said, he thought it was generally conceded that the minimum amount of shares should be 10 l., and he, therefore, proposed to fix the amount at that sum, which he considered a fair compromise, on the understanding that 20 per cent was to be paid up.

said, he would offer no objection if the right hon. Gentleman would insert a clause that the whole amount of the shares should be paid up.

said, he did not wish to divide the Committee, and on the understanding that the Vice President of the Board of Trade would consent to provide that half the amount of the shares should be paid up he would withdraw his Motion, although he thought that 5 l. shares fully paid up would be preferable.

said, he considered that the amount of the shares should be unlimited, and was of opinion that no nominal amount should be inserted in the Bill, but that the Companies should be left to fix the amount of the shares themselves. On the bringing up of the Report he should move an Amendment to that effect.

said, he trusted that his right hon. Friend would not consent to the proposition that there should be as much as 50 per cent paid up.

said, he could not receive the concession of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), for he thought it was sufficient that 20 per cent should be paid up.

said, he did not see why the amount of shares should not be left entirely to the convenience of Companies.

said, he regretted that the Vice President of the Board of Trade had changed the amount originally proposed, 25 l., and reduced it to 10 l. He admitted that some compromise became necessary, but he foresaw that there was a class of the community—namely, shopkeepers in small towns, who would be injuriously affected by the change. The claims of that class of small shopkeepers had not been duly considered, and he was unable to discover what security had been provided to prevent petty Joint stock Companies from being started in small towns, for the purpose of running down the petty traders.

said, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of explaining a point on which some misapprehension existed. He had been represented in The Times newspaper as being one of those large capitalists who were charged with having conspired together for the purpose of defeating the measure. He begged, first, to say that he was not a large capitalist, and, in the second place, to state that so far from opposing the measure, he gave it his cordial support.

said, he would now move to insert the Amendment, of which he had given notice.

said, he must oppose the Amendment, although he was willing to allow that it was entirely a question of degree; but the Committee would observe that the whole Bill was based on the Joint-stock Companies Act. It was essential to distinguish what was a Joint-stock Company and what was an ordinary partnership. The number of shareholders in a concern might be so numerous as to render it impossible to carry it on upon the principles of an ordinary partnership; and it was believed that any business in which there were more than twenty-five members would be unmanageable on those principles. The number of twenty-five shareholders, therefore, was the minimum of a Joint-stock Company. But the Amendment would reduce that minimum to six. He did not think Parliament was prepared to adopt such a proposal, and he should therefore oppose it.

said, his objections to the Bill were entirely based upon the ground stated by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn)—namely, that it would give an enormous power to capitalists by which they might effect the ruin of very small traders; and if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be carried it would make it four times more easy for large capitalists to work mischief in that direction. He should therefore oppose the Amendment.

said, that a Joint-stock Company might even now consist of less than six partners, provided their shares were transferable without the consent of all the partners; he saw no reason, therefore, for objecting to the Amendment, which proposed that the Bill should apply to any partnership consisting of six members if they should choose to make their shares transferable without the consent of all the partners.

said, he should support the Amendment, because it would bring the Companies under the system of registration which was to be established by the Bill, but which was not to be adopted by the Partnership Bill.

said, that under the Bill now before the Committee no person would be liable beyond the amount of his own share, but by the Partnership Bill a person who took any part in the management of the concern would be liable to the full extent of his property.

said, he would now move that the words in the clause, "of not less than 20 per cent" (being the amount to be paid up on the shares), should be omitted. The tendency of that provision would be to induce parties to have a smaller capital than that which was proper for their undertaking. Various modes might be resorted to by which that provision of the law might be evaded; and, so far from its being necessary for the protection of the public, it would, in his opinion, work very perniciously. It was much better to leave the Companies to judge for themselves as to what should be the amount of their capital, and what proportion of it should be paid up.

said, it was the universal rule of Parliament to require the shareholders of railways and other Companies, before having the benefit of an Act of the Legislature, to pay up a portion of their capital. It was a provision intended to guard against bubble Companies, and it would at the same time afford a test that the Companies were established for bonâ fide purposes. He could not, therefore, assent to the Amendment.

said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade resisted the Amendment. The security to the creditor of these Companies was not to be found in the amount of capital paid up, but in the amount of liability which remained under the terms of the Act, and which the creditors had the power to enforce. The Standing Order to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was no security whatever, as it was constantly evaded. According to the provision of the Bill, the shareholders would have to pay up whether the exigencies of the concern required it or not. Why should that be? But, suppose the money paid up, it could by various fraudulent devices be returned to them again. Or, suppose it were expended in the concern, in either case what additional security would the creditor have? By leaving the parties to act as they thought proper inter se, and at the same time requiring a register of their liabilities, and making that document the only evidence between the shareholders and the public, Parliament would give to the creditor a much better security than by insisting upon the paying up of any portion of the capital. Indeed, he regarded that portion of the capital which was not paid up a much better security than that which had been paid up. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cairns) had three recommendations—it would leave the shareholders free to manage their own business; it would afford a greater security to the creditor; and it would prevent the waste of money in useless litigation.

said, he was of the same opinion. He would advise the Committee not to interfere with the question of paid-up capital, which was purely a matter of settlement between the Company and the public. If a man were prudent he would inquire into the character of the Company before investing his money in it, and if he were not a prudent man an Act of Parliament would not make him one. In the event of the Amendment being rejected the amount provided should be paid up simply for the purpose of complying with the Act of Parliament, while there could be no security against its being again handed over to the shareholders. There was no sound reason why persons constituting a Company on the principle of limited liability should be required to pay up a portion of their capital, when any two or three persons might establish themselves into a Company on the principle of unlimited liability without being required to pay up a single shilling.

said, he should oppose the Amendment, because it would enable parties to get up Companies without having any capital whatever.

said, that finding there was not any very strong feeling in favour of his Amendment, he would not trouble the Committee to divide.

said, that the question which had suggested itself to his mind was what remedy any creditor was to have against any shareholder in a Company, and what was the practical value of the register provided by the Bill. He submitted to the Committee that a case such as the following might be carried out any day by any set of persons who might desire to defraud their creditors. They might call up the whole of the capital of the Company, record that fact, and thereon the liability of all the shareholders would come to an end for ever, while the corporation would remain armed with the powers conferred on them by the Act. Then as to the capital; it could be returned to the pockets of the shareholders, so that the payment of the capital would have been a mere farce, the corporation still continuing in existence with the powers they receive under the Act. There would thus be no interest on the part of the shareholders to watch the conduct of the directors, the shareholders having received back their capital, and having no liabilities for future capital. Should they even share in the profits arising from the unscrupulous proceedings of the directors, they would be still exempt from any loss that might be incurred. As the Bill stood the registration of the liability of shareholders would be a delusion, and would be calculated to mislead the public who might entrust their money with those Companies. By the Amendment of which he had given notice, the partners in a concern would be left to pay up or not, as they pleased; they would have a greater interest in its solvency, and the register would show a creditor the precise amount of their liability. The provision was, upon the face of it, a departure from precedent, and would give rise to frauds, while his proposition would afford the necessary security to the public.

said, he opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would impose a great hardship on the shareholders. The public were able to act for themselves better than Parliament could act for them.

said, he objected to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition because it was directly opposed to the leading principle of the Bill, and did not leave debtors and creditors to themselves. He could not see the policy of creating a kind of floating capital which had never been subscribed by shareholders, which was never intended to be paid by them, and upon which the directors were not to trade. By the proposed Amendment persons joining a Company would have a liability imposed on them which they had never intended to incur, and the directors, after exhausting the fund upon which they could properly trade, would be enabled to fall back upon another fund upon which they might draw without the will or the knowledge of the shareholders. One great benefit of the Bill would be the destruction of funds at the disposal of the directors. The less credit those Companies had the better. People had no excuse for dealing largely with them upon credit. For those reasons he thought the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman very objectionable.

said, the hon. Gentleman's observations proved that he knew nothing about credit; but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that credit ought not to be given to the Companies which this Bill would call into existence.

said, he strongly objected to the Amendment, as he thought it would give undue credit to Companies by enabling creditors to look beyond the capital of shareholders. One of its effects would be to prevent trustees from ever holding shares.

said, he thought the Amendment was contrary to the principle of the Bill and was fraught with mischief. After the passing of the Bill every one would have fair notice, that in dealing with a Company he had nothing to look to but the assets of the Company, and if a creditor did not get paid it would be his own fault. The limitation of the credit of Companies would be very beneficial.

said, the Bill as it stood enabled directors to call upon shareholders for a larger amount than was necessary to carry out their undertaking, if the stock of the Company were fixed at that large amount.

said, no answer had been given to the case put by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment with regard to the opportunity for fraud which the clause would afford.

said, he strongly objected to his right hon. Friend's proposal, on the ground that it would tend materially to prevent the Bill from having any practical effect, and would likewise deter persons with small capital from investing their money in such Companies. The effect of rendering a shareholder liable for double the amount he had invested in a Company would be to oblige him, if he were a prudent man, to keep in reserve and unemployed an amount equal to the capital represented by his shares. No man in business or in trade who wished to employ his capital to the best advantage would wish to do that, and, therefore, the only effect of the proposal would be to nullify the operation of the Bill. The Amendment proceeded on an assumption which he did not admit—namely, that all those Companies would consist of cheats and swindlers, and that all their creditors would be fools, incapable of taking care of themselves. He utterly denied that there was any foundation for that assumption—he was persuaded that those Companies would in general consist of honest, prudent men, who would look well after their own concerns, and it was the duty of those who had dealings with them also to look after their concerns, and not to give them credit to a greater amount than was justified by the state of their affairs.

said, he must deny that his Amendment was founded on the supposition that all Companies would be fraudulent and all their creditors fools. He had pointed out the possibility of the commission of fraud under the provision.

said, he begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether (in addition to the relief already granted and proposed to be given in the Stage Carriage, &c. Duties Bill) it was intended to relieve brewers and others (as well as their sureties) from the lien of the Crown on their real estates for duties due and payable, or not due, but in course of becoming due, in the ordinary course of business, before any actual default of the trader, or any suspicion of insolvency or embarrassment on his part, and to rely on the Crown to issue extents whenever any danger is apprehended, and thus to enable traders to deal with their property without the trouble and delay of obtaining consent of the Crown?

said, that brewers did not enter into any engagement with the Excise, and so far as they were concerned the question was inapplicable. As regarded maltsters, if they paid the duty, they were not called upon to enter into any bond. They were, therefore, free from any obligation to the Department of Inland Revenue if the duty were paid when it became due; but if they took advantage of the credit that was allowed for some months, they would have to enter into a bond to the Department of Inland Revenue. That course was necessary to secure the payment of the duty, and it was not consistent with the security of the revenue to wait until the danger should accrue, according to the suggestion of his hon. Friend.

I wish, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the state of the business of the Session, and to make a proposal founded on the observations I shall address to the House. Reasons, which it is not necessary to dwell upon, render it desirable that this Session should close by the 14th or 15th of the next month. There are, however, a great many Votes of Supply still to be taken; and it is, therefore, difficult to say how long their discussion may last. Many hon. Gentlemen have given notices of Motion on going into Supply, and one day this week is to be employed on a Motion which has been forced upon us. Friday will, therefore, not be available for us unless the Gentlemen who have got possession of it will generously put off their Motions until next week. I propose to the House, therefore, that it shall pursue on this occasion the same course as it took last Session, and resolve that Orders of the Day should have the precedence of Motions on Tuesdays. There are one or two notices of Motions of considerable interest on the paper; but these Motions are for the purpose of affirming Resolutions, and as the Committees which they propose could not sit for practical purposes this Session, they are consequently, an appeal to the House to affirm an abstract opinion. I submit, therefore, that the opinion of the House might be taken after Supply. This will not affect the Session; but Supply determines the day when Parliament shall close, and every day it is postponed there is less and less prospect of the Session finishing by the day proposed. I appeal, therefore, to the House, that to-morrow, Orders of the Day should take precedence, for the purpose of going on with Supply, and that by this means we may have compensation for the Friday. I put it to hon. Gentlemen who have notices on the paper for to-night to withdraw them, on condition that they shall have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House on their Motions subsequently. I, therefore, move, that tomorrow Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am unable to accede to the appeal which has been made by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), and, according to my notice, will now move for a copy of a Minute by the Board of Admiralty, dated July 2, 1846, which relates to the opinion of the Board as to the claims of certain officers to be recommended to the gracious consideration of Her Majesty for the honour of the Bath, who had highly distinguished themselves in action against pirates. I am fully impressed with the sense of personal difficulty which I incurred when I placed this Motion on the paper and now experience in addressing this House, but I cannot permit myself to be discouraged since it embraces the case of brother officers unable to speak for themselves; in justice to them, as much as to myself, who have all been most hardly treated, I now rise to prevent individual injury from being drawn into a precedent for extended injustice in the future. Let me not be misunderstood—allow me to start fairly ahead. I neither disparage the services nor grudge the happier fortunes of the more successful of my brother officers. In singleness of purpose I lift up my voice against a decision irreconcilable with justice and opposed to sound policy; one calculated to break down an honourable spirit of ambition. At the outset I will frankly inform the House that my own name is included with those of other officers in the Minute, and I will, at the same time, express a hope that from their experience of my conduct in this House, hon. Members will as frankly give me credit when I say that had the case stood otherwise I would, with equal feeling and earnestness, have moved for the return, The circumstances are these—certain officers who had been engaged in action with pirates, have been refused recommendation by the Admiralty to their gracious Sovereign for the distinction of the honour of the Bath, on the ground that their services had not been gazetted. But why? Because the action having been fought in time of peace, it was not then the custom to insert actions in a Gazette. Shortly afterwards this rule was rescinded and a Gazette given, and the officers promoted from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander; and the case of the first officer named in the Minute for which I am about to move (and not to mince the matter, to say that officer was myself), having been brought before the Board of Admiralty then presided over, in 1827, by his late Majesty as Lord High Admiral, one by his professional experience eminently qualified to arrive at a just, impartial, and influential judgment, did, in fact, recommend that the distinction of the honour of the Bath should be conferred upon that officer as if the service had been gazetted; but the Lord High Admiral having resigned his office before the recommendation could be carried out it remained in abeyance. Nothing further occurred till the year 1845, when other brother officers performed a similar service, and the Board of Admiralty, then presided over by Lord Ellenborough, and numbering among its members Admiral Sir George Cockburn, in a Minute dated July 2, 1846, expressed their hope that four officers, who had highly distinguished themselves in actions against pirates, should be eventually recommended for the honour of the Bath, further stating, that the number of companions allotted to the navy being at that time more than complete, it was only open to the Board to have that official Minute on record. I move, therefore, for the production of that Minute to establish the fact of this claim and title to that distinction. At least, let those officers have the consolation and melancholy satisfaction of bequeathing to their families a formal and public recognition of their services. If denied other memorials, let them possess a record that the distinction which they, in the judgment of a Lord High Admiral and of another Board had earned, had been by a succeeding one withheld from them by an adherence, it might be, to the letter, but assuredly in violation of the spirit of the Statutes of the Order. It is on the spirit of the Minute of July 2, 1846, these officers rely, and its production will be regarded as a mark of the sympathy of this House and prove a lasting memorial to those meritorious officers whose cause I have risen to advocate.

said, he had received no intimation that an attempt would be made to take his Motion off the paper for to-morrow, in which many officers were deeply concerned. He hoped, however, Government would place him in such a situation as would enable him to bring forward a subject which required more setting to rights, and in which there was more injustice than in any other subject which could be brought before that House. With respect to the question now before the House, he lamented, with the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, that the system of granting honours of the Bath was such that it debarred meritorious officers from sharing honours to which they were entitled by their gallantry. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Admiral Walcott) and three others had been recommended by His late Majesty, while at the head of the Admiralty, for the honour of the Bath, and the expectation had been held out since by the Admiralty. The House ought to know why that expectation had not been realised. In the matter of promotion it was essential to the efficiency of the service that the utmost fairness should be maintained; but if purity of principle was necessary in the matter of promotion, how much more so was it necessary in regard to the distribution of honours? He regretted that an order of merit had not been established—the same as was the case in France. But he would rather take a lesson from an enemy, and would, therefore, point to the rewards given to merit and valour, no matter the rank of the soldier, by the Russian Government. It was extraordinary there was such backwardness shown, such delay, in doing what was right and just on the part of our; Government towards those who were dying; daily—he spoke both for officers and soldiers—in the Crimea, With reference to the promise of King William IV., he thought that it ought to be carried out fairly, and in the way intended.

said, he must beg to explain that he had certainly intended to convey to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) that it was the intention of the noble Lord to make the Motion at six o'clock which had just been agreed to; but he had never said, nor intended to say, that his hon. and gallant Friend had assented to the proceeding.

said, he; should be very glad if the hon. and gallant Admiral succeeded in his Motion, but he feared that objections would be raised that would cause its defeat.

said, that if there was any object in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Walcott), it was to force upon the Admiralty, or upon himself as First Lord, to recommend to Her Majesty to grant the honour of the Companionship of the Bath to himself and to certain other naval officers. Now, he submitted that, inasmuch as the Sovereign was the fountain of all honour, that was a matter entirely within the province of the Crown, with which that House had no right to interfere. It had been urged very properly that it would be unconstitutional for that House to interfere and to dictate to the Government in reference to the promotion of officers, but how much more would the House be exceeding its constitutional functions if it interfered with that which was essentially the privilege of the Crown? He concurred with the hon. and gallant Officer behind him (Captain Scobell), that the grant of honours should be as pure as possible. But did the House think that the interference of Members of Parliament, either individually or collectively, could induce to that purity? His hon. and gallant Friend said that the hon. and gallant Admiral, and three other officers, had been recommended by King William IV., when Lord High Admiral, for these honours, on account of certain gallant services. Now, the House would be astonished to find that the services referred to were performed subsequent to the death of King William IV. King William died in 1837, and the first of those services performed—except that of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Walcott) was performed in 1839.

begged to state that he had said that William IV., when Lord High Admiral, had held out the expectation that the services of the hon. and gallant Admiral would be rewarded with the honour of the Bath, and that subsequent Boards of Admiralty, in confirming that expectation, included two or three other officers who had performed other services of a like character.

said, he must maintain, however, that the House ought not to interfere to compel him to make the recommendation to the Crown. The hon. and gallant Admiral wished him to produce the Admiralty Minute to the House; but he (Sir C. Wood) did not think it would be right to produce it. He did not underrate the importance of the service of the hon. and gallant Admiral for which he claimed. That service, which undoubtedly exhibited great gallantry, was, he believed, performed so far back as the year 1823, and consisted of an attack upon certain Cuban pirates, twelve of whom were killed, a large number wounded, and several others taken and hanged. But the Admiralty, at the time, did not think the service of sufficient importance to require the bestowal of a special distinction, and it was hardly to be expected that, after so great a lapse of time, they could revise the opinion of the authorities who were in office when the service was performed. It was true that when King William IV. was Lord High Admiral, he recommended the hon. and gallant Officer to the Secretary of State for the honour of the Bath; but the Secretary of State of that day did not think it right to recommend an increase in the number of naval officers eligible to the companionship of the Bath, in order to extend that honour to the hon. and gallant Officer. A subsequent recommendation was made to another Board of Admiralty in favour of the hon. and gallant Admiral, but the Admiralty did not think fit to comply with that recommendation. The Minute to which the hon. and gallant Officer's Motion alluded, was made, it was true, by the Admiralty when Lord Ellen-borough was First Lord; but if they thought the case was one in which the honour of the Bath ought to be given, they ought to have made their recommendation to the Secretary of State. In point of fact, however, the recommendation was not made until Sir Robert Peel's Government resigned. If the Admiralty of that day had really intended it to have effect they would not have waited until they were going out of office. But by the Statutes of the Order of the Bath it was impossible that the hon. and gallant Officer could be recommended for the honour for the services in question, inasmuch as under those Statutes it was indispensable that the service for which the honour was conferred should have been mentioned in the Gazette. That was not the case with the service—gallantly performed though it had been—which the hon. and gallant Officer had rendered, and he thought it scarcely desirable, after such a period had elapsed, that the House should interfere in such a matter. He trusted, also, that under the circumstances, the House would not think it necessary that the Minute should be produced.

would say, on his honour, that his Commander in Chief (Admiral Sir Charles Rowley) did recommend him for the honour, and Lord Melville (the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time) did think him worthy of the honour. He was proceeding to comment on Sir Charles Wood's speech, when

said, the hon. and gallant Admiral was not entitled to reply.

said, he had understood the Secretary to the Treasury to state that he had informed the hon. and gallant Member for Bath of the intention of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) to move that on Tuesday the Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion. If, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been anxious to bring forward his Motion, it would have been very easy for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or some of his friends who took great interest in administrative reform, to have attended at six o'clock, in order to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. With regard to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott), he did not think the First Lord of the Admiralty had correctly stated the object of that Motion, or its effect if carried. It was not intended to effect anything by compulsion, but merely to have the Minute in question laid upon the table for the satisfaction and guidance of an honourable service, and in justice to the claims and feelings of the gallant officers concerned.

said, he wished to contradict most emphatically the assertion that the Secretary to the Treasury had informed him of an intention to move that the Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion.

said, that he believed that although according to the Statutes of the Order of the Bath an officer could not receive its honours under a certain rank, yet after he had attained that rank, he was eligible for the honour for services previously performed. He observed that in the recent distribution of the honours of the Bath many officers received the decoration whose services were not confined to the late war. He made no complaint of that, but as some of the older officers had now received the honour, it struck him that many others who were equally entitled to the honour had been forgotten. He knew one Admiral who had been mentioned in nine despatches, who had not received the honour, while younger officers had received it who had been mentioned only in one despatch. There were many officers in the army similarly situated who had rendered good service in former times, and who were aggrieved at being omitted. He had no desire to coerce the Admiralty and the Secretary for War, but he would suggest that if any revision was made by the two heads of the departments of the system of rewards for past services, the services of old officers although they had been performed some thirty years ago might be considered.

said, he would ask the House to consider the bearing of the Motion now under consideration, which was nothing but an appeal to the House from the Executive with regard to the distribution of honours which flowed from the Crown. Motions of that kind were very taking, especially when the subjects of them were officers distinguished for their services whom every one would be glad to see receive honours and distinctions, in addition to those which they had gained already. But it would be impossible to carry on the Government of the navy and army if it was not left to the Crown, under the advice of its Ministers, to decide who were and who were not to receive honours. What would that come to? There might be many instances in which officers might wish to bring their cases forward, and if it was understood that the decision rested with the House of Commons instead of the Crown, there would be a canvassing of Members, and proceedings of that kind which would be fatal to the interests of the service, and opposed to the proper functions of the House of Commons. He hoped with regard to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, especially as it appeared that the Statutes of the Order of the Bath were opposed to its object, that he would be content with the acknowledgment he had obtained of his own services, and that of other officers, and withdraw the Motion.

said, he concurred with the noble Lord that it was not desirable for the House of Commons to take into their hands a prerogative which at present rested with the Crown. He wished, however, to suggest with regard to the new Order of Merit that the rules should be drawn up so that the cases might be intelligibly known in which rewards would be conferred. In the case of a large army, some generals of division might recommend officers by wholesale; others might only recommend those officers who had performed signal and special services; while others might say that, where all had distinguished themselves, they did not think it right to mention any particularly. The result of that system was, that officers were subjected to great injustice, for officers frequently put forward claims to rewards of various kinds, on the ground that they had been mentioned in official despatches. He knew that great heartburning had been occasioned, because, in the distinctions which had been bestowed, the claims of officers who had behaved most meritoriously during the late war, and who had been almost constantly employed ever since, had not received the attention they deserved. He hoped, as a new Order of Merit was about to be established, that the distinctions would be bestowed in such a manner that the public might fully understand the grounds upon which they were conferred.

said, he thought the First Lord of the Admiralty had insinuated that his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Walcott) and others were not entitled to the Order of the Bath. Now the fact was that his hon. and gallant Friend had been recommended for the Order, and in 1834, in answer to a letter which he had written to the Government, he had received the following reply—

said, he hoped that the new Order of Merit would include those officers who had distinguished themselves in the Peninsular war, and who had been excluded from the Order of the Bath. Although it was the fashion to sneer at Peninsular officers, there were many of them now who had shed their blood in the service of their country who had received no such decoration as the Order of the Bath. There was the present Military Secretary at the War Office, Major General Yorke, who had received the war medal for the Peninsula with ten clasps, and the Waterloo medal, and had served in America and at the Cape; there was the officer at the head of the Quartermaster General's Department, General Freeth, who had received the Peninsular war medal and two clasps; there was General Lovell, a most distinguished cavalry officer, who had received the Peninsular war medal with eleven clasps; and Colonel Derinzy, who had received the war medal with nine clasps, and the gold medal for Toulouse; none of these had received the decoration of the Bath. Many of the best Peninsular officers had been thus passed over. Why had none of them been made field-marshals? We had one or two honorary field-marshals; but look at the case of that officer who commanded the cavalry through the greater part of the Peninsular war, and who took the fortress of Bhurtpore, which was called the Gibraltar of India, who had on two occasions received the thanks of that House in person for his services, besides being raised to the peerage, who was the senior Grand Cross of the Bath, and the second general on the list. Was not he entitled to the rank of field-marshal? for such were the services of General Viscount Combermere. He hoped that in any Order of Merit, those who had served in the Peninsula, and had received no honours, would be included.

said, as the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) with regard to promotion in the navy was postponed, he wished to make an observation on one point, and that was with regard to death vacancies in the navy. The Report of the Commission on the army and navy which sat in 1840, stated that death vacancies in the navy was an equivalent for the system of promotion in the army. He would beg to point out that that was not the case, there were several cases recently in the Black Sea and the Baltic in which promotion did not go by seniority in the case of death vacancies. It was not therefore true, as stated by the Report of 1840, that the death vacancies went by seniority. He hoped the Admiralty would give their attention to that point, and recollect that no officer in the navy under the rank of post captain could get his promotion by seniority, as in the army.

said, he would not detain the House any longer with the subject; and, although he would not withdraw his Motion, he would consent to its being negatived. He would, in conclusion, tell the Admiralty, that they might break his heart, but they should not break his spirit.

said, he was desirous of calling the attention of the House to the serious inconvenience that would arise from the Act for regulating the salaries of the parochial schoolmasters of Scotland being allowed to expire without any further provisions being proposed by the Government to meet the extreme urgencies of the case. The present Act, which continued the salaries of the parochial schoolmaster as last regulated under the provisions of the 43 Geo. III. would expire at Martinmas next. That rendered it necessary that a Continuance Bill should be introduced, for if the salaries were again to be regulated under the provisions of the Act which he had cited, they would be reduced one-fourth. He hoped, therefore, that the Prime Minister would reconsider the question and offer no objection to the Bill which he (Mr. Lock-hart) proposed to introduce even at that late period of the Session.

said, that the state of the matter was as follows. The schoolmasters' salaries, which were payable half-yearly, would be paid next November upon the old conversion, and would not suffer any diminution under any circumstances. If the hon. Member chose to bring in a Continuance Bill, he had better do so next Session, when the House would have three months to consider it, as the diminution of salaries would not take place until May next, than bring it in now, when only a fortnight remained of the Session. But it was very desirable that the schoolmasters should not depend on a Continuance Bill from year to year. The Act of 1803 certainly contemplated that the salaries of schoolmasters should be subject to the fluctuations of the price of corn, and they had no ground for asking to be protected from the effects of a fall of prices; but he quite agreed that their salaries were disgracefully and scandalously low, and he had, therefore, been endeavouring during the present Session to pass a measure, which had been strenuously opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, to improve their condition and elevate their social status. Now, at the end of the Session, that Bill having been thrown out in the House of Lords, the hon. Gentleman came forward and said that they must consider the case of schoolmasters. He (the Lord Advocate) said, that a temporary measure would be a slovenly and disreputable mode of performing that great duty. His opinion was, that next Session, Parliament must deal with the condition of the schoolmasters for good, and not by a temporary measure; and with that view, probably a temporary measure only, if it were proposed by the hon. Member next Session, ought to be opposed. It was impossible to go on from year to year with a system of payment to the schoolmasters which was so parsimonious, and so discreditable to the country.

said, that the right hon. and learned Lord intended to let the salaries of the schoolmasters be reduced to the very minimum, unless they would submit to accept what the Government thought the best mode of dealing with the educational question. The right hon. and learned Lord on a former occasion, by voting against the Bill of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) had actually helped to reduce the scale of salaries; and now the schoolmasters would have the screw put upon them, to induce them to consent to the legislation of which they disapproved. He (Mr. Scott) would rather see downright open persecution, than see men subjected to that kind of slow torture by the Government which made such professions of sympathy with them.

said, he wished to make some observations upon the inconvenience of laying the Civil Service Estimates before the House at so late a period of the Session, and also to complain that Members never knew when Supply was coming on. It appeared to him that periods should be fixed for discussing each class, and that they should be proceeded with from day to day until the Votes were completed. The whole of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates, should be taken before Easter, and immediately after Whitsuntide the House should have fin opportunity of discussing all the Miscellaneous Estimates. The present system of discussing them at the end of the Session was most injurious to the public interest, as by being delayed so late, a great many Members were absent; and the Government even must be inconvenienced, as a time could not be fixed for the introduction of the Appropriation Bill, which concluded the business of the Session. Some of those estimates were only delivered on the 27th of July, which had been ordered to be printed on the 27th of March. A document, which professed to be a comparison of the expenditure of the Civil Service between 1854 and 1855, and which was said to be presented in March, was only delivered three or four days ago, and as that document was of some importance, it ought to have been in the hands of Members at the commencement of the Session, or at all events at Easter. That return stated that we should save 87,000 l. upon the Civil Services the present year. Now, he had analysed those accounts, and found that, although there might be a small decrease as compared with last year, there was an enormous increase as compared to any other previous year. The Estimates for the present year amounted to 6,556,963l., and last year to 6,644,781l.; but in 1853 to 4,802,184l., and in 1851 to 3,948,102l. These were times when the greatest economy at home was necessary. It must not be forgotten that 86,339,000 l. had already been voted, and that at least 100,000,000l. would be required for the expenditure of the year. The people were prepared to carry on the war with vigour, to make large sacrifices, and to bear heavy burdens, so as to secure a successful termination to the contest in which the nation was engaged; but the strictest supervision of the public expenditure was expected, for the people now felt the pressure of increased taxes and of enormous local burdens, as well as of the great price of bread and other necessaries of life. He really thought, under such circumstances, that the Government might withdraw many of the Votes now asked for. In class No. 7, about to be discussed, there were many items that might be rejected or postponed without any injury to the public service. The Votes for special and temporary objects had greatly increased during the last few years. In 1844 the amount was 85,927l.; in 1848, 125,572l.; in 1853, 320,472 l.; in 1854, 706,575 l.; and now we were asked for 756,169 l. Some of the items were really "too bad." The British embassy at Constantinople had cost 86,650 l. after an estimate of 30,000 l. had been submitted to Parliament, and now we were asked for 4,578 l. more. Then 90,000 l. was asked for a new Foreign Office, and this was the first instalment of 585,000 l. for a new Downing Street. The present was a most unfortunate time to ask for such an outlay; and the Votes for public buildings were the more alarming when it was recollected that the Houses of Parliament had already cost 1,812,000 l., and that Mr. Barry wanted 500,000 l. more for the completion of those buildings. The year before last the House voted 177,000 l. for hind at Kensington, last year they voted 140,000 l. for Burlington House, and this year they were asked for 11,000 l. for Buckingham Palace. Very large sums had been spent in the improvement and decoration of the metropolis out of the national funds, and it appeared to him as most unjust to vote 260,000 l. for Battersea Park and 110,000 l. for Chelsea road and embankment, whilst counties were obliged to maintain their own asylums, prisons, bridges, and militia barracks. He thought there might be a great reduction in our colonial expenditure, and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), whom he congratulated upon his appointment as Secretary of State for the Colonies, would now realise his assertion that out of 4,000,000 l. expenditure, we might save at least one. But not a Vote on the paper promised an immediate change of policy. After voting 45,000 l. for the Orange River settlement, we were now asked for 40,000 l. for educational and benevolent institutions among the Kafirs, and it was proposed that that sum should be voted for ten years. He doubted very much whether education would improve the Kafirs. He thought, too, that the sum of 16,720 l. for the assistance of emigration might as well be spared in these times, when it was advisable to give as little encouragement to emigration as possible. He trusted the Government would seriously consider the Civil Service expenditure during the recess. The nation was engaged in what he believed would prove a long and serious struggle. The national debt amounted, last January, to 751,000,000 l. They had raised 16,000,000 l. by loan, this year, and had commenced the system of subsidy, which would probably go on for years, if the people could bear it, and the Parliament would support such a system of carrying on the war. He hoped the Government would do all in its power to reduce the expenditure at home, and would either allow the Estimates to be submitted to a Select Committee early in the Session, or if that course were regarded as inconvenient, that they would be laid before the House early enough in the Session to allow Members some time for the investigation of them before they came on for discussion. He wished also the accounts to be arranged so as to be understood by such persons as himself, and not to be so mystified and intricate as to give one more trouble than hunting out a cross-country journey in Bradshaw's Guide. In one department with which he was best acquainted—he meant the diplomatic and consular services—the Estimates were of so fragmentary a character as to be scattered over six classes. The diplomatic salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund, and the consular salaries were in the Miscellaneous Estimates; and then he found in various parts of other Estimates charges for churches and chapels, for consuls and ambassadors' outfits, contingencies, superannuation, and miscellaneous, and other charges for different expenses belonging to the service. Now, all the different charges for one department should be put into one Vote, so that Members might see at once the expenses of each, service. He would conclude his observations by asking the Secretary of the Treasury four questions. First, why the two documents which had been lately delivered, and which were ordered to be printed in March, were not delivered sooner. Secondly, why the Civil Service Estimates had increased so much of late? and further, whether the Government had any intention in future Sessions to refer the Civil Service Estimates to a Select Committee, and if not, whether some arrangement could not be adopted whereby more time for consideration would be afforded.

said, he would not follow the hon. Member through all the topics he had discussed, but would simply answer the questions with which he had concluded. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Civil Service Estimates constituted a special and entire branch of the Estimates; and before the first class of them was laid upon the table an order was taken to print the whole, but it was not customary to lay the last, class 7, which consisted of special and temporary services, upon the table until as nearly as possible the time when the Votes were to be taken. If those Estimates had been printed in March many things now included in them could not have been inserted, and must have then constituted Supplementary Estimates, which it was very undesirable to have to a greater extent than was absolutely necessary. The other paper to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded constituted an abstract and comparison of the whole, and could not of course have been made up until class 7 was completed. With regard to the increase of the Civil Service Estimates, it should be remembered that a tendency had been manifested of late years to remove many charges from the Consolidated Fund and place them in the Estimates of the year; and in many instances fees and such other sources of direct emolument had been abolished, and salaries had been substituted for them, payable out of the money voted by the House of Commons. By one Act of Parliament alone a sum of more than 1,500,000 l. had been shifted from the Consolidated Fund to the Civil Service Estimates. The hon. Gentleman had also spoken of referring the Estimates to a Select Committee. Now, it was only three or four years ago that a Select Committee did sit upon the Civil Service Estimates, and published a very valuable Report; but an opinion had been expressed by those who were best acquainted with the subject, that if the annual Estimates were to be referred always to a Select Committee the action of the House of Commons upon them would become only nominal; the opinions of the Committee would be followed as a matter of course, and the House would lose all efficient control over that particular expenditure. As for the time at which they were brought forward the Government had endeavoured, ever since March, to get on with them as far as they could.

said, he must complain that they were now called upon to vote forty items, amounting to about 750,000 l., having had scarcely an hour to consider the matter, in consequence of the House sitting in the day time, and the Estimates having been delivered only on Friday or Saturday. He must also complain of the small attendance of Members, and so thin was the House that when the Chairman took his seat there were scarcely forty Members present. The delay in bringing on the Estimates arose entirely from mismanagement, and it sometimes occurred to him that the Estimates were brought on at inconvenient times, more from design than anything else. The Civil Service Estimates now amounted to 7,500,000l., and yet, when the Duke of Wellington was Premier, and with a boroughmongering Parliament, those Estimates were only 2,000,000l. The total amount of the Supplies now amounted to nearly 100,000,000 l., and therefore the present was not a time to increase unnecessarily the expenditure of the country.

said, he should move, as an Amendment, "That the sum of 2,050 l. for theological professors at Belfast, and for incidental expenses of the General Assembly's College at Belfast, be disallowed." He did not intend to utter a single reflection upon the characters of the professors of either of the colleges in question, or to take the slightest exception to the religious faith or discipline which they taught. He treated the matter simply and solely upon the general principle that they were not fit subjects for the House of Commons to deal with, and that the same principle should be applied to all theological institutions, whatever might be the creed which was inculcated in them. As some justification for the course which he proposed, he might state that the Dublin Synod of the Presbyterian Church, to which the Vote more especially referred, had adopted a petition against the Maynooth grant. He did not think, therefore, that those Gentlemen could take exception to the step which he suggested, inasmuch as, if what they had petitioned the House to do had been carried out, it would have been but a very partial adoption of a principle which was as applicable to themselves as to Maynooth. He objected to the Votes—in the first place because Parliament did not proceed upon any intelligible principle in granting them. He could understand the House saying that it would grant money to no establishment which did not teach the tenets of religious truth, but he doubted very much that the House of Commons was a fit tribunal to decide what was religious truth. If that course were not acted upon, however, it seemed to him that the only other consistent ground on which they could proceed would be to give the money of the State to all religious denominations indifferently. But he thought that that would be equally objectionable, and that they should come to a Resolution, therefore, to disembarrass the Estimates of the whole of those Votes, not troubling themselves with the religious teaching of the different denominations, but leaving every sect to support its own institutions. Independently of his objection to the principle, he also took exception to the details of the Vote. There were six professors in the college, and the whole number of students who benefited from that large staff, in what might be called the "Orthodox Theological College," was about fifty. There were two other professors of what he supposed might be called the "Heterodox Theological College," and he found that the whole number of students among those two learned Gentlemen was three. Of the forty-two theological seminaries in America one only had as many as six professors, three had five, seven had four, fifteen had three, and so on. He thought it was quite unnecessary that there should be more than three professors, namely, one for dogmatic theology, another for biblical criticism, and a third for Hebrew and the Oriental languages. Those items might well be swept away from the Estimate, for neither the United Presbyterian Church of Ireland nor the Presbyterians of England stood in any need of assistance from the House of Commons.

said, that the opponents of all grants of that description ought to submit their views to the consideration of the House in the shape of some general principle, and ought not to make any particular Vote the battle-field for deciding the merits of their special convictions upon that subject. He should, therefore, decline to follow the hon. Gentleman into a discussion of the general question. He denied that the staff of professors in the college alluded to was extravagantly large, and he believed that those professors rendered very useful and important services. The number of students in the college was certainly small, but still it had increased every year since the grant was first given, and he believed there were now not less than eighty students. Six professors were not too many for eighty students, if they were to judge by the proportions observed in the colleges of the denomination to which the hon. Member belonged; for in those colleges the proportion of professors to students was as twenty-eight to 190, which was a figure much more striking than that of six to eighty.

said, he did not see why those professors should be supported at the public expense. As to the defence that the institution was established by Sir Robert Peel, they had already passed a Vote in support of that establishment.

said, that the colleges of the denomination to which the hon. Member (Mr. Miall) belonged were scattered all over the country, for the convenience of the young men attending them, and that they had three professors each. They could scarcely do with less than three each. The proportion of twenty-eight to 190, therefore, was not really so correct as if there were only one college instead of several.

said, he thought it unjust to charge the opponents of the Vote with not bringing forward the abstract question of voluntaryism, for every one knew how indisposed that House was to discuss abstract principles. If a Member brought forward an abstract question, he was asked why not urge upon the House something more practical? and then, when he took that course, he was charged with taking up mere matters of detail. He thought it inconsistent that so powerful and wealthy a body as the General Assembly's College at Belfast should claim and receive aid from the State.

said, that was the only class of Nonconformist Protestants in the United Kingdom who received one single shilling from the State, and yet, what made it all the more objectionable, they were, according to their numbers, the most wealthy of any sect of Dissenters. He thought it scarcely honourable for them to come to the House of Commons for the support of their ministers, while for the State in that way to maintain Trinitarians and Unitarians alike, whose religious opinions were as diverse as it was possible to be, made good men bow their heads in shame.

said he had given notice of his intention to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of 12,000 l. He considered he was justified in complaining that the Museum was open to the public only for three days during the week, and country visitors to the metropolis were therefore frequently unable to gain access to the establishment. Many of the continental museums were not open to the public generally on certain days, but he believed that even on those days strangers were admitted on payment of a trifling fee, and he did not see why the same system should not be adopted in the case of the British Museum. He trusted arrangements might be made for opening the Museum to the public during five days of the week, and, in the hope that such arrangements might be adopted, he would not press his Motion.

said, he would ask the hon. Gentleman to remain satisfied with the assurance given him last year, that every effort would be made by the Trustees to find increased accommodation both for pupils and the public in the new building.

said, he should be glad to have some information regarding the new catalogue.

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that its preparation was indeed a herculean task; and therefore its arrangement must necessarily occupy a long time.

said, that in reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellat)) he would have the Committee remember that the British Museum was a repository of scientific specimens, and therefore it was of the first importance that every opportunity should be afforded to students of examining them.

said, he would beg to remind the Committee of what was said to have taken place at the time of the sale of the Bernal Collection. He had been informed that three Government agents attended there—namely, one for the Tower, one for Marlborough House, and one for the British Museum. The consequence was, these three gentlemen bid against each other, and the prices of the different articles were thereby very much enhanced. Now he begged leave to ask how was it proposed that the sum expended at that sale, reaching altogether to about 16,000 l. was to be made good?

said, it was totally contrary to the fact to say that the various agents employed at the sale bid against each other, and thus raised the prices of the articles; and in order to avoid even the possibility of such an occurrence, each department, before entering upon the sale was called upon to state what each of them wished to purchase; each at the same time giving in an estimate as to the value of the various articles, and where the same; article was marked for purchase by two departments one of them had to yield its claim. In consequence, therefore, of being bound down by those regulations, the sum total of the outlay at the sale only I exceeded by 50 l. that which the Commissioners were authorised to make.

said, he wished to know whether the report was true, that each of the agents employed received a percentage upon the value of each article? for, if so, it was very evident that Government did not manage such matters as economically as private individuals.

said, he would have the noble Lord remember that private individuals were invariably obliged to adopt the same course.

said, he could not avoid remarking on what had been the conduct of the Government in reference to the Vote now before the Committee. The Committee would remember that some time ago an intention was announced on behalf of the Government to reduce the annual Vote by 10 per cent. each year, with a view to its gradual extinction. In consequence of that, on his (Mr. Grogan's) Motion a Select Committee was appointed last year, mainly consisting of gentlemen who usually supported the Government, to consider the justness of that decision. The consequence was, that after fully inquiring into the question, and after having gone into the minutest details, the Committee recommended that the grant ought to be continued in its integrity. Instead, however, of acting upon the recommendation of the Committee the Government actually appointed a Commission to revise and re-consider a subject which had been already referred for investigation to a select Committee of that House. Now he really believed that such conduct on the part of the Government involved almost a breach of privilege, and he thought it was the bounden duty of the Government to offer some explanation of the circumstances. He hoped that the hon. Secretary of the Treasury would be able to explain why the Government refused the recommendation of the Committee.

said, he was not at all surprised to hear the hon. Members from Ireland complain of not getting more of the public money. He thought that the people of the United Kingdom had every right to complain of the Vote of 20,000 l. for the hospitals of Dublin. There would be some reason for it if it was for the benefit of Ireland generally; but it was only for the benefit of Dublin. At such a time as the present it was monstrous to pass such a Vote.

said, that the Vote was not asked for as a matter of humanity or commiseration—it was demanded as a simple act of justice. The Votes now under consideration were upon the Irish establishment before the Union took place, and was part of the contract that was then entered into when both countries were united. It would be nothing short of great injustice and robbery to deprive the city of Dublin of those Votes. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), was wrong in saying the Vote was 20,000 l., it was only 12,000 l.; but the Committee of that House recommended that it should be raised to 16,000 l. The Vote, too, was not to benefit Dublin alone, but to benefit every part of Ireland; for it was to maintain a medical school which was perhaps the first in the world.

said he must confess that he was one of those Irish Members who did not feel the slightest gratitude to the British Government for the money—simply because of the right of his country to have it. It was indeed but a small boon for a country that was so unequally and unjustly taxed as Ireland. The Schools of Medicine in Dublin were a benefit to the whole country, inasmuch as they raised a class of physicians far superior, generally speaking, to any in that country. The Government sent over a Commission of English physicians—who cared for them? The Irish people did not care for them. Well, they made a Report—and a precious Report it was—for they decided in directly the opposite way to the Committee of that House. So long as they required the gallantry of the Irish soldiers to fight their battles for them, they had no right to grumble at such trifling demands for the country.

said, he was surprised at the hon. Member for Lambeth's opposition, to the Vote, for if he took the trouble to look at the Report of the Committee last year he would have found that every one of his assertions were amply contradicted by all the witnesses that had been examined. There was one point to which he felt he might allude in connection with the subject—the amount of private charity practised in Dublin. Looking at its resources, and comparing its valuation with other towns, it would be found that the sums received from private charity exceeded any other town in the Empire. With regard to the matter of hospitals, there were 1616 persons in hospitals there, supported by private subscriptions, not in any way assisted by the State—being a far greater number than were supported in Edinburgh. He must express his regret at the course taken by the Government upon the subject. The Committee, which was composed of a large majority of English Members recommended an increase of the grant. The Government, finding it almost impossible to get over that Report, appointed a Commission, and endeavoured by a side wind to get rid of that Report. He maintained that it was an insult to their Committee to appoint a Commission. Such a course had never before been taken, and he hoped would never be again followed, as it had created great dissatisfaction and confusion.

said, having been a Member of the Committee which sat to inquire into those hospitals, he felt he would not be justified in letting pass unnoticed the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth. The witnesses examined did not consist of surgeons and physicians, but of those who were connected with the schools of medicine in England; who were known to be men of first-rate attainments, and who had a perfect knowledge of those institutions in Ireland from having visited them, and from having pupils who had been transferred from those schools. One of them was Mr. Guthrie, who gave evidence strongly in favour of the maintenance of those schools. He had some knowledge of the Members of the Commission. One of them, no doubt, was a man rendered illustrious in respect to his knowledge of surgery, and whose virtues and honourable character no one could have a doubt of. He (Mr. Brady) had had an interview with Mr. South since his appointment to that Commission, and he had at all times admitted that the schools of medicine in Ireland had contributed greatly to the advancement of science and to the improvement of the medical profession. Mr. South was now a strong advocate for those institutions. He (Mr. Brady), therefore, contended that it was the duty of the Government to retain them.

said, he thought he would be able to show that the Government had acted not only in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, but also in the interest of those institutions. The Commission was appointed not to determine the amount of the grant, but to inquire generally into the institutions, with a view to their consolidation, if possible. The former Committee had recommended a gradual reduction of the grant; but when the Committee of last year had reported the reduction was arrested. The great object of the Commission was to show that the Schools of Medicine could be made more effective.

said, he could bear testimony to the value of the Dublin hospitals as places of medical education. They were vastly superior to the hospitals in England. The Dublin surgeons were far beyond the English surgeons in skill and science.

said, he must maintain that the Government had no right to stifle the Report of the Committee by a side wind. He felt he had only done his duty in submitting the matter to the Committee.

said, he objected to the Vote. He was informed that the ministers of the Free Church of Scotland were a great deal better paid than those ministers in Ireland for whom the Vote was given; and he had no doubt if the Vote were withdrawn, judging from the ability of the congregations, that those ministers would be better paid. He should, therefore, move that the Vote of 38,953 l. for nonconforming clergy be reduced to 366 l.

said, he should support the Amendment. While the Nonconformists of Ireland had raised, in fifty years, by voluntary contributions, 3,500,000 l. for charitable purposes, they had been receiving from the public taxes between 400,000 l. and 500,000 l. Many of the congregations in Ireland paid their ministers less than 30, or even as little as 20 l. a year. It was impossible to look upon, those ministers without feelings of the greatest sympathy, while the scorn of the country would rest upon the congregations.

said, that as the only Irish Presbyterian in the House, he must protest against such gross imputations. He denied that the conduct of the Irish Nonconformist was beggarly. Their claim to the Vote rested on a positive contract with the Crown in 1673; and the present Vote was actually less in amount than the value of the glebe lands which were then given up. The fact was, the opposition to the grant was brought forward by a society in London for the liberation of the Church from State control. He denied, however, that there was anything like State patronage or control involved in the grant. He found, from the Congregational Year-book of 1855, that out of 2,760 chapels belonging to that body, 1,400 of them were without ministers; while in Wales, out of 484 chapels, 150 were in a similar situation.

said, he objected to the proposed addition to the number of ministers, and should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of 415 l. It was one thing to maintain the existing number of ministers; but it involved a new principle to add to them.

said, he should oppose the Amendment, as calculated to interfere with the formation of new congregations. The Committee had already rejected the previous Amendment by a large majority, and in consistency it ought to support the Vote as it stood.

said, if the donation was necessary in the case of full-grown long-established congregations, it was ten times more necessary to young congregations.He should, therefore, oppose the reduction.

said, he objected to the amount paid to clergymen for attending Presbyterian prisoners.

said, he must explain that the clergymen were bound to attend prisoners, and their duties extended beyond the performance of their spritual duties. It was greatly to the credit of Presbyterians that the number of prisoners was so inconsiderable.

I rise, Sir, to move the second reading of the Sale of Beer Bill. I am not about to make a speech. I rely entirely on the Report of the Committee. I think that the convenience of the public requires this Bill; the Committee was of that opinion, and if any Gentleman objects to the Bill, I hope he will take his objection on the third reading, and allow it to pass the second reading now.

said, he was aware that the Bill was brought in on the recommendation of the Committee, and he only rose to express his regret that the Committee should have come to the decision which they had on such ex parte evidence. The whole case had been heard on the part of the publicans, and nothing had ben heard on the part of the public. He believed a large mass of evidence was offered and was rejected, and under those circumstances he could only express his regret that the Committee should have made the recommendation which they had, He did not, however, intend to move the rejection of the Bill.

said, he rejoiced at the Bill being introduced, and he must express the happiness he felt at the favourable conclusion to which the Committee had come. He only wished to say that when the Bill of last year was brought on he was the only Member of the House who opposed it.

said, he wished to ask a question with regard to one of the provisions of the Bill. If, as he understood, it was founded on the Report of the Committee, one of its provisions appeared to him to be essentially at variance with the Report, and he wished to know whether it was accidental or intentional. The Report recommended that public-houses should be closed to one o'clock on Sundays, then open till three, then closed till five, after which they were to be open till eleven, but by the Bill as it was printed, it appeared to him, that public houses might be open the whole day on Sunday until three o'clock. He wished to know if that was intended or not?

said, that as one of the Committee, he wished to say that if the provision was as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated it was entirely accidental. The recommendation of the Committee was that public-houses should be closed from twelve o'clock on Saturday night to one o'clock on Sunday, when they were to be open till three, then to be closed till five, and then opened till eleven, and that was intended to be the provision of the Bill. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) who said that the case of the publicans had been gone into by the Committee, and the case of the public had not been considered, he could assure the hon. Member that the case of the publicans had been carefully excluded by the Committee. They from the first took the arrangement of the case into their own hands, with the view to its being conducted as they thought it should be; and they called before them the principal magistrates and the Commissioners of police, who, with one or two exceptions, were the only persons examined, and the case of the publicans was not entered into, it being intended that the examination should go only into the case of the public.

said, he wished to inquire whether any practical good would arise from going on with the Bill, which, would most likely be rejected in another place on the ground that it altered a Bill passed last Session, which could not be said to have had a sufficient trial.

said, he wished to say one word with reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt). With all deference to the hon. and learned Member's legal knowledge, he thought that the Bill would not interfere with the Act by which public-houses were closed during the whole of Sunday morning There was another provision of the Bill which he thought should be considered in Committee—that which gave an appeal from the conviction of a magistrate. That was not recommended by the Committee; and it was doubtful whether such an appeal should be given, when it was not given in other Acts relating to the same subject.

said, he should oppose the Bill upon the grounds he had stated earlier in the evening.