said, that in the absence of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), he should move that the second Bill upon the paper (the Metropolis Local Management Bill) take precedence of the Bill now before the House.

said, that the proper form was for the noble Lord to move that the debate be adjourned.

accordingly moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, he thought that the House ought to have some consideration for Mr. Speaker, who had occupied the Chair until past two o'clock on that morning. If the debate went on there would be no chance of getting the right hon. Gentleman out of the chair until four o'clock, and then at six o'clock he would have to take the chair for the evening sitting. He thought this was rather too hard upon the right hon. Gentleman, and that the morning sitting ought to be confined to Bills in which progress could be made in Committee.

said, that the Bill now about to be brought forward had been before the House in one shape or another for the last twenty years. It was of a thousand times more importance than the Metropolitan Management Bill; and much as he sympathised with the Speaker, he should persevere in thinking the Bill ought to be proceeded with.

said, he must beg to explain that it was only proposed that the first thirteen clauses of the Bill should be taken at the morning sitting. Those clauses related only to prospective compensation, about which, he believed, there was no difference of opinion. With regard to the other principle involved in the Bill, that of retrospective compensation, an appeal had been made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. McMahon), and by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), who represented that the fourteenth clause, which involved that very important principle, ought to be debated at an evening sitting, as some gentlemen of the legal profession, who were anxious to take part in its discussion, could not be present in the morning. He (Mr. Horsman) communicated with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who authorised him to assent to their suggestion; and the Government arranged to give Thursday evening to the discussion of that 14th clause. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord opposite and his friends would hardly take the unusual course of preventing the Government from pursuing their own course with their own Bills. As for the Amendment, of which notice had been given by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Peacocke), it was in itself an irregularity, as it would be raising a discussion in Committee on the principle of the Bill, which had already been raised and disposed of, a majority of 160 to 50 being in its favour upon the occasion of the second reading. If it were the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise the question of retrospective compensation, he might raise it more properly on Thurs- day evening, when the fourteenth clause came to be discussed.

said, he would beg to point out that it was of the greatest importance that this question should be settled as soon as possible, for it was doing great mischief in Ireland to leave it in its present state.

said, he was not aware of any such arrangement between the Government and the Opposition side of the House as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had described. He objected on principle to this Bill, as it would give rise to practices of evasion and fraud.

said, that he was one of those who objected to the prospective, as well as to the retrospective operation of this Bill; and he thought the principle had not yet been sufficiently argued. He saw no reason why the relation of landlord and tenant should be so entirely altered in Ireland. It was now half-past one o'clock, and he would ask was there any chance of making any progress with the clauses? The Metropolitan Local Management Bill had already been in Committee, and some progress might be made with it.

said, he wished the House to decide at once whether the Bill should go into Committee then, or be postponed; if hon. Gentlemen persisted in debating the principle of the Bill at that moment, the whole morning would be wasted.

said, he rose pursuant to notice, to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill upon that day three months. Considering that property to the extent of 15,000,000l. had changed hands under the Encumbered Estates Court, and that these purchases had been made under the sanction of a Parliamentary title, and subject to no liabilities except what were set forth at the time, he could not consent to saddle these purchasers with encumbrances that to a very considerable extent would be imposed upon them by the Bill now under discussion. It seemed that about forty Irish Members were in favour of this Bill, and that to obtain their support the noble Lord at the head of the Government regarded the great interests involved in this Bill as trivialities comparatively unworthy of his attention. He wag strongly opposed, not only to the retrospective, but also to the prospective clauses of the Bill, and he could not but admire the calm and placid indifference of English landlords when witnessing the application of a principle to which, in their own cases, they would strongly object. If there were a people that more than another wanted, it was said, to be taught that they ought to rely upon their own exertions, and not look to Parliamentary aid and interference, it was the Irish nation and people. This was no grand original theory that had never been tried, for this principle of compensation had been tried and signally failed in some parts of England. Where the practice prevailed as in parts of Surrey and Sussex, under the name of an inventory, it was the curse of the country; it exhausted the capital of the incoming tenant, and was a main cause of the inferior cultivation of the soil in those districts. By this absurd and bungling stroke of legislation they proposed to convert the landlord in Ireland into the nominal owner of his property. They would create a class of encumbered proprietors, and saddle them with liabilities that they never expected, and they would include in this class those who had purchased their estates under the operation of the Encumbered Estates Court, and who were at the present time working out the regeneration of Ireland. If this Bill once passed they would hear little more of the introduction of fresh capital and enterprise in Ireland, for it would require something more than ordinary courage to introduce capital into Ireland after the passing of this Bill. This grand measure for the regeneration of Ireland was a fair specimen of the political quackery with which that country had been habitually regenerated. We were told that capitalists were the great desideratum for Ireland; and they proposed to drive them out. We were told that middlemen were the great curse of the soil; and they proposed to bring them in. We were told that the evil of her social system arose from her complicated land tenure; and, instead of simplifying, they proposed to complicate it still further. We were told that that complicated land tenure arose from penal laws and confiscation. How did they propose to remedy it? By adding one confiscation more. We were told that England and Ireland should be governed by the same and equal laws. They now pro- posed to constitute one code for Ireland and another for England. We were told that her people should be taught the doctrine of self-reliance; and they now taught her peasantry that Parliament was ready and willing to interfere in their behalf, even to the extent of spoliation. He considered that the very entertaining this question was pernicious to the prosperity of Ireland. They excited futile hopes and paralysed self-exertion. The laws of political economy had never been violated with impunity, and never would be; and, above all, they were not to be violated for the sake of an empiric measure like the present, which, weakly assented to by a weak Government, was powerless for good and powerful for evil. If they really wished to benefit Ireland they must reverse their policy; they must legislate upon principle, they must not legislate for cries; for, by the strong and firm administration of just and equal laws they could alone hope to rescue her from the reproach which had been but too truthfully addressed by their ablest historian—that she was indeed a member of the empire, but a withered and distorted member, adding no strength to the body politic, and reproachfully pointed at by all who feared the greatness or envied the glory of England.

said, he must appeal to the House not to enter upon any discussion of the principle of the Bill, but to take the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Napier) and allow the House to go into Committee. The principle of the Bill had been affirmed by both Houses of Parliament, and by successive Governments. The second reading had been carried by a majority of 163 to 51, and he trusted that those hon. Members who were anxious for the progress of the Bill would abstain from discussing the question, and agree to consider the clauses in Committee.

said he could not subscribe to the principle enunciated by the right hon. Baronet, that because a previous division upon this subject had taken place in both Houses of Parliament, hon. Gentlemen, who might upon that occasion have happened to be in the minority, were to be precluded from reurging their opinions upon a subsequent occasion. Such a doctrine appeared to him to be subversive of all the rights of a minority; for according to that doctrine a minority must never speak again, or renew a question once determined against them. Had this principle, he would inquire, been heretofore applied to Catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform, or the ballot? On the contrary, the opinion of a minority had been repeatedly carried by perseverance; and the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Baronet was destructive of representative Government and the rights of free discussion. The right hon. Baronet said, the opinion of the House had been taken on the second reading. On that occasion the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. McMahon) had spoken ably against the Bill, but had not divided or even moved an Amendment, consequently the division was taken by surprise and without previous expectation of it, and the opinion of the House had not been fairly tested. Although, therefore, the Amendment was now slightly irregular, it was not open to the reproach of being obstructive or improper, but was only for the purpose of securing a fair and proper discussion of the question. Great subjects of this nature were not adequately discussed and disposed of at these morning sittings, and therefore he had voted for the postponement of the debate. The morning sittings could not be properly attended, and to bring forward such Bills at those sittings was not fair. He did not think that English Members ought to be excluded from entering into the discussion of Irish measures. As the retrospective clauses were to form the subject of a future discussion he should confine himself at present to the prospective enactments. The prospective portion of the Bill had by no means been disposed of by prior discussions. Indeed, he did not quite understand the present position of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had brought in a Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary had offered to adopt it if certain modifications were consented to. This offer was conditional entirely. Subsequently the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton) asked a question, to which the hon. and learned Serjeant replied discreetly that he was ready to place the Bill in the hands of the Government, but declined to adopt the Amendments to be proposed, reserving the right of an independent Member, and inserting in the Votes notices of Amendments contrary in spirit to the conditional proposal of the Secretary for Ireland. Therefore the hon. and learned Serjeant and the Secretary for Ireland were at issue and had come to no agreement. The tenant-right party, on the other hand, were quite discontented both with the measure of the hon. and learned Serjeant and with that of the Government. Therefore this measure, which Was to restore peace to Ireland, was repudiated and rejected by all parties. What prospect was there of arriving at a satisfactory settlement of the question by passing the measure? The Government would not deny that this was a great departure from sound principles on the subject. The laws of property were, for special and partial purposes, to be departed from, and the principles of justice violated. The question was argued on special grounds, and on the peculiar character of Irish landlords or of the Irish laws. But there were peculiarities in the Irish tenants not less than Irish landlords. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had eulogised the tenantry of Ireland, and declared that with due encouragement they were industrious and improving. Hs (Sir J. Walsh) agreed in this opinion in general, but in England, Scotland, and Wales, and not less so in Ireland, there were indolent, litigious, and fraudulent tenants; and there were more tenants of that kind in Ireland than in England. His objection to the prospective clauses was, that they were not only not necessary, but that they put into the hands of the tenant a weapon with which he might fight his landlord and hold him at bay. He objected to the system of notices, because they assumed that landlords had neither any interest in the improvements nor control over them, whereas the landlord was a much better judge of what improvements were required, and was more fit to superintend them than the tenant. He denied that the landlords in Ireland were a mere rentcharge on the estates; on the contrary, they were often great improvers themselves, guiding their tenants in the right direction, and exercising a salutary control over them. Improvement on estates ought to be a subject of mutual consultation and agreement between landlord and tenant. For instance, it might be very convenient to a tenant that a road through his farm should be made, and he might give notice of such an improvement; but the landlord of the estate might, on examination, find that a road in another direction Would not only accommodate that particular farm, hut half a dozen others. Under this Bill, however, a hostile tenant would be able to press his own improvement to the detriment of the general improvement of the estate. In point of fact, the provisions of the Bill would have the effect of handing the estate over to the tenant, securing the landlord a mere rentcharge. It had been said that the principle of the Amendments had been adopted by more than one Government, but the fact was that these prospective clauses had been pressed on them by the Organised efforts of a numerous body of Members whose votes were useful to the Government, and it was a reflection upon the present state of representative government in this country that this question should, by a sort of juggle of parties, be suffered to attain a proportion which it never ought to have arrived at, being forced on the Government because it was a matter of essential interest to them to enlist the support of a section of the House. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.

said, he considered that the House was bound to let the Bill go into Committee, and try and amend it; or, failing in that to reject it on the third reading. It had been argued that this was a revolutionary and novel Bill. Why, in its principles and details it was similar to that laid upon the table by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) the late Attorney General for Ireland, heralded by publications under his auspices, and sanctioning the retrospective principle. And yet the opposition to the Bill was now put entirely upon that principle. On the introduction of the Bill by his right hon. and learned Friend, his hon. Friend (Mr. Grogan) had not objected to the retrospective principle, and had declared, "that the measure would give general satisfaction." That was a Bill containing the retrospective principle. Principles of this kind ought not to be made the instruments of party; and the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a pledge td the tenantry of Ireland that its principles should be carried out. Those Members who now opposed the Bill should have resisted it on that occasion, and not allowed such a pledge to be given, which now compelled him to vote for the going into Committee. Those who resisted it must pretend that a principle Was right in the hands of one Gentleman (Mr. Napier), and revolutionary in another.

said, he was ready to go into Committee on the portions of the Bill not objectionable in principle, and he had prepared Amendments upon the prospective clauses. But he had never approved of the retrospective clauses, and when his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) introduced his Bill he had objected to that principle. Nor had he consented to the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) going to a Committee. He was prepared, however, to agree to the prospective portions of the Bill, and to redeem his pledge by going into Committee upon them. He had given credit to his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) for skill and learning in the preparation of his Bill, but had never pledged himself to its details.

said, he, at all events, had never approved of the principle of the Bill, which he considered would be very prejudicial to Ireland, The principle of giving a tenant money to be laid out in improvements, with the consent of his landlord was right; but the Bill went to a most iniquitous extent, and the principle enunciated by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had been repudiated throughout the country. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had no confidence in his Bill, and showed himself insincere in its support by the Amendments he proposed, confining it to the most narrow limits. The Whole affair, he believed, was a mere traffic in party support. It was his opinion that its only object was to gain temporary popularity, which would not be gained, because of the insincerity which was shown by the Government. How did the Government intend the Bill to work as to existing contracts? Were new contracts to be made? The old contracts were made on the supposition that improvements were not made by the landlord. The provisions of the Bill were wholly unsatisfactory and unintelligible, and he defied the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to explain them. They Would be a fertile source of litigation, and bad feeling would be created between landlord and tenant.

said, he was surprised that the supporters of the Bill did not rise to uphold it. Great principles were in- volved in the Bill, and which ought not to be made playthings of party. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) had referred to the Bill brought in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) in 1852, but that did not bind Members not in the House at that time, added to which, the principles laid down by the Irish Attorney General were most monstrous and pernicious.

said, he was decidedly of opinion that the principle involved in the various clauses of the Bill ought to undergo full consideration; and therefore it was most necessary that they should go into Committee.

said, he would beg to move the addition of words limiting the application of the clause to improvements made during existing tenancies, with the view of avoiding litigation as to improvements made during tenancies which have already expired. He also would propose to add a proviso that persons holding under leases should not be entitled to claim compensation for improvements made after the passing of the Bill without the consent in writing of the landlord for the time being.

said, he should oppose the addition of the words, as calculated to sweep away the whole system of tenant-right in Ulster.

said, he thought the proposal would apply with greater accuracy to the 14th clause. He would, therefore, suggest that notice should be given of the addition, as the words opened up an important question, which he did not think the Committee was at this moment in a position to consider.

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) was included in words which he (Mr. George) had given notice of as an Amendment on the 14th clause.

said, he feared that the Committee were premature in considering this Amendment at this portion of the Bill.

said, he would postpone his Amendment for the 14th clause.

said, he rose to ask the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance what the Government proposed to do with the boys at the Ordnance School, Carshalton, who were eligible and ready for examination on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 5th and 6th of June instant, but were not examined; why they were not examined; and whether they would be on the 8th of July; or, if not, how the Government proposed to deal with them?

said, he must beg to state that any boys fit for examination would be examined at the earliest possible opportunity. The delay which had taken place was owing to the state of transition in which the whole arrangements connected with the Ordnance had been for some time placed. He must, however, at the same time state that the decision which his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the War Department had come to was to abolish altogether the preparatory school at Carshalton; but that would be done in such a manner as not to interfere with existing nominations. With regard to admissions into Woolwich generally, as it had been decided upon altering the system of admission into the academy, he could not at the present moment inform the hon. Gentleman how the boys in question would be dealt with. He might add, that the only admissions as yet made by competition were into the practical class; but it was under the consideration of his noble Friend whether the same principle would not be extended to the theoretical class also, and to the academy generally.

said, after the statement which had been made of the intentions of the Secretary for War with regard to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, he thought it would not be expedient to bring forward the Motion of which he bad given notice for an Address praying Her Majesty to substitute an open examination in place of the present system of nominations for admission into that academy.

said, he wished to ask when the Government intended to introduce the promised measure for the reform of the Corporation of the City of London, and whether such Bill would he founded upon the recommendation of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into that corporation? It had been stated on a former occasion that the Bill would be brought in as soon as the Metropolis Local Management Bill had passed through certain stages. That Bill was now very far advanced, and the subject was of very great importance, especially to the inhabitants of London.

said, that the Bill for the reform of the Corporation of the City of London was founded, in its main features, upon the recommendations of the Commissioners of Inquiry, subject to some modifications as to details, in which those recommendations would be to a certain extent departed from. As to the other question, he could only say that he certainly had intended, and hoped to be able to carry that intention into effect, to submit that Bill to the House in time to secure for it the consideration and attention which its importance demanded. But the debates which had arisen on subjects of great importance, and had necessarily occupied much of the attention of the House, had unavoidably retarded the progress of various Bills. The Metropolis Local Management Bill, referred to by the hon. Member, was one of them; it had not yet got through Committee; then it had to be advanced through its other stages. There were also the Australian Constitution Bills, the Bills for establishing limited liability in partnerships, and the Cambridge University Bill, which had just come down from the House of Lords. In addition, they knew that the House of Lords had passed a Resolution declaring that they would not read any Bill a second time—unless it were a Bill of Supply, or one rendered necessary by urgent circumstances—after the 24th of July. He was bound to say that he thought the public business was rather retarded than advanced by having a multitude of important Bills before the House at one time. Under these circumstances he did not see any prospect of being able to lay the Bill referred to before the House that Session—that is, with any hopes of its passing. Therefore, it would be introduced at an early period next Session. That, he thought, was the best course to ensure its passing.

Sir, I feel that I ought to explain to the House the reasons that induce me to move for a Select Committee on the present occasion. On looking over the manner in which the House has dealt with the expedition under Sir John Ross, when Boothia was discovered; it appears that a Committee of this House was appointed in 1834, for the purpose of taking the subject into consideration, and I consider this to form a sort of precedent for me at present. The Committee of '34 awarded, after mature consideration, 5000l. to Sir J. Ross. Sir, I have no connection whatever with the individual for whom I make this Motion; his name was not known to me until it was mentioned on the Continent, where I was at the time of his return home, and in moving for a Committee to ascertain whether or not Captain M'Clure is entitled to any, and what, reward, I am only actuated by the sentiment which is, I am sure, felt by every Member of this House, that justice should be done to every man in proportion to the services rendered to his country. It may, perhaps, be as well, before I enter into the merits of Captain M'Clure, for me to take a bird's-eye view of the attempts made to explore the north-west passage, and to show the great pains and heavy expenditure incurred by our nation to ascertain whether or not such a passage existed. There seems no necessity to go further back than the 16th century. It appears that, in 1524, an expedition was undertaken by Sebastian Cabot, to explore the Northern regions, where he made various discoveries; in 1527, Master R. Thorne, of Bristol; in 1553, Sir Hugh Willoughby, in the Bona Esperanza, endeavoured to explore the passage; in 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert made an unsuccessful attempt, failed and perished; after, John Davis also attempted to explore the Polar regions. It appears that, in this, the 16th century, no less than twenty-two attempts to discover a north-west passage were made, with various chances, but at a considerable expenditure and great loss of life. There seems no necessity for me to recapitulate the attempts made in the 17th century for the same purpose, and with a similar result: the number of attempts in this, the 17th century, exceeded twenty. In the 18th century various endeavours to seek a north-west passage were made by the following commanders—Knight, Vaughan, Scraggs, Middleton, Moor, and Smith: in all about twenty-one attempts, by the English and other nations. Middleton failed, and was accused of treacherous conduct: no very important discovery was made. Let us now come to the present century. We find the prominent names to be Kotzebue, John Ross, David Buchan, W. E. Perry, John Franklin, and many others. In the year 1818, John Ross and W. E. Perry advanced considerably in the Polar regions; Boothia was discovered, for which Sir J. Ross received a reward of 5,000l., but nothing resulted from the voyage as to a discovery of the north-west passage; every attempt made only increased the apparent impossibility of discovering the sought-for route, and, by many, it was considered to be hopeless. In exploring the Polar regions, subsequently. Captain Buchan did the same. In 1820, Captain W. E. Perry went in chief command; he made, afterwards, a second and a third voyage, in 1824 and 1825; and again, a Polar expedition in 1827. After this, in 1845, the unfortunate attempt of Sir John Franklin took place, where that distinguished and gallant officer and his brave crew closed their career in the most miserable manner. In 1833, 1834, and 1835, Captain Back, a well-known and distinguished commander, was commissioned for the same purpose. It appears that no less than sixteen expeditions have been fitted out for the purpose of finding out and rescuing Sir J. Franklin and his brave companions. Now, let us for a moment pause, and endeavour to ascertain the cost and loss of life entailed on the nation by these several and various abortive attempts at discovering a north-west passage. In the 16th century, fourteen voyages; in the 17th century, twenty voyages; in the 18th century, nineteen voyages; in the 19th century, twenty-two voyages—seventy-five voyages. The loss of life in all these expeditions cannot but be much regretted, and also the privations undergone; the expenditure, too, must be considered: it is impossible to as- certain what the nation has expended in the three last centuries, when no official documents remain; but it appears from the Navy and Ordnance Estimates that the total expenses attendant on fitting out Sir J. Franklin, and in the expeditions in search of him, amounts to the enormous sum of 837,000l., an expenditure almost incredible; so that, in this century, only one-half of which is passed, more than l,000,000l. has been wasted, including those expeditions undertaken from 1800 to 1845. Now, let us proceed to the case before us, and see what has been achieved by Captain M'Clure. He and Captain Collinson were selected by the Admiralty, each to command a vessel, and to proceed up the Pacific Ocean, and by entering the Polar regions on the westward side, above California, to ascertain whether any traces could be obtained of the lamented Sir J. Franklin. The two vessels started together, the Enterprise, Captain Collinson, and the Investigator, Commander M'Clure. They were towed through the Straits of Magellan by H.M. S. Gorgon, and it was ascertained that the Investigator was much slower than the Enterprise. Both these vessels, it must be admitted, were fitted out in a most superior manner by the Admiralty, and admirably adapted for the rough and dangerous service they had to perform. They sailed in January, 1850, and from the Investigator not being so good a sailer as the Enterprise, Captain M'Clure was left by his consort, and had to exercise his own judgment how best to fulfil his instructions. Let it be here borne in mind that the Act giving a reward of 20.000l. for the discovery of the northwest passage, which passed in 1745, was repealed in 1828, so that no inducement existed but the love of their country, and desire to fulfil their duty, in braving the dangers of the frozen seas. As already stated, Captain M'Clure arrived in the Polar Seas about August, 1850; in a short time his vessel, the Investigator, was firmly frozen in the ice; Captain M'Clure proceeded on the frozen sea with his brave companions, and, after dangers, privations, and fatigues that can scarcely be enumerated; after passing four years and a half in that miserable climate, where, for six months in the year, the sun was only seen by refraction for two hours in the twenty-four; where, in such a climate, the calls of hunger are more felt and imperative than in our milder climes,—Captain M'Clure achieved the important discovery so long desired and so anxiously sought for; he went through the north-west passage, and returned to England in the autumn of 1854, having by his courage, his perseverance, and admirable conduct, deserved well of his country. Now, Sir, let us just recapitulate what this discovery has achieved. It has opened the west coast of America to the fisheries for whales and other monsters of the deep; it has saved the lives of countless thousands, for there is no doubt that continued attempts would he made in future, and others might share the fate of Franklin; it has saved enormous sums of money, that would have been wasted in further search; it has solved a problem in geography of the greatest importance; and, above all, the passage has been discovered by this nation, the first maritime Power in the world, which would have been injured in reputation if another nation had made it; and thus has added more brilliancy to the lustre of our maritime greatness.

said, as a professional man I am desirous of bearing my testimony to the unwonted zeal and enduring qualities displayed by Captain M'Clure, the officers, and ship's company, in the performance of the arduous service assigned to them. It was unnecessary to be reminded of the anxiety which had been displayed by the nation for the important discovery of the north-west passage, an anxiety springing from ambition to maintain even in such expeditions of hazard our maritime ascendancy. During three centuries fifty-eight times had the attempt been made by the most distinguished nations of Europe, and I am proud to know at last it has been achieved by the intrepidity of British seamen. I therefore hope the noble Lord at the head of the Government will accede to the Motion. For my own part I am free to confess that I had from the very commencement regarded the expeditions as practically useless; at the same time that consideration did not in the slightest degree derogate from the high qualifications and extraordinary exertions of the officers engaged in them.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman he should have much pleasure in agreeing to his Motion. It was impossible that any one in that House could fail to appreciate as highly as his hon. Friend the great merits of Captain M'Clure; for it was that gallant officer's perseverance, courage, and daring, that had solved a problem which for a great length of time had excited intense anxiety among all the maritime nations of the world. He did not wish to supersede the functions of the Committee in indicating the way in which these services should be rewarded, but it would have been very unjust to the gallant officer and to the feelings of the House if he had not given his cordial assent to the Motion.

said, he would now beg, pursuant to notice, to move for a copy of the Report of Major General Hardinge, Assistant Inspector General of Fortifications, on the building erected for the Lancaster shot manufactory at Woolwich, and the Report on that building by Sir Charles Fox. In bringing forward the Motion, he might perhaps be permitted to say a few words in reference to it, as the question involved, not only the interests of the country, but those of the corps of Royal Engineers, to which he had the honour to belong. On a previous occasion he had taken the opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance whether the manufactory for making shot and shell had been erected by the firm of Fox and Henderson without the supervision of the Royal Engineers; if so, why such a step had been taken; whether the work executed had been to the entire satisfaction of the Board of Ordnance; and whether it had been examined by an officer of Engineers? The reply that he had received was to the effect that Colonel Foster, commanding the Royal Engineers at Woolwich, had signified that the work was not going on satisfactorily. Thereupon Messrs. Fox and Henderson were communicated with, and they entered into a guarantee which barred all future interference. However, it appeared the work was still going on unsatisfactorily, and Major General Hardinge was appointed to report upon it. That Report was also unsatisfactory, and was communicated to Sir Charles Fox, who requested a friend of his own to go and inspect the work on his behalf. Well, the report of that gentleman was immensely satisfactory; and he wound up by saying that he had been surprised to find so much done and so well done in so short a time. Now, it appeared to him (Captain Vernon) that that report and the Report of Major General Hardinge were completely at issue, and he certainly did not think that was a position in which to leave a Gentleman occupying the high and responsible post of Major General Hardinge. It appeared that the cost of the building was estimated at 25,000l., a sum of no small importance in such times as the present. But it was not so much upon the amount of money involved as upon the principle that he thought the question mainly hinged. For it involved a new principle of working contracts irrespective of departmental supervision, which, after all, was the only protection to the public and the nation, and was introduced by the Ordnance, which had more to do with contracts than any other department under the Crown. What he desired to know was, why the firm of Fox and Henderson had been relieved of all supervision; was it because they were large contractors? Now, the only difference he saw between large and small contractors was, that the former stood in for a greater share of the public money, but on that account, therefore, ought to be the more narrowly watched. Or was it through courtesy? For if so, he should be glad to know why an equal amount of courtesy was not shown to the corps of Royal Engineers, whose work at Aldershot had been inspected by a civilian expressly sent down for the purpose. However, that corps was now about to be placed under the Horse Guards, and they were glad of it, for they believed they would be the gainers by it. He had had a good deal of experience of Government contracts during the twenty-four years he had served as a lieutenant in the Royal Engineers—an instance of the admirable advantages attendant upon a service where promotion went exclusively by seniority—but his experience had taught him that those contracts were best executed which were most narrowly watched. What did the public know of contractors? They had contract sheepskin coats, which the soldiers could not get on. They had contract ammunition boots, not worth wearing. They had contract trenching tools, which would not break ground. They were told last night that attempts had been made to throw the blame rather on the men than the tools; and it had been said of the troops, what should weavers and cobblers know about tools? He appealed to Gentlemen on that side of the House whether the agricultural and not the mechanical classes furnished the army with men, and an agricultural labourer was complete master of the spade before ever he saw a firelock. He was born to the billhook, and afterwards educated to the bayonet. It was to be hoped, therefore, they would hear no more of attempts to vindicate execrable tools at the expense of good soldiers. We had heard, also, of hay being purchased that was not particularly good; also of preserved meats, the condition of which, on being opened, raised the question whether they were poisonous or pestilential—perhaps they were both. It was not his business to eulogise the Board of Royal Engineers, but he saw the other day a letter from a French officer in the army before Sebastopol to a brother officer in Paris, from which he would read the following extract—

"You ask my opinion of the English army now acting with us in the Crimea. Well, I will begin with the Royal Engineers, a corps which, from what I have seen of it at work, I think could not be excelled, and could seldom be equalled, in any part of the world. The education of the officers, the training and energy of the men, are fully equal to our qualifications. As to the courage of the troops, I need not say that they are like the rest of the British soldiers, brave almost to a fault. If ever there were a corps of which the British nation ought to be proud, it is that of the Royal Engineers."

He would remind the House that the Government had taken from that corps men to fill the most important situations as Governors of the colonies and Secretaries to Ireland, and to discharge various other important and responsible duties. Those officers could not have been selected by interest, for as a corps the Engineers possessed much less interest than any other branch of the service. Neither were the officers selected for those situations of high rank. They were generally of the rank of captain or lieutenant. The Governor of New South Wales, for example, was a captain; the Governor of Van Diemen's Land was a lieutenant; the Governor of St. Lucia was a lieutenant; and a former Under Secretary for Ireland was a lieutenant. As most of those distinguished individuals were alive he would not say anything of them. He would merely refer to one of the illustrious dead, Mr. Drummond, who was Under Secretary for Ireland, and to whose honour a statue was about to be erected in Ireland. That Gentleman was a lieutenant of Engineers, and was famous as a mathematician and as a chemist. He was the discoverer of what was now well known as the "Drummond Light," and the author of a sentiment which startled all Ireland by its beautiful simplicity and truth—namely, "property has its duties as well as its rights." Captain Owen, another officer of the Royal Engineers, was the man who, aided by two others, stormed the rifle pits before Sebastopol the other day at tremendous risk. His two brother officers were killed, and though he himself escaped with life, he was severely maimed. This was the corps whose skill and knowledge in this particular instance was set aside in favour of a contractor's guarantee, whether to the advantage or disadvantage of the public would shortly appear if the papers which he asked for were produced.

said, he had given notice of an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, and if the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance would consent to this addition he would offer no objection whatever to the returns. He asked for this addition in justice to the gentlemen alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member—he meant Sir Charles Fox and Mr. Henderson. If he thought that his hon. and gallant Friend would have gone at such length on the subject of the erection of this building, he could have referred to certain documents which would have clearly explained the nature of the entire matter. All he asked now was that in justice to those gentlemen, if the report of Major General Hardinge be ordered to be laid before the House, it be accompanied by the reply of Sir Charles Fox to that report, and also the subsequent report of Mr. John Anderson, Inspector of Machinery to the Board of Ordnance, in relation to the work in question. The firm of which Sir Charles Fox was the principal member were called upon to erect a manufactory in a space of time unprecedentedly short. They considered it necessary, if they were to erect the building in so short a time, that they should be left to carry out their own plans without any interference by the Engineer department. Now that was the grievance of which the hon. and gallant Member complained. It did not, however, appear to him (Mr. I. Butt) to be an unreasonable demand on the part of the firm. If the Board of Ordnance asked them to erect a building within the space of one month, which under ordinary circumstances would take four or five months to erect, they might reasonably say they would undertake the task, but that there should be no interference with them of any kind until the building was completed. Now, those were the real facts of the case. It was quite true that Major General Hardinge subsequently had seen the work; he knew nothing of the peculiar circumstances under which the contract was entered into; and he made his report as if the work was to be erected at the ordinary time and under ordinary circumstances. The Board of Ordnance then sent an inspector to inspect the work with a view to the peculiar circumstances of the contract entered into. He, therefore, begged leave to move as an Amendment, that the reply of Sir Charles Fox and the report of Mr. John Anderson be added to the Motion.

said, he had no objection to lay upon the table of the House the correspondence referred to in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain L. Vernon), and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt). The Board of Ordnance had no intention whatever of casting any slight upon the corps of Royal Engineers in the course which had been taken with respect to the new Lancaster shell manufactory. The facts were that Colonel Foster was called upon to prepare, in conjunction with Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co., a plan for the erection of the Lancaster Foundry. Some days after the Lancaster Foundry had been commenced, Colonel Foster came to him (Mr. Monsell), and said that from the lightness of the structure, which was being erected, he could not be answerable for its safety. Upon the other hand he said this was a building which required to be completed with the least possible delay, and that Messrs. Fox and Henderson had stated that they could not complete it within the stipulated time unless the work was executed in the way in which they had arranged to execute it. He (Mr. Monsell) stated that some difficulties would arise under these circumstances, and he finally suggested that Messrs. Fox and Henderson should be allowed to complete the work upon their giving a guarantee that the building would stand for twelve months. Colonel Foster said that he thought a guarantee for six months would be quite long enough, for considering the heavy Nasmyth hammers which would be employed in it, the whole building would certainly tumble down within a less period than that. He considered that the arrangement made was a perfectly satisfactory one; and he thought the House would be of the same opinion when they saw the correspondence which would be produced on the subject.

said, he thought after the conversation which had just taken place, that the House would not be surprised at the disasters which had befallen our army at the commencement of the war. The fact now disclosed was, that the hon. Gentleman had taken upon himself the conduct of matters with which he was wholly unacquainted, instead of leaving them to the direction of the corps of Royal Engineers. The Board of Ordnance in this matter merited severe censure. Many of the disasters in the Crimea had been occasioned by the same improper interference, and he warned the hon. Gentleman that if he persevered in this course the army would have no confidence whatever in his conduct of this department.

said, he would now beg to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the postal arrangements in reference to the counties of Waterford, Tipperary, Cork, and Limerick, with a view to ascertain how they might be im- proved. He must complain of the great inconvenience suffered in consequence of the delay that occurred in the postal service in many parts of Ireland, more particularly in the districts he had alluded to—such service being performed between certain important towns by means of a one-horse car. He considered that in his part of Ireland the people were in a much worse position as to postal arrangements than they were in previous to the establishment of railways.

seconded the Motion. He said that he had given notice of a Motion for a Committee of inquiry into the postal arrangements generally in Ireland, and it was his intention to expose other practices in the Post Office besides those of irregularity. If the Government were sincere in their desire for administrative reform, let them grant a Committee with a view to reforming the Post Office arrangements in Ireland.

said, the first duty of the Post Office was to provide for the rapid, uniform, and regular delivery of letters. That object, however, must be regulated somewhat by the nature of the particular service and fiscal considerations. So far from the Government being parsimonious in respect to this service in Ireland, it appeared that for the year ending the 5th January last there was a deficit of something like 2,000l. or 3,000l. in the Irish Post Office over and above the receipts. Wherever a railway could be used consistently with the convenience of passengers, it was invariably used for postal service. As this matter had come frequently before the House, and as the hon. Members from Ireland were desirous for this inquiry, he thought their wishes should be assented to. It was not, therefore, the intention of the Government to refuse the Committee; and he would communicate with the hon. Member for Waterford as to its appointment.

said, he would gladly have seen the proposed inquiry extended to the whole of Ireland, for there were many other irregularities in the postal service in other parts of Ireland besides those which had just been brought under the notice of the House.

said, he would express a hope that in the composition of the Committee there would be a fair representation of the Irish Members.

said, that looking at the number of Irish Members present, it was clear why the Government had made their concession. He wished, however, to know if it was intended that a fair and impartial Committee would be appointed to inquire into the subject?

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) had already stated that he would put himself in communication with the hon. Gentleman who moved the question for the purpose of nominating the Members of the Committee in the usual way.

said, he would now beg to bring forward the Resolution relative to the Statute Law Commission, of which he had given notice. He considered that it was time Parliament should show that it was really in earnest on this important subject. Great expense had already been incurred without any practical result, and it appeared to him that the Commission had only trifled with the question which had been committed to their charge. A modern French writer, M. Villemain, had described the English law as an endless study and a learned chaos; and it was evident that, by keeping up the mass of existing verbiage, in the shape of these obsolete Statutes, we were wasting a vast amount of legal learning, besides giving rise to that uncertainty which necessarily existed as to what the law really was. He thought that, when they looked to the progress of the nation in other ways, it would be admitted that we were considerably behind in regard to the state of our laws, both written and unwritten. So much were they in need of consolidation, so confused were they, and frequently so ill-expressed, that they were almost as unintelligible as in the olden time, when they were written in bad Latin, or afterwards in worse French. It was impossible, with the vast amount of obsolete Acts which still encumbered our Statute Book, for even a man bred to the law to know what the law really was, they were such an undigested mass of enactments—some repealed, some obsolete, and some irreconcilable with subsequent Acts. To show the growth of this confusion, Mr. Taylor, in a paper laid before the Statistical Society, had described the increase in the number of Acts of Parliament within the last few reigns; and from this it appeared that in the reign of William III. there were 317 public Statutes, which was at the rate of sixty per year; in the reign of Anne, 344, which was at the rate of seventy-nine per year; in the reign of George I., 377, showing an average of fifty-eight a year; in the reign of George II., 1,547, or eighty-four a year; and in the reign of George III., 6,953, or 246 a year; under George IV., 1066, or 322 a year; under William IV., 678, which was at the rate of 257 a year; while up to the end of 1853, during the reign of Victoria, there had been 1,864 public Acts. Efforts had been made at various times to do something in the way of consolidating our Statute Law, but without much success. At the end of the last century there was a Commission appointed, but no result attended it; in 1831, another Commission was appointed, which was to digest and report upon the Criminal Law, but, after the enormous expenditure of 50,000l., there was again no result; and then, in 1853, there was a third Commission. The opinions of great lawyers and statesmen in times past were favourable to the consolidation, arrangement, and digest of Statutes, and the removal of all that were sleeping or not in force; and Lord Lyndhurst had testified to the vast quantity of useless rubbish which encumbered the Statute Book, and which he thought should be swept away. The Code Napoleon had been found to work so satisfactorily that it had been adopted in several other States of Europe, and it was so concise that it might be bought in the form of a pocket volume, at the cost of one franc, or even less. The various attempts which had been made in the United States of America at consolidating the law had been also very successful. When so great progress had been made in this direction in foreign countries, he must assert that there was no reason why our Statute Book should be allowed to remain in its present confused state.

said, he agreed in a great deal of what the hon. Member had stated, though he did not think it necessary to enter into a discussion on the condition of our written and unwritten law. It was admitted on all hands that the Statute Book required considerable revision, and that there were many obsolete Acts which ought to be expunged from it. The expurgatory list made out by the Commissioners contained between 10,000 and 11,000 Statutes, and the hon. Member proposed to deal at once with all these. But the fact was this expurgatory list was in so imperfect a state, that it would be impossible to make it the basis of a declaratory Act. The Commissioners had made out this list as a rough sketch of what might be done; they made it out, having been at work three months; and was the House to deal, without further inquiry and consideration, with these 11,000 Statutes, in the manner the hon. Member proposed? So far, then, as the practical part of the Motion was concerned, he (the Attorney General) could not agree with it, because he did not think the expurgatory list was in a condition to make it the basis of legislation. With regard to the Commissioners, no doubt there had been differences of opinion, but they should be allowed a reasonable time to perfect their work, and he anticipated some useful results from their labours. Should Parliament not be satisfied with the results, then it would be for Parliament to act, but no good could be accomplished by interfering with and interrupting the operations of the Commissioners in the way that was proposed by the hon. Member. It would only disgust them if they were to be perpetually harassed, and would delay rather than expedite the work that all desired to see properly performed.

said, he did not think it was unnatural for hon. Members, seeing the large sum of money which had been voted for this Commission, to expect some useful result from it. He himself thought that the opportunity might have been taken for the consolidation of Acts English and Irish, and the formation of Imperial Statutes, so as to bring the laws of the United Kingdom into as much harmony as possible. But until we had a separate department of Public Justice, he did not anticipate that our laws would be reduced to that uniformity, simplicity, and clearness which were so desirable. If the salaries of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, of these Statute Law Commissioners, and of the Administrative Reform Commissioners, who were to be appointed, were put together, it would furnish more than enough for the establishment of a department of Public Justice. To revise the laws on some intelligible principle, to place them on some uniform basis, and to have them philosophically arranged, was worthy the serious attention of that House. Although the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King), was not likely to lead to any direct result, he thought that it would be useful as indirectly stimulating the Commissioners and the Government in the execution of the task they had undertaken to perform.

said, he concurred in principle with the hon. Member for East Surrey, that it was desirable those numerous Statutes which were obsolete, or no longer law, should not be printed in the Statute Book as parts of the law. But if this were to be done, it was most necessary that it should be well and correctly done. He had reason to fear that the Report made by the Commissioners after only three months' examination, was inaccurate, and he considered it highly necessary that the list should be revised again and again, by men of knowledge and experience, before Parliament was asked to make it the basis of legislation. There was no blame attachable to the Commissioners for this; the time and the number of Statutes they had to wade through rendered it impossible that the list so prepared could be other than imperfect. For these reasons he could not concur with the Motion—reasons which did not touch the principle involved in it, but only referred to its details. He was as sincerely desirous as any one to improve the law, but he thought the hon. Member for East Surrey was bound to take a more comprehensive view of the question than he had done. He complained that the Statute Law was not more perfect, but he should recollect how Acts of Parliament were passed. At the present time gentlemen engaged all day had to come to the House in the evening, and then when exhausted in minds and bodies between twelve o'clock at night and two o'clock in the morning, they were called upon to run through dozens of Bills. In a few minutes Acts of Parliament, containing twenty, thirty, and fifty clauses, were frequently passed, and no hon. Member in the House knew what was occurring. On Wednesday last there was a remarkable instance of this hurrying through important Bills at more than railway pace. On that day a Bill containing twenty-nine clauses, was passed through Committee by the Chairman almost without drawing breath, and amidst the cheers and laughter of the House at his marvellous rapidity of utterance. And now the hon. Member for East Surrey came forward and complained that the Statute Law was not perfect. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), had said that nothing would be right until we had a Department of Justice. But would he desire that every Bill in that House should be submitted to a Minister of Justice before it could pass? What happened at the present moment? Why, that scarcely a Bill of the simplest description passed that House, though backed with the sanction of the Law Officers, and the universal approbation of the House, that did not undergo such alterations and amendments at the hands of the Law Lords in another place, as to render it almost worthless when it came back to the House of Commons. Well, if that were the case as between the two Houses of Legislature now, what might they not expect if they constituted a Minister of Justice? Why, they might as well abolish the functions of the Legislature altogether. The fact was, however, that such a department would be opposed to the constitution of the country. The free institution of Parliament was the real origin of our unequal legislation. The laws were made by the expert and the inexpert, and therefore they were not made with uniformity. But he believed that their defects had been greatly exaggerated. The Statute Law was not the great difficulty. Although he concurred in the general objects which the hon. Member for East Surrey had in view, he could not assent to his Motion. The subject of Statute Law consolidation was beset with so many difficulties that he for one was not sanguine as to the result of the working of any of these Commissions. On the contrary, he believed it would, after all, be necessary to depend upon the labour of private members of the profession. At the same time, he admitted that a great deal might be done, and he should be ready cheerfully to give his assistance to do that which might be safely done; but he cautioned the House against listening to crude and immature schemes, or thinking that the laws of England, so complicated as they were, could within a few months be reduced into a digest, whether it was the Statute Law or any other law whatever.

said, he wished to know whether they were to leave these laws in their present unsatisfactory state, or to resort to the common sense mode of dealing with them, that of delegating the revision to certain stated gentlemen. That was the object of the Royal Commission last year. If those gentlemen were really prosecuting their duties with attention, then the censure of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) was misplaced. But would the hon. Member by his Motion interrupt the labours of that Commission? Was it not a fact that the Commissioners had quarrelled among themselves? And had not their internal dissensions interrupted the progress of their work? The House now was told that the labours of these Commissioners were extremely valuable, but for some reason or other they were turned out, and only the Chief Commissioner and his secretary left. The hon. and learned Attorney-General said the subject was one which ought to be considered by several experienced hands, and in that he fully agreed with him; but did the hon. and learned gentleman hold out any hope that he was going to select gentlemen to revise the labours of the Commission? Nothing of the sort. The hon. and learned gentleman held out no prospect that any advance would be made in the work, and, therefore, if the House went to a division he should certainly support the Motion.

said, the fact was not as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Massey), that the Commission now consisted only of Mr. Bellenden Ker and his secretary. The whole subject was under the consideration of highly qualified persons, and each of them took a particular branch of the Statute Law under his care. It was not correct, therefore, to say that the whole work was in the hands only of the chief Commissioner and his secretary.

said, the Statute Law never would be consolidated until the Commissioners took in hand the Statutes of each particular reign one by one, so that all obsolete or unnecessary laws might be struck out of the Statute-book, and none left but what were now actually in force. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), that there ought to be a Minister of Justice appointed, and he would give as an instance an error which had crept into the Merchant Shipping Act last Session, which could not have occurred had the Act been revised by such an officer. With regard to the consolidation of the Common Law, that he thought was quite impossible, and therefore he hoped the hon. Gentleman would confine his attention to the consolidation of the Statute Law.

said, he thought the difficulties in the way of consolidation were very greatly exaggerated. Year after year, however, money was voted for the purpose, and nothing was done, apologies never being wanting for the delay. If the Statute-book was reduced to proper dimensions, it would be most useful to those who were engaged in the practice of the law. If rightly undertaken, it was a work which could easily be performed; but it never would be effected by men whose minds were engaged in other pursuits and other objects. His decided conviction was, that if a moderate staff of zealous men were employed, the consolidation might be completed in three years. He thought the Motion a most excellent one, and he should give it his best support.

said, that the Expurgatory List, drawn up by Messrs. Anstey and Rogers, had been prepared with great intelligence and ability, and the chief Commissioner had himself stated that it was of great value, although in a work of such extent it was, perhaps, impossible to avoid some inaccuracies. The present Motion merely proposed the preparation of a declaratory Bill of which the Report should form the groundwork. It simply took up the proposal of the Lord Chancellor, and suggested that a Bill should be founded upon the Report, which the chief Commissioner had declared must be the basis of any such measure.

said, that he had not proposed that the Expurgatory List should be adopted without any revision, but he wished that it should be revised, and that it should then form the groundwork of a declaratory Bill.

said, the proposal he was about to make was a very simple one, and would not require any lengthened statement on his part. He was about to ask the House to do an act of justice to a class of men who, even in ordinary times, were entitled to the favourable consideration of the House, but who, from the dangers to which they were now exposed, and the fortitude and gallantry they had recently displayed in defence of the honour of their country, had special claims upon its attention. This Motion, however, did not require to be enforced by an appeal to the generosity of the House, its adoption should be conceded on grounds of simple justice. By the regulations at present in operation in the army, if a regimental officer died in the performance of his duty, the money which he had paid for his original commission, as well as for every subsequent step of promotion, was wholly forfeited and lost to his family. The effect of this system was, that when an officer of rank died, the country, so far from having remunerated him for his services, must, in almost every instance, be considered as being absolutely his pecuniary debtor. A lieutenant colonel in the line, for example, had to pay 4,500l. for his commission; and unless, therefore, he had been a lengthened period in the army, the aggregate amount of the salary he received literally would not recompense him for the purchase money he had been required to give for his professional position. Then, again, an ensign had to pay a sum of 450l. on entering the line; and if he fell in battle, on the very day after he obtained his commission, his representatives had no claim to be reimbursed a single shilling of this 450l. The principle was precisely the same through all the other commissioned grades of the army. Thus a lieutenant colonel not only jeopardised his life in the cause of his country, but he had also to risk the sum of 4,500l., and if he were to insure his life for that amount of money he would actually have to pay in the shape of premium more than the sum which he received in pay. Setting aside, therefore, the danger to his life which an officer incurred, it could not be said that he ever derived, as the reward for his invaluable services, a bare pecuniary equivalent for the money he had invested in buying his commission; and whether he lived or died, his country, looking at the matter in a pecuniary point of view, were indebted to him. No sophistry as to the strict rules of the service could justify such a system as this. Take another example of the practical working of the present system. An officer was tried by court-martial in the Crimea the other day, and, being found guilty of conduct unworthy of his position, was sentenced to dismissal from the service; but this decision being referred home to the authorities in this country, and some extenuating circumstances pleaded, he was allowed to sell out, and was thus enabled to recover the regulation value of his commission. If, however, this officer had never been charged with ungentlemanly conduct, but had fallen heroically in the trenches like Colonel Egerton, the Government would have pounced upon the price of his commission, and his family would have been deprived of the whole sum that he had invested. The hardship of this rule was not so much felt in time of peace, because an officer could sell out whenever he pleased; but during the prevalence of war, when public opinion did not admit of his quitting his post in the hour of danger, the least that the country could do for him was to give him a security for the return of the money that had been exacted from him on entering the service. He was not now going into the general system of the purchase of commissions in the army; this Motion was quite distinct from that question; but the adoption of this Resolution would afford great facilities for effecting such a change. The Resolution he proposed consisted of two propositions—one that upon an officer dying in active service his representatives should receive back the value of his commission, the other that the country should make up this sum. The first of these propositions might be adopted without the other. The consequence of this would be, that when an officer died in service his representatives would receive the value of his commission, and this sum would be paid in the same manner as when an officer sold out. There would then be no death vacancy, no promotion without purchase, upon the death of an officer in the field. He (Mr. Headlam) did not propose this. He thought that the country ought to pay the representatives of the deceased officer, and that there then should be the same promotion without purchase in the regiment as at present. But if the House would not adopt this plan, he then said that an officer dying in active service should be treated as an officer selling out, and that as between the representatives of the deceased officer on the one hand, and the surviving officers of the regiment on the other, it was more fair and just that the former should receive the value of the commission than that the latter should have a step without purchase. The fact was, that promotions without purchase were for the benefit of the country. They are the means by which we stimulate our officers by the hope of promotion to deeds of daring. As the country benefits by this stimulus to the army, it was right that the country should pay for it; and it was not just, it was not right that the country should sacrifice the pecuniary interests of those who have died in its service for the sake of promoting its own interests by stimulating the exertions of the surviving officers. He was aware that his proposal would cost the country a certain sum, but they would have the satisfaction of feeling that the pecuniary boon to the army would be far larger than the sum paid by the country, for the following reason:—at present officers are obliged, in consequence of the risk to which they are exposed, to pay heavy sums for the insurance of their lives upon the sums paid by them for their commissions. If, however, this boon were granted, officers would know that, in the event of their being killed in the service, the money which they had expended in the purchase of their commissions would be returned to their families, and they would not be obliged to insure. A pecuniary benefit would thus be given to many officers by freeing them from the necessity of paying these heavy premiums upon their lives, and this would be a relief and a saving to officers who survived the war, and in respect of whom, therefore, the country would not be put to any additional expense by the adoption of the Resolution. He was justified, therefore, in saying that the benefit conferred upon the army would be far greater than the burden imposed upon the country. The question is not, however, simply a pecuniary one. The bravest men are the most tender-hearted, and there are many officers who for themselves would willingly seek "the bubble reputation in the cannon's mouth," but the same men would feel bitterly the necessity of leaving their relatives in poverty. By the adoption of the Resolution we should carry comfort to the hearts of many brave men, and make them feel that if they died in their country's service their country would repay to their families the money they had paid for entering into the service.

seconded the Motion.

said, the Motion originally placed upon the paper by the hon. Gentleman was that, whenever an officer died, the value of his commission should be included in the property distributed among those of his relations who were entitled to it. That Motion raised a general principle upon which he should have felt disposed to take issue; but the hon. Gentleman had since materially altered the form of his Motion, leaving the simple declaration, that officers dying in the course of the war should be allowed to bequeath the value of their commissions to their relatives. Now, if the principle of the Resolution were a sound one, he could not understand why it should be limited to certain cases, and not extended to others. He understood the Motion to relate entirely to persons who might die in active service against Russia [Mr. Headlam assented]; but if it were adopted it would hardly be possible to resist claims that might be preferred in other quarters. The other day an officer lost his life in endeavouring to quell an insurrection of the diggers in the colony of Victoria, and if the privilege advocated by the hon. Gentleman were to be conferred in the cases of officers who lost their lives in the Crimea, he could not understand why it ought not also to be extended to the case of an officer who lost his life in active service in the colony of Victoria. Still further, if the Motion were agreed to, he could not see why claims of a similar character preferred by the relatives of officers killed in the Kafir war should not be allowed. No distinction could in justice be drawn between the case of one officer and another, and, provided only that he fell in active service against the enemy, it was of no consequence whether that enemy was Russia, or the savages of South Africa. He might be told that the privations endured in the Crimea were of a very peculiar character, and that they ought to be taken into consideration, but, on the other hand, it ought to be borne in mind that, if the privations were severe, the opportunities of gaining distinction, and of acquiring renown, were also considerable. If an officer lost his life, it mattered little whether he lost it in the Crimea or in active service against a more savage enemy, like the Kafirs; and it would be no consolation to his relatives, after he was killed, to tell them that he ran less risk of losing his life in South Africa than in the Crimea. Certainly, if the House were disposed to recognise the justice of the principle recommended by the hon. Gentleman, they ought not to limit its application to the particular case contemplated by the hon. Gentleman. He apprehended that the object of the hon. Gentleman was to secure some provision for the widows and families of officers killed in action. It was often said that the army was almost wholly officered from the ranks of the aristocracy. Now, he had ample evidence in his possession to show that that was not the case, and, indeed, the House was repeatedly told that the widows and families of officers would be left almost entirely destitute were it not for the provision made for them in the way of pensions. It would be well, however, for the House to consider whether there was not sufficient provision made for the widows and families of officers by the pension-warrant. The pension granted was intended as a compensation to the relatives of officers who were not in affluent circumstances. He did not see how it would be possible to resist the demand for pensions to the widows of private soldiers if the hon. Gentleman's proposition were adopted, for the ground upon which that demand had hitherto been resisted would be entirely destroyed. It would also be impossible to continue to grant pensions to the families of officers if the prices of the commissions held by such officers at the time of their death were to be repaid. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the families might have the option of which they would receive. But the plan of the hon. Gentleman would only benefit certain classes of survivors. It would, for instance, be an advantage to a young widow to receive the full value of her deceased husband's commission rather than an annuity, which would cease if she remarried; but the present arrangement was the most advantageous to widows advanced in years, who would have a difficulty in investing any large sum of money. He had before him a warrant issued within the last few days, under which, if the value of an officer's commission were worth 1800l., the maximum amount of pension that his widow would receive was 150l. He doubted whether any average investment of 1800l. would secure for life a larger sum. [Colonel NORTH said he should be glad to know under what circumstances that maximum would be granted?] It would be granted under favourable circumstances, in the case of an officer who had seen active service; and the number of children he might leave, and other matters, would be taken into consideration. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) said that the first part of his proposition might be adopted, and the last part rejected; but if the value of the officers' commissions were to be repaid to their families, he asked whether the House ought not to make good the sums required for that purpose? Why were not the prices of commissions now paid to the representatives of officers who died in the service? Because the Government took advantage of the vacancies so created to confer commissions, without purchase, upon such persons as non-commissioned officers, sons of distinguished officers, and young men who had passed creditable examinations at the military colleges. This plan gave facilities for obviating one inconvenience of the purchase system; and, if it were altered, the House ought to provide Government with the means of still bestowing commissions upon the parties to whom he had referred. Government did not derive the slightest advantage from the sums that passed between officers for the interchange and purchase of commissions. His chief objection to the Motion was upon principle; he did not think it would be advisable to recognise the idea of property as connected with a commission. He looked upon a commission as a personal thing, which could not last beyond the existence of the person upon whom it conferred a special duty. A commission could not even be regarded as a life interest, for it might at any time be revoked, and to lay down the principle that an officer had a property in his commission, would, he thought, interfere with the discipline of the army. If they recognised a pecuniary interest in commissions, how could a number of officers be reduced to half-pay at the conclusion of the war? He would recommend the hon. Gentlemen to examine the warrant lately issued, under which an increased rate of pension had been granted to the widows and children of officers. He would take into consideration the proposition submitted by the hon. Gentleman, and, if he could satisfy himself that it would be just and right to carry it into effect, he would not scruple to act upon that opinion; but he could not at present, for the reasons he had stated, give his assent to the Motion.

said the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for War, seemed rather puzzled by the case as put by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam). The fact was, that after greatly underpaying officers in the army, when they were killed in action you could not give them the money they had paid for their commissions. So large a number had been recently killed or died, that no one dared ask the House for the sum required to pay for their commissions. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) said some time ago that the Government had sold a number of vacant commissions, and had realised a large sum, and he (Colonel Dunne) thought that under those circumstances that money should go to the families of officers who had been killed or died on service. He thought the proposition of the hon. Member for Neweastle-on-Tyne a reasonable one, because it would not draw largely on the resources of the country. Something ought to be done in the direction which was indicated by the hon. Gentleman.

said, that some time since he had placed a similar notice on the paper, but his Motion only went as far as the widows and orphans of officers who fell in action. As long as the State recognised the principle of purchase in the army, he conceived it was only just that the widows and orphans of officers should receive the price of their commissions. At present one officer, upon being ordered for foreign service, might sell his commission and realise a large sum; while another officer, who felt bound in honour to follow his regiment, might fall in battle, and the value of his commission be lost to his family. Surely, the widows and orphans of an officer killed in action or by pestilence, when on foreign service, if not other relatives, should receive the full benefit of his commission. He had prepared a statement which clearly showed that the pay of officers, in relation to the cost of commissions, was inadequate. The regulation price of the commission of a lieutenant colonel in the Life Guards was 7,250l. The pay per annum was 532l. Deducting income tax 31l., forage 51l., and band subscription 17l. 10s., the pay was really only 426l. 10s. per annum. He believed it was only in the English service that deduction was made for forage. In the Austrian army he knew cavalry officers received forage free. The regulation price of the commission of a lieutenant colonel of cavalry was 6,175l., and the pay 419l. The deductions for income tax, forage, mess, and band brought it to 320l., and he had to buy his chargers, while in most other services chargers were given to officers up to the rank of captain. The price of a captain's commission in a cavalry regiment was 3,225l., the gross pay 266l.; but, making the same deductions, it was only 197l. The price of a commission of an ensign in the line was 450l., the gross pay 95l. 16s. 3d.; but after making the deductions it was only 84l. 19s. 6d. Upon that sum an ensign had to keep up his uniform, and pay his mess and other expenses. He had to live as a gentleman upon 5s. 3d. per day, when there was not a common shipwright in the port of London who did not earn his 10s. a day. How could officers, then, provide for their families in case they should be killed in action? He had made a calculation of the amount of annuities which might be purchased with the price of commissions, taking the ages of lieutenant colonels at forty-five, and of captains at thirty, and the outfit for cavalry officers at 400l., including horses, and for infantry officers at 200l. The nett pay was reckoned, after deducting the items of forage, and mess and band expenses to the cavalry, and mess and band expenses in the infantry, but not deducting income tax, because annuities were subject to it. In the Life Guards a lieutenant colonel's commission and outfit cost 7,650l., which would purchase an annuity of 495l. for his life, at the Government rate. His pay was 463l. 1s. 8d. nett. A captain's commission and outfit cost 3,900l., which would purchase an annuity of 209l.; his pay was 227l. 8s. 10d. In other cavalry regiments a lieutenant colonel's commission and outfit cost 6,575., which would purchase an annuity of 430l.; his pay was 345l. 0s. 10d. And a captain's commission and outfit cost 3,625l., which would purchase an annuity of 195l.; his pay was 212l. 15s. 8d. In the Foot Guards, a lieutenant colonel's commission and outfit cost 9,200l., which would purchase an annuity of 606l. His pay was 488l. 3s. 9d. A captain's commission and outfit cost 5,000l., which would purchase an annuity of 269l. His pay was 282l. 17s. 6d. In the infantry of the line a lieutenant colonel's commission and outfit cost 4,700l., which would purchase an annuity of 308l. His pay was 293l. 5s. A captain's commission and outfit cost 2,000l., which would purchase an annuity of 108l. His pay was 199l. 16s. 3d. So that, taking eight officers of different ranks and ages from the Household Brigade and the line, cavalry and infantry, it was apparent that the sum total of the annuities which might be purchased with the amount which their commissions and outfit cost was 2,620l., the sum total of their pay being only 2,512l. 9s. 6d. Each officer might have purchased, on the average, an annuity of 327l.; while the average pay was only 314l. Certainly there were pensions, but the widow of a lieutenant colonel of cavalry only received 80l. a year; a captain's widow, 70l.; a cornet's widow, 36l. a year. In the infantry the pensions were in the same ratio. The pensioning officers' widows was a perfect farce. There was the case of Major Halkett, killed at Balaklava. He left a widow and three children, and the widow's pension was 70l. a year. There was the still stronger case of Colonel Moore, who was his late father's aide-de-camp. He knew him well, and a more kindhearted or better man could not exist. Colonel Moore was offered 15,000l. for his commission, and refused. He was drowned; and, but for Her Majesty's bounty, his widow would only have received 70l. a year. They could do nothing for those who had already fallen, but they might do something for those who were yet fighting their country's battles. He was sure the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take the matter into consideration, and devise some means of providing for the widows and orphans, if not for the relations, of those officers who fell in the service.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary at War had forgotten the disadvantage which officers on active service laboured under when seeking to insure their lives. An officer going out to Quebec or the Ionian Islands could get his life readily insured; but if going out to the Crimea, he could not get an office to open a policy, or if it did, it would be at an immense premium. He certainly thought that something ought to be done to meet the case of an officer who went to take part in a campaign, and who was, in consequence, deprived of the opportunity of insuring his life on anything like moderate terms.

said, he thought the strong feeling entertained by the country against the purchase system in the army would be much mitigated by the adoption of some such plan as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam). He must, however, protest against the argument of the Under Secretary for War, that a purchased commission was a personal trust, and believed it to be an investment—a very bad one indeed, but one which an officer ought to have the power of bequeathing to his widow for sale on his death.

Sir, the Motion of my hon. Friend is only one part of a large and difficult question, because it is obvious it connects itself directly with the question which has been much discussed in this House and elsewhere, whether the system of purchase and sale of commissions is one which ought to be continued in our service. As to that, every one must see that it is a question beset with difficulties; and even if the Legislature determined to abolish that system, it is impossible to decide in the way in which many persons wish it to be decided, and it would be impossible to carry it out at once to any practical result. But my hon. Friend, as it appears to me, during the whole of his speech laboured under an entire misconception of what the system is, because he urged over and over again that the public were debtors to our officers for the amounts paid for their commissions; and that if an officer dies without having sold his commission, the State is in possession of the money which he has paid for it. That opinion of my hon. Friend is an entire mistake. No money is paid by any officer to the State for his commission. When an officer purchases a commission, he pays the money to some other officer who sells it. The State is not the holder of the money, nor is it the gainer when an officer dies and his commission is disposed of without purchase. An officer who gets his commission without purchase is so far a gainer, that he gets a rank without payment which, under other circumstances, he would have had to purchase; but it is a fallacy to say, that the State is a pecuniary debtor to the officer for the value of the commission he may have bought. Then, the Motion of my hon. Friend is, that during the present war, and only during that time, and I presume, too, at the seat of war alone as regards any officer who may die, the State should advance money to pay the value of the commissions he may have bought, but I am quite at a loss to see how my hon. Friend can disconnect the first portion of his Resolution from the second, because, unless the House agrees to make good the sums, I cannot understand from what fund the Government could repay to the relatives of deceased officers the value of their commissions. The money the officers paid for those commissions does not, as I have just stated, go to the Government, and could only be repaid out of the revenues of the State. I think there is a good deal in some of the considerations which have be enurged by my hon. Friend; but, at the same time, I think his Resolution proposes to go much beyond the point to which the feeling of the House will accompany him. I think, however, it would be an arrangement to which the country would not object, and which the House, I apprehend, would not object to carry out, that officers might be allowed to make a choice whether, in the event of their being killed in action, their families should receive the pensions and national allowances now given by the regulations, or whether, in lieu, their representatives should receive from the public funds the value of the commissions held by those officers at the time of their death. There are many cases in which it would be more advantageous to the family to receive the value of the commission, but there might be other cases in which it would be more advantageous to receive the increased amount of pension and allowances granted by the regulations. I think, whatever additional expense might be entailed on the public by such an arrangement, the public would incur that burden cheerfully, and that this House would have no hesitation in sanctioning such an arrangement; but, if you go beyond that—not for the present war alone, for I cannot admit the distinction—you create a new difficulty. Our troops now engaged in the East have deserved all this country can give in the way of honour or reward, but I cannot admit that there is anything so peculiar in the nature of that service, or in the scene of operations, to make their case different from that of troops engaged in other parts of the world, by the orders of their Sovereign, in the defence of the honour and the interests of the country. Whatever regulations are made must be general regulations, applicable to all officers in all parts of the world, who, under any circumstances, may fall in action in the performance of their duties. But then comes the case of those who die not in action. I wish the House to consider what would be the effect of extending the regulation to cases of this sort. You can easily frame a law for the cases of officers falling in action; but if you include the cases of officers dying from other causes on foreign service, what distinction is there between war and peace? What distinction between foreign service and home service? What distinction between any circumstance, any disease, which may terminate the life of an officer in one part of the world, and any similar disease which may terminate the life of another officer in a different part of the world? If we include any officer who dies in the Crimea from fever, then come the cases of those who may die from fever in the West Indies, at the Cape, or in North America; and why ought we not also to include the cases of officers dying at home from diseases which may be referred to the performance of their military duties? So that you would come to apply the rule without limit, and in the case of every officer dying on full pay, unless it can be shown that his death was the consequence of some malady constitutional, and quite independent of the performance of his military duties. I think there would be great difficulty in extending any regulation to such cases as that. As to the first point, I say I think the Government is perfectly willing to adopt a regulation such as I have mentioned, that in cases of officers killed in action there should be a choice allowed between the pensions and allowances established by the present regulations and the value of the commission which the deceased officer had bought or would have been entitled to sell before his death. I cannot quite admit all the grounds upon which this Motion has been supported. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) and the noble and gallant Member for Lichfield (Lord A. Paget) have urged the principle of a commercial speculation, as if they compared the annuity which might have been bought with the amount paid for the commission, with the pay received on account of the commission. But even upon that ground the noble Lord has shown us the difference is only that between 327l. and 314l.—some 13l.; and he does not take any notice of the pensions and allowances to the widows, a very important point, and which should not be forgotten. But I altogether deny that we ought to look on the motives that induce a man to enter into the army or the navy, as the same by which a man is guided when he makes an investment in railway shares, in three per cent consols, or upon mortgage, or upon any other security by which he may seek to obtain interest for his money. The motives that induce an officer to enter the service are the desire of distinction, the desire of an honourable condition in life, and of that reputation and consideration which belong to the military service; and therefore the ground to which I have referred is certainly not one on which this question can be properly argued. I hope, after the statement I have just made, that the hon. Member will leave the question in the hands of the Government, with a view to their carrying out the arrangement I have mentioned, and which I hope will meet the concurrence and prove in accordance with the feelings of the House.

said, he objected to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, that it was not large enough—being confined to the officers engaged in actual warfare in the Crimea. He thought the misery of a man being banished to an unhealthy and distant climate, whilst others were engaged in war, deserved consideration, and that a man who perished under those circumstances was as much entitled to the privileges spoken of, as he who died on the field of battle. It was difficult, he would confess, to draw the line. Some officers perished on their passage to the Crimea; others died of sickness on the eve of battle. He did not believe there existed any such privilege as had been mentioned of an officer being allowed to sell out when he was ordered for active service.

said, that after the discussion which had passed, he thought he ought not to press his Motion. He understood the proposal of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to be this, that every officer henceforth should have the option of declaring whether he would take the benefit to be given to his family, in case of his death, under the new warrant, or whether he would have for his family the regulation annuity. After such a great concession on the part of the Government, if he understood it rightly, he would not persist in his Motion.

said, he did not press for a division, but he wished to have a clear understanding on the subject. He did not so clearly apprehend what had been said by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston). Had the noble Lord in any way conceded the principle of the Motion, and would he allow greater advantages to the widows and orphans or representatives of officers who fell in action than they at present enjoyed?

said, that what he meant to have said was this: that he thought it would be right for a regulation to be made by which, as it was rightly stated by his hon. Friend (Mr. Headlam), it should be optional with the officer to determine in his lifetime whether, in the event of his falling in action, the family should receive the allowances or pensions, whatever they were, now given by the regulation; or whether, in lieu of that, they should receive the value of his Commission—that was, the regulation value of course, not the sum he might have actually invested in it.