger of such an inquiry as that before the Select Committee being conducted with privacy.

said, he would confine himself to the subject under discussion, but he thought it a good opportunity to revert to the vote they gave on a former occasion, and which led to the appointment of this Committee. He was one of those who, without hesitation, voted against the inquiry, as proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck). Now, that Motion was supported by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard). He (Sir B. Hall) felt that if the Committee was appointed it might lead to most serious and disastrous results, and might, perhaps, cause a disruption between ourselves and our only Ally, or rather, perhaps, our only sincere Ally. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said when he voted for the Committee he knew great inconvenience would arise from it, and that he did not vote for it as a vote of want of confidence in the Government, but the whole tenor of his speech was a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and he intimated that he never intended the Committee to be appointed. He (Sir B. Hall) considered this was one of the most disastrous votes ever given. If the House did not want the Committee, and had not confidence in the Government, why had they not the honesty and the candour at once to propose a vote of want of confidence? Instead of that they voted a Committee, and then said they would not let the public in to hear the proceedings. This was a proceeding which was not worthy of that House. He was thankful day after day that he had not voted for the Committee. Well, hon. Gentlemen said they never intended to have this inquiry; and his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), who was very fond of a little good-humoured mischief in that House, tackled the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and said, "Do you really mean to have this Committee, or is it a delusion?"—and the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "I do mean to have the Committee;" and if any one cheered him more loudly than another, it was the hon. Member for Aylesbury. [Mr. LAYARD: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman said "no;" then why did he vote for the Committee? What the hon. Gentleman proposed now was to have it a Secret Committee. He objected to the proposal to have the Committee a secret one; and when the right hon. Baronet the late First Lord of the Admiralty stated that it would be difficult to keep the proceedings from the public press, and said very truly that the press exerted a great moral influence in the country, and that it was unadvisable to interfere rashly with that moral influence, he was certainly surprised to hear the hon. Member for Aylesbury characterise the power of the press as a "popular prejudice." Who was there in that House who indulged more in that popular prejudice than the hon. Member himself? But the House had lately received a message from the House of Lords —and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had previously alluded to this fact—to the effect that a person holding the highest rank in this country would be called before the Committee. If he (Sir B. Hall) were placed in the position of the Duke of Newcastle, and if he had given his consent to appear before a Select Committee, and was afterwards informed that it was to be a Secret Committee, he would at once rise in his place and say that he would not go before that Committee and allow five or six Gentlemen to extract from his evidence whatever they might please, and place it before the House, perhaps in a very different light from that in which it should appear according to the tenor of the whole evidence. It was impossible to say what might happen as regarded the character of that noble Duke. Why was he to be called before the Committee, except in order that he might tell the whole truth as regarded the conduct of this war when he was Secretary of State for the War Department? That noble Duke might feel it his duty to give such evidence in order to exculpate himself as might place the blame very properly upon other shoulders than his own. Why, then, should his evidence be subject to be tampered with, or portions of it struck out, by some hon. Member? He hoped that, the House having granted the Committee, the inquiry would go on, and that it might be a full and searching inquiry conducted in the face of the public. If hon. Members who composed the Committee were afraid of the duties they had undertaken, and afraid of conducting the inquiry in the face of the public, he hoped they would have the courage at once to come down to the House and say so at once, and let the inquiry be either proceeded with in reality, or given up altogether.

said, he had supported the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) because he was not satisfied with the conduct of the Government in respect to the war; but at the same time he felt it necessary and just that a Committee of inquiry should be appointed. Fully agreeing with those who said that the inquiry should be full and searching, he was at a loss to understand how it possibly could be satisfactory, as far as the public were concerned, unless it was made a public inquiry. He was certain the inquiry could never be fair or just to those concerned—whether high or low, that was immaterial—unless they knew the charges made against them, and could give evidence in exculpation of those charges during the course of the investigation. On these grounds, he had to oppose the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend that the Committee should be a secret one, and he did so the more reluctantly, knowing his hon. and learned Friend's sincerity. If any dangers attended the inquiry, they would be greater if it were secret, or half secret, than if it were full and open. He had never meant to say that the Duke of Newcastle had been most in fault in the administration of the war. If it were put to him, he would say that those Members of the Government were most in fault who had the most experience if they did not check what was wrong as they went along, and if they did not give their counsel in time. He would say it, with great respect for the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, that he was in fault if he did not aid the Duke of Newcastle with his great experience and knowledge. He had intended his vote as a vote of want of confidence; but, if there were to be an inquiry, it was only fair and right it should be full and searching.

Sir, I wish shortly to state the grounds on which I am adverse to the Motion brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. I confess that when this Motion was first announced yesterday my own impressions were strongly against it, but at the same time I wished to hear the reasons, if any, for the course that it was intended to adopt. I have listened with great attention to everything that has passed, and I am bound to say that I have not heard anything which in any degree tends to alter the opinion which I at first sight entertained in this matter. No doubt, when this Committee was first proposed, I felt the objections which have been urged by my hon. and learned Friend in his Motion to make this Committee a secret one. I felt that it was possible—and I stated so to the House—that it was very likely, that in the course of the inquiry there might arise matters involving in danger the relations that so happily subsist between us and our great Ally, but the House overruled this consideration. It was stated not only by me, but by many others, that this evil might arise out of the investigations of the Committee; but the House, with the full knowledge of this probability determined twice, nay thrice, that the inquiry should be prosecuted. I stated, when the question was as to the naming of the Committee, that, in my opinion, it was not desirable that we should fetter their inquiries. I thought if you succeeded in selecting men of prudence, discretion, and knowledge of business, the best way was to place confidence in them, and not attempt to fetter their inquiries by any instructions from this House. Upon the same principle, I would not impose upon them the restriction of secrecy. There are cases where a Secret Committee is desirable. If you have to lay before a Committee documents involving matters which, although of great importance for the purposes of inquiry, nevertheless cannot be made public without great inconvenience to the public service or danger to individuals, there is a reason why the Committee should be secret, and also power in the Committee to maintain its secrecy. If you have to examine witnesses, such as bankers and others, touching their own affairs, with regard to which knowledge is requisite to the Committee, delicacy and good faith towards the witnesses render it necessary that the evidence should not be made public, and at the same time, as it is their interest to keep it secret, that secrecy is maintained. But where you are going to examine witnesses touching matters with regard to the secrecy of which they have no interest whatever, although you may be confident the Members of the Committee will perfectly observe the secrecy imposed on them, there is no possible restraint on the witnesses. If they publish their evidence the Committee has the power of committing them, but the Committee has no power to prevent them stating in conversation the nature of their evidence; therefore, the secrecy which you desire to impose upon the Committee is a perfect nullity, and you do not accomplish the purpose, whatever it may be, for which secrecy is imposed. There is also this inconvenience, which has been fully and forcibly stated, that the public will never be satisfied with an inquiry of which they do not know the progress. They will think it a juggle. They will never be convinced that the House of Commons is really redeeming the pledge it has given, and the proceeding will be replete with injustice to those whose conduct may be made the subject of investigation. For these reasons I shall certainly give my vote against making this a Secret Committee.

Sir, if there is any measure upon which the House of Com- mons should hesitate before they give it their sanction it is the appointment of a Secret Committee. There is only one instance, since I have had the honour of being a Member of this House, in which a Secret Committee has been proposed, and I felt it my duty to resist that Motion. It was on a subject of great interest, and which had produced considerable excitement in the country, namely, the conduct of the Post Office in regard to the opening the letters of foreign refugees. The conduct of the Government of Sir Robert Peel about the year 1844 was, in that respect, called in question, and a Select Committee was proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) to inquire both into the circumstances and, if my memory does not deceive me, into the law of the question. I remember that one of the most distinguished Members of the House, a Member of Her Majesty's then Government—who, though himself not personally responsible for the act called in question, was responsible, I believe, through fulfilling the duties of an absent colleague—declared his opinion on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), who has informed us to-night that he is only to be looked on as one retired into private life, has favoured the House with his instructing and guiding remarks on this subject; but, if I recollect rightly, the line then taken by the right hon. Gentleman was, that if a Committee of inquiry was to be a searching Committee it must be a Secret Committee. That was the position which the right hon. Gentleman at that time enforced upon the House, and, not satisfied with enforcing it, he moved an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, that the Select Committee of inquiry should be a Committee of secrecy, and the House agreed to the appointment of that Committee as a secret one. It is not for me, Sir, to enter into a discussion whether that was an occasion which did or did not justify the appointment of a Secret Committee; but, as a considerable interval—upwards of ten years—has elapsed, it may be interesting for the House to know—and I say it on the authority of the Members of that Committee—that not one single tittle of evidence given before that Committee has ever transpired. It was, of course, the wish of the House that it should not transpire, and I mention it as an answer to the right hon. Member for Carlisle, who now says that such a Committee cannot keep its secrets. Here is a very great authority that if you would render an inquiry searching it should be secret, and the authority, in my mind, obtains double weight from the speech with which we have been favoured this evening by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has indulged in a style of rhetoric of which he is a great master, and which he knows how to employ on an occasion like the present. It may be described as the oratory of terror. He readily accumulates every possible contingency of menace that can occur, every probable or improbable danger, to influence the decision of the House. I hardly remember an occasion when the right hon. Gentlemen has not taken up that mace and knocked down the House of Commons. This is the third or fourth time he has appealed to "that bauble," and attempted by menacing allusions to influence the decision of the House. Now, Sir, my opinion is, that whether this Committee be secret or only select, it will be an extremely beneficial inquiry, and I do not anticipate, whatever may be the decision of the House as to its form and method, that any of those dangers that are anticipated will ensue. I observe that every Member who has opposed a secret inquiry also opposed the original inquiry, and that has made me look with considerable suspicion on the opposition which has been offered to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. Nor can I admit the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) to be valid, that a court of justice should never be secret, because in our present system of jurisprudence we have a precedent for secret inquiry in the action of a grand jury. It has been urged that it is quite impossible to maintain secrecy, which is the object of this Motion. I have already alluded to an instance in which secrecy has been observed. But I cannot conceal from myself that the nature of this inquiry is of so multifarious and so comprehensive a character that the difficulty of securing secrecy is proportionately increased. Nor, Sir, can I understand how you can draw a line between the admission of what is called the public and the admission of Members of this House. If Members are admitted, and the public not admitted, probably we shall only have garbled, where otherwise we should have complete and impartial versions of the proceedings. I do not, for a moment, credit that if this were a Committee of secrecy, I have such confidence in the common sense and honour of a Committee of the House of Commons, chosen under these circumstances, that I do not believe that secrecy would be violated. I believe practically you might, by establishing an absolute Secret Committee, by excluding the public and Members, obtain the object sought for by this Motion. But, against some convenience which would no doubt be experienced, there are great disadvantages which must be incurred if an inquiry of national interest and importance in which the opinions and feelings of the country are centred, and which may be prolonged to a considerable extent, should be carried on in a manner to excite suspicion and distrust in the public mind. I think that the balance is in favour of public inquiry. I do not myself anticipate, those dangerous consequences to the maintenance of a good understanding between ourselves and our Ally which have been so frequently and so needlessly, I conceive, put forward. My trust, I repeat, is in the discretion and ability of those who guide and conduct this inquiry. I do not see those difficulties, which have been admitted too easily, in carrying on this investigation with persons possessing those qualities of prudence and caution which I hope are the characteristics of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. What, then, will be the main inconveniences which will accrue from this public inquiry? There may be some. I do not for a moment pretend that there are not objections to either course, and disadvantages which belong to either system which we may adopt; but I think the balance of advantage greatly in favour of adhering to an open inquiry. And, Sir, though it may be for the personal convenience of Members, which has been alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour), that the public generally should not be admitted, and certainly that discussions of this kind should not be carried on under the influence of clamour and excitement, still I think it advantageous, if we have a public inquiry, that means should be taken that the result of that inquiry should go before the public in a complete and impartial manner. If the House should decide that this shall not be a Secret Committee, I think it is also bound to take means to insure that the Report of the proceedings of the Committee shall be full and authentic.

Before addressing myself, Sir, to the question before the House, I wish to bear testimony to the faithful accuracy with which the hon. Gentleman near me (Mr. Layard) has narrated what passed on a subject of which I hope we shall never hear more. I am not one of those, Sir, who plead guilty to having given a factious vote with regard to the appointment of this Committee. I did not vote for one thing and mean another, for if it had been a plain and simple question of overthrowing the Government I should have voted for the Government. There was one consideration alone which possessed my mind—and after due deliberation I hope I shall not be accused of too great obstinacy in holding to it still—and that was—what would have been the effect upon the minds of our soldiers in the Crimea when they were told that an inquiry into the causes of their sufferings being asked for, this House had refused to make it? The instruction which I have placed on the paper shows the objects to which I consider this inquiry ought to be confined; but I see plainly there are heads quite as wise as mine on the Committee, and I see, likewise, I cannot have everything my own way. There is no danger that I can perceive in making this simple inquiry, "Why, at this day, have we voted 4,000 horses to go to the Crimea when there is not a morsel of hay for them to eat when they arrive?" Here you go on night after night voting supplies for the Crimea, while every newspaper tells you that your men are starving as soon as ever they get there. I am very suspicious of the words now so often used, "a full and searching inquiry;" and I observe that every person who uses them connects them with a fear of danger to our alliance. Well, I am not particularly enamoured of that alliance, and I very much doubt whether the people of England know what it is. Indeed, I doubt very much whether it is an alliance. I have heard, certainly, of a live man being chained to a dead one; but I do not know whether that was called an alliance or not. When the time comes—perhaps before this Session is over—I may think it my duty to state plainly to the House and the country what I suspect the nature of our alliance to be. I do think it is very necessary that some measure should be taken to prevent this Committee going into what hon. Gentlemen have to-night talked of inquiring into—the whole policy of the war, and our naval and military proceedings. I would have them all excluded. The right hon. Baronet be- hind me (Sir J. Graham) has detailed to us the advantages of an open Committee, and he has talked at the same time of that awful thing—the press. It is just because of this cowardly cringing to the press that I fear this open Committee. I know that men, thus placed as it were in the presence of the public, will be pushed to ask questions which otherwise they would never have thought of, and these are not the men who in old times would have wielded "that bauble" (pointing to the mace) against the House of Stuart, from whom there was real danger. Now-a-days, Sir, the danger is exactly from the opposite side, and no man dares to do his duty and rise up against it. But of all the cringing baseness which has ever appeared in English history, commend me to the conduct of the Liberals towards the daily press.

said, that, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had endeavoured to lead the House to view with suspicion the fact that those Members of the Committee who desired that it should be an open Committee were exactly those who had originally voted against the appointment, yet he could assure the House, both for himself and his noble Friend near him (Lord Seymour), that they still adhered to that vote, and would repeat it were the occasion to occur again. That, however, was a very different thing from asserting that the public had no right to demand a full and searching inquiry into the maladministration of the army in the Crimea; on the contrary, he considered it absolutely necessary that some such inquiry should take place, when the operations in that country were over, and when it could be conducted without danger to the public service. He had always protested against the doctrine that this Minister or that Minister was to blame. So far as the Ministers were concerned, all were equally to blame; or, if one more than another, it was those who, doubting of the policy and the measures which were being pursued, delayed to insist upon the adoption of a different course. He must say that if there were any two Members in that House who had almost expected the evils which had resulted, although perhaps not to so great an extent—who had less cause to be surprised at the maladministration and mismanagement of the army departments—it was himself and his noble Friend near him, who had been engaged in so many inquiries into military subjects, and who too clearly fore- saw the results which would occur from the neglect of the Government to establish a War Department which should be responsible for the whole administration of the army. With respect to the wish expressed by the majority of the Committee, for making this Committee a secret one, it would have been better if the example of other great Committees appointed to consider important matters had been followed. For instance, the Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of the Ordnance, the Army and the Navy, which sat three years, did not admit the public, because it would have been inconvenient to carry on discussions in the presence of the public, nor did it publish the evidence day by day, because that would have been unfair to the parties concerned, but Members of the House were admitted, and the evidence was reported from time to time whenever it was thought that one portion of the subject was complete. He had no objection in the abstract to the admission of the public, but he doubted whether it were feasible. Look at the number of persons whose feelings, interests, anxieties, and sentiments, would be engaged in the proceedings of the Committee, and who would be ever watching its movements and discussing the transactions about which that Committee would be inquiring. If partial publication of the evidence should get abroad it might seriously affect many, and no one would be able to calculate the consequences. He should certainly consider it the duty of the Committee to report to the House as often as any part of the evidence should be considered complete, and give so much of the evidence as might be fairly made public. Many of the subjects that would come before the Committee would not bear the character of secrecy. For instance, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) would no doubt be called as a witness. That Gentleman had been to the Crimea, and he could give a statement of facts that would be highly interesting to the public. There could be no secrecy required on such matters. Again, the great misery, wretchedness, and ruin, he might almost say, that had befallen their troops in the Crimea could be no matter of secrecy, neither could an inquiry into the causes of those calamities, and why they were not mitigated or prevented. But when they came to inquire into the policy of the war, and of the expedition and joint operations of the English and French armies, then the Committee would be ap- proaching subjects which would require to be handled with the greatest caution and deliberation; but he, for one, should avoid as much as possible touching on those subjects. He was of opinion that if the inquiry had been limited, and the Committee had been specifically directed to ascertain the state of the army at Sebastopol, and why timely supplies of food, clothing, and other necessaries had not been made to it, the wishes of the people out of doors would have been fully met. It was his desire that there should emanate from the Committee such a Report on the state of our military administration as should force upon the House a sense of the all-important duty of bringing the whole affairs of the army under one sole and central direction. So far as the present Government had gone, he gave them credit for their policy, and placed confidence in them for the first steps they had taken. But having had great experience on the subject, and having watched the changes that had been made for many years past, his opinion was, that unless the Minister was made responsible for all appointments in the army, and was placed in superiority over the administration of the Horse Guards, very little good indeed would be done. It was twenty years since he was appointed Secretary at War, and he took the office upon the condition that a Committee of Inquiry into the details of the expenditure of the army should be appointed. On that Committee sat the late Sir Robert Peel, his right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), Lord John Russell, and Lord Hardinge. The Committee unanimously agreed to recommend to the Crown that no staff officer either at home, in India, or in the Colonies should hold his appointment for more than five years. The House would scarcely believe it that that Resolution up to the present day had never been acted upon. He was a Member of the Committee appointed last year to inquire into the question of promotion in the army, and he then asked whether the system of appointing staff officers had been changed, and he found that up to that time no change had taken place, and that the persons holding those situations had been considered as tenants for life. Why should that be? Why should such men as Sir Willoughby Gordon and Lord Raglan hold those appointments for thirty or forty years, and other officers not be allowed to have the chance of gaining the experience which such appointments would en- able them to do? One word more before he sat down. The House had recently sustained a great loss in the death of Mr. Hume. He would entreat those hon. Gentlemen who were younger than himself, and who had more time to devote to these subjects, to tread closely in the steps of that excellent man. This war, he doubted not, would soon be at an end; and when it came to an end it would be more than ever necessary to turn their attention to the military establishments of this country, and more especially to the particular subject to which he had called their attention, namely, the administration of the Horse Guards. Unless the Minister of War was backed by that House in insisting upon regulations being established which were suited to the times in which they lived, and in going a little further forward than the old routine of the last fifty years, it would be a never-ending subject of discontent in this country, and the people would fairly say that the House of Commons had abandoned their duty.

said, that having been one of those who had the courage to vote against the appointment of this Committee, he had listened with great pleasure to the debate, because every hon. Member who had spoken had used arguments which justified those who had voted against it. It appeared to him that the House was in a greater difficulty than ever. The Government were constitutionally responsible for such an inquiry, as their acts might be impugned; but a Secret Committee, with power to publish only garbled or imperfect reports, could afford to laugh at the public. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had said that the whole subject to be considered was appalling. He would ask if anything which had occurred in the debate had tended to give fresh courage to the Members of the Committee who would have to approach that subject? He contended, then, that the investigation ought to be undertaken by the Government. The inquiry ought to be full and untrammelled, and how that end could be attained by an irresponsible Committee he was at a loss to conceive.

said, it was clear that the House were about to give a decided negative to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield; but he was of opinion that no amount of discretion could prevent danger to the interests of the country arising from the investigations of the Committee, for they would not be able to avoid raising questions which would involve charges against persons who were 3,000 miles away; and it might so happen that, at the very moment these charges were being brought forward the subjects of them might be struck down while in the service of their country. If the proceedings of the Committee were to be public, the responsibility would rest upon the House alone, and especially upon its leaders, for both the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the chief of the Opposition in that House were in the position of men who, standing at the helm of the vessel, saw breakers ahead, and would not interfere.

said, he was anxious to state the grounds upon which it was his intention to vote against the Motion. On a former occasion, he had stated that he fully appreciated all the dangers which might be incurred in consequence of the indiscreet prosecution of this inquiry, but such an inquiry having been resolved upon he thought it would be utterly impossible to prevent the secrets of the Committee from transpiring in some form or other, and the only way to prevent those secrets being communicated through improper channels, and published to the world in a garbled manner, with equally injudicious observations and results, would be to have an open inquiry. In all probability, if the hon. Members composing the Committee acted under the knowledge that their proceedings would from day to day be submitted for the consideration of the country, they would be more discreet in their questions than if the inquiry were secret. Another reason why the proceedings of this Committee ought to be public was the deficiency of the naval element in its constitution. He was still of opinion that, considering much of the inquiry would be upon nautical affairs, the Committee—and he said it with great deference to the ability and capacity of its Members—would be incompetent to deal with many of the subjects which would be brought before it. On these grounds, in his judgment, it was of the utmost importance that the investigation should be public.

said, that on the occasion of the debates respecting the appointment of the Committee, from the pertinacity with which the Members and supporters of the Government had persisted in stating that they considered the Motion nothing but a vote of censure, he smelt a rat. It was his opinion, that if they could possibly have avoided it the Government never would have consented to the inquiry, and he was confirmed in that opinion by the subsequent remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury. He had, therefore, on that occasion asked the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield whether he was in earnest and would prosecute the inquiry? The hon. and learned Gentleman answered that he was in earnest and come what might he would prosecute the inquiry. Now he begged the House to observe that not one word was said in the Motion about this being a Secret Committee. The secrecy of the Committee was certainly advocated by those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who opposed its appointment, but he must say that, in his opinion, a greater triumph had never been exhibited over the arguments of those Gentlemen than had been exhibited during the present debate. What had the Committee already come to? Before any difficulty had arisen, they came before the House and told it they were incompetent to conduct the inquiry. The Resolution now before the House had been supported both upstairs and that evening by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington). That right hon. Gentleman was extremely candid at the time of the nomination. "If," said he, "I am appointed, I will certainly make the most rigid inquiry into the state of the army. I see no danger whatever in prosecuting this inquiry; but don't blame me afterwards if I am a sort of ferret upon the Committee." Not one word, however, did he then say about the propriety of its being a Secret Committee, notwithstanding he had so candidly told them the conditions on which he would serve upon it. If the Committee felt that their proceedings must be secret, and that they could not go on without, all the House had to do was to appoint another Committee. Nine other hon. Gentlemen could be got quite as good as they. They might be of opinion that the objects of the Committee could not be obtained without injustice being done to individual and public interests unless its proceedings were secret. But what was the ground on which the Committee was appointed? Was it not appointed in accordance with public feeling and opinion? And public opinion, he could tell the House, would not allow this inquiry to be stifled, evaded, garbled, compromised, or modified. Therefore if hon. Members did not like to serve upon the Committee, because its pro- ceedings were to be public, the sooner they gave place to others the better. He contended that the object for which the Committee was appointed would be best obtained by publicity, and that less injustice would be done to individuals by the inquiry being made an open one. The late Secretary at War had been blamed among others for the disasters in the Crimea, and that right hon. Gentleman, while opposing the appointment of the Committee expressed his readiness to have his conduct investigated. Was, then, that blame to continue to rest on the right hon. Gentleman, and was he to have no opportunity of vindicating himself, and making known his vindication, if he had any, to the public? Then with respect to the Duke of Newcastle. In the course of his experience he never recollected any public man so loaded with obloquy as that noble Duke, and it was therefore only right that he should have the opportunity of going before the Committee, and that his vindication should be as public as the obloquy cast on him; but if, on the other hand, he had no vindication to offer, then let the obloquy rest on him. They must recollect the opinion that had been given by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and the correspondence that had been read, from which it appeared that great credit was due to the Duke of Newcastle for the manner in which he had discharged his duty; that it was the fault of the system, and that he was controlled by others. The Duke of Newcastle made another statement in another place, and the public generally thought that the statement made by him was perfectly satisfactory. He (Mr. Duncombe) had never heard that statement controverted in that House. Let the Committee publish the evidence they received, and he thought that the only instruction the House ought to give to the Committee was, that they should report from day to day, and thereby anticipate any perversion or any misrepresentation on the part of the public press or any one else, and justice would, in his opinion, be thus done to individuals. Then they were told that, somehow or other, the alliance with France might be jeopardised by the investigations before this Committee. Now, it was his opinion that the Committee had nothing whatever to do with any inquiry connected with our allies the French; but the people of this country, after sending 54,000 fine troops to the Crimea, and finding that only 14,000 remained there, wanted to know, as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield asked on a former night, what had become of the other 40,000? They wanted to know who starved the troops, who refused them shelter, or misused them in any way, and why disease had so fearfully overtaken them. He confessed that his confidence in the Committee was somewhat shaken at seeing them so childish as to come down to the House, before any difficulty had occurred, and ask to have the Committee made secret. If, upon examining the Duke of Newcastle, that nobleman had objected to give his evidence unless the Committee were made secret, that would have been a reason for the Committee appealing to the House, but the Committee had examined nobody, and there was no apparent difficulty except a little squabble among themselves. Now it really was time that something should be done with this Committee, and one way of dealing with it would be to add to it some Members with firmness and courage enough not to trouble the House with such childish conduct. The wrongs and disasters to our troops, of which the people complained, had been perpetrated in the eyes of the world, and the inquiry ought to be conducted in the light of day. That was what was required of the Committee, and if the present one was not competent to perform their duty, the House must appoint another who would not come with a childish request to make secret a Committee the proceedings of which would be anxiously waited for from one end of the country to the other.

said, he thought the tribunal which the House had appointed was the best judge of the mode in which the inquiry should be conducted; and as the Committee, with a knowledge of facts which hon. Members generally did not possess, and after deliberation, had, as conscientious men, assured the House that it was necessary for the execution of their duty that the investigation should be conducted in secret, he felt bound to acquiesce in their decision, and he was the more inclined to do so when he saw some who had opposed all inquiry, and who were perhaps anxious now to render inquiry abortive, object to the proposition that the investigation should be secret. Though publicity, he admitted, should be the general rule, there might be exceptional cases like the present, where secrecy was requisite.

said, he must deny that public feeling was in favour of this Committee, unless what appeared in the newspapers was to be taken for public feeling; but the public out of doors did not want the responsibility shifted from the right shoulders to the wrong. They did not want a Committee of that House to undertake the management of the war; but they expected the House of Commons to support a Ministry able and willing to carry on the war vigorously and to a successful issue, and to withdraw their confidence from any Administration not capable of such energetic conduct. He was quite sure that if the Committee were to sit with closed doors, and if, nevertheless, hon. Members generally were allowed to be present, reports of the evidence would be published from day to day in a most incorrect manner. If hon. Members were excluded, still statements would be gathered from the witnesses examined, and would be published in an equally incorrect style. He therefore said that if there was to be a Committee at all, it ought to be a public one. Let every question and answer be fully reported, and he was quite sure that the public would soon see that the object desired would never be attained by means of the Committee, and the war, to be properly managed, must be conducted by the Executive.

said, he thought it was the duty of that House to take care that the inquiry should enter a safe channel. They should tell the Committee not only what they were to inquire into, but what they were not to inquire into. They should ascertain why it was that, with the vast means at their disposal, and the vast expense that had been incurred, they had been unable to maintain the army that was sent to the East. That was a safe inquiry, limited to their own establishments and departments, and to their own people and officers. It would not be necessary even to make a run upon individuals. Nothing would be more unjust than to charge upon a few of the Members belonging to the late Government the exclusive blame of what occurred in the Crimea. The question of the policy of the war would be one for future consideration, but the immediate object of any inquiry at the present moment should be to explain the unaccountable disasters, arising principally from want of system. It would be an act of madness on their part if they did not give instructions to the Committee, and he trusted some person would take up the matter and have the Committee directed to make a simple inquiry on some plain and intelligible grounds. The real object of the House should be to find where the hitch really was, in order to reconstruct the departments, or at all events, place them in a more efficient state. It was quite clear that if they attempted to make the Committee secret, they would occasion evils of the greatest magnitude, and he should therefore join with the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) in resisting the Motion.

said, he understood that the proposition for a Secret Committee was advocated because the Committee would thereby be enabled to erase such portions of the evidence as in their opinion ought not to be published. That, at first sight, might appear to be a specious argument; but unless the public were to hear not only the truth, but the whole truth, they would not be satisfied. If any part of the evidence were omitted, the remainder would be worthless; for the part omitted might modify or explain the part placed before the public. He believed the difficulties of the investigation were greatly overrated. The proceedings in the Crimea had been fully canvassed in the newspapers and in that House, and they had not heard anything of blame or misconduct attached to their allies. On the contrary, everything that had become known showed that we had received from them the most valuable assistance, and that their services were of the utmost importance. There was no danger that anything could possibly be said in the investigations before the Committee that would offend the sensibilities of the French. If the Committee were public there would be less danger of anything indiscreet being said. Men would talk nonsense and say imprudent things in a Secret Committee, which they would not dare to utter if they spoke under the constant check of public opinion, and of the persons who were in their presence. The publicity itself would be the best security against the occurrence of anything that was urged as an objection against the publicity of the Committee. It was said that the public characters of the generals and other persons would be impeached, and that from day to day the proceedings would be made public, and that charges against them would appear in the public press; but if he (Mr. Bowyer) were one of those persons, he would much rather that those secrets, whatever they might be, should be spoken out publicly, than that things should be said behind his back without any opportunity being afforded to himself, or to his friends, to meet them. He had looked to the precedents on the subject, and he found there was no instance of a Secret Committee where charges were made, or to be made against public officers, except where there was an impeachment intended.

Sir, as I think the proposal I made was one of an extraordinary nature, and the powers which I intended to ask the House to permit me to employ was equally extraordinary, and one which ought not to be placed lightly in any man's hands, I fancy the feeling which I find prevails throughout the House precludes me from going to a division. And as this measure is, as I have said, one of an extraordinary nature, it ought to be justified by the almost unanimous opinion of the House; and as I find the opinion is almost unanimously the other way, I suppose I must yield and proceed with the inquiry in the manner the House desires. I trust, however, that I may be permitted to say a few words in explanation of myself and my colleagues. The Gentlemen composing the Committee, I think, are all seriously bent on a thorough and searching investigation. Now, the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) says, he looks with great suspicion on the words "thorough and searching investigation;" but I think the words explain themselves. They do not mean a wide field of examination, but a thorough and searching investigation, confined to the period and to the circumstances to which the inquiry refers. Now, Sir, as I found that a portion of my colleagues wished a thorough investigation, and as they believed that could only be obtained through the means of a Secret Committee, I (coinciding in that opinion) made the Motion which I have submitted to the House; and it is a rather suspicious circumstance, that a great majority of those persons who spoke against secrecy, are the very persons who voted against the appointment of any Committee at all. The arguments which they have used tonight are arguments against the appointment of a Committee, and those who opposed the Committee seem to consider the withdrawal of the present Motion a triumph in their favour. There is a homely phrase, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the moral of that appears to have escaped the notice of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham). What is good for him is good for me. I do not say who is the goose and who is the gander—but, in July, 1844, the right hon. Baronet had to face a proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), for a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Post Office, in regard to the opening of letters. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment, and what was the nature of it? Why, that the Select Committee should be secret. And what grounds did he allege for that? He said—

"I have stated, on a former occasion, that I do not think a revelation to the House of all the details connected with the exercise of this power would be conducive to the public good; and I retain that opinion. I do think that there must be an inquiry, not before a Select Committee, but before a Secret Committee, the Members to be nominated by the House."—[3 Hansard, lxxvi. 226.]

And there is another passage in which the right hon. Baronet said a full investigation could not be made before a Select Committee, but that a Secret Committee was absolutely necessary for a thorough investigation into a delicate question of this kind. Now, this is exactly the opinion of the Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman. They felt they had to deal with a very delicate question, and that if persons, on being examined, were to say the evidence they were about to give would involve the public safety, they would be enabled to shelter themselves behind that statement, and thereby escape inquiry. Now, we wanted to take away that screen. It is because you wanted a strict and searching inquiry that we wished to take away from them the means of evading one. I believe that difficulty will arise, but I am not of that cowardly disposition spoken of by the hon. Member for Finsbury, who thinks we shall be totally incapable of conducting the inquiry. I believe the inquiry can be carried on, and I consider it will be most effectually carried on in the manner we have suggested; but still I believe an inquiry, such as the House desires, can be conducted, even in an open Committee. Now, a great mistake has been made with regard to this Secret Committee. It is fancied that the evidence will be given in darkness, and kept in darkness. No Committee could report to the House without the consent of the House being obtained, and that consent must be obtained by a Select Committee, as well as by a Secret Committee. Therefore, in both cases the same course must be pursued. I should, as Chairman of the Committee, in both cases have to report to the House, and then bring up the evidence entire and complete. This inquiry, I believe, has already done good, and I think the Gentlemen who opposed the appointment of the Committee will be the first to assent to that proposition. As long as the Committee exists, it will be a spur in the side of the Government, and will incite them to those reforms which, if the Committee had not been appointed, would not have been proceeded with. Yielding, therefore, to the opinion of the House, I will, with their permission, withdraw my proposition.

said, he wished to know from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), whether there were any Supplementary Estimates for the Army forthcoming, in addition to those now produced, and he would particularly wish to be understood as referring to the Land Transport Service.

None others, excepting the Commissariat.

said, he would take that occasion to ask whether the clothing of the army was still left to the colonels of regiments? On looking into the Estimates for 1853, he found that the clothing of the marines cost the country 17½ per cent less than the rest of the army, although the clothing of the marines was of a superior quality.

said, the colonels had superintended the clothing for the ensuing year, but that after this year the Government intended to take upon itself the clothing of the army.

said, he wished to inquire whether the Government had issued any general warrant regulating the promotion of general officers; and, if so, whether it contained a provision that any officer who had served six years as equerry to the Sovereign should be entitled to the rank of a general officer?

said, that the warrant referred to had been in the hands of hon. Members for some time. The hon. and learned Gentleman, how- ever, mistook its effect. Any lieutenant colonel having served six years as equerry was to be promoted to the rank of colonel.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the list of officers receiving half-pay. He found there were in it 108 cornets and ensigns, 788 lieutenants, 754 captains, and 178 majors. No officer ought to be allowed to go on half-pay with a low rank; if he wished to retire from the service, he should be compelled to sell his commission; that would relieve the country from a charge of from 200,000l. to 300,000l.

said, he believed this was not an improper occasion on which to complain of a practice that had of late been most invidiously exercised—namely, the bringing in gentlemen from off the half-pay list to fill up the regimental vacancies, to the prejudice of those who had served for considerable periods in the army. He himself knew of cases where the claims of officers who had fought gallantly on the fields of the Alma and Inkerman had been thus overlooked in favour of those who were long distant from those scenes. He believed arrangements of that kind were most ill-considered.

, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), said, that the half-pay list had been fully looked into at the Horse Guards, and that every officer capable of doing duty had been called on to accept of service in the East. He believed the consequent reductions in the list amongst the subalterns and captains amounted to 200.

said, he thought the Horse Guards were perfectly right in adopting that course. But the fact was, many officers had been placed upon the half-pay list in consequence of the difficulty of finding regiments for them. It followed, therefore, that the authorities at the Horse Guards had acted most wisely and considerately, under the circumstances.

said, that not having had an opportunity of addressing the House last night on the discussion relative to the sale of commissions, he would wish now to observe, that if officers were to be deprived of the power of selling their commissions, the country would be saddled with a very considerable expense. His objection to the proposal of last night was, that it went to deprive men who had done good service to the State, of the power of retiring from the army, and maintaining themselves and their families at no expense to the country. The fact was, the moment a non-commissioned officer rose to the rank of captain, he immediately began to consider how he could raise a sum sufficient for the support of his family, and he therefore very properly decided on selling his commission, and making place for a younger man. Nor did the country suffer because a respectable non-commissioned officer realised a sum of 1,800l. or 2,000l., as it might be; yet, by his vote of last night, the hon. Member for Lambeth would prevent such a man from rendering his family comfortable, and would place additional burdens upon the country.

said, he was not so unjust as to suppose that any man who had paid for his commission should not have his money back again.

said, that the hon. Member for Lambeth had shown his ignorance of the service by the observations he had made. If the hon. Member admitted the justice of an officer being allowed to sell his commission, surely he must also allow persons to buy commissions.

said, that undoubtedly if one officer sells, another must buy, but the officer who sells does not, in such case, come upon the half-pay list, and, therefore, does not burden the public.

said, he believed nothing to be more just than that, when an officer had become incapacitated by wounds or disease, he should be allowed to retire on half-pay. If the rule laid down with regard to retiring upon half-pay were adhered to, he did not think that any one could object to the half-pay list.

said, he must congratulate the army upon the accession of so powerful and able a supporter of the system of purchase and sale as the hon. Member for Lambeth. It was delightful to see, notwithstanding what had occurred on previous occasions, with what vigour the hon. Gentleman now supported the purchase and sale of commissions, and it would be very hard if Gentlemen who sat upon the same side of the House with him should oppose his views.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the War Department, if commis- sions had lately been sold by the Government, and, if so, what it was proposed to do with the money so received.

said, that in consequence of the augmentation which had taken place in the army, a number of ensigncies had been created, and a certain portion of them had been sold by the Government with the intention of investing the money, he believed, in Exchequer bills, for the purpose of reducing the half-pay list.

said, he must complain of a statement made on a previous occasion by the hon. Member for Lambeth. That hon. Gentleman had referred to a case of punishment in the 26th Regiment, and he had averred that the younger officers of that regiment, being on oath, had, in order not to displease their seniors, agreed to the sentence, which was afterwards carried into effect. Now, he would just state what were the facts of the case. The man was not tried by regimental court martial at all, but by district court martial, so that the officers of the 26th Regiment had nothing to do with the sentence. The crime for which the severest punishments were inflicted in the army was theft from a comrade, and this man had been not only guilty of that crime, but also of desertion. There was no extra severity used towards the man. When he was in the Prussian army, the captain of a company there was empowered, without court martial, but solely by his own free will, to inflict fifty lashes upon a soldier. There were other punishments practised in that army which would not be tolerated in this country. What he found fault with was this—the hon. Member for Lambeth was in the habit of inflicting the cruellest attacks upon the honour and character of officers, without previously making inquiries as to the truth of his impressions.

said, he was always opposed to flogging under any circumstances. He denied, however, having cast any imputations upon officers. He had only read a statement respecting them out of a newspaper.

said, that corporal punishment had been virtually abolished in the army, except for certain crimes which were looked upon as disgraceful, and he could not believe that the retention of this punishment, to the limited extent in which it was at present made use of, was at all likely to be injurious to the service or to society.

said, he wished to inquire of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) whether the system of selling commissions on the part of the Government, which, so far as he knew, was an entirely novel system, was to be continued?

said, that the sale referred to took place before he had entered upon his present office, but it certainly was not intended to continue it, because it had exclusive connection with the recent augmentation in the army.

said, he hoped it was not to be avowed as a principle in our army that the commissions arising from an increase of the army were to be sold. On the part of the army, he thought the practice a most objectionable one, and if it were repeated he should certainly bring the question before the House.

said, he wished to inquire in whose hands the proceeds of the sale of these commissions were to be placed, and to the credit of what account they were to be brought?

said, he had previously stated that the sum received had been invested in Exchequer bills, and, it was at present understood, would be held for the purpose of reducing the charge on the half-pay list, which otherwise would be considerably swollen when the number of commissions now in existence were reduced upon the termination of the war.

said, his question had not been answered. He wished to know in what office this money was—whether in that of the Secretary for War, or of the Commander in Chief?

said, he imagined it would be in the office of the General Commanding in Chief. Who the parties were in whose name the money was invested he could not state without inquiry.

said, he had not the slightest objection to make to this Vote, but he could not understand what reason there was why the widow and orphans of a soldier in the ranks should not be as much the object of consideration to the State, to which he had given his services and for which he had shed his blood, as the widow and orphans of an officer. If they wished to promote enlistment into the army, they were bound to hold out every reasonable inducement for that purpose. He was one of those who had done everything in his power to promote the success of the Patriotic Fund, which he thought honourable to the humane and beneficent spirit of the nation. At the same time, he thought the necessity of such a fund was a circumstance discreditable to our institutions and military system. Suppose we received in a few days news of 3,000 men more being killed and wounded, what was to become of their widows and orphans under the present system?

said, he quite agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), being unable to see the justice of providing for the widows and orphans of one class in the army and not for those of another. It was both mean and impolitic in a great nation like this, to send round a begging box, calling on the public to do that which he maintained the State was bound to do. They ought to have a statement made by some Member of the Government as to what was intended to be done with the sum collected from the public bounty. The disposition of the Patriotic Fund at the end of the last war had been very unsatisfactory, a surplus of something like 80,000l. having remained, which, he believed, eventually found its way to the National Debt Office. He could not resist bearing testimony on this occasion to the kindly sympathies and indefatigable zeal of Major Powys, who had provided for hundreds of women and children, who, but for his exertions and the liberality of the gentlemen associated with him, would now be starving in our streets, or pining their existence out in workhouses. He trusted Government would manage the fund in the most careful manner.

said, that as a member of the Executive Committee of the Patriotic Fund, he fully concurred in the testimony paid by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire to the success which had attended Major Powys's exertions. With regard to what had been done by the Royal Commission, he could state that the Committee had, after much consideration, prepared a scale of relief for the warrant officers and sailors of the navy, and for the privates and non-commissioned officers of the army and the Marines, which would come into operation from the previous day—March 1. The Committee had been most anxious to meet the wishes of the donors, and with this view had thought it their duty, in the first instance, to provide for the widows and orphans of the classes he had mentioned. There would, however, be doubtless many cases of urgent necessity arising amongst the widows and orphans of commissioned officers, which, if the terms of the warrant permitted, the Committee would gladly relieve; and he thought if it were generally known that the Royal Commissioners were prohibited by the terms of the warrant from so appropriating any portion of the money, the public would contribute to a special fund, to be devoted to that purpose. He was glad to see that so much sympathy existed in the objects of the fund, not merely in this country, but in all parts of the world almost. That morning the noble chairman of the Commission had reported a large contribution from a number of Chinese gentlemen who were engaged in the Singapore trade, and a considerable contribution from Mahomedan families in the East Indies. He could assure the Committee that in the distribution of the money, the utmost pains would be taken to carry out the intentions of the contributors, and that none but fitting objects would be relieved, regard being always had to the immediate wants of the applicants.

said, he was desirous of knowing whether there was any intention that the widows and children of officers who died in the service should receive either the value of the commissions of those officers or any compensation in lieu of such value? It was said that there was not a colonel at Inkerman or Balaklava who had not from 8,000l. to 12,000l. hung round his neck. The meaning of this was, that if officers of that rank were killed in action those amounts would be sacrificed. The fact was, that an officer who gave the full price for his commission did not get more for his money than if he had invested it in London and North-Western Railway shares. He had a relative in the Guards in the Crimea, who was a widower with four children, who was present at Alma and Inkerman, and if he lost the value of his commission he would lose nearly all that he bad in the world. A brother of his was in command of a regiment of cavalry in the charge at Balaklava; had he been killed in that action his widow would only have had a very trifling sum left for her subsistence. He thought it could not be known that cases of this kind existed, or some compensation would be given to the families of officers who died on service for the value of their commissions.

said, he was most unwilling to say anything which might seem disparaging with respect to the claim of the private soldiers of our army to the gratitude of their country, but he must remind the Committee that during a time of war the compassionate feelings of the country were very deeply excited by the sacrifices and sufferings of our soldiers and officers, and that the Government were called upon to be liberal, and even profuse, in affording assistance to them and to their families. But if the Government yielded to this pressure, the consequence was, that at the termination of the war they were charged with being extravagant and forgetful of the economical interests of the country. It had been said that in this Vote there was a great anomaly, as it did not recognise the claims of the widows and orphans of private soldiers and non-commissioned officers, but that it recognised only the claims of widows and children of officers. Now, it should be recollected that no provision was made for the orphan children of officers, but that a liberal provision was made for the children of soldiers. The House had recently granted the sum of 23,367l. for the education and maintenance of the children of soldiers, and no less a number than between 800 or 900 boys were provided for. Hon. Members should remember that the subject was not so one-sided as they seemed to think. The principle of this Vote was, however, that of affording some compensation to the widows of officers who died in the service for the value of the commissions of such officers. If an officer sold out of the army he realised the value of his commission, and this Vote had been adopted in order that, when officers died in the service, their widows might receive some compensation in lieu of the value of their husbands' commissions.

said, he must remind the Committee that he had made a calculation of the loss sustained by the wives and families of officers who had died since May last, and he found that no less than 365,000l. had been lost to them by the war. It was therefore the duty of the Government to bring forward a liberal scale of compensation for the widows and children of officers. At present their means of living were severely scrutinised, with a view of cutting down the miserable pittance which they were entitled to receive. He hoped the Parliament of England would provide some compensation for the losses which were sustained in the country's service.

said, he could not help feeling, as he was sure every man felt, that a very great hardship was inflicted upon the widows and children of officers who sacrificed their lives in the service of their country. If an officer disgraced himself, then his commission and the value of it ought to be forfeited; but when he fell in battle, then provision should be made by the country for his widow and children. He, for one, would deprecate most sincerely the view taken that the widows and children of officers were entitled to participate in the Patriotic Fund, as that fund was not subscribed for them, but for widows and children of the non-commissioned officers and privates of the army. The country would expect that the fund should be strictly limited to the purposes for which it was collected. But he felt that it was a case of desperate hardship upon the widows and children of officers killed in battle, that at the moment when they were deprived of husbands and fathers they should be also deprived of the means of living. He thought that Parliament was bound to consider this hardship, and provide a remedy.

said, with regard to expending the Patriotic Fund in the way stated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he might mention that Mr. Cunard gave 500l. upon the express condition that the widows of officers were to receive part. He felt that if any class ought to be benefited by the fund it was the widows and orphans of officers. He would do all in his power to press upon the Commissioners the necessity of giving some provision to the widows of officers.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the late Colonel Moore, who had met his death in a transport vessel en route to the Crimea. That gallant officer, who refused to leave the burning ship while one of his men remained on board, had paid 14,000l. for his various steps; and yet the pension which his widow received was only 90l. a year. He would like to see the purchase-money of officers' commissions returned to their families, in case of their death in the service.

said, he was willing to provide for the widows of soldiers who had been killed in the service. At the same time he should like to see some measure for providing for the families of soldiers who died either in battle, or from disease, in the service of their country.

said, that such a measure would be a very fitting subject for consideration.

said, he could mention the case of an officer not actually killed in action, but who died two or three days after receiving a wound in the trenches. Would not his widow and orphans have a fair claim to rank with those whose husbands and parents had died in action?

said, that the terms of the warrant would be relaxed to meet such cases.

said, having served under the late gallant Colonel Moore, he wished to state that, although his widow would only be entitled to a pension of 90l. by the regulations of the service, yet, considering his distinguished bravery and the mode of his death, the Government had raised the pension to 200l., and the Queen had added another 100l. to that sum.

said, he must request the Committee to consider what had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of War. At the present moment, when operations were going on, and when the generous feelings of the public were excited by the gallant deeds of our officers and soldiers, the national impulse was to deal liberally and generously in all those matters that concerned the families of the officers and soldiers of the army. Pensions for wounds, for widows, and provisions for orphans, were liberally made. But on the return of peace, Committees were appointed to inquire into the amount of the Army Estimates, and Reports were made as to the great and heavy amount of the charge. Government was then urged to pare down and diminish the provisions made in the moment of liberality, and the allowances made were taken away on the plea of an economical prudence. The House of Commons ought, therefore, to preserve the greatest caution not to embark in grants which might be irksome to the country afterwards to maintain, and which they could not, in good faith or without causing serious disappointment, take away or diminish. That applied especially to the proposition made for pensions to the widows of soldiers. What had just happened was an instance how these grants would increase. The first suggestion was to pension suitably the widows of soldiers killed in action. Then another Motion proposed that pensions ought to be given to the widows of all soldiers who died of disease in the service of their country, whether in time of war or of peace. He hoped these matters would be left to the discretion of the Government, because the Committee might feel sure that the Government shared in those feelings of gratitude for the services of officers and men which the country entertained. But it must be kept in mind that it was neither wise nor prudent—that it really was not conferring a benefit on any class—to grant one day what on a future day they would take away. In the last war there were a great many grants given, and afterwards narrowed and cut down by successive Committees and votes of that House. Of course that created great disappointment to the class to which it was applied. The grants to the upper classes might be so diminished, but if grants were made to the widows of soldiers, and not permanently maintained, great injury would be done to the service, and great disappointment would be created among those classes from which the army was recruited.

said, he trusted that, if an officer did that which caused him to lose his commission, he deserved to lose his position in society also. He was very happy when he saw an instance of a man expelled from a regiment when he had done that which deserved such expulsion. Such a course exalted them in the eyes of those whom they commanded.

said, he was sorry to say that these commissions were given sometimes as a mere matter of patronage, while a fund might be created from such commissions wherewith to relieve the widows.

said, he regretted to find that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not fairly treated this matter. The noble Lord was afraid that if that House granted provision for the wife and child of the soldier, it would be cut down by the economists in that House. Now, he (Mr. Maguire) denied that any economist would cut down that which should be fairly given. The Under Secretary of War had remarked that the State did make a provision. Now, as far as he could see, it was more a matter of sale and bargain than anything else. It was a subject of the greatest importance, forced as it now was upon the mind of the country, and deserved to be brought prominently before the House; and if no other Member brought it forward, he should do so himself on some occasion before the close of the Session.

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the War Department had stated that evening, in answer to a question which he had put to him, that the rate of pay, in the case of the clergymen of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic chaplains in the Crimea, was somewhat in proportion to the scale of living to which the clergymen of the two Churches were accustomed. Now, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman what his idea was of the scale of living of the Roman Catholic chaplain to Kilmainham Hospital, for whom last year a salary of 50l. had been provided, but for whom no allowance was set down in the Estimates this year?

said, he wished to know how it was that, while there was accommodation for 300 persons in Kilmainham Hospital, provision was made for only 144 persons?

said, he was not aware why there had been an omission in the Estimates this year with reference to the salary of the Roman Catholic chaplain at Kilmainham. If that clergyman continued to discharge the same duties as last year, he saw no reason why he should not receive the same amount of salary.

said, that the duties of the Protestant clergyman at Kilmainham were of a much more onerous description than those of the Roman Catholic chaplain.

said, that while the Protestant clergyman at Kilmainham had no other source of income than that which he derived from the discharge of the duties connected with his office there, the Roman Catholic chaplain had, besides his salary, certain parochial dues.

said, that the voluntary contributions of parishioners depended very much on the amount of attention from the clergyman, and the Roman Catholic chaplain of Kilmainham had very little time to give to external duties.

said, he wished to know if the rumour that it was the intention of the Government to reduce the establishment at Kilmainham was correct? The warrant of 1845 ordered that there should be four resident captains, and 700 in-door pensioners, in that institution. The noble Lord the present Secretary of War had, however, undertaken, upon his own responsibility, to make a reduction in that number some years ago. That order of the noble Lord had, however, been rescinded by a Resolution of that House upon a Motion which he about two years since had had the honour to propose. But the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary at War had not acted in accordance with that Resolution, and the number of inmates in the hopital at Kilmainham had continued at the number to which it had been reduced by the order of Lord Panmure. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might be considered to have committed petty larceny in that respect, the original order having been little short of downright robbery. He wished, therefore, to learn what were the intentions of the Government upon the subject.

said, that the present was a time at which, instead of reducing the establishment at Kilmainham, increased accommodation should be provided. It was perfectly clear that there would be, during the war, a great number of wounded soldiers for whom such accommodation would be found necessary.

said, that it was not the intention of Government to make any reduction in the establishment at Kilmainham at present.

said, that to give the Catholic chaplain at Kilmainham only one-fifth of the salary which was received by the Protestant clergyman, was not placing them in the same favourable position as that in which they stood in the Crimea, where their salary was one-half.

said, he would beg to ask, what was the meaning of the sum of 50l. on a former Vote if it was not for a Roman Catholic chaplain?

That was for the widow of the Protestant chaplain.

said, he would now beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to abolish the Property Qualification of Members of Parliament. He hoped that at that late hour (ten minutes past twelve o'clock) the House would extend to him the courtesy of permitting his Bill to be introduced without his making any statement in its support on that occasion.

seconded the Motion.

said, he trusted that no such courtesy as the hon. Gentleman had asked for would he granted to him. This was a very serious question, and he thought that it ought not to be considered in the absence of the majority of the leading Members of the Government. If it were advisable to introduce such a Bill, it ought to be proposed by the Government, and not by an individual Member.

said, he should support the measure. He thought there was no justice in having a qualification for Ireland and none for Scotland. He objected to a property qualification altogether, and believed that by reason of it many good men were excluded from that House.

said, he thought that the Bill was part of the larger question of reform, and had better be deferred until the great measure which the Government had promised to introduce after the conclusion of the war. The question had so often fallen to the ground when left to stand by itself, that it would be a charity to refuse leave to introduce the hon. Member's Bill.

said, he strongly opposed the Motion. He could not see, and never had been able to see, what good reform had done the country. Talk of genius being excluded from the House by the property qualification—give him property—give him men who, having property of their own to take care of, would take care of other people's as well. He only wished the property qualification were ten times greater, and then the House would be more respectable than it was. At present, we are a company without a shirt among us. For the House of Commons as a body he entertained a high respect, but there were those among them whom he could only look upon as belonging to the tagrag and bobtail of society. They were a sort of mixed company, and, if such a measure as that which was now proposed were adopted, the people of England would laugh at them and say they were only fit to be a set of scavengers. He had been a Member of the House of Commons for twenty-six years, and was sorry to say that he found it going down, and sinking lower in respectability every Session. Keep up the respectability of the House of Commons by property men, and the people at large would be more satisfied that their true interests were protected.

said, he certainly could not undertake to oppose the measure on the grounds which had been urged by the hon. and gallant Colonel. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Murrough) had requested to introduce his Bill without prefacing it by any statement; now such a course was only allowed as a matter of courtesy, when any hon. Member brought forward a Bill, the provisions of which were unknown to the House. This was not a case of that sort, because everybody knew the nature of the measure which the hon. Member proposed. For his own part, he differed from the hon. Gentleman, for, although in Scotland no qualification for Members was required, that arose out of the Act of Union, and was an exception to the rule applicable to England and Ireland. He did not think there was any logic in an attempt to make the rule bend to the exception; but this was not the moment to enter into any detailed reasons why it seemed to him that it was not such a measure as it was desirable should be adopted. He would take the broad principle, that if any changes were to be proposed in the representative system of the country, there was an understanding that those changes should not be proposed now, but should be postponed to another period. On that ground, therefore, he should object to the introduction of the Bill.

said, he did not think there was much force in the argument of the noble Lord, that, because the practice which obtained in Scotland was an exception to the rule that was established in England and Ireland, therefore it ought not to be introduced into those countries. The question was, whether the non-qualification principle worked well in Scotland. He contended that it did; and if so, there was no reason why it should not work equally well in other parts of the United Kingdom. After the decision of the Barnstaple Election Committee, it was impossible to stand by the principle of a property qualification.

said, he could not concur in the argument of the hon. and learned Member, that, because the non-qualification principle worked well in Scotland, therefore it ought to be adopted in England and Ireland. The civil law no doubt also worked well in Scotland, but was that a reason why it should be introduced into this country?

, in reply, said that the obstructive power of the House was very great in regard to such measures as this; but his only chance for this Bill was to press it to a division now. The hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) had said that if they wanted a comprehensive system of reform they must look to the Government of which the noble Lord was the head; but he would ask any one who had heard that night the speech of that noble Lord, the soi-disant leader of a Liberal party, whether he could be so deluded as to expect large measures of Parliamentary reform from him. And how could the noble Lord have spoken thus, remembering that within his own Parliamentary experience Mr. Prinsep, the East India director, with far larger property than most of the Members of that House, and Mr. Wilberforce, at another period, were unseated on technicalities, and that there was a petition to Parliament, of the most vexatious description, against the Attorney General for Ireland, who was a member of his own Government? That hon. and learned Gentleman, at least, ought to step forward and assist in carrying this measure. He knew that Cabinets were often divided in opinion upon the question of Parliamentary reform; and some liberal members of the Government ought to support an independent Member in a Motion of this description. The Bill which he now proposed only followed that which was introduced formerly by an hon. Gentleman lately the Member for Devonport, and he did not ask the House to bind itself to the principle, but to allow the Bill to be brought in, and its details to be discussed.

said, he would now move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable a third Secretary and third Under Secretary of State to sit in the House of Commons. By an Act of 6 Anne, and 15 Geo. II., no more than two Secretaries of State could sit in the House of Commons; and by 22 Geo. III. it was doubtful whether a third Under Secretary could sit in the Commons. There being now four Secretaries of State, it might be conducive to the public service if more than two Secretaries and two Under Secretaries of State could sit in the House of Commons.