said, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board whether, among the exceptions to the entrance into the workhouse, the following was one, namely, "where any such person shall be the wife or child of any ablebodied man, who shall be in the service of Her Majesty as a soldier, sailor, or marine;" and whether, therefore, the wife or child of a soldier might not demand relief without being compelled to enter the workhouse.

In reply, Sir, to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg to state that poor persons of this class cannot legally insist upon outdoor relief if the guardians for any particular reason think it right to administer relief in the workhouse. On the other hand, however, the guardians in every union in England and Wales are at perfect liberty to give them outdoor relief if they think fit to do so. Even in those unions where the prohibitory order, as it is called, renders outdoor relief to the ablebodied generally illegal, there is an express exception in favour of the wife or child of any soldier, sailor, or marine, in Her Majesty's service. The same rule applies to the wife or child of any militiaman on duty. The result is, that the discretion of the guardians in giving outdoor relief to poor persons of this class is wholly unfettered either by the general law or by any order of the Poor Law Board; and I am happy to be able to add that, so far as my information goes, the guardians throughout the country are exercising this discretion in a very considerate and humane spirit.

Sir, it is now about a fortnight since the House of Commons were informed that the negotiations at Vienna had proved unsuccessful, and it is exactly a week since the unsuccessful negotiator reappeared in this House. I wish to know whether the protocols of the conferences, which Her Majesty's Government promised to produce, are ready to be laid upon the table, and if not, when they will be.

I am not able, Sir, to give a definite answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I know, however, that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is preparing the papers to which the right hon. Gentleman refers for presentation, and that they will be laid before the House on the earliest possible day.

I beg to give notice then, Sir, that I shall to-morrow ask Her Majesty's Government, whether they can inform us positively on what day these protocols will be laid upon the table; and, unless they can promise that the papers shall be produced very speedily, I shall call on the House to express an opinion on the subject.

, having subsequently entered the House, said that the papers would be ready the next day, and that the cause of the delay which had taken place in their presentation, was the temporary illness of a person in the Foreign Office, in whoso department it lay to translate papers of that description.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, whether the improvements and amelioration announced last year in the dress and accoutrements of the army, with a view to render them less cumbrous and embarrassing, and more adapted to the requirements of actual service, particularly as to stocks, knapsacks, &c., had been carried out, and to what extent, both at home and abroad.

in reply, said, that the improvements which it had been determined to make in the dress and accoutrements of the army had, he believed, been carried out as far as circumstances would allow, but, of course, some time must necessarily elapse before they were universally adopted. With regard to accoutrements, new accoutrements were only issued when they were required, but when it was necessary that they should be issued, those of the new pattern were supplied. Alterations had been made in the knapsacks, which would relieve the troops of about one-third the weight they formerly carried, and all knapsacks now issued were of the new pattern. The old stiff leather stocks had been abolished, and in their place stocks of a light elastic substance had been adopted. The troops in the colonies had been furnished for the current year with clothing of the old pattern, but clothing of the new pattern had been supplied to the army in the Crimea.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he had received any report representing that the new stock was infinitely worse than the old one.

said, he had reason to believe, on the contrary, that it was infinitely better.

said, that there seemed to be some inconsistency in the statements which had been made in that and the other House of Parliament, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the Commissariat arrangements for the Sardinian Contingent. It had been stated that the original agreement was, that the Sardinian Government should supply the contingent with one month's provisions, and that after that time the contingent should depend entirely for their supplies upon the English Commissariat. He begged, therefore, to ask what was the nature of the arrangement that had been entered into.

Sir, the arrangement was, that for whatever period the Sardinian Government provided supplies, in the first instance, for their force, after the lapse of that time the Sardinian Contingent should draw their supplies from the British Commissariat, the Sardinian Government paying for those supplies. I will also take this opportunity of stating, that on this day week my noble Friend at the head of the War Department (Lord Panmure) will explain, in his place in the other House of Parliament, the arrangements Her Majesty's Government intend to make, with the view of consolidating several military departments of the Administration.

said, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, if Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the position of those officers who had returned to this country from the Crimea wounded, and who were now in London for the purpose of attending the medical board, or for military medical attendance; and, in the absence of an hospital for officers, hire furnished houses for their accommodation, and grant them those medical comforts which their cases required.

said, that the medical board, he believed, met twice a week, and if it were found necessary, they would hold more frequent meetings. The hon. and gallant Member seemed not to be aware, that under the existing regulations gratuities were allowed to officers to cover the expenses incurred during the time they were suffering from the effects of wounds.

said, this was not at all the answer he wished to have. The matter was of so much consequence to the officers of the army, and especially to those of the junior grades, that he would take an early opportunity of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Control whether, in Her Majesty's Commissions granting military rank to officers in the service of the East India Company, the words "in the East Indies only" were in future to be omitted; or, whether it was merely intended, under the order which appeared in The Gazette of Tuesday the 1st day of May, to grant social rank and precedence, and not general military rank.

said, the hon. Gentleman, had not quoted quite correctly, the words now used in the Royal Commissions given to officers in the service of the East India Company. The words were, not "in the East Indies only," but "in the East Indies," the word "only" having been omitted by the Duke of Wellington in 1842 for a special object, and in 1854, from the general brevet, by Lord Hardinge. Since the issue of the memorandum, Lord Hardinge had sent written instructions to Sir William Gomm, directing that the words "and honorary rank in all parts of the world" should be inserted in all future Commissions. The intention of the memorandum published in The Gazette was, that wherever officers of the East India Company's service came in contact with those of Her Majesty's service, their respective rank should be settled, not by their belonging to the East India Company's service or to Her Majesty's service, but by the title and date of their Commissions; and he thought the effect would be to facilitate the employment of officers wherever their services were required, while it would by no means fetter the discretion of the Commander in Chief, under the guidance of the Government, with respect to the appointment to commands in all parts of the world of those officers who were considered most eligible, whether they belonged to Her Majesty's service or to the Company's service.

Sir, it will doubtless be in the recollection of hon. Members, that I gave notice of my intention to propose certain Resolutions to this House, and I wish, for the convenience of the House and of the Government, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will give me any day for bringing forward my Resolutions. If the noble Lord does not give me a day, I must propose them on going into Committee of Supply. I also wish to know when the Returns for which I moved some time since will be laid upon the table.

I really, Sir, cannot undertake to find the hon. Gentleman a day; he must find one for himself.

Then, I shall bring the Resolutions forward on an early day, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

said, he begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that, as the Returns for which he had moved were very voluminous, their preparation would necessarily occupy a considerable time, but he would take care that they were produced without any unnecessary delay.

said, he did not mean to oppose the Motion for the third reading, but there were several Amendments which he hoped it was not too late to introduce into the Bill. One of the clauses fixed fifteen days as the period during which a newspaper could pass through the post. Now, if a newspaper was to be stamped at all, what possible objection could there be to its being sent through the post for a longer period than fifteen days? He hoped, therefore, that that clause would be omitted. Again, he thought a drawback should be allowed on account of stamps on newspapers not put in circulation.

said, the reason for the limit of fifteen days was, that abuses had occurred in sending old newspapers through the post for the purposes of sale, but if the House should think the limit too narrow, he had no objection to extend it to thirty days. As soon as the Bill became law, it was the intention of the Government to issue a lower scale of rates for printed matter not included within the definition of periodical publications, and if any old copies of a newspaper or other periodical publication should be in the possession of an editor or proprietor, it would be competent to him, after the expiration of the fifteen days, mentioned in the Bill, to affix an ordinary postage stamp, and send them through the post. He hoped that arrangement would be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.

Perfectly satisfactory; but what about the drawback?

said, he believed that at present no allowance was made for spoiled stamps; but he should inquire into the subject.

said, he was sorry to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to extend the time for the transmission of newspapers. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he was willing to extend it from fifteen to thirty days.

said his remark on the subject was that if the House should evince a strong wish to extend the period from fifteen to thirty days, he would not oppose it, but that his own opinion was that fifteen days was a reasonable period.

said, they all knew that when it was understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to do something more than he thought reasonable there was generally a probability of a change. He (Mr. Bright) believed the system of re-transmission to be bad from beginning to end, and that the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to contemplate its abolition at no distant period. This question of re-transmission had been urged by the newspapers as one of great advantage to them and to the public, but he did not believe it was of any advantage whatever. It was much better for newspaper proprietors that every person who read a paper should buy one for himself than that he should receive it at third or fourth hand. He would suggest also that the monopoly practically given to certain paper-makers by the system of having only four places where the compulsory stamp could be affixed should be abolished. A paper manufacturer in the neighbourhood of one of those places had a great advantage over those whose works were situated at a distance. A gentleman in Bristol had informed him that it was necessary to send paper to be stamped to London, and to take it back again at a great expense, in consequence of this arrangement. The only places where the stamps could be affixed were London, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Dublin, and he thought the sooner such a system was abolished the better. He should be ready to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a proposal that the re-transmission of newspapers should be abolished, and that every man on putting a newspaper in the post office should pay the postage in the same manner that every man paid it when he put a letter into it. The sooner they came to that simple system the better, he believed, would it be for the newspapers of the country.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Manchester should be the last man to talk of abolishing the system of retransmission. That hon. Member was in the habit of telling them that the agricultural districts were less enlightened than the towns; but how were they to be politically enlightened, except by the circulation among them of newspapers? By means of news-rooms one newspaper might be made to serve twenty or thirty people in a town; but it was very different in the country. A newspaper, after being read by one subscriber in the country, was sent perhaps three or four miles off to another, and so on for ten days or a fortnight before it had reached all the subscribers. These people had their friends and families in distant parts of the country, in many instances in poor circumstances, and it was only by retransmission that intelligence could he conveyed to them. He had voted against the second reading of the Bill because he thought it would operate with injustice to existing interests. He had not had the good fortune to hear the splendid speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton), but in conversation his hon. Friend told him that the Bill would communicate great blessings to the country, and his (Mr. Cayley's) reply was that he would not purchase them at the expense of justice, and he did not believe that this Bill was a just Bill by any means. He must say that he was astonished at what occurred in Committee on this Bill in reference to one point. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having adverted to the manner in which articles in some of the newspapers were transferred with impunity to others, said he was willing, in deference to a feeling of justice, to introduce into the measure a remedy for that injustice. There was not a single speaker but admitted the existing injustice, but the Committee seemed so much impressed with the impracticability of remedying it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at last withdrew his proposition. Afterwards another proposition was brought before the House, which, it appeared, would have been accepted as a protection for existing interests in substitution for a copyright protection—namely, an extension of the size or weight of newspapers transmissible through the post; and yet, though nobody denied the practicability of that proposition, just in the same way as nobody had denied the justice of the other, it was not carried. Under these circumstances it was his intention, in the event of the rejection of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), which was to the effect that newspapers should be transmissible through the post up to the weight of six ounces, to take the sense of the House on the question "that the Bill do pass." However great might be the advantages of this measure, of which, nevertheless, he was somewhat doubtful, or however anxious he might be to spread truth and good information through the country in every direction, he would not consent to purchase those advantages at the expense of justice and of existing interests. Still, he repeated that he was doubtful whether the measure would have the effect of spreading truth and good information through the country.

said, he had understood that the object of this Bill was to bring newspapers into their normal state, and not to continue the retransmission of them. He had always thought that newspapers should be allowed to spring up wherever they were wanted—and if that view was sound, why should they endeavour to prop up existing newspapers by means of retransmission? In the Committee on Stamp Duties some proprietors of American newspapers were examined, and they all stated that their newspapers were sustained not by a system of retransmission but by cheapness of price. In America country people bought a newspaper for a cent; in England they would assuredly have newspapers at a penny, if not a halfpenny. It was cheapness that they should encourage, and not retransmission.

said, he could not understand the argument of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). It might be desirable to abolish the penny stamp, but so long as it continued, newspapers should have the same advantages which they had hitherto enjoyed. A great practical evil would arise from the abolition of the system of retransmission, and even from the limit of fifteen days defined in the Bill. At present there was only one mail in the month to Australia. If there were no power of retransmission, comparatively few papers could be sent to Australia and the other colonies; while, under the clause as it stands, there would be thirteen daily papers every month which could never be sent to Australia at all. Then, again, it would occasion much cost and loss of time at the Post Office to examine newspapers for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were posted after the allowed period. He therefore asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the limit for posting newspapers to a month after the publication, or to leave the provision on this point altogether out of the Bill.

said, that the clause to which the hon. Member referred was not intended to apply to the postage of newspapers for the colonies; and, to make this clearer, he was ready to insert the words "places within the United Kingdom."

said, it was his intention to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. He considered that he was justified in making this Motion, notwithstanding the large majority in its favour on a former occasion, because since then the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward his Budget, imposing a great amount of taxation on the people. Moreover, he could not find any one thoroughly pleased with the Bill. All agreed to dissent to it, except the hon. Members for Manchester, and, as far as he had an opportunity of ascertaining the feelings of people, the measure did not seem to be wished for at all. The chief reason which existed for the introduction of the present Bill was the difficulty which the law officers laboured under of defining what was a newspaper; but he did not see how that difficulty was to be got rid of, unless the system of taking securities was altogether abandoned. It was agreed on all hands that great injustice might arise from the measure, and that the character of our press ran some danger of being injured by it, because, if the profits of the newspapers were injured, the character of the newspapers must fall. Seeing, then, that great injustice might be effected by the Bill if it should pass, and that a great amount of revenue would be perilled by it, he felt he was justified in moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

said, he voted against the original introduction of the Bill simply on the ground that it was very unadvisable that, when the financial state of the country was not before the House, they should determine to part with any portion of the revenue; but upon the merits of the Bill itself he was not disposed to reject it, and therefore he should vote against the Amendment. He must say one word in allusion to the remark of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take the earliest opportunity of getting rid of the retransmission of newspapers altogether. He agreed with that hon. Gentleman, that they had a deep interest in the diffusion of political intelligence and useful information by means of newspapers, but they had an equal interest in taking care that newspapers should be of the highest possible class, and that they should be conducted by men of character and intelligence; and believing as he did that the power of retransmission was a premium on the highest class of newspapers, he should be sorry to see it abolished, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never consent to any such measure.

Sir, from what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I fear I must assume that the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to the Amendments which I have put on the paper, and I have no alternative, therefore, but to oppose the further progress of this Bill. It is never too late to do justice, and, as I am of opinion that I have been instrumental in doing an act of injustice, it is my duty, so far as I can, to remedy it. I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing forward this Bill, for I am not sure that it is his original measure. The House will do well to consider the extraordinary state in which this Bill now appears before it; various clauses have appeared, disappeared, and reappeared during its progress, and it is, Indeed, very difficult at this moment accurately to understand the precise position in which the Bill stands. I wish, for a moment, however, to direct the attention of the House to the effect of the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed and which have been rejected. Take, for instance, the clause which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed for the purpose of giving to the newspaper press a copyright in their productions. Now, why did the right hon. Gentleman propose that clause? I hope I am doing him no injustice in saying that I think he proposed it from a conscientious belief that this Bill would work a serious injustice on existing newspapers. I put it to the reasoning mind of the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not, by the fact of his having proposed such a clause, placed himself in the position of having admitted before Parliament and the country that he was about to inflict an injury on existing interests, and that he felt himself bound, therefore, to provide a remedy. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to apply a remedy, but upon discussion I was unfortunately compelled to move the rejection of his clause, because I felt the remedy he proposed to be perfectly impossible in practice. We have therefore now the admission of the Minister that he meant to do an injustice, and that it was his duty to remedy it, and we have also the fact that he did attempt a remedy, but failed in the attempt. A failure in an attempt to remedy an injustice to existing interests is a very serious thing for this House, which is the natural guardian of property, to admit, and I would respectfully ask those hon. Gentlemen opposite who support this Bill, on what principle they think themselves at liberty to injure property which is the result of a combination of skill, intellect, money, industry, and energy, producing a corresponding effect on the public mind. Now that is what this Bill does. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed in his attempt to remedy this injustice; but when was it ever before decided that a failure to furnish a remedy for injustice justified legislation of this kind? If this Bill passes without a clause protecting copyright, a certain class of newspapers, which will be called into existence by the change in the law, will appropriate the labour and industry of others to their own use and profit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) opposed the clause relating to the superficial extent of newspapers, but on what argument? It only referred, he said, to one particular journal, and only to the particular portion of that journal which was called the supplement, and which the right hon. Gentleman further maintained was no portion of the newspaper. The sheet that contains advertisements no part of a newspaper! What a strange argument for the representative of a great commercial community to make use of! The 55 Geo. III.—a very sensible Act, by the way—which refers only to Ireland, expressly defines a newspaper to be a periodical which contains any number of advertisements exceeding two; therefore we have a Parliamentary declaration, that the very definition of a newspaper is, that it contains advertisements. The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that there is no portion of the contents of a newspaper which is more beneficial to his constituents than that very portion which he would not permit to travel free by post. The papers which the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to see spring up in all directions may contain much that may be injurious to public morals and manners; but there can be no doubt that the supplement contains a great deal that is useful to every interest in the State. No man is justified in giving a vote in reference to property either according to his feelings or his prejudice; his reason ought to be convinced, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not decide on this question without considering it fairly and impartially. Now, what is it that renders these supplements necessary? It is not the excess of advertisements, but the excess of news; and the supplement therefore, I say, is undeniably part of the paper. Suppose 400 advertisements are brought to The Times newspaper for insertion in one day; if there are no Parliamentary debates, no speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, or the able men around him, to be reported; if there are no police reports, no important news from Sebastopol, no Vienna conferences to be communicated to the public, then there would be some corners to spare, and these advertisements would appear in the main body of that paper; but if there are Parliamentary debates, law reports, foreign intelligence, and such things to be inserted, they push these advertisements from the place where they would otherwise appear and it becomes necessary to supply that portion of the paper which is called the supplement, and which really ought to be part of the newspaper. But the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester is this; because you give so much news to the public, which fills the main part of your paper, and because you give a supplement containing advertisements useful to all classes, therefore, you shall not send your paper by post, for its weight exceeds 4oz. Now, a more unjust argument than that I cannot conceive. I am not aware, however, that the Post Office authorities have anywhere shown that they cannot carry 6 oz. as well as 4oz. The great authority, Mr. Rowland Hill, has stated that the carriage of newspapers, so far as their size is concerned, makes very little addition to the trouble of the Post Office. The injury to the revenue is not proved, and you propose, therefore, to do a positive injustice to an existing interest, for the sake of avoiding a problematical injury to the revenue. But I cannot conceive on what possible ground this arbitrary line has been drawn between 4oz. and 6oz. It is a Post Office regulation, it is said; but what is the necessity for it? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester professes to be desirous of seeing a number of new papers arise which will carry news through all parts of the country; but if a paper is superior in intellect and energy, and if it gives more news than others, he makes an endeavour to stop its circulation. But that is not the only absurdity. Why did you abolish the duty on advertisements? Simply because it was for the benefit of men of industry and enterprise—of men engaged in commerce and in manufactures—of employers and employed—that they should all be able to make their wants known as cheaply as possible. That was your object in taking off the duty on advertisements, but after doing that you perversely reimpose it, to a certain extent, by putting an additional tax on that particular journal which contains the greatest number of advertisements. Now, what says that great teacher of political economy, Mr. M'Culloch, on this question? I commend his words to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who has taken so leading a part in regard to this measure, and with whom Mr. M'Culloch ought to be an authority. In his recent treatise on "the Principles and Influence of Taxation," that eminent writer says—

"The newspaper duties produce about 355,000l. a year, and, being as moderate as can well be desired, we see no reason why they should be either reduced or repealed. They can hardly, indeed, be properly called duties, but are rather to be regarded as a payment for the trouble and expense attending the conveyance and distribution of newspapers by post, for which no charge is made. But it is said that this charge should be exactly apportioned, or that it should be laid only on the newspapers which are actually put into the Post Office. And it has in this view been proposed to repeal the stamp duty on newspapers, and to impose in its stead a charge of 1d. on all newspapers sent by post; but we incline to think that a commutation of this sort would be not a little objectionable. Its obvious tendency would be to confine the circulation of newspapers to the districts within which they are published—a result which is not at all to be desired. At present The Times and other London journals, displaying the greatest talent, and embracing the most varied information, are distributed all over the country at about the same price as the local and inferior journals. But were the proposed plan adopted, the charge for postage being added to the price of the metropolitan journals would make them decidedly dearer than the local papers; and people in very many, or rather, perhaps, in the great majority of instances, would be disposed to prefer the cheaper, though inferior journal, published at their door, to the superior, but dearer journal of the capital. This would he a serious disadvantage, and by depreciating the quality of the journals circulating over the country, and fostering local prejudices, would far more than neutralise the advantages which it is said would result, under the proposed plan, from the establishment of cheap papers. These advantages are, indeed, of a very doubtful description. It is certainly true that many of the inferior papers now to be met with inculcate the most pernicious doctrines; but it is by no means clear that their influence would be in any degree lessened by exchanging a stamp for a postage duty. On the contrary, it would very probably be increased. The existing duty affects them to the same extent that it affects other descriptions of papers; and as they circulate at present, it appears reasonable to suppose that they would circulate still more extensively were they relieved from the tax. On the whole, therefore, we see no good ground for making the proposed change. It would be next to certain to lower the general character of the newspaper press and deteriorate the most important branch of the national literature."

Mr. M'Culloch then discusses the question of the limitation of the size of newspaper supplements, and observes—

"The limitation of the size of supplements given away gratis might, however, be advantageously set aside. It indirectly lessens the advertisement duty, and is, in all respects, impolitic."

These, then, are the wise and sensible opinions of this great political economist—opinions which, I think, this House on the third reading of this Bill would have done well to adopt. Now, why should not a man who buys an unstamped copy of a newspaper, and sees in it something which would interest his friends, be enabled to send it to them after he has read it himself for a penny stamp? What is the reason for this? If there be one, we ought to have it distinctly stated. But no reason has been assigned for what the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), with his usual frankness, termed a blow struck at a particular journal by this Bill. Now if this ground of objection to this anomalous, inconsistent, and absurd measure be good, I wish next to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he means to do with the second ground—namely, that unstamped newspapers should be subject to the same law as those which are stamped. Does he, or does he not, intend that unstamped newspapers shall be liable to registration and to the security system equally with the newspapers which now exist? If he does not, let us have the reason for that likewise. Why should you exact compliance with the law of security and registration from the respectable journals, while you leave every penny writer who may start up to demoralise the community or assail private character free from all wholesome restraint or check whatsoever? For these reasons, Sir, I submit that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to press this Bill as it stands would be unjust and impolitic. The right hon. Gentleman's own reference to the law of copyright proves that his measure will damage existing interests; and there can be no legislation so exceptional and unjust as this, which for the sake of a general and problematical good, does a private and particular injury, I shall, therefore, Sir, oppose the third reading of this Bill, which I consider to be ill-conceived, badly drawn, and ill-advised.

Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman who has last addressed us has, to say the least, adopted an unusual course in respect to the Bill now before the House. In the Committee on the Bill I proposed a clause enforcing the present copyright of newspapers by a cheaper and speedier remedy; and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposed that clause upon grounds which he then stated to the House. Now, however, he opposes the Bill, on the ground that this copyright clause was not carried. Now, Sir, that clause did not form part of the original Bill; it was not proposed by me as a necessary portion of the original measure, but upon the special grounds which I submitted to the House in moving its separate adoption. On that occasion I stated that it was alleged by certain parties that the Government, indifferent to the character and interests of the existing newspapers, had proposed a measure that would prove most detrimental to those interests, by calling into being a large class of cheap newspapers, which would prey on the property of the established journals, pilfer their intelligence, and, in fact, live on the dishonest spoils that they thus obtained. I did not state that I believed—nor do I now believe—that such a practice will prevail to any considerable extent in consequence of the Bill now before the House, should it become law. At the same time I admitted that apprehensions such as I have described were entertained by many persons, and I also stated that the present law of copyright possessed by newspapers was ineffectual; that, though it recognised their right, still the remedy it afforded them was nugatory, and could not easily be enforced. Therefore I proposed to the Committee a clause providing a more efficient remedy; the proposition was discussed, but it met with but little support from either side of the House, and I did not feel justified in pressing it to a division, being satisfied that if I did so the clause would be rejected. Therefore, looking to the circumstances under which that clause was proposed and subsequently withdrawn, I cannot see that its rejection furnishes any sufficient reason for the House now dissenting from the third reading of the Bill. If the fears of those hon. Gentlemen who believe that the passing of this measure will call into existence a large class of piratical newspapers should be realised, it will still be open to the House when those fears are seen to have been well founded to apply a proper remedy to the evil, or increase the strength of the present law of copyright. A single short Act would be all that would be required, either identical with the enactment which I proposed or very similar to it. I will not trouble the House now with many remarks, but I merely wish to say a few words upon the proposition of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Whiteside) as it stands in the Votes—namely for an additional clause altering the law with respect to the supplements of newspapers. Now, what he proposes is that all periodical publications, appearing at intervals not exceeding seven days, and the weight of which shall not exceed 6 oz., shall be carried through the post at a penny stamp. Now, the effect of that proposition, as the Bill now stands, is this,—that with regard to all periodical publications which are issued at intervals of not more than seven days, they would, up to 6 oz., be entitled to transmission for a stamp of a penny. Beyond 6 oz., however, as I understand it, this clause would subject such newspapers to the rule as to superficial inches. So that newspapers which consisted of more than 6 oz. would be charged by the measure of superficial contents; while, on the other hand, those that were less than 6 oz. would be charged by the measure of weight. Now, this would be found in practice a very inconvenient regulation as far as the Post Office is concerned; and that I may not be thought to exaggerate the case, I will state to the House what was the weight of the last four numbers of The Illustrated London News. The number of that journal published on the 7th of April weighed 4¼ oz.; that of the 14th of April, 8¼ oz.; that of the 21st of April, 4½ oz.; and that of the 28th, 7¼ oz. Therefore, of the four last numbers of The Illustrated London News, two would exceed the limit of 6 oz. Now, by what measure would the hon. and learned Gentleman apportion the charges upon those numbers, as, according to his proposition, you must resort to the scale of superficial inches in combination with that of weight? Then with reference to periodical publications appearing at intervals of more than seven and less than thirty days, he would leave the existing law unaltered, and they would be charged by their superficial inches and measured according to that standard. Thus the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause would create additional confusion and inconsistency in the administration of a law which is already sufficiently anomalous, and I cannot, therefore, think that the House will for a moment be prepared to assent to its adoption. The hon. and learned Gentleman has put several questions to me, asking the reasons that can be assigned for different provisions of this Bill, and he says that he desires to elicit distinct answers from me. He wishes to know whether the Post Office cannot carry 6 oz. as easily as it can carry 4 oz; and, if it can, whether there is any reason for charging an additional halfpenny for conveying a news-paper which weighs 6 oz, while only a penny is charged for conveying one that weighs but 4 oz. I might ask the hon. and learned Member upon what reason he can justify the payment of 1d. on a letter weighing half an ounce, and 2d. on a letter weighing an ounce? If we have a graduated scale for letters, is it an absurdity, or rather is it not equally fair, to establish a graduated scale for newspapers? There is a great difference between the two cases, for, whereas a newspaper is allowed to transmit 4 oz. for 1d., a letter is charged 1d. for half an ounce. The average weight of all newspapers carried through the post is 3 1–10th ounces, and the average weight of the letters is less than a quarter of an ounce. This shows the great advantage which the newspapers derive under the present charges. The hon. and learned Gentleman also asks whether, under this Bill, as it now stands. unstamped papers will be subjected to the law of registration and securities? On moving for leave to bring in this Bill, I stated that I should withdraw the clauses on this subject, and proposed to leave the law as it at present stands; therefore, the present law will only apply to newspapers I that are registered as such. I understand; that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to include under this law all periodicals, whether newspapers or not; but I cannot sec any benefit that would be derived from including halfpenny and penny publications, which do not contain news, and which are circulated by societies—for example, by many religious societies. Those publications are not at present subjected to registration, and I can see no sufficient ground for proposing a new enactment which will include them under the law of registration sureties.

There can be but one feeling in the House with reference to what has just fallen from the noble Lord, but I think the best course would be that the debate should be adjourned.

said, there were two inspectors of prisons appointed by the Irish Government, at salaries of 535l. each, but this was not all they received, for the Irish counties paid an additional sum of 600l., to each gentleman. The counties also paid local inspectors, and he wished to know whether the inspectors of English prisons, who received salaries of 700l., received any additional sum from the counties?

The inspectors of English prisons receive no additional payment, but they do not perform the duties chargeable upon the Irish inspectors in relation to the counties.

said, he very much doubted whether the services of these gentlemen were wanted in their double capacity.

said, that a Bill was about to be brought in, containing an alteration which he thought would meet the views of the hon. Member.

said, he wished to know whether the diminution in this estimate had arisen either from an increase in the number of prisoners sent abroad, or from the large number discharged with tickets of leave?

said, that the estimate of prisoners last year, for which the Vote was taken, had not been reached and the present vote consequently exhibited a diminution. The system of granting tickets of leave and letters of licence was being carefully watched. He had ordered returns to be made out, of every prisoner convicted even for vagrancy, who was known to be the holder of a letter of licence, in order that it might be revoked, upon the ground that the object for which it had been granted had not been accomplished. In cases were parties were only committed for trial it would not be fair to withdraw the licence, and it would be merely suspended until the result of the trial was known. The number of ticket-holders recommitted was positively, but not comparatively large; but returns were being collected which would give the Committee full information on the subject.

said, he was glad to think, from the diminution of the number of prisoners, that crime was decreasing. Was the number of convicts sent out greater or less than usual?

Much the same. Western Australia is the only colony to which convicts are sent under sentence of transportation, Convicts are sent to Bermuda and Gibraltar to assist in the public works, as they are sent to Portland, Chatham, and Portsmouth. A fixed number are sent to Western Australia—about 600 or 700 a year, care being taken not to send more than the state of the labour-market requires.

said, he observed that a sum of 5,000l. was set down for the maintenance of jnvenile offenders in the Philanthropic Society Establishment at Redhill, and 2,000l. for all other similar institutions. He imagined that the Philanthropic Institution at Redhill was not one of the institutions licensed under the Act of last year. He wished also to know what Government proposed to do with respect to reformatory institutions under the Act of last year. In many counties a move was being made to establish such institutions, and the promoters wished to know if they could hope that Government would take part in the expense. It was provided by the Act that the parents of the children committed could be charged with a certain amount of the cost; hut the law did not provide very satisfactory means for recovering the amount, or enforcing that provision of the Act. This uncertainty made those persons who were interested in the success of these institutions anxious to know if Government proposed to introduce a Bill during the present Session to remedy this defect.

said, the children sent to Redhill were not sent under the Act of last Session. With regard to institutions under that Act, the Treasury would pay the whole cost of the maintenance of the inmates, as distinct from the expenses of the establishment, and 5s. a week per head was considered a fair sum. The principle of making parents, at whose instigation or from whose neglect children had fallen into criminal habits, defray the expense of their maintenance in reformatories, was just and expedient; but it was very difficult to enforce the obligation without increasing the number of prison inmates, by committing persons for the nonpayment of those charges, and as long as the Treasury paid the 5s. a week, there was little motive for any one to enforce payment from the parents. Where they were well known, it was a matter for the discretion of the magistrates whether they would compel the payment or not, but the greatest number of these criminal children came from the streets of large cities, and did not in many cases even know who their parents really were. He hoped to propose an amendment of the law, with the view to facilitate the recovery of the expenses from the parents, but ho did not expect that to any great extent the provision could be enforced.

said, he was struck with the disproportion of the amount granted for the establishment at Redhill and for the others. He could not help expressing his disapprobation that the Redhill establishment, which was the oldest and the best in the country, should not be open for the reception of juvenile offenders under the Act of last year. Government had now become so much connected with that institution that he could not think this was satisfactory, especially as a difficulty was felt in the magistrates having often no place to commit the boys to. He rose also to ask on what principle the boys were sent to Redhill, and to whom their selection was entrusted? He wished further to ask whether the rule of the Philanthropic Institution to send all boys abroad at the termination of their sentence was concurred in by the Secretary of State? He had had the honour, a short time ago, of forwarding to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) a very strong opinion from the county with which he was connected (Worcestershire) pressing upon him that the public funds ought to furnish some aid, not only for the maintenance, but for the institution of such establishments. It was within his knowledge that several counties, sensible of the importance of the subject, were deterred by a just feeling that the establishments ought not to be left to the benevolence of private individuals. As it was a matter of public interest, he considered that they had a right, after the strong expression of public feeling upon the question last year, to expect that Government would take into consideration how this aid might be afforded.

said, he must explain that the estimate of 2,000l. rested upon a calculation of the number of boys that would be committed to these reformatories at 5s. per week each, but if the number were exceeded, the estimate also would be exceeded, as it was not intended to limit the amount. With regard to the 5,000l. for the establishment at Red Hill, that included a provision for placing the boys in some way of gaining their livelihood. He was not aware of any rigid rule requiring that those boys should be sent abroad, though he could easily understand that they would have a much better opportunity of advancing themselves abroad than in this country. He hoped that a number of reformatories would be established under the Act of Parliament; but, as some of the reformatories now in existence had not been for many months in operation, he thought it would be too much to expect the country to take the whole charge of such establishments, and to withdraw them altogether from local management. He thought the proper course would be to see what was the result of the experiment, before any interference was attempted with existing arrangements.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the injustice that was done to Ireland in throwing the expenses of criminals and witnesses in criminal prosecutions upon the counties. The late Sir Robert Peel, when he proposed the repeal of the corn laws, admitted that Ireland was entitled to relief in that respect, while the late Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a pledge that the matter should be looked into. Now, here was Ireland going to have an increased income tax, besides an increased tax upon spirits, thrown upon her, and yet no relief was proposed in the shape of a transfer of some of these charges to the Consolidated Fund.

said, that when the arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman referred was made by Sir Robert Peel, one-half the expenses of prosecutions at assizes and sessions, and certain charges connected with the poor laws in England, and the entire cost of the constabulary in Ireland, were transferred to the Consolidated Fund. This adjustment was not made upon the principle of taking the same local charges in England and Ireland, but of taking different charges in the two countries. If the Committee referred to the Votes, they would find in them a charge of 638,511l. for the constabulary in Ireland; but there was no corresponding charge for the police of England. He doubted whether his predecessor in office had given any pledge on this subject, beyond engaging to take the matter into his consideration; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) certainly could not hold out any hope that the Government would propose any alteration in the adjustment of local burdens proposed by Sir Robert Peel.

said, he must maintain that Sir Robert Peel distinctly laid it down, that inasmuch as Ireland was essentially a corn-growing country, she was entitled to be relieved of many of her county charges when the corn laws were repealed.

said, that, in reverting to the subject of reformatory schools, he thought that where children were placed in these establishments had attained an age at which they might reasonably be expected to maintain themselves out of prison, their parents, who were earning small wages, should not be required to support children of whose services they were deprived.

said, that it was not his intention to propose any change in the law affecting the liability of parents, but merely with respect to the machinery by which that law was enforced.

said, he considered that, although 5s. a week might be a sufficient sum for the maintenance of a child in a large establishment, it would scarcely be sufficient in the case of smaller establishments; and he hoped that, as the efficiency of the principle of reformatory establishments was tested by private benevolence, the Government would be as liberal as possible in aiding such efforts.

said, he thought parents ought not to be called upon to support children in these reformatories up to so advanced an age as sixteen. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that he was afraid the provision for making parents pay for the support of their children in these reformatories would be inoperative in many instances. This might be so, but even if it were operative in only one case out of twenty, the principle was a sound one and ought to be enforced. It was a monstrous and dangerous principle to lay down, that parents having refractory children should be entitled to quarter them on the public funds for their maintenance. As to the emigration of children from the reformatory at Red Hill, he thought that was a decided mistake. If all that was wanted was to send them to another country, why not send them at once, instead of first maintaining them in this institution? The fact was, however, that this country could not now afford to lose her citizens, her position in this respect being quite different to that in which she stood a few years ago.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman could not mean that the children immediately after committal should be sent out to the colonies, because that would evidently be a premium to crime. As to the emigration of children from Red Hill, that was left to the discretion of the manager of that institution.

said, one great defect in our law was, the age at which a child might be made the object of our criminal jurisprudence. Nothing could be more shocking than to see children of seven years old brought before the magistrates, and we might in this follow with advantage the example of the canon law, which fixed the age of nine for girls and ten for boys, until which time children could not be the object of criminal jurisprudence.

said, he would point out lo the hon. and learned Member the youthful till-robbers, who, at the age of seven or eight, were extremely clever in their vocation, and ought certainly to be taken out of the hands of their parents.

said, he was not objecting to a child of that age being taken out of the hands of their parents, but to its being made the object of criminal jurisprudence.

said, the offence must be proved, and to prove the offence legal proceedings must be instituted against the child.

said, that in referring to the vote of 3,620l. for Bethlehem Hospital, he considered that the question of criminal lunatics was in such an unsatisfactory state that unless some change in the law were proposed by next year, he should then feel inclined to move that this Vote be entirely omitted. The Vote was proposed for the maintenance of 107 criminal lunatics in Bethlehem Hospital, whereas in England there were about 600 criminal lunatics under confinement. There seemed to be no principle of selection with regard to those sent to this hospital, while a very large number were kept confined in county lunatic asylums. Now, if the system was a right one, all criminal lunatics should he kept in establishments supported by the public, and not in asylums belonging to the counties. The description of buildings required for criminal lunatics was not at all adapted for other lunatics, and the confinement of the two classes in the same asylum was highly detrimental to the treatment of the latter. The Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy had years ago represented to the Government the evils j attendant on the confinement of criminal lunatics in county asylums, but the system had been allowed to go on increasing till it had become a very great source of annoyance, as it interfered very much with the good treatment of ordinary lunatics in those asylums. He would not now oppose the Vote, but if the attention of the Government were not directed to the subject by another year he should certainly feel it his duty to propose its rejection.

said, he fully concurred in what had been stated by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Floyer) as to the impropriety of placing the two classes of lunatics in the same asylum.

said, a considerable portion of the expense of maintaining criminal lunatics in private asylums was paid by the public. He concurred in much, however, that had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and hoped to be able I next year to come to some arrangement by which better accommodation might be provided for criminal lunatics at the charge of the Government.

said, he wished to observe, with reference to 5s. being paid for the maintenance of children in reformatory schools, that he knew of one establishment where this sum was found quite sufficient for the purpose. He observed that a large sum was taken for a juvenile reformatory in Ireland, and complained that no such support was given to similar institutions in England and Scotland.

said, the institution in Ireland was essentially a criminal one, similar to Parkhurst.

said, he wished to know what number of convicts we had now abroad? He wished the Vote were larger, as he thought the ticket-of-leave system would in a few years break down; but at the same time there seemed to be this year a considerable increase in salaries.

said, in consequence of the discoveries of gold in Australia it had been found necessary to raise the salaries of officers in order to retain them in the public service. The reduction in the number of convicts sent to Australia was very considerable. The only place to which they were now conveyed was—as he had stated at an earlier period of the evening— West Australia, and the number did not exceed 500 or 600 annually.

said, that the next Vote was that for Education in England, and as a sum had been taken on account, he would postpone it, in order that the discussion on the subject which was expected might take place.

said, he hoped that the estimate No. 4 would not be pressed, as several of the items would lead to discussion, and in consequence of the alteration in the business for the night, a number of Gentlemen who intended to take part in that discussion were absent. He would suggest that all the educational Votes should be postponed.

said, that the Vote for English education had been postponed at the request of several hon. Members, but he hoped the Committee would go on with the other Votes.

said, he thought that, considering the number of Votes which had been agreed to without any serious opposition, the Government might well agree to postpone these Educational Votes. He observed that there were seventeen Orders on the paper, and he thought that if the noble Lord at the head of the Government had looked through those Orders, and considered which of them could fairly be brought forward, he might have been able on that evening to have got through a great deal of business. He thought that the noble Lord could safely consent to postpone the Educational Votes, and also the Committee on the Metropolis Local Management Bill. The remaining sixteen Orders were, he thought, enough to satisfy the appetite of any Government, whether a weak or a strong one.

said, he would agree to the postponement of the Educational Votes; as to the Metropolis Management Bill, he did not know what course his right hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone intended to pursue.

said, that when the proper time arrived he should be prepared to move that the House go into Committee on that Bill. He believed that up to the 46th clause there would be no objection to the Bill, and when that clause was arrived at he would consider the propriety of adjourning the discussion to a future day.

said, he was always very unwilling to refer to conversations in the lobby or behind the Speaker's Chair, but he had understood that the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken not to proceed with the Bill that evening. The right hon. Gentleman said, that there was nothing in the Bill to provoke discussion before the 46th clause, but he had understood that before arriving at that clause there was an important amendment to be proposed, which involved the consideration of the propriety of altering Hobhouse's Act.

said, he trusted that his right hon. Colleague would not proceed with the Bill that evening; and, indeed, he had understood that it was not his intention to do so.

said, he hoped that the House would consent to go into Committee on the Bill when the proper time arrived. He had that afternoon, when he saw that there was a chance of being able to proceed with the Bill, sent a message to the noble Lord who had just sat down, by the hon. Member for Westminster, informing him that such was the case, and he hoped that there would not be any objection to go into Committee on the Bill that evening.

said, that he had believed the right hon. Gentleman to have entered into a distinct understanding not to proceed with the measure that evening. [Ultimately it was agreed that the Bill should not be proceeded with that evening, and the Educational Votes were postponed.]

said, that he believed the Governor had no salary as such, but had 5,000l. a year as chief consul or superintendent. Two years ago, it was objected that the salary of the Governor (6,000l.) was too large, but now the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor had 7,000l. between them, which was an increase on the former charge.

said, that Sir John Bowring's expenses were great, and his duties requiring him to be taken away very often from Hong-Kong, it was necessary to have a lieutenant-governor on the spot.

said, he was decidedly of opinion that it was now time that a stop should be put to promoting emigration. He had always thought it bad policy to send out from this country the industrious and enterprising, while the drones were left at home. The Government, he considered, ought rather to check than encourage emigration.

said, that the Vote was not intended to promote emigration, but to protect emigrants against the frauds and impositions to which they might be subject at the different ports of embarkation. With respect to Australian, or what was called Government emigration, no portion of the funds of this country were applied to that object. The money for that purpose was sent over by the colonial authorities, and its administration was entrusted to the Emigration Commissioners, but no inducement to emigrate was held out by the Government, beyond the circumstance of the colonial funds being placed in the hands of the Emigration Board for distribution.

said, that the greatest discontent prevailed in consequence of emigrants arriving at the different ports from a great distance, being sent in vessels not properly suited for the purpose.

said, he thought the statement of the Home Secretary unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the Vote was merely intended to furnish protection to those who emigrated on their own account, and to provide for the proper distribution of the funds sent from the colonies; but he (Mr. Spooner) considered the sum of 8,700l. for the salaries of Chairman, two Commissioners, Secretary, and establishment, &c., very large for that purpose.

said, that the emigration officers at the ports were appointed for the express purpose of seeing that the ships were seaworthy, and of deciding disputes which might arise. The board had a large sum of money to dispose of; it had the general superintendence of those agents at the ports; it had to answer innumerable letters, and to discharge generally very onerous and important duties. It was not improbable, however, that a reduction would shortly take place in the number of the Commissioners.

said, that if the colonists who provided the funds in question wished that the agents at the ports should be appointed by themselves instead of by the Emigration Board, he apprehended that the Government would not object.

said, he wished to draw attention to the circumstance that there was no Government emigration agent at any port between Plymouth and Liverpool, and would suggest that an emigration agent should be established at Bristol.

said, the subject had been brought under his notice by a memorial from Bristol. He had referred that memorial to the Emigration Commissioners; and he did not think, from the Report which they had made, that it would be desirable to incur the expense which the establishment of such a Board would involve, because he believed that the necessities of the public were already sufficiently provided for.

said, he wished to obtain some information with regard to the present state of the African slave trade.

said, he believed that, with respect to Brazil, the progress that had been made was satisfactory. So far as his information went, and it was confirmed by the statements made repeatedly to him during the last twelve months by the Brazilian Minister at the British Court, the importation of slaves into Brazil had entirely ceased. The result had been, that the capital formerly employed in that abominable traffic had been diverted into other channels—that the trade of the country was becoming more and more developed—that roads were in course of construction, railways were planned, and that improvements of all kinds were going on. He was afraid that to a certain extent the slave trade was still carried on in Cuba, not simply from Africa, but from Brazil, for the Brazilians complained that some of their slaves had been carried off to Cuba. The number of slaves imported into Cuba was incomparably smaller than the number formerly introduced into Brazil, the Brazilian importation having ranged from 30,000 or 40,000 to 60,000 or 70,000. The utmost number supposed to be landed in Cuba was some 2,000 or 3,000, but it was difficult to ascertain the precise number. The Spanish Government had assured Her Majesty's Government that, as far as orders from Madrid could he effective, every effort had been made to stop the importation of slaves into Cuba, and the Governor-General had endeavoured to enforce the law. Of course, means were found to evade the vigilance of the Government, and several cargoes had been landed. On the coast of Africa, on the other hand, the great cessation in the slave trade had given an immense development to legitimate commerce, and every one acquainted with the operations of commerce, as connected with Africa, must know that the quantity of African produce brought to this country, especially palm oil, was a proof that a wonderful improvement had taken place in the commerce of that hitherto unfortunate country. He trusted in the course of a few years to see an entire change in the condition of that coast, which for a long period had been distinguished by nothing but crime and suffering.

said, that at Havannah we had a consul with 1,600l. a year; and at the Cape of Good Hope we had not only a consul with 1,200l. a year, but an arbitrator with 800l. a year, and a registrar with 500l. a year. Now, if all that force was wanted at the Cape of Good Hope, why was not a similar force kept at Havannah, which was the great seat of the slave trade?

said, that in order to deal with vessels of different nations, we were obliged to have mixed Commission Courts established. There was at the Cape a British Judge, and a Judge of the country with which we had a treaty. Those Judges appointed an arbitrator between them for which the Judges drew lots. Sometimes, therefore, the British Judge appointed an arbitrator, and sometimes the Judge of the other country, whichever it might be. The registrar was an officer who kept the records of the Court.

said, he believed these places were entire sinecures. He did not know of his own knowledge that this was the case, but representations had been made to him on the subject, not only strong, but clear. Instead of having three such officers at the Cape they should be distributed in places where their services would be more effective. He believed that Havannah, Porto Rico, and some other outports of Cuba were the places at which the country ought to have its strongest staff. He knew the Committee must pass these Estimates, but he hoped that before any such Estimates were again submitted they would be well considered, and not be brought forward according to a mere routine which indolence had sanctioned.

said, the last lurking place of slavery was Mozambique, to the east of the Cape of Good Hope, and when a vessel was seized there she was taken to the nearest point. If a ship were taken between Mozambique and the Cape, and were taken to Havannah, the sufferings of the negroes would he intense. It would be seen, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary to maintain those Courts at the Cape of Good Hope.

said, he thought it would be satisfactory if the noble Lord would give the Committee some information as to the number of slaves upon whom these Gentlemen were called to arbitrate.

said, it was his intention to have brought forward a Motion in reference to the examination of candidates for diplomatic service. He hoped there would be no objection to his bringing it on, on going into Committee of Supply upon some other occasion.

said, he did not complain of the Vote, for he must admit that the persons appointed as consuls by the present Government had efficiently performed their duty, much more efficiently than consuls generally had done. What he complained of was the unequal salaries given to various consuls. Some had heavy duties to perform with small salaries, while others who had light duties had high salaries. If any class ought to be remunerated it was those consuls who represented this country in great commercial cities.

said, that the consul at St. Petersburg, who was in the receipt of 750l. a year, had been reduced to 190l.; while the consul at Archangel, who received 300l., had been reduced to 801. He wished to know why those reductions had been made.

said, the payments were regulated on the principle that the consuls were on leave of absence.

said, that the Committee which sat on the subject of official salaries in 1850 did not inquire into the salaries of our consuls, but in their report they recommended that that branch of the question should form the subject of a separate inquiry before another Select Committee. He therefore considered that it was now high time that the whole question of our consular establishments should undergo examination and revision. The present Vote was certainly large, but would not be too much if the country derived proper advantage from its expenditure. The cost of the consular department had risen within the last five years from 148,000l. to 157,000l. This year there was 4,600l. more, because that sum had been transferred to the Consolidated Fund; and there was a sum of 32,605l. for the Chinese consuls. The votes for the consular department were scattered over different Estimates, instead of being all brought together—a circumstance which rendered it extremely difficult to analyse this expenditure. Although the House had to vote away millions for the heavy war charges to which the country was now subjected, that was no reason why they should not look carefully into every item of their ordinary expenditure. Indeed, that circumstance should form an additional incentive to the adoption of every practicable economy. Now, at Naples we had a Minister and a Secretary of Legation, who received 4,500l. a year; and at the same place we had also a consul and a vice-consul with 500l. per annum between them. Some persons thought it undesirable that diplomatic and consular functions should be united, but already the separation between the two had been broken through in certain other instances, and it might probably be advisable to establish such an officer as that of Consular Attaché. Certainly, however, the continuance of consular merchants at foreign ports was highly objectionable, and created great jealousy among those English merchants who considered that those of their class who also acted as consuls had undue advantages over them, as regarded intelligence and communications from other countries, in consequence of their double capacity. Formerly our consuls were prohibited from trading, but in 1832 this restriction was, he considered with very questionable policy, repealed. It would be much better that they should be paid higher salaries and required to be unconnected with mercantile affairs. In the Levant we had three consuls general—one with 1,500l., another 900l., and a third 800l. a-year; and we had also in the same country forty-one consuls and vice-consuls, whose salaries were 21,150l., independently of fees. In France, on the other hand, our consular salaries amounted only to 5,500l., and in the United States they were but 5,000l. There was, thus, a great disproportion between the consular expenditure for Turkey and that of these two other countries, and this disproportion was the more remarkable when it was considered that our exports to Turkey were only 2,000,000l. yearly, whereas those to France amounted to 2,500,000l., and those to the United States to even 23,000,000l. He had some time since moved for a return of the amount of fees received by our various consuls, but this information had not yet been furnished to the House, on the alleged ground that it would take a very considerable time to prepare it. Now, he had seen a document which convinced him that the particulars he had asked for might have been made out within less than two hours, for there was a return prepared every year in the Foreign Office of all our consular agents, with the amount of foes received by each, and he could state the contents of that document for the year 1853. At Hamburg the consul received a salary of 1,500l. and fees 512l.; at Genoa the consul's salary was 400l., fees 397l.; at Alexandria the consul's salary was 500l., and fees 500l.; at California the consul's salary was 200l., and fees 1,200l., a year. Now, he thought it would be much wiser that the consuls should be paid handsome salaries, and that the fees received by them should go into a fund in a similar manner to that adopted with respect to fees paid in the courts of law. The present system of small salaries and large fees, and of large salaries and small fees, did not tend either to the advantage of the commercial classes abroad, or to the honour of this country. The last point to which he would call the attention of the Committee was one of the utmost importance; it was with respect to the conduct of some of our small consuls in the Levant. He did not wish to throw a shadow on their personal character, but if the statement which had been communicated to him were correct, he was sorry that any Englishman should be open to the charges that statement conveyed. It was stated to him that Christians—Ionians and others—purchased the right to post up the English arms, and that they did so to avoid the capitation tax; that many of them were poor and worthless men; and that, although they were Englishmen by adoption, they tarnished the English name. For this privilege and protection they paid, he believed, a sort of tribute to the consuls, consisting of Christmas presents. This was, in his opinion, a very objectionable system. He would beg to state the contents of a letter which he had received from a most intelligent Mussulman who was at present in England, and who was ready to make the same communication to Her Majesty's Government, if required. The letter showed what were the feelings of the natives towards the English consuls in the Levant. The writer stated that the English Ambassadors at Constantinople had for a long time past been most unremitting in their exertions for the benefit of the Christain population in Turkey, and that it was to their earnest and well-directed efforts that the Turks were indebted for many steps that had been taken by the Sultan and his Ministers for the removal of abuses in the provinces, and by which Turkey had been largely benefited. The writer went on to say that, while the English Government had inspired the Turkish Government with such an excellent spirit, it had often astonished him that they did not put it in practice themselves; and he then asked why they did not appoint a Secret Commission to investigate the conduct of the British consuls and of their servants? Such a proceeding, he said, would be the means of bringing to light many abuses that were suffered by those consuls to exist without check, and by which the old and vicious Turkish system was perpetuated. Many of the consuls continued practices which even the Turks were ashamed of.

said, he must beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that when a question regarded the character of one large class of public servants it was more becoming, before the accusation was made in specific terms, to ascertain whether it rested upon any foundation whatever. The hon. Member had read a letter containing sweeping charges of a very deep character against the British consuls in the Levant. The charge was supported by no one fact whatever. It might come just as well from a person who had no ground at all for making it, as from a person who had some real ground of complaint. All he could say was, that if any person, whether Turk or Christian, Englishman or foreigner, had any complaint to make against any consular agent in the Levant or anywhere else, he knew perfectly well how to address himself either to the Secretary of State in England or to the representative of the Sovereign in the country in which the alleged ground of complaint had arisen; and he also knew that that complaint would be investigated and, if found just, redressed. There was a difficulty in the matter. That he (Viscount Palmerston) knew well, because, having been in the Foreign Office, he was aware that such complaints did reach the Secretary of State. He must, therefore, hesitate to attach any very great credit to the letter which had been read by the hon. Gentleman, although he admitted as being perfectly just that which was stated in the former part of the letter as to the useful exertions made by the diplomatic servants of the Crown resident in Turkey for obtaining justice for all British subjects in that country, and for promoting improvements in Turkish administration. With regard to the consuls established in the Levant, it was well known that their duties were very distinct from the duties of British consuls in any other ports. They were not simply commercial, but were judicial in their character; because, by the treaties which this country had entered into with the Porte, all questions with which British subjects were concerned were to be brought under the cognisance of the consular department; the consequence was, that the consuls in the Levant had duties of a higher description to discharge than those in any other part of the world. With regard to the number of consuls, they must not measure the want of a consul by the amount of exports or imports of any particular country. It was manifest that there might be more imports into one particular port in a country than there might be in twenty or thirty ports in another country; nevertheless, they must have a consul in each port with which British subjects dealt; therefore, it was perfectly futile to take the amount of exports or imports as the rule by which to determine the number of consuls to be maintained. Then the hon. Gentleman forgot the necessity of protection. It was not simply either the number of ports or the amount of exports and imports of a country with which they traded that they had to consider; but they also had to consider what were the institutions and the habits of that country. In a country like France or the United States, where everything was established upon the same kind of system which prevailed in this country, where the transactions were extremely simple, and where official interference was very little required, all that the consul had to do was to go through those consular operations which were essential according to the laws of the country. But in the East the consul, besides his strictly consular duties, had certain judicial and even diplomatic, duties to discharge. He was the channel of communication in all matters of complaints within his cognisance with the centre of the Government. In proportion as our trade extended so must also the number of our consuls he multiplied. Our trade had extended, and therefore an increase from time to time in our consular establishments had been made. This necessarily increased the amount of the estimate for the consular department. This subject was now new to the House of Commons. Not only had it been discussed every year on the Estimates, but only a short time since a Select Committee had been appointed to investigate the consular establishment. The hon. Member (Mr. A. Wise) differed from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. John Macgregor) with regard to the salaries of the consuls, and thought that in many cases they were too large. He (Viscount Palmerston) rather agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow in thinking, upon the whole, that the salaries were too low, considering the expenses to which consuls were subjected. He believed that in many instances the consuls, in consequence of the lowness of their salaries, were deprived of the means of showing that hospitality to the strangers and captains of vessels who came to the ports where they were appointed which was expected from them. At the same time the pressure put upon the Government by the House of Commons on different occasions when the consular establishment was discussed did lead them to reduce the salaries of the consuls to what they thought would be the lowest possible amount. The hon. Member for Stafford had also suggested that the fees received by consuls should be paid into the Exchequer, and that those officers should be remunerated by a simple salary; but the fees of the consuls did not correspond with the fees of law officers at home which were paid into the Exchequer. Those latter fees had been considered as personal remuneration, whereas the fees of the consuls enabled them to pay the expense of offices and the salaries of clerks; and to perform the various duties which were considered due from persons in their position. A portion of those fees was received for the performance of notarial acts, and where the aggregate amount of fees was very large it arose solely from the circumstance that the acts done were numerous. But then in proportion as those acts were numerous so must the establishment of the consuls and the number of the clerks be larger; and the scale of remuneration was so arranged that where the fees were very large and numerous the salaries were considerably reduced, after the allowance of the necessary expenses, in order that a fair and equitable rate of payment as between the various consuls might be maintained. The hon. Member had also suggested, what had been often before suggested in that House, namely, that the consular duties should be performed by persons attached to diplomatic missions. He (Lord Palmerston) did not think that would be a good plan, for their duty was of a totally different kind, and their condition was, by international law, perfectly distinct from that of a diplomatic agent. No advantage that he could see would arise from giving a consul a diplomatic character, or from calling a diplomatic agent a consul instead of an attaché. It would make little difference in point of salary, and create great confusion in point of character and position. There was a great deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman had said with respect to the consuls being merchants. At one time the current of opinion in that House ran all one way, and at another it set just as strongly in a contrary direction. It had been said that all consuls should be merchants, that the business of the office could be performed much cheaper, and, at the same time, more effectually, by respectable merchants established in the various towns, and that opinion was entertained by his late Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). To a certain degree some advantage might arise from adopting that plan, but it was open to the objection that in many cases it might create a feeling of jealousy among the other merchants of the place, who might entertain exaggerated notions of the importance of a consular position, and of the advantage it would give to the particular person appointed in commercial transactions. Again, in places where the consul had political functions to perform, it might be imputed to him, if he abstained from pressing the claims which particular individuals might have against the Government, that he was sacrificing their interest in order to make himself agreeable to the Government and to derive advantages therefrom. Generally speaking, therefore, it was better to have consuls who were not connected with trade, and, in all cases in which the considerations to which he had just referred were applicable, consuls were prohibited from trading. The law permitted the Secretary of State to allow trading by consuls where no public inconvenience could arise, but in the majority of cases it was forbidden. On the other hand, when the Government forbade trading, they were bound to give the consul a higher salary, though it might be attended with some little additional expense to the public. Having answered most of the points to which the hon. Member for Stafford had adverted, he would take this opportunity of saying that he was very glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. John Macgregor) had borne testimony to the efficiency of the consular officers as a body. They performed their duties very much to their own credit and to the public advantage; and the House might be quite sure that the nation could not hope for any great extension of trade in countries where commerce had not hitherto penetrated, unless they sent forth these pioneers to protect the interests of those adventurers who explored the regions which British enterprise had not yet entered. No one knew better the importance of the services rendered to the country by the consuls than the British merchant.

said, the noble Lord had not adverted to the question of the propriety of continuing the receiving fees.

said, that if they were abolished it would be necessary to make allowances for clerks and offices; and therefore, on the whole, it was thought desirable that these fees, which were very small, should be continued, especially as they were in exact proportion to the duty performed.

said, he complained of the hardships inflicted on merchants by requiring so many certificates on landing goods. A number of articles, innocent in themselves, had now become contraband of war, and, if there were fifty different bales of goods which came within the prohibited degrees in a ship, fifty certificates would be required before they could be landed in a friendly or neutral country, and much inconvenience had consequently arisen since the commencement of the war. He would, therefore, suggest that a general certificate should be given on landing a cargo.

said, he was aware that complaints had been made on this subject, but the restrictions complained of were rendered necessary for the purpose of preventing the shipment of warlike stores to neutral countries for transmission to Russia. Securities for this purpose were of course expensive; and certificates of the landing of the stores at the countries they were professedly shipped for were essential. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member, with respect to general certificates for entire cargoes, it could not be practically carried out, as it would be impossible to divide the responsibility of the shippers, or cast the whole on the shipowner; the only course was to make each shipper responsible for his own share. Great consideration had been given to the subject, and the utmost had been done to prevent needless inconvenience.

said, he very much objected to the continuance of the fees on obtaining passports. Although, of course, a traveller was subject to the regulations of Sardinia, or any State through which he passed, yet it was very hard that the English consuls should pounce upon Englishmen for fees, and these, he thought, might very well be done away with. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had very eloquently described the functions of consuls, which he had said were not only diplomatic, but also commercial and judicial. He (Mr. Otway) had met with a great many consuls who were always exceedingly civil and attentive, but had never met with one who was appointed because he was eminently qualified for his office. Such appointments were generally given for private considerations. He wished to ask how long reduced salaries were to be paid to our Russian consuls, for he thought that, in the event of the war continuing for some years, it would be absurd to continue such payments.

said, that the payments would not continue beyond the second year, when arrangements would be made for discontinuing them. Care was also taken to appoint these consuls to other stations.

said, that the observation he had made on the consuls having diplomatic functions to perform was applicable only to the consuls in the Levant, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Otway) that when he was at the Foreign Office he had taken care to appoint gentlemen fully qualified to perform the functions. In addition to their general capacity the consuls in the Levant were selected for their knowledge of the language and habits of the localities, and in some cases gentlemen who had lived there. He wished to advert to one point which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) had touched on. The hon. Member had read a letter, in which it was stated that Ionians and others bribed our consuls and vice-consuls in the Levant to place them under British protection. But all British subjects were entitled to protection from our consuls, and the Ionian States being under the protection of Great Britain, evry Ionian merchant was of course entitled to British protection, therefore it was totally unnecessary for any Ionian to bribe a British consular agent to give him the protection to which he was fully entitled by law.

said, he certainly did not think our consuls were overpaid, but he saw that the charge for some of the salaries of three or four consuls general, which appeared last year in these Estimates, had been transferred to the Consolidated Fund. He wished to know why these charges had been withdrawn from the annual scrutiny of Parliament?

said, that by Act of Parliament, certain charges were created on the Consolidated Fund to cover the whole of the diplomatic salaries and pensions. When diplomatic relations were opened with some of the South American republics it was not thought expedient to give them the character of simple diplomatic agents with salaries paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The functions assigned to these agents were of a mixed character, diplomatic and consular; and they were allowed 1l. a day for their diplomatic charges as chargé d'affaires. By the falling in of pensions it was found that there was a surplus on the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, a surplus not required for the diplomatic establishments, and the salaries of those diplomatic agents were therefore transferred to the Consolidated Fund. No additional charge was entailed on the public by this change; on the contrary, it effected a saving.

said, this Vote was too small to be of the slightest use. It was fearful to contemplate the ravages which small-pox had made of late years; he considered that the Government ought to organise a complete system of vaccination.

said, the Vote was for the support of a central establishment in London, which had existed almost since the days of Dr. Jenner, and which had been originated with the view of supplying proper means for vaccination throughout the country. The question of a systematic measure for enforcing vaccination was a matter which did not lie within the compass of this Vote. Some years ago, however, an Act had been passed which did establish such a system in connection with the Poor-Law Board; and he did not see what the Government could do more.

said, the Act had proved to be an admitted failure. At the present time the operator had not the means of knowing with certainty whether what he used was the true vaccine lymph; and many cases had come within his knowledge, in which children had imbibed loathsome, and even mortal diseases, from having been inoculated from unhealthy persons.

said, that the Act in question had come down from the Lords, and that this House was, therefore, hardly answerable for its defects. However, a Bill was in contemplation to remedy those defects.

said, he wished to know whether this Vote had anything besides its antiquity to recommend it, and whether the 300l. was divided equally between the President of the College of Physicians, the Senior Censor, and the President of the College of Surgeons? He was disposed to think the country derived the minimum of benefit from this 2,000l. The Act of 1853 was found to be inefficient, and last year an attempt was made to improve it, but without success; and that Act, with all its faults, still remained the only protection against the increasing scourge of small-pox. The subject of vaccination, concerning as it did the welfare of the people, ought not to be lightly passed over, and he desired to hear further explanation.

said, he believed that the evil was owing to the practice which existed in some Unions of ordering poor persons to attend for vaccination on particular days in the week. The parties did not come, and so the thing was neglected.

said, he had no doubt the Act of 1853 was beneficial, and last year several hon. Members pointed out its great utility. At the same time he did not deny that improvements might be made in it. The 300l. to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) alluded, consisted of a fee of 100l. each to the three eminent medical men who had been named. There was an Annual Report from the institution which afforded every information, but he had never before heard its utility called in question.

said, he did not find fault with the institution. All he said was, that it was not sufficient, and that the country was deceived in supposing they had an effective vaccine institution.

said, small-pox last year had raged like a pestilence; and therefore they had grave reason for doubting whether the operation of vaccination was efficiently performed under the present system. He did not believe they wanted more Acts of Parliament. What they wanted was, adequate remuneration to medical men. If medical men were paid properly for doing their duty, vaccination would not be performed in so hasty a manner, and the poor people would be more ready to avail themselves of it.

said, he wished to draw attention to the unfair manner in which Edinburgh had been treated with respect to this Vote. While a pecuniary grant was made to the institution in London, a similar one in the northern capital had actually been compelled to purchase, or promise to purchase, for 5,000l., a building belonging to the State, in which its inmates (400 in number) had been lodged for years. He doubted the propriety of these eleemosynary Votes altogether.

said, he must explain that the 325l. was paid to the institution on account of twenty-five women, who had been admitted into the Institution, on being discharged from prison. If the Edinburgh institution had similar cases it would undoubtedly have a claim for similar aid. The building referred to by the hon. Gentleman was the property of the Board of Ordnance. It became necessary to sell it, and of course the Board was bound to get the highest price for it. The parochial authorities had competed for the purchase with the charitable institution.

said, he wished to know if the Government would extend the principle of contributions to institutions that received female prisoners on their discharge from gaol to all institutions of that nature?

said, no general rule had been adopted; the present Vote depended on the peculiar circumstances of the case.

said, he wished to know what was the decrease in the Vote for this year, and by what department the fund was distributed?

said that the Vote, which was formerly very large, had been transferred from the civil contingencies in 1843. Some five or six years ago the House resolved that there should be no further charge made in respect of it: it would therefore cease when the present recipients died off. There was no diminution this year, as none had died within the year. The fund was distributed by trustees.

said, there was an omission in the Estimates of a Vote which ought to be included, as formerly, in the Colonial Estimates. He had last year called attention to the peculiar and painful position in which the Bishop of New Zealand was placed, which was acknowledged by the Government, who granted him an income for the year. The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) also wrote a despatch to the colonial Government of New Zealand, expressing a hope that the Parliament of New Zealand would pass a Vote for the support of the bishop from the colonial funds. He understood that this hope had been altogether frustrated, and that the Legislature had met and been dissolved without having passed any such Vote. In March last the term for which the income had been granted, expired, and the bishop was now without any income whatever to compensate him for his services as Bishop of New Zealand. He now begged to appeal to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), as he had done to his right hon. predecessor, and he would remind the noble Lord that he was the Minister who, twelve or fourteen years, ago, appointed the Bishop of New Zealand, and entered into the arrangements made on his appointment. He trusted that the noble Lord would keep faith with the bishop, and, either by a Colonial Vote, or, if that could not be obtained, by a Vote of that House, would take care that no breach of faith was committed towards that exemplary prelate.

said, he would inquire into the circumstances of the case, and would inform the right hon. Gentleman and the House of the opinion that the Government might entertain upon it.

said, that in moving the postponement of the Committee till Wednesday, he would take the liberty of making a short statement to the House in reference to a Bill which stood in his name with respect to the duties on spirits. The House would probably be aware that, as that Bill now stood, it was proposed to extend the drawback on malt spirits to England and Ireland as well as to Scotland. The present state of the law with respect to the drawback on malt spirits had given rise to considerable dissatisfaction, and had been the subject of examination by several Committees of that House. He would not trouble the House with the result of these investigations, and he was conscious that, though the Bill he intended to introduce would be an improvement upon the existing law, it would not finally and satisfactorily settle the question. He had considered a plan for permitting the distillation of spirits from malt in bond, the effect of which would be that, instead of the duty being paid in the first instance, no duty would be charged on malt, and spirits would be distilled without any previous imposition of duty upon the premises of the distiller. In order to adjust the plan properly it would be necessary to make a small addition to the existing duty, there being by the present arrangement an allowance of 2d. for the duty on malt used in all species of distillation. If the House should be pleased to give their consent to the Bill on the table, he should be disposed in the course of the present Session to introduce a Bill embodying the change to which he had adverted, so as to enable the alteration of the law to take effect some time during the year. Ho believed this explanation would be satisfactory to gentlemen connected with the trade, who were at present watching the Bill now before the House, and would relieve their apprehensions with regard to any measures that might be proposed by Government.

said, that on the part of the Irish Members and Irish distillers, he considered the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was most satisfactory.

said, he had heard the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with very great satisfaction, and was certain that it would meet with the approval of the Scotch distillers. He believed it would prove beneficial to the revenue, and stop illicit distillation. He hoped the promised Bill would be introduced in time to pass both Houses during the present Session.

said, it was his intention of asking to-morrow if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make a similar concession in favour of sugar.

said, he had no wish to oppose the introduction of the Bill, but he must remind his noble Friend that the money in the hands of the Commissioners of Sewers was raised for the specific purpose of carrying out arterial drainage. Moreover, until he saw the Bill, he of course could not tell how his noble Friend proposed to invest the Commissioners with the power of entering private dwellings, until some one had complained of a nuisance.

said, he fully intended that the money should be recoverable. The measure was to be viewed entirely as one having reference to an emergency.