said, he wished to move, by way of Amendment, to substitute for Clauses 17, 18, 22 and 23 in the separate paper, that the taking of the poll of the ratepayers on an election should be by means of voting papers. In the parish of St. Pancras there were 20,000 ratepayers, and yet at the last election for the vestry, not with standing there was considerable excitement, not more than 3,500 voted. Either it was desirable that the ratepayers should take part in these elections or not; and, if desirable, the course he recommended would afford them an opportunity of doing so. It might be said that the system of voting by papers would open a door to fraud; but he believed that after making every allowance for fraud, a much truer representation of the constituency would be obtained by the system than was done by the present mode of voting. In order, therefore, to admit of his Amendment being introduced, he should oppose the adoption of the Clauses 17, 18, 22, and 23.

said, he considered the noble Lord to be most unfortunate in his proposition. It was a system based upon fraud. The noble Lord had referred to the parish of St. Pancras, but what was the case with respect to that parish? Notwithstanding there was only one polling-place, between 5,000 and 6,000 ratepayers attended and gave their vote at the late election—and this number would be materially increased when, as was proposed by the Bill, there should be eight polling-places. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) should agree to the Amendment, he would be committing the greatest possible error.

said, he must deny that the whole system of voting by papers collected from the houses of the ratepayers would be tainted with fraud.

said, he differed from his hon. Colleague (Mr. Williams), for he was of opinion, even if the plan proposed by the noble Lord were not accepted, that some mode of collecting the votes of the ratepayers different from the existing system should be devised. Practically, the system of voting by papers not only and really enlarged the circle of voters, but introduced into it a far more respectable class of voters.

said, the plan proposed by the noble Lord was not a new mode of voting in the metropolis. It had been acted upon in some cases for the last ten years. It was perfectly true that the Boards of Guardians were desirous that the elections of their body should be continued in the way in which they were now conducted—namely, by voting papers; but he had received communications from many individuals, saying that they preferred the mode of voting as proposed by the Bill. They must all know, as practical men, that if they wished a great scheme, such as the Bill embodied, to be carried out, they must make it palatable to those who had the carrying of it out. He thought that if the Bill could be made odious and unmanageable it would be by adopting the Amendment of his noble Friend.

said, he could not concur with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that the Bill would be ruined by the adoption of the Amendment. As far as regarded the election of the Boards of Guardians, the system of voting by papers had worked well.

said, he should support the Amendment, as it would be the means of obtaining the votes of a much larger number of voters than could be obtained by the present system.

said, that by increasing the number of polling-places, as it was proposed to do, a larger number of ratepayers would have convenient means of voting. He believed there existed a very strong opinion on the part of the ratepayers that the present system should be continued.

said, he approved theoretically of the principle involved in the Amendment, and, as a proof of it, he had himself proposed that the system of voting papers should be adopted in the election of Members of Parliament; still, practically, he believed such a mode of election would be unpopular, and therefore he could not take upon himself the responsibility of supporting the Amendment.

said, it appeared to him that the balance of argument was in favour of voting by papers. Now, the question really came to this—whether the inspector should come to the voter, or the voter to the inspector. And what ought to be considered was, which of the two systems would be most convenient to the ratepayers. It was not at all necessary to have police inspectors; all that was requisite was to take securities against fraud. Now, the system of voting by papers certainly appeared most convenient.

said, he quite agreed that the question should be determined upon the principle stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) as to what was most convenient for the ratepayer. He heard that very great irregularities had arisen in the system of voting by papers; but, on the other hand, there was doubtless great force in the arguments in favour of that system. But as the public feeling appeared at present to be against it, he thought that it would be best to retain the clauses as they stood.

said, he did not propose, as in the then state of the House (hardly twenty-five Members present), it would be useless—to press his Motion to a division, but he retained his opinion, and rejoiced at its reception. He also reserved the right of bringing forward the question at a future stage and in a fuller House.

said, he wished to bring forward a clause, providing that any works to be done respecting the sewers within the city of London should be executed by the City Commissioners of Sewers out of the rates raised by them within the city; but, in case they should not execute such works, then the Metropolitan Board might execute the same and require the Chamberlain of the city to pay the expenses. He considered that to be a very reasonable request.

said, he was very sorry he could not agree with the proposition. His hon. Friend had called it a very reasonable request on the part of the city of London, but he (Sir B. Hall), in the contrary, thought it was the most immodest proposition he had ever heard in his life. Now, what would be the effect of the clause? The House had decided that the main sewers of the metropolis, especially the intercepting sewers, should be wholly and exclusively under the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that there should be one supervision, one collection, and one general control of those great works. But what did the city of London propose? Why, as regarded the city, that they should execute the work themselves, subject to the supervision of the Board of Works. That was ostensibly their proposal; but he would show that they really proposed a great deal more. He would, however, first point out the inconvenience that would arise from the adoption of the clause. Suppose it was determined to construct a sewer from above Vauxhall-bridge to Deptford-creek, which the Metropolitan Board might do as the Bill now stood; all the plans, and levels, and contracts would, under the provisions of the Bill, be made by the Board. But if the clause of the hon. Member for the City of London were adopted, the Board would have to stop at Temple-bar, and resume their works again at the eastern end of the city. Now that was absurd on the face of it. Suppose anything happened to the main sewer within the city, the Metropolitan Board would have no power to act without first communicating with the Commissioners of the City of London. Talk of administrative reform! Why, if the clause were adopted, they would fall into the greatest possible state of confusion But, beyond that, the real object of the city of London was to be excluded from taxation for the great work now contemplated. They were desirous of doing a small portion of it, which ran through the city of London, and then escape being brought under the general taxation for executing the whole work itself.

said, he had been asked to support the clause, and it was the first time he had any idea that the City of London had any object which did not appear on the face of the clause. He thought it not an unreasonable request on the part of the City of London.

said, he was opposed to the clause, as it would be introducing two sets of Commissioners instead of one to superintend the great works to be carried on.

said, he must express his surprise at the imputation cast by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) on the City of London. He denied that the city wished to escape from the general taxation for carrying on those works. All they desired was to be allowed to execute the works within the city themselves.

said, he was of opinion that the City Commissioners executed their work in the best possible manner, in an engineering point of view, and also economically. He saw no objection to their being allowed to execute their own work.

said, he would move that the word "one" be substituted for the word "two," the effect of which Amendment would be to reduce the number of members constituting the Board.

said, when he proposed that the Board should consist of forty-two members, it was suggested that that number would be too large. He then promised to consider whether the Board could not be reduced to a number not less than thirty. But since that time a great increase of labour, not contemplated when the Bill was originally drawn, had been added to the duties of the Board by the recommendation of a Committee which had been sitting upstairs in reference to buildings; and that being the case, he did not think that forty-two was by any means too large a number for the discharge of the various onerous duties of the Board.

said, it had already been made a matter of complaint that there were too many districts, and yet the hon. Baronet proposed to create an additional district. There were thirty-six districts, and he would have one more, which would make it thirty-seven. There was no good ground for the proposition. Neither in respect to area, population, or rental had Poplar any claim to be made a distinct district. There were several districts that exceeded Poplar in all those respects.

said, he felt that he should not be discharging his duty if he did not take that opportunity of expressing his thanks to the House for the forbearance which had been shown on all sides in the progress of that important measure through the Committee, and for the able assistance which had been given by the House to pass the Bill through its several stages up to the present.

Without any desire to touch upon the prerogatives of the Crown, I wish to ask the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is intended to recommend the issue of the existing decorations of the Bath without reference to the projected order of merit contemporaneously with the eminent services which deserved them, especially at a time when gallant officers—some, indeed, already formally recommended for distinction were in hourly exposure to loss of life, and therefore, in the case of death, whether it would not be proper to date back the Gazette which rewards the survivors, in order to include the names of the fallen as a national acknowledgment of the merit of those who died nobly for their country and a sacred heirloom of their families.

said, the Order of the Bath would be conferred, without reference to the order of merit, by an entirely separate arrangement. With regard to the latter part of the question, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that the insignia of the Order of the Bath were restored to the Crown at the death of the person to whom they had been granted, and, therefore, that they could not continue to be heirlooms in the families of individuals who had earned those distinctions. The names of those who had been recommended for the Order of the Bath, but who had been prevented by death from having that honour conferred upon them, would be published, with notices of their having been so recommended, and of the cause which had prevented them from receiving the honour. That record would, he trusted, be a memorial, honourable to themselves and gratifying to their families and friends.

read the Queen's Message of yesterday—

Sir, I rise to perform one of the most painful duties which can fall to a Minister of the Crown; at the same time it is one which is not devoid of feelings of consolation, and which will, I am sure, at all times secure the sympathy of the House, and be accompanied and supported by the sanction and approbation of the country. It is the privilege of the people of a free country to share with their Sovereign in the manifestation of those feeling of gratitude and in the warmth of those acknowledgments, which are due to the heroic men who devote themselves to the military and naval service of their country, and who on foreign fields sustain the honour and dignity, and maintain the interests of the nation. Other nations, which are not so fortunate in their constitutional institutions, are obliged to remain passive spectators of those acts of grace by which their Sovereigns may acknowledge and reward the services of those who have fought and bled in their defence. But in this country, the people, through their representatives, share in the acts of their Sovereign, and that participation of the people with the Sovereign detracts in no degree from that honour which is conferred upon the Crown by acts like these, but, on the contrary, enhances the value of that which is done, because there is associated with the discretion and generous feeling of the Crown the sanction and assent of the representatives of the people. Sir, it has often been our lot, in this House, to see, appearing at the bar or rising in their place, men who by their heroic deeds in the field or at sea have deserved the gratitude and rewards of their country. Sir, we have heard this roof ring with the acclamations which have followed the expressions that have fallen from the Chair in conveying to such persons the thanks and gratitude of their country. We have, also, frequently had to second the generous intentions of the Crown by aiding the Sovereign to bestow upon deserving men those more substantial acknowledgments which were required to enable them adequately to support that dignity which the Crown, by its prerogative, had conferred upon them. In the case of Lord Raglan neither of these courses is, unfortunately, within our power. That ear which might have listened with gratitude and delight to the nation's thanks, conveyed by this House, is unfortunately now still in death. That hand, which might have received the generous acknowledgments of the country, is cold and stiff in the grave. But Lord Raglan has bequeathed to his country, not only a deep, and, I trust, a long continued sense of gratitude for the services he has performed, but he has also bequeathed to this country those who were dearest to his affections, and who, I trust, will long continue to be the objects of the affectionate solicitude of his country. If Lord Raglan had not received, before he undertook the command of the army in the East, that peerage which was conferred upon him in acknowledgment of his long services in connection with the army—if that reward had been delayed until the conclusion of his services in the Crimea, there could have been no doubt that this House would have responded in his case, as it has done in the case of many other brave men who have acquired and earned the approbation of the Crown and the gratitude of the country; and that to that peerage would have been added that provision for maintaining the dignity of the peerage, for which so many precedents can be quoted in the course of the present and last century. And I cannot conceive, Sir, that the circumstance of that reward, when granted, not having been accompanied by the invitation of the Crown to Parliament to make this provision, will have any other effect than that of increasing the anxiety of this House to take advantage of the present communication of the Crown for the purpose of making that provision—that unfortunately now too late provision—for the peerage which would naturally have accompanied his services. That which I am about to propose is founded upon a reference to similar precedents which have occurred in the course of the present century. There are many distinguished soldiers who have received from the Crown the dignity of the peerage as a reward for brilliant and meritorious services. In all those cases the communication made by the Crown to this House was followed by the grant of pensions for the life of the person upon whom the peerage was conferred, and generally, also, for two successive lives. Those pensions have varied from 3,0001. to 2.000l. a year. In the present case, unfortunately, the country having to lament the loss of the individual on account of whose services the recommendation has been made, we must depart in some degree from the current of preceding decisions. That which I am about to propose is, that a pension of l,000l. a year should be granted to Lady Raglan for her life, and that a pension of 2,000l. a year should be granted to the present Lord Raglan, with remainder to his next heir succeeding to the title. In general, the practice has been that the pension should be given for three lives; but, in the present case, it is proposed to be given but for two, in addition to the pension for the third life—that of Lady Raglan—which, I am sure, the House will feel great pleasure in voting. With regard to the merits of Lord Raglan, it is unnecessary, I think, for me to add anything to that which must be present to the mind of every man who hears me. Lord Raglan devoted, I may say, the whole of his life to the service of his country in connection with the army. I believe that he began his career in arms in the year 1807, when he went to Copenhagen; and from that time to the hour of his death he was constantly employed, either in active service in the field or in the performance of highly important official duties at home in connection with the management of the army. His life was devoted to the military service of his country. He bore, unfortunately, about him proofs too manifest of the devotion with which he was ready on all occasions to expose his life on the field of battle. But that mutilation—that honourable and glorious mutilation—in no respect interfered with the continued performance of his duties. When the command of the army in the Crimea was offered to him, he might, without any disparagement to himself, resting upon his long services—resting upon his known chivalrous bravery—resting upon those glorious scenes in which he had been engaged, and in which he had borne a distinguished part—he might, upon the plea of advancing years, of physical infirmity, and of important official duties at home, have begged to be excused, and might have recommended some other and younger man in his stead. Yet Lord Raglan, with the feelings of a soldier, and being aware that—

"Where honour calls, where honour leads the way,

The sons of honour follow and obey,"

did not hesitate for a moment to accept the command offered to him; and, whatever might be the exposure, the violence, and the difficulties to which he might be liable, he cheerfully resolved to make every private sacrifice—to make every personal sacrifice—and, if it were thought that his services were useful, to the last hour of his life he was ready to devote them to his country and his Sovereign. Sir, Lord Raglan, it must be admitted, had great difficulties with which to contend. After conducting his army gloriously through the perils of war, he had to conduct them through the much more difficult perils which had to be encountered—of sickness, privation, and all the sufferings incidental to a winter campaign in a country hitherto unknown to our army, and whose peculiarity of climate it was scarcely prepared to encounter and to fight against. The sufferings of that winter campaign, although great to the soldier, must have been, indeed, severe to a mind like that of the general. Lord Raglan, however, had the satisfaction of seeing the army which had been reduced to a state of misery and privation during the winter, reviving with the return of spring, re-invigorated by the change of climate, and reinforced by supplies of every kind; and at last he had the satisfaction of finding himself at the head of one of the most magnificent armies that have ever quitted the British shores, and planted the standard of England in any quarter of the globe. Sir, Lord Raglan might reasonably have entertained the hope that with that army he would have planted the standard of England upon the walls of Sebastopol; and I trust that that glory is reserved at no distant period for the lot of the fortunate man who may succeed to the command of that brave band. But it must have been a deep affliction to him, and a pang to the heart of this noble soldier, to find, in his sinking and dying moments, when he must have seen that he had not long to remain in this world, that those brilliant hopes which he must have entertained would not be by him realised, and that he was doomed to pass away from this stage of existence before he had achieved the realisation of the ardent hopes by the expectation of which he had been borne up in many dark hours of distress and despondency. Sir, not only was Lord Raglan eminent for those great qualities which peculiarly belong to a soldier, for that undaunted bravery which characterises his noble name, but he was also remarkable for qualities which peculiarly fitted him for the position in which he was placed. He had that gentleness of nature, he had that conciliatory disposition, that consideration for the feelings of others which frequently and generally are combined with true courage. It was his happiness, by the manner in which he conducted his intercourse with the generals and officers commanding the troops of our-allies, to cement that cordiality, and to tie and knit together those bonds of good feeling which now so fortunately connect, in the most intimate relations, armies which in less auspicious times knew each other only as opponents in the field of battle. In that respect Lord Raglan was eminently successful, and in that respect, allow me to say, he established a high claim upon the gratitude of his country. It may, indeed, have happened that, with armies called upon to co-operate, which had previously known each other in opposition in the field of action, that jealousy, that rivalship, that conflict of opinion, those various dissensions, which sometimes arise even among officers and men of the same country, might have created feelings of coldness and of incipient animosity, which would have marred and been fatal to the great alliance which has happily been established between the Governments and nations of England and France; but to Lord Raglan's honour, be it said, by his manner of conducting his intercourse with the generals, officers, and men of the French army, he inspired, not only among his own men that cordiality towards their French comrades so desirable to exist, but he inspired also, in the minds of the troops and officers of France, perfect conviction that there was most entire oblivion of any differences of the past, and that from that time forward the two armies and the two countries were animated by one identical feeling, and were acting together as brothers of the same family and of the same land. I say, therefore, whether we regard Lord Raglan as a man who passed his whole life in the performance of arduous military duties, who devoted himself without reserve to the service of his country, or whether we consider him as a man placed in a peculiar position, who performed the duties of that position with the most conscientious devotion, and with a success which not only did honour to him, but conferred great advantage upon his country—I say, then, in whatever way or in whatever light you look upon it, I am persuaded this House will feel a melancholy satisfaction in acquiescing in the Resolutions which I am about to propose. I am confident those Resolutions, while on the one hand they testify the generous regard of the Crown for those who perform good service to the State, and prove that this House is not indifferent to the claims of those who sacrifice their lives in the service of the country, or perform great acts in defence of its policy, will, on the other, be acceptable to the people of this country; and I am also confident the people will think higher of this House, and look with more gratitude to the Crown, in consequence of the Resolutions which I now place in the Chairman's hands.

said, the Question is—

"That the annual sum of 1,0001. be granted to Her Majesty, to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, from and after the 2nd of July, 1855, and to be settled, as shall be most beneficial, upon Emily Harriett, widow of the late Fitzroy James Henry Lord Raglan.

"Also, that the annual sum of 2,000l. be granted to Her Majesty, to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, from and after the 2nd of July, 1855, and to be settled, as shall be most beneficial, upon Richard Henry, Lord Raglan, and his next surviving heir male."

Sir, I rise to second the Resolutions of the noble Lord, which I doubt not will meet with the unanimous acceptance and approbation of this House. After half a century of public service, all that which was noble and sometimes illustrious ought not to be permitted to pass away without the record and recognition of a nation's gratitude. The career of Lord Raglan was remarkable. Forty years ago he sealed with his blood the brilliant close of a great struggle against the danger of universal empire, and after that long interval he has given to his country his life, in order to guard it against the menaces of a new and overwhelming enemy. The qualities of Lord Raglan were remarkable, and it may be doubted whether they will be supplied by a successor, however able. That which, perhaps, most distinguished him was an elevation and serenity of mind that invested him, as it were, with a heroic and classical repose—that permitted him to bring to the management of men and the transaction of great affairs the magic influence of character—and that often in his case accomplished results otherwise produced by the inspiration of genius. Perhaps there is no instance on record in which valour of so high a character was so happily and so singularly allied to so disciplined a discretion. Never were courage and caution united in so great a degree of either quality. Sir, over the tomb of the great departed criticism must be silent; but even here it must be permitted to all of us to remember that the course of events has sanctioned the judgment of that commander with respect to those difficulties with which it was his hard fate to cope, but which his country must recollect he did not choose or create. May those who succeed him encounter a happier fortune; they will not need a more glorious end, for there is nothing more admirable than self-sacrifice to public duty. That was the principle which regulated the life of Somerset; it was the principle which he carried with him to the grave. Sir, I feel great pride in seconding the Resolutions.

I feel, Sir, a melancholy pleasure in offering a few words in support of the Motion now before the Committee, although I feel that it is impossible for me to add anything to the admirable addresses just delivered by the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But, Sir, having for many years enjoyed an acquaintance with the lamented chief, whose name will long be held in honour and remembrance, I feel that I should be wanting in proper feeling, in duty to myself and to this House, were I not to tender the warm and most earnest expression of my concurrence of feeling in the sentiments of the speeches which have just been made. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said truly, in regard to Lord Raglan, that one of the most important services which, in the position in which he was placed, he was called upon to perform, was that of contributing to cement the great alliance of this country with France. I do not think, Sir, it was possible, having that object in view, that any man in the British army or in this country could have been selected who was so admirably adapted for carrying forward this great object. The noble Lord has also alluded, as well as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), to the extraordinary difficulties which interposed in the campaign which Lord Raglan had to conduct. These were certainly great disadvantages to the career of that brilliant soldier, for brilliant he was in every respect. For nearly half a century I may venture to say I have witnessed the gallantry, the noble devotion to his duty, which has characterised Lord Raglan during that period. Sir, it must be remembered at how late a period of life Lord Raglan was called upon to assume this high and responsible command. It would have been of infinite advantage to him, as it would have been to any man, had he been chosen to such a command at an earlier period; but, besides that, there were peculiar circumstances connected with this enterprise which rendered his position one peculiarly deserving of the consideration and of the admiration of this House and of the country. I do not believe that in the history of this country we can find another instance in which a commander has, not at his own desire, but at the command of the Government, taken charge of so momentous an operation, suddenly, and without those preparations, and reserves, and supplies which were undoubtedly necessary for carrying it to a successful issue. I would also observe, what has not been remarked by either the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Raglan has had this great disadvantage—he has fallen in the midst of his great and glorious enterprise without having actually achieved the end for which he was striving. Let us look back into history, and consider whether, if those illustrious and victorious men who have been rewarded for their service in former times had been similarly deprived of the crowning glory of success, the world would not, perhaps, have given them credit for the abilities and the services which are now recognized. I do venture to think that, if the noble and gallant Lord had been spared a little longer to I his country and to Europe, he would not have failed to reap by success all the laurels which he had so dearly earned. I can only say I most deeply sympathize with these Resolutions, and I am quite sure that not only will the Committee be unanimous in adopting it, but I believe that every part of the country will concur in its object, and will desire that every honour that can possibly be paid to the memory of a great and meritorious servant of the country should be bestowed.

Let me just say one word. I respond most cordially to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, the right hon. Gentleman, and the gallant officer, and concur in every expression they have uttered of admiration and esteem for the illustrious dead; the individual is past our gratitude, but his name survives, and to his family we can evince the admiration justly due to his memory. We have the consolation of knowing that his reputation is now beyond the reach of misfortune, that from the grave his virtues and merits find a voice in every sentiment, that of united admiration and respect that is felt towards the dead; but let me repeat that no others participate more heartily and sincerely than the officers of the navy do.

Sir, after an acquaintance of many years with Lord Raglan, I cannot deny myself the melancholy satisfaction of joining my voice with those who have preceded me on this occasion. Lord Raglan's qualities were truly heroic. His courage, his composure, the conciliation which he manifested, were carried to a point which was truly heroic; although, as these were qualities which were not ostentatiously displayed, they did not appear as great as they really were. It was his unaffected simplicity of character which made him stand so high. I have felt that, amidst the perils and disadvantages of last winter, when the army might have become relaxed in its discipline, the knowledge that they had in their Commander in Chief such a commander as Lord Raglan—one who had been the companion of Wellington, one who bore on his person the scars of war inflicted in the heat of battle—might have been a good ground for confidence on the part of that army, and for confidence on the part of the country. Those who loved the noble Lord, might have wished that he had fallen, like Wolfe or Nelson, in the arms of Victory. That, however, was not the design of Providence; but we may say that, though he has thus been called away, nothing even in victory could have surpassed the devotion he has shown to the cause of his Sovereign and of his country—a devotion worthy of the name he bore, worthy of the nation he served, and worthy of the great General in whose footsteps he followed.

Sir, without wishing to appear to dissent in any way from the wishes of the Committee, I desire to take this legitimate and constitutional opportunity of making some inquiries of the Government in reference to the policy which they are now pursuing in the East, and the objects they are now seeking to accomplish—[Cries of "Order, order!"] Sir, I beg to observe I started by saying that I would not interfere with the Motion immediately before us; but I put it to the Committee whether, when the Crown asks us to reward the services of those who have been fighting the battles of the Crown, we are not at liberty to ask the administration what is their policy, and what are the objects they are seeking? With regard to the particular question before us, I cordially concur in that Motion. I, for one, have thought Lord Raglan has been unfairly condemned. I think there has been an attempt to fasten upon him the delays and the disasters that have occurred since the fatal expedition to the Crimea took place; and I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire on this occasion, reminding us, that it was against the judgment of Lord Raglan that this expedition was undertaken; and in his despatch to the Duke of Newcastle, he distinctly says, it was more in deference to the views entertained by the British Government, and the known acquiescence of the Emperor of France, that the expedition sailed for the Crimea than from any knowledge possessed by outgenerals or admirals of the strength of the fortress about to be attacked, or the strength of the enemy's forces. From these considerations I have always felt that the British Commander in Chief has been—I will not use so strong an expression as that which fell from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London—namely, that he was "slandered by a ribald press;" but I will say that he has been rather unfairly dealt with—when we recollect that he was carrying out an expedition dictated from Downing Street and Paris, and the policy which he did not approve of—if that be so, then are we not at liberty to ask for some information from the Government—have I not a right, as a Member of the House of Commons, called upon to make a vote of the public money—called upon as I am to take part in that responsibility, have I not a right upon this legitimate and constitutional occasion to seek for some information from the Government in reference to their policy? Now, since we debated this question—I mean the general question of the war—new matter has presented itself. We have had papers laid before us, we have had new proposals, and we have had a most extraordinary circular from Count Buol, the Austrian minister, addressed to the Austrian diplomatic service, in which he informs us that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London entirely consented to the last Austrian proposal, and that he engaged to influence the Government at home to adopt that proposal. Well, then, I ask, in what does the noble Lord the Member for the City of London differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), who left the Government to which he belongs? It seems the noble Lord has adopted the last proposition as a fitting solution of the question in dispute; but is he then to be allowed—or, at all events, Gentlemen who are his supporters—is he to be allowed to charge Gentlemen sitting here (below the gangway) with being willing to agree to what is called an "ignominious peace," actually when he himself, holding office, knew that he had given his full assent at Vienna to those very proposals which we ventured to describe as containing the elements of the solution of the question? I do not say the noble Lord made such a charge, but his supporters did. I say, if there was but little chance of a successful issue in consequence of the divisions in Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet, let me ask, is the present Government agreed, any more than the Government of Lord Aberdeen, as to the policy they are pursuing? Has the noble Lord changed his opinions? If he has not—if he thinks that the Austrian proposal was an honourable and just solution of the question in dispute—

Sir, I rise to order, and I will appeal to you whether such a question as this can be legitimately raised by the right hon. Gentleman while the original Motion remains still before us.

I have only to say, that after the freedom of debate which I have seen exercised on such occasions as the present, it is not competent for me to stop the right hon. Gentleman.

I shall be really most happy to bow to the inclination of the Committee, if it wishes the discussion to be continued, and if any other hon. Gentleman wishes to address it; but I really thought that the question before us had been disposed of—["No.no!"] Well, I feel I have a right to make any observations I please on this occasion upon the policy of the administration, and so I shall proceed. Now, Sir, the circular to which I alluded I hold in my hand, and that circular states—

"The before-named Ministers of France and England, in a confidential interview, showed themselves decidedly inclined to our proposal, and they undertook to recommend its adoption to their Governments with all their influence."

And Count Buol goes on to say that—

"The Austrian Government were surprised at receiving, not the acceptance of the British administration to their proposal—but they were surprised at receiving the opposition of the English Ministers to the views of their colleagues in the conference."

Well, is that a state of things which this House ought to pass over without inquiry? Or are we not entitled to ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, whether he holds the opinion that the last proposal contained a proper settlement of this unfortunate war; and, if he does, whether he can explain his retention of office in the present Government? It appears to me to be at this moment peculiarly appropriate that we should have a clear understanding, seeing the disasters and difficulties that daily befall us—that we should have a clear understanding whether the Government is itself agreed as to the objects of the war, and also, whether they will not be more explicit than they have hitherto been, or appoint some day when they will put the House in possession of a more complete statement as to the objects of this expedition. Sir, there is a painful subject to which I would also allude, and in reference to which I think a heavy responsibility rests with Her Majesty's Administration. I put a question to the noble Lord the Prime Minister the other day, in reference to certain horrible atrocities reported to have taken place at Kertch, stating that I did not believe the accounts I had read. I also said, as I repeat now, that I did not believe the English lieutenant general, either from his apathy or negligence, was the cause of those disgraceful excesses. I find, however, from private letters—not that it is alleged that the English lieutenant general was to blame—not that any British soldier permitted those excesses of the most atrocious description that were committed in the town of Kertch—but I find it is stated that no Russian soldiers having remained in the town, the inhabitants threw themselves upon the mercy of the allied armies. I would submit, then, that under those circumstances it was the duty of somebody—and as the Government directed that expedition, and seem to control the conduct of matters in the East—I say it was their duty, having taken possession of the town, and the legitimate authorities being removed, to have provided a substitute. Most unquestionably, to have allowed pillage—to have allowed the violation and murder of women and children, for want of a force to keep order—I say, whether it was the Turks or others that did these things, the responsibility rests with those who managed the expedition—the responsibility rests with Her Majesty's Government, for not providing a force of adequate amount to protect life and private property in the town. And therefore I do not think it at all satisfactory the answer which, the noble Lord gave me, that he would merely inquire into the subject. What I say is this—as an Englishman I feel disgraced by these atrocities, and that I do not think this is the way to promote civilisation, or to protect the weak against the strong. And although you may arrogate to yourselves all this desire to promote liberty and the interests of mankind, you will not get credit for such intentions, if the practical results of your expeditions are—that unoffending towns are pillaged and destroyed—that museums are gutted—that works of art are mutilated,—that women are violated and helpless children are murdered—if this is the way you are to act as the pioneers of civilisation—all I will say is, that I have completely misunderstood the meaning of the term. I do not wish to interrupt the unanimity of the House in regard to the particular vote before it, a Vote in which I cordially concur. But I thought myself justified in taking this proper constitutional opportunity of pressing upon the Government the necessity of some explanation of the position of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell). As Secretary for the Colonies and as a Member of the Administration, he is supporting what we are told is a just and necessary war; but, as the British Plenipotentiary at Vienna, he informed Count Buol that the last proposal of Austria offered the means of an honourable solution of the question, and that he was prepared to influence his Government to agree to it. I wish to ask the noble Lord to explain to the Committee, whether he has changed his opinion, or whether he is trying to influence the Government to agree to the Austrian proposal? Perhaps the noble Lord is at the head of the peace party in the Cabinet, to which allusion has been made by the public press of the country. As I am a humble political follower of the noble Lord, I should be glad to hear that he is endeavouring to prevail upon his colleagues in the Government to agree to the last proposal of Austria. I wish to ask, first, whether the noble Lord is prepared to give an explanation of his present views; and secondly, whether the Government have taken steps to protect in future, life and property in defenceless towns, when taken possession of by the allied troops, and whether they are prepared to institute an inquiry into the late atrocities at Kertch?

Sir, there are times and seasons for all things. The right hon. Gentleman must, of course, be the best judge of what it is fitting to introduce upon the present occasion; but I must say that I differ from the view which he appears to have adopted on the present occasion. I can only say that, although Her Majesty's Government have been ready at all times, and will be ready in all future time, to defend their course of action, and to explain that which they think requires explanation, I will not be led by any taunts of the right hon. Gentle man, or by any challenge which I may receive, either from himself or any of his friends, to mix up a subject which ought, I think, to receive the undivided attention of the House with one which may create acrimony, or rouse the hostility of the peace party.

Now that this question is over, I beg to ask whether the noble Lord, as a Minister of the Crown, will condescend to explain whether the views which he entertains upon the last proposition submitted by Austria at the Conferences at Vienna are the same as those which he entertained when acting as British Plenipotentiary? As a Member of Parliament, I conceive that I am entitled to put this question.

I must postpone giving any answer until the question of the policy of the Government is before the House, and there will be more than one opportunity for bringing that subject forward. I will only say, at present, that the right hon. Gentleman has totally misrepresented the facts.

As the noble Lord has charged me with misrepresentation, I beg to say when the noble Lord charges me with misrepresentation—[Cries of "Order, order!"] Surely, when I am thus charged, the House will permit me to make a short explanation. Now, all I have to say is, that I quoted Count Buol's despatch for my assertion, and the House will recollect that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Walsh) put a question the other day to the noble Lord, as to whether the contents of Count Buol's despatch, as I quoted it, were correct; and the noble Lord stated that they were. Therefore, if I have in any way misrepresented the noble Lord, it has arisen from the fact that the noble Lord had stated the despatch was correct.

said, he rose to move—

"That the authorised system of purchase and sale of commissions, promotions, and exchanges in the army has failed in its principal object, is unjust in its working, is openly transgressed in its pecuniary regulations, and is in direct violation of the principles and practice of the Government in all other departments of the State; and that, therefore, it should be continued no longer than is necessary for the just and gradual satisfaction of the claims of individuals and of the State."

He must express his regret that he had been compelled to postpone the Motion until so late a period, for the question was one which, important at all times, became doubly so now that the Ordnance had just been brought under the control of the Horse Guards, and when it was proposed to assimilate the army of India as much as possible with the Queen's army. It was evidently of importance to consider the question of the purchase and sale of commissions before any steps were taken to extend that system to an extensive branch of our own service and to the army of the East India Company. The question became of even still more vital consequence, when it was remembered that in a discussion which had recently taken place in that House, principles had been avowed which would materially change the system of purchase and sale of commissions as now carried on, and would open the door to a very heavy and considerably increasing charge upon the country. In the remarks which he was about to offer he had no intention of citing individual cases, preferring to deal with the whole question in the aggregate rather than in detail. The House, probably, was not aware of the extent to which the system of sale and purchase prevailed in the British army. He found, from the Report of the Commission which sat upon the subject in 1840, that during the four years between April, 1834, and April, 1838, no fewer than thirty-nine colonels had purchased their promotion, while twenty-eight had obtained it without purchase. In the same period 108 majors obtained their promotion by purchase, and forty-one without; 485 captains obtained their promotion by purchase, and 131 without; 784 lieutenants obtained their promotion by purchase, and 247 without; while 1,114 gentlemen obtained their appointments as cornets or ensigns by purchase, and 260 without. Of those 260, 160 were cadets, and thirty-three had been raised from the ranks. The efficiency of the army must depend upon the preparation of the officers, their fitness for the profession, their addiction to it, and their physical qualifications. With regard, first, to the requisite preparation, he found in the case of the 1,114 who had obtained their commissions by purchase no trace whatever of such preparation on the part of any of them except that sixty-three had been at the military college, although he could not find that they had gone through the examination which entitled them to receive a certificate.