said, that he presumed the clock placed in a prominent part of that building was intended to afford the public the means of ascertaining the time at all hours of the day and night; and, as it appeared to him that that object would not be attained if any of the designs which had already been exhibited were adopted, he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works whether it was intended to have a dial to the large clock of the Houses of Parliament on which the figures would be legible, as the models heretofore exhibited did not appear likely to carry out that object?

said, that it was certainly intended to have a dial with figures which should be legible. It was also true that at present such was not the case. The models which had been exhibited did not carry out that object, for the simple reason that at present a framework only had been placed on the site of the future dial, and that merely for the purpose of trying experiments with regard to the lighting, and that there were no figures upon it.

said, he begged to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury if it was true that £1,977 had been paid for the picture of "The Adoration of the Magi," recently placed in the National Gallery, and whether that sum included all the expenses occasioned to the country by the acquisition of that picture; by whose recommendation the picture had been purchased, and on what authority it was stated to be painted by Paolo Veronese?

in reply said, that £1,977 was the whole sum which this picture would cost, with the exception of £2 2s. 2d. paid for its carriage from Paris. All other expenses were paid by the seller. The purchase of the picture was recommended solely by the director of the National Gallery, but was acquiesced in and decided upon by the trustees. Whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the value of the picture, there could, he thought, be none as to its authenticity, for it stood in the position of being, perhaps, the best authenticated picture of the kind in the world. In Venice, where the picture had remained from the time of its being painted up to a very recent date, it was well known to have been the production of Paolo Veronese; and besides that, it was mentioned as his work and as belonging to the church from which it had been taken, in a book which was published in 1581, eight years after the date at which it was painted, and seven years before the death of the artist. In the British Museum there was a print of the picture, which was engraved in the year 1649.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any progress had been made in carrying into effect the suggestion made during the last Session of Parliament, that there should be affixed or appended to the paintings, statues, and other works of art, to specimens or illustration of science, antiquities, public monuments, and historical memorials in our public institutions, explanatory inscriptions, giving a brief account of the subject, date, history, and author of the work, so as to afford some general instruction to the public, and spare them the expense of purchasing a catalogue.

said, that the arrangement which his hon. Friend had so usefully suggested last year, had since been almost entirely carried out in the National Gallery. He did not think it had been quite carried out yet, for some care and trouble were required in perfecting the arrangement; but it was very nearly completed. A similar arrangement had, he believed, been established in the British Museum with respect to almost all the collections in that institution. He was not quite sure whether the same arrangement prevailed at Hampton Court, but he would make inquiry, and he felt no doubt that if it did not it would soon be established there, for so good a plan could not be adopted too soon.

said, he would ask the right hon. President of the Board of Works whether means would be adopted for giving the public the accommodation of a greater number of seats round the trees in different parts of Kensington Gardens, as well as in the Park?

said, he admitted the insufficiency of the number of seats. He had made provision for that state of things, but it depended on the House to grant the necessary funds for carrying out that provision.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control whether it was true, that on the death of the late Maharajah of Tanjore, in October last, without male issue, the British Resident at the Court of Tanjore recommended to the Government at Madras that the late Maharajah's youngest daughter should succeed to the vacant Ghuddee, and that, notwithstanding such recommendation, the Madras Government forwarded a Report to the Board of Directors, wherein, instead of recommending the succession of such youngest daughter, they suggested an extinction of the raj, and the grant of a pension to the family of the late Maharajah in lieu thereof? Also, whether it was true that the local Government had taken possession of the territory and estate of the late Maharajah, and left nearly a thousand of his relatives and servants unprovided with the means of support during the time the question of succession was pending before the Court of Directors? Also, whether any, and what, instructions had been sent out to the Government of Madras for providing for the succession to the Ghuddee, and the support of the family of the late Maharajah?

in reply said, that it was quite true that on the death of the late Maharajah of Tanjore the recommendation alluded to by the hon. Member had been given; and it was also true that a Report of the nature spoken of by the hon. Member had been sent by the Madras Government to the Board of Directors. Instructions, however, had been given to the Resident to provide for the relatives and servants of the late Maharajah, pending the settlement of the question of succession, and they were consequently not left without the means of support. The letters advising the Court of Directors of those proceedings had only been received in this country on the 8th instant. The instructions to the Government of Madras had not yet been sent out, and he could not at present communicate them to the House.

said, he would now beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that a memorial of His Highness the Maharajah of Jodpore, in reference to the claim of his family to the Raj of Ahmednugger, which, on the 9th day of August, 1854, was submitted to the Board of Control, and by them required to be forwarded through the local officer at His Highness's Court, had been since tendered to the British Resident at Jodpore, and that he had refused to receive it for transmission; and whether the Indian Board had any objection, under the circumstances, to recommend the Court of Directors to receive such memorial from the agent of the Maharajah now in London?

said, that he had not received information of the memorial in question having been referred by the British Resident at Jodpore. He could not, however, give to the Court of Directors any such recommendation as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control whether he had yet received the Report of the Commission appointed by the Governor General of India more than two years ago to inquire into the collection of the salt duties, and whether he would lay it upon the table?

said, that the Report of the Commission on the completion of which some delay had been caused by the illness of the only Commissioner, had at last been received in this country. It was very long, but should be laid on the table as early as possible. Owing to his anxiety to transmit the Report as early as possible, Lord Dalhousie had sent it without any despatch of his own on the subject. If such a despatch should be received before the Report was printed, he would lay both before the House together. If it were not, he would produce the Report alone.

said: I will take, Sir, the opportunity afforded by this Motion to recur to a question which I addressed yesterday to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and to which he returned a reply somewhat remarkable—I might almost say amazing. Yesterday a rumour of authority was rife in this town, to the effect that an event of the greatest importance with respect to the Conferences at Paris had occurred—namely, that an invitation had been given to Prussia to assist at those Conferences, and that the invitation had been accepted by that Power. Later in the day, after this House met, information of even a much more authoritative nature reached this capital, and we learnt that not only was it true that an invitation was given to Prussia to attend the Conferences at Paris—not only was it true that Prussia had accepted that invitation—but that that Power had even gone so far as to name the Plenipotentiaries to whom she would intrust the exercise of her influence and the management of her policy on this occasion, and that the persons she had selected were men not less considerable than Baron Manteuffel and the Prussian Minister now at the Court of the Tuileries. It was impossible for me to give the noble Lord notice of the question I wished to put to him on this subject; nor indeed, in my opinion, was that necessary. The ordinary rule which obtains in this House as to notifying to Ministers the purport of questions that may be addressed to them by hon. Members is not merely an affair of courtesy, but it arises from the very nature of things. The inquiries addressed to Ministers generally relating to the details of their departments, it is absolutely necessary, for the sake of accuracy and the dispatch of public business, that a previous intimation of their nature should be given to the heads of particular branches of the Government, to enable them to make themselves acquainted with the information which may be required by the House. But in the case of questions of high policy, questions of peace or war, questions regarding the progress of negotiations, or bearing on important circumstances that have occurred at foreign Courts, especially when those questions are addressed to the First Minister of the Crown, it never yet has been deemed necessary to give notice of the intention to make such inquiries; and, indeed, in the present state of affairs, so rapid is the communication of intelligence that it is wholly impossible to give any timely intimation to a Minister in such a matter. Why, the news often arrives while we are sitting on these benches, and when it may be necessary that no delay should be suffered to intervene before an appeal is made to the Government. Well, I thought that yesterday was an occasion when it was the duty of this House to give an opportunity to the Minister of informing Parliament and the country whether in fact so important an event had occurred as the invitation and the accession of Prussia to the Conferences. What, however, was the answer I then received from the noble Lord? I confess that if it were not as fresh in the recollection of all those who listen to mo as in my own, I should suppose that I must be labouring under some hallucination when I recall its terms to the House. The noble Lord declined to give me any information on the points of legitimate and important inquiry to which I invited his attention—merely observing that the first Resolution at the Conferences of Paris was, that there should be complete secrecy as to all their proceedings, and that, therefore, it was not in his power to give any answer to the inquiry which I made. It may be expedient—indeed, in the present case there can be no doubt that it is expedient—that the negotiations should be secret; but there is a very great difference between negotiations being secret and negotiators being unknown; and the very fact that the negotiations are secret is an additional reason why the negotiators should not be so. The first condition of confidence is, that you should be acquainted with those who are transacting the affairs in which you are interested, and, instead of the Resolution of the Conferences which the noble Lord quoted being an argument for not answering the questions I addressed to him, it appears to me to be a reason—if it were necessary to argue on such a point—in favour of the utmost frankness as to the names, and even, if possible, as to the powers of the persons deputed to act as Ministers. But it is quite superfluous to argue this question, because the principle laid down by the noble Lord is absolutely impracticable. If it were true, as I intimated to the House yesterday, that Prussia not only had accepted the invitation to join the Conferences, but had even nominated her representatives—if it were true, as I believe it to be, that her Plenipotentiaries have in all probability already arrived in Paris, surely these are incidents which cannot be concealed. If the Plenipotentiaries of Prussia are at Paris, no reserve on the part of the noble Lord can, I apprehend, keep the fact a secret from those who have the pleasure of living in that polished capital. If Baron Manteuffel and his colleague are in that city, it is not to be supposed that they attend the hotel of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in disguise, or that they go to Count Walewski's masked. On the contrary, their presence is notorious, and, more than that, it is palpable; and the very course of circumstances alone shows that the position of the noble Lord is perfectly untenable. Nay, I find that to be the fact which I did not know yesterday—namely, that in the Moniteur of that day there is an official announcement from the French Government that an invitation has been given to Prussia to attend the Paris Conferences, that she has accepted that invitation, and that she has nominated as her representatives Baron Manteuffel and Count Hatzfeldt, the present Minister of Prussia at the French Court. I want to know, therefore, why the French people are (notwithstanding the preliminary Resolution of the Conferences of which we have heard) informed by their Government of what has happened, while the Parliament of England is the only place where no information is to be given; and where, in a matter of momentous interest like the present, the Prime Minister is to prevent my authoritative intelligence from being imparted to the country, on a plea of which, I think, he must upon reflection acknowledge that he ought never to have availed himself. I am therefore at a loss, Sir, to conceive what could have induced the noble Lord to refuse the House the information which I should hope he will to-night, on further consideration, feel it not only in his power, but also to be his duty, to communicate to us. I should be sorry to suppose that the noble Lord finds in the circumstance that Prussia is now a participator in the Conferences any cause for dissatisfaction. I should be loth and sorry to believe this for two reasons. First of all, if the noble Lord regards that fact as any ground for regret, it would seem as though the counsels of this country at the Conferences were not so influential as I am sure every Gentleman in this House, on whatever side he may sit, must naturally wish them to be. But if it should be a source of any regret or mortification to the noble Lord, I should still more lament it, because I cannot but think, for my part, that the circumstance so disparagingly viewed by the First Minister of the Crown is one upon which we may fairly congratulate both this country and Europe. I look upon it as auspicious of a satisfactory settlement of the grave questions now pending at Paris, and as offering another augury for peace; because, whatever may be the wild opinions sometimes expressed, and expressed often without thought, and occasionally without temper, I cannot but believe that the solution now contemplated is more likely to prove lasting if all the great Powers of Europe sanction it than if one of those Powers, and one so peculiarly situated as Prussia, stands aloof and isolated, and is in no way connected with the adjustment which we desire to sec arrived at. Independently of the general principle that no settlement at Paris is calculated to be permanent to which one of the great European Powers is not a party, there are peculiar reasons why we should desire that the sanction of Prussia should be given to the pacification which we hope is about to be concluded. The presence of Prussia at the Conferences is, as it appears to me, the only means by which the sentiment and opinions of Germany can be represented and expressed on this memorable occasion. It is very true that there is another German Power which, from the first, has participated in the deliberations of the Conferences—a Power of which I wish to speak with all due respect; but, on this point, I remember the saying of a great statesman whose views I may quote with great propriety, as they are not likely to be prejudiced, being those not of an Austrian merely, but of a most eminent Austrian Minister.—I recollect Prince Metternich once observing that Austria was the true type of an empire, and, therefore, that all her interests must be imperial. Austria has many kingdoms and many races dependent upon her, and constantly demanding her solicitude; but Prussia is homogeneous—Prussia is German—Prussia, one might almost say, is Germany. For that reason alone, therefore, irrespectively of all other considerations, I—and I should think all those who are deeply interested in the welfare of Europe—feel desirous that Prussia should take part in the Conferences, and should feel that an authoritative announcement of such participation would be matter of congratulation to this country. But if it be of European interest that Prussia should be present at the Conferences—if it be, on general grounds, adverse to the public interests that a great State should remain in isolation on such an occasion—if, for the sake of representing German opinions and German sentiments, it be of importance that Prussia should be present at the Conferences—it is, I say, equally desirable, in my opinion, for English interests. Whatever we may have heard of the conduct of Prussia—which, allow me to observe, has never been the subject of debate or discussion, at least in the House of Commons—it would be well for us to recollect that, if there be such a thing as a natural ally, we may fairly describe Prussia as the natural ally of England. From the time when Prussia entered into the highest class of sovereignty, with one brief exception, when she notoriously acted under compulsion, she has been our ally; and from historical associations, from her geographical position, from the nature of her produce, from the character of her inhabitants, and, I may even say, of her religion, Prussia is a Power which, I am sure, will always be regarded with great sympathy by the people of England, and with profound interest by the statesmen of England. I know there are some who are apt to believe, because it is said to have been proposed by Russia that Prussia should be a member of the Conference, that that is a sufficient reason for the refusal of the proposition by the great Powers—[Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!]—and the hon. Gentleman, who has devoted some attention to the study of foreign affairs, assents by his cheer to that position, one which I believe to be crude, delusive, and fallacious. Now, I can conceive nothing of greater importance to Russia, still our adversary, than that the settlement, which I hope will take place at Paris, should be of a partial, and not of a general or universal character. It will be of infinitely greater importance to Russia that in making this settlement she should be treating with only two or three Powers, and should have the opportunity of falling back on a future occasion with a greater Power not connected with the settlement, than that she should have to meet the united will and voice of Europe, and defer to an arrangement sanctioned by their concord. As a mere ruse of diplomacy, nothing could be more dexterous on the part of Russia than the proposition that Prussia should be a partaker in the Conferences. If the proposition was acceded to, Russia had paid a flattering compliment to Prussia; if it failed, Russia treated only with part of Europe, and not with that universal Europe of which she is really afraid. I do not suppose, however, that any Minister of England would decide such a question as this with any regard to the interference of Russia in the affair. A British Minister should decide—as I cannot doubt he has decided—on the conviction of what is the real interest of Europe and of this country. I cannot believe that, on such an occasion, the passions of Cabinets or of individual Ministers can influence the course of public events. The diplomacy of passion has already worked great injury to this country, and I hope we have outlived the time when a repetition of such conduct as no one can look back upon with satisfaction will be witnessed. I think, therefore, instead of viewing the original proposal of Russia, that Prussia should take part in the Conferences, as an incident offensive to this country, we should be careful that our decision is founded merely on a consideration of what the interests of Europe and of England alike demand, and that passion should not be permitted to influence the decisions of the councils of kingdoms. In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply given by the noble Lord last night, I have availed myself of this opportunity to introduce the subject again to the notice of the House. I believe that the statements to which I referred yesterday are in every sense true and accurate. It would afford the utmost satisfaction if those statements were confirmed by an authoritative announcement on the part of the Government, and I trust that, upon reflection, the noble Lord has felt that the Parliament of England ought not to be less informed by Her Majesty's Ministers than is the population of Paris by the Moniteur of the French Government.

Sir, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not at all complain—nor do I feel that I have a right to complain—of any want of courtesy on his part in not giving me notice of the question he put to me last night. It was undoubtedly a question which, if it was fitting to be put at all, did not require that notice should be given to the person who was expected to answer it. On the other hand, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I was not guilty of any intentional want of courtesy with regard to the answer I felt it my duty to give to his question. It is perfectly true that when the Conference met, the first Resolution they adopted was that their proceedings should be kept secret; and they entered into an engagement, not only for themselves, but for their respective Governments, that secrecy should be observed. That arrangement was not intended to cover any sinister or mysterious proceedings which might be at variance with the interests of the countries concerned, or with the honest discharge of their duty by the Members of the Conference; but if it was only adopted with reference to the Houses of Parliament, I say that it was a wise and prudent decision with regard to the ultimate objects for which the Conference is assembled; for if hon. Gentlemen were to get up, from day to day, and, founding questions upon telegraphic messages and upon articles in foreign newspapers, were to ask the Government what had passed in the Conference with respect to transactions which were unfinished, and to discussions which were still in progress, I appeal to the good sense and judgment of the House whether the successful issue of the negotiations would not be a matter of the utmost difficulty, if not of absolute impossibility. I think, therefore, Sir, that the Resolution of the Conference was one which was right and fitting, and which had for its object the promotion of those purposes for which the Conference was assembled. Acting upon that Resolution, I gave my answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bowyer) with reference to the affairs of Italy, and I gave a similar reply to the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. That right hon. Gentleman has, however, put his question to-night in a manner which, I think, renders it my duty to give some explanation to him and to the House. It is perfectly true, as he says, that Prussia is one of those States which have hitherto been technically called the "Five Great Powers of Europe," and which have been accustomed of late years to enter into communication together for the purpose of coming to an understanding upon important questions of European policy. In the years 1840 and 1841, when treaties were made with respect to the affairs of the East, they were concluded by Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, in concert; and if, upon the recent occasion, it had only been necessary to assemble a Conference of the great Powers of Europe to discuss general questions, no doubt Prussia would have been invited to be a party to such Conference. But the Conference which has recently met at Paris has assembled for the purpose of negotiating and concluding a treaty of peace between powers that are at war. The natural parties to such a conference are, therefore, England, France, Sardinia, and Turkey on the one hand, and Russia on the other. Austria, although not one of the belligerents, has, nevertheless, entered into engagements towards Turkey to maintain and defend her principalities; and Austria also acted the part of mediator between the belligerents on the occasion which led indirectly to the present negotiations. Austria, therefore, cannot be omitted as a member of the Conference. But Prussia stood in no character which made her in any way whatever a party to these negotiations. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into a discussion as to which of the Powers of Germany are the most homogeneous, or which of those Powers most accurately and fully represents the public opinion of the States of Germany. Prussia is a great Power; Prussia is undoubtedly a Power with whom it must always be the interest of this country to maintain the most intimate relations of friendship; and I trust those relations will always be maintained, and will become stronger and stronger as time advances; but Prussia, for reasons which we are not entitled to criticise, has deemed it for her interest to abstain entirely from taking any part whatever in the war. She has maintained an attempt at perfect neutrality. She has declined entering into any engagements with the Allies; she has avoided taking any part against Russia. There is, then, no character or capacity in which Prussia can become a member of the Conference assembled with the view of making peace between belligerent parties. Therefore it was that Prussia was not at first invited to become a member of the Conference at Paris. Nevertheless, part of the objects which the Conference has in view consists of the revision, to a certain degree, of those Treaties of 1840 and 1841, to which Prussia was a party—I mean the treaties regulating the Straits of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles; and, even upon that narrow ground, it was from the beginning judged not to be right that the negotiations should be concluded without inviting the participation of Prussia in the revision of treaties to which she had originally been a party. Undoubtedly, therefore, it was always thought that, as the negotiations proceeded, and in proportion as there seemed to be any reason to expect that they might terminate in a satisfactory manner, Prussia should be invited, not to negotiate the Treaty of Peace, but to accede to the result of the negotiations of those who were more directly interested in the matter. I believe—indeed I know—that an invitation to that effect has been addressed to the Prussian Government, and I presume that invitation will be, or has been, accepted. Of course Prussia is desirous to be a member of the Conference now, as she was desirous to be so even at a time when it was not thought right, on other grounds, that she should take part in the negotiations. That Baron Manteuffel is at Paris at the present moment I very much doubt; I believe, indeed, that he has not yet left Berlin; but, of course, being Prime Minister of the King of Prussia, he is a very likely person to be sent to Paris, where he would be associated with Baron Hatzfeldt, the representative of Prussia in that capital. Sir, I repeat that nothing could be more inconvenient than that questions should be asked from day to day with regard to the course of the negotiations at Paris. The answers that would be given to such questions would lead to misconstruction—would either excite expectations that might not be fulfilled, or create unfavourable opinions that might not be justified by facts; and, therefore, I am sure the House will see that the Conference was perfectly right in the decision at which it arrived. Under these circumstances, I hope hon. Members will not think that they are acting judiciously in endeavouring to force the Government to depart from that discreet reserve which I believe is the only course consistent with a favourable termination of the negotiations now in progress.

said, that at the beginning of the preceding week he had called the attention of the House to the question now pending between this country and Persia, in the hope of eliciting some expression of opinion from hon. Members on that important subject. Nothing had struck him so much, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, as the indifference of Parliament to Eastern questions. He had hoped that the melancholy fate of Kars would have had the effect of inducing the House to take more interest in those questions, and he was strengthened in that hope by the impression that they might have to pay a large bill for operations in Central Asia. Upon the occasion to which he had alluded he stated the facts of the unfortunate quarrel which had taken place with Persia, and his conviction that that quarrel might lead to unhappy results in Central Asia. He had not seen reason since to change that opinion; on the contrary, from private information he had received, as well as from information published in the daily journals, he thought the Persian quarrel was becoming more inveterate. It had been stated that the wife of Mirza Hashim was not a relative of the Shah. He believed she was both his wife's sister and a member of the royal family. It had also been stated that Mirza Hashim himself had a right to protection. Undoubtedly he might be entitled to take refuge in the British mission; but to say that this right of protection extended to all his family, whether in or out of the mission, or even to himself when he left that asylum, was perfectly absurd. It had been further stated that we had a right to appoint a Resident at Shiraz, although not a Consular agent. Upon that point he wished to call attention to the exact words of the article of the treaty relating to the appointment of agents. As there was only one other article, it was evident that the Persian Government must have laid great stress upon the subject to which he referred. The second article says—

"As it is necessary for the purpose of attending to the affairs of the merchants of the two parties respectively, that from both Governments commercial agents should be appointed to reside in stated places; it is, therefore, arranged that two commercial agents on the part of the British Government shall reside, one in the capital and one in Tabriz, and in those places only, and on this condition, that he who shall reside in Tabriz, and he alone, shall be honoured with the privileges of Consul General; and, as for a series of years a Resident of the British Government has resided at Bushire, the Persian Government grants permission that the said Resident shall reside there as heretofore. And, in like manner, two commercial agents shall reside, on the part of the Persian Government, one in the capital, London, and one in Bombay, and shall enjoy the same rank and privileges which the commercial agents of the British Government shall enjoy in Persia."

That treaty plainly excluded either a Consular agent or a political Resident elsewhere. But it had been said that we had formerly an agent at Shiraz. Such was the case a few years ago, but that gentleman was appointed before the conclusion of the treaty to which he had referred, and was moreover, he believed, a native of India, and consequently a British protected subject. It had been stated that two small vessels had been sent to the Persian Gulf to protect British interests there. He believed, however, that those vessels were two of the largest, if not the largest, in the service of the East India Company—that they were vessels of war—and that others of the same class were to follow. He observed, too, that the Persian Government were actually taking steps to meet us in the Gulf, fortifying Karak, and assembling troops at Bushire, and that they were also preparing an expedition against some part of Central Asia. He, therefore, entreated the House to endeavour to obtain from the President of the Board of Control some explanation of those facts. While concluding a peace at Paris we might find ourselves involved in another war, and one, moreover, in which he most conscientiously and solemnly believed we should not have right on our side. Before he sat down he might perhaps be permitted to say a word or two on a subject in which he felt a good deal of interest—he referred to the question of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) with respect to the attack on the Redan. He thought that the persons engaged in that attack had been most unjustly treated. It was true that the attack failed, but no blame could attach to the regimental officers who took part in it, and whose gallantry was not exceeded throughout the whole campaign in the Crimea. He understood that it had been decided at the Horse Guards that no reward should be given to the regimental officers concerned in that attack. That, he considered, was most unfair and ungenerous, and he trusted the authorities at the Horse Guards would revise their decision, and confer some honorary distinction upon the brave and gallant officers engaged in the attack upon the Redan. He should conclude by asking the right hon. President of the Board of Control the names and armament of the vessels of war which had proceeded to, and were to proceed to, the Persian Gulf from our Indian possessions? Whether the Court of Directors, or Indian Government, had been called upon to prepare an expedition against Persia? Whether any information had been received to the effect that Persia was preparing or contemplating an expedition against Herat, or any part of Central Asia? Whether the expenses of any demonstration against Persia, or of a war with that country, were to be borne by the revenues of the United Kingdom or of India?

in reply said, that the hon. Gentleman was not quite right in one point; that was in reference to the right of appointing commercial agents in Persia. It was true that under the treaty we had no right to have a commercial agent at Shiraz, but it had always been customary to maintain an agent there, and with the consent of the Persian Government. He considered that two out of the four questions put to him by the hon. Member were more applicable to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs than to his department. In reply to the hon. Gentleman as to the names and armaments of the vessels sent to the Persian Gulf, he would state, the vessels were two lightly armed steamers, one of 500 and the other of 220 horse-power, and they had been sent, not to make a demonstration against Persia, but to protect British residents at Bushire, to whom it was thought possible some insult might be offered in consequence of the dispute between the British Minister and the Government of the Shah. The names of the steamers were the Adayah and the Victoria, but the former being required to bring home the late Governor General of India, another vessel had been substituted. There had been no additional vessels sent. It was a mere substitution of one for another. With regard to the second question, he hoped the hon. Member would excuse him if he declined to give an answer, on the ground that it was unusual to give information in respect to communications that passed between the Government and the Court of Directors of the East India Company, and he should be sorry to transgress the rule which had been always acted upon by his predecessors. In reply to the third question, he had to state that rumours had reached this country, and he believed they were true, that the Persian Government were preparing some sort of expedition, or rather that they were increasing their troops by 10,000 men, which might possibly be intended as a demonstration against Herat; but there was no positive information of that fact. To the fourth question, as to the expenses of the war, should war take place, he had to say that no arrangement had or could have been come to on that point. In those eastern wars it was customary for the Court of Directors and the Treasury to bear the burden according to the extent to which the war was undertaken in the Imperial interests or in the interests of the Indian Government. That had been the course in the Chinese war and in the Affghan war. It depended upon whether the objects of the war were strictly Indian, strictly Imperial, or Imperial and Indian mixed, whether the cost was borne wholly by the Treasury, by the East India Company, or by both together. Those questions were always taken into consideration when the expenses of the war came to be discharged, which in the present case may never occur.

said, he was desirous of saying a word on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard); and he confessed it was not with entire satisfaction that he heard the statement of the right hon. President of the Board of Control with regard to our relations with Persia. That right hon. Gentleman had let slip an expression which seemed to imply that an Indian war might be looked for as a probability. Looking to the very doubtful nature of the cause for such a war, which would be unworthy of England, he thought that the Government ought to prevent even the appearance that hostilities were about to ensue between the two countries, or show any hesitation in bringing the matter to a pacific solution. He could not help calling the attention of the House to the very unsatisfactory and trivial causes from which many of our Indian wars had sprung; for instance, the war with Burmah, which arose from some English vessels of war going to Burmah to ask for restitution of a small sum to one of our merchants; and a difficulty having arisen about some point of etiquette on the governor not returning the commodore's visit a war followed, which the Governor General of India was said not to desire. Then the last war at the Cape was caused by the theft of a hatchet, or some such valuable commodity. He hoped, therefore, that we were not about to slide again into a useless and expensive war; and the Government ought to send out the most decisive orders to the Indian Government on that point. If Persia was really planning an expedition to Herat, he hoped that the Indian Government would not send an army into Affghanistan, for he thought we had had enough of that.

said, he wished to say one word upon the observations made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) in relation to the apparent commencement of a quarrel with Persia. The House would recollect that, when the hon. Member originally drew the attention of the House to that question, he gave a recital of facts, and was followed in the discussion by his noble Friend at the head of the Government. His noble Friend stated to the House that the hon. Member for Aylesbury did not appear to be well informed on the facts, and he proceeded to make a statement which he said was perfectly correct; but the impression made upon his (Mr. Gladstone's) mind, and he thought on the mind of other hon. Members, was, that there was no very material difference between the two relations, and that the statement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury was in its substance correct. Although the House had judiciously observed that reserve which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had so strongly enjoined, yet he (Mr. Gladstone), for one, could not help thanking the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) for taking up the question, because the short discussion that had taken place in the House must clearly show the Government that there was some uneasiness in the House on the subject. It was right that, at the commencement of such matters, which, at their origin, seemed little, but afterwards became great, that they should be left in the hands of the responsible advisers of the Crown. But, at the same time, when they heard of the departure of vessels of war and expeditions, and of the departure of the Queen's representatives from the Court to which they were accredited, it was no wonder that such a sentiment of uneasiness should gain ground, unless there was on the face of the facts a presumption that there was an adequate and reasonable cause for such a state of things. Now, so far from that being the case in this instance, it appeared to him, from all he had seen of the papers relating to it, that this quarrel, if quarrel there was to be, was founded altogether on questions and matter of the most insignificant and trumpery character. There was another point which—important at all times—became of the more importance after the answer which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, because he had let slip words which were of the greatest weight, and called for observation in that House. The second question asked by the hon. Member for Aylesbury was, "Whether the Court of Directors or Indian Government had been called upon to prepare an expedition against Persia?" That question was met with silence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith), but he (Mr. Gladstone) could make no complaint of that silence. The fourth question was, "Whether the expenses of any demonstration against Persia, or of a war with that country, were to be borne by the revenues of the United Kingdom or of India?" To that question the right hon. Gentleman stated that was a matter which, if war should arise, could not in the first instance be decided either by the Government or by reference to that House. It was a question which must stand for future consideration, and which might lead to delay, discussion, and correspondence between the Company and the Government. In that statement the right hon. Gentleman was justified by the facts, for it was only recently that the expenses of the Chinese war were settled—if settled they were—sixteen years after its termination. [Sir J. W. HOGG: They were not settled.] His hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said they were not settled. He believed the fact to be that they were settled to the satisfaction of the Government, but not to the satisfaction of the Company, of which the hon. Member for Honiton was a director. But he wanted to call attention to the importance of that answer as affecting the constitutional privileges of that House. It was true that the power of declaring war was confided to the Crown, but when war was once made, that House must be called into Council at an early stage, because the means of making war must be applied for to that House; so that, when war was made, the House might know what resources were to be provided for carrying it on, and also he satisfied as to the adequacy of the causes which led to it. Now, they were told that when this war took place—if there was to be war—the whole question of who was to defray the costs of that war should stand over for future consideration, as also who was to be responsible for the war. He would not go into the question of how far the British people should be exempted from the cost of Indian wars; but he entirely denied that they had a right to charge the Indian revenues for British purposes, and then hold themselves exempt from the consequences. But he would point out that if they were to take the declarations of his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) to the letter, war may be made, expenditure to any amount may be incurred, and the intention might be ultimately to charge the whole upon the taxes of the people of England, and yet they might never hear of it when it was made, during the time of its continuance, nor after its close; it might stand over, like the operations of the China war, for many years after the transactions had taken place. He entirely acceded to the doctrine of the First Minister of the Crown that they ought not to interfere prematurely or in any manner calculated to embarrass the Government. But, on the other hand, he hoped that after what had taken place the Government would feel that before the country was involved in any of those Eastern quarrels, which could not be regarded as merely affecting the East India Company, but were British, and British only, the House of Commons might have an opportunity of giving its opinion of the importance of the question and the justice of the quarrel.

said, he must deny that he had said that the question of the responsibility for the expenditure of the war would he postponed until after the war. What he had said was, that it would he settled after a consideration of what interests—British or Indian—were concerned, and the probability was that it would be settled when the war, if war there should be, was commenced.

said, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) were calculated to mislead the House as to the real facts of the case which he had quoted. Before the Chinese war began, before a single soldier was moved, before a single expense was incurred, and before a single order was given by the Indian Government, the Court of Directors had a written declaration from the Minister for India, given with the assent of Her Majesty's Government, regulating and determining the persons who were to pay the expenses of that war, and the resources from which every item of expenditure was to be drawn, whether from the Imperial or the Indian Treasury. It would ill become him to enter at any length into that question, but with regard to the Chinese, the Affghanistan, and, if his memory served him, every war on account of which the revenues of India had been subject to any charge, the responsibility had been clearly and distinctly ascertained and stated beforehand, and not left in so unsettled a condition as might be inferred from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury would approve or reject the warrant in reference to the Army Medical Department, which had been sent from the War Office with the recommendation of the Secretary of State for the War Department.

said, a proposition for the augmentation of the pay of the Medical Service of the Army had been communicated to the Treasury. It was a question of great magnitude and importance, as it involved not only an increase of the pay of the Medical Department of the Army, but also of that of the Medical Service of other branches of Her Majesty's Service. He was sorry to say that he did not think it consistent with his duty to accede to the proposition, and he could not state that there was any prospect at present of that plan being carried out.

said, that on first receiving the account of the attack his noble Friend (Lord Panmure) wrote for further details. Those details were quite satisfactory, and entirely exonerated from blame all the persons who were concerned in the attack. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend that so far from this day casting any slur upon the British arms, it was honourable to the valour of both the officers and soldiers. He would only remind the House that the attack on the Redan was the result of a joint arrangement between the French and British officers, and that if the British troops did not succeed in that undertaking, so also the French troops failed in three other attacks on the same day. The difficulties in the way were very great. All the operations were intended to contribute to the taking of the principal point—the Malakoff; and, although one might lament the misfortunes which had occurred at other points, very probably the assault in this quarter might not have succeeded had not those attacks been made. So far from thinking that the 8th of September was any reproach to the British arms, he thought that both that day and the 18th of June might be mentioned as days which shed lustre on the British army.

said, he would beg to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Board of Control, whether the President of that Board would sanction the Directors of the East India Company in the prosecution of a law-suit concerning the will of the late Mr. Dyce Sombre, in which judgment had already been given against them, and they had incurred an expense of not less than £30,000; and whether they would be entitled to discharge such costs from the revenues of India, or would carry on the suit at their own risk? By this suit it was sought to establish a will which had been brought forward by an individual Director, Mr. Prinsep, to whom it bequeathed £10,000, and a third portion of jewels, valued at £17,000 or £18,000. It also left to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench (Mr. V. Smith), and to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, £1,000 a year, and to every individual who held, or had ever held the office of Director £1,000. Of this will, which had been prepared by the private solicitor of Mr. Prinsep, that gentleman was executor, jointly with the Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone and Sir H. Eliot, both of whom had refused to take any part in the proceedings. Mr. Prinsep had obtained from the Directors of the East India Company a guarantee that they would pay all expenses which he might incur by sending commissioners to Paris or to India; and on the commission to the latter his brother was employed at a large salary. The Law Officers of the Crown had given an opinion that the President of the Board of Control had a right to restrain this expenditure; and that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to abdicate his functions because the Directors said that they demurred to that opinion.

said, that the Directors of the East India Company were not satisfied with the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown, and wished to consult their own legal advisers. The Board of Control had determined to allow them time to do so; and as soon as an answer should be received from them the President of that Board would take what measures he thought proper. Until the opinion of the Law Officers of the Company had been received it was impossible that the Board, the authority of which was disputed, should act. Any steps taken by the Directors of the East India Company were now taken on their own responsibility.

said, he would now move that on the 17th of April, and every subsequent Thursday of the Session, the Orders of the Day should take precedence of Notices of Motion. His object in bringing forward the Motion was to facilitate the private business, and not to deprive hon. Members of a notice of Motion day. If his Motion were agreed to, hon. Members would still have the power of raising a question on any other night on the Motion for going into Supply. Already there had been thirty Bills introduced by private Members, and it was with the greatest difficulty and at long intervals they could advance them a stage. It had been usual for the House in past Sessions to pass a similar Motion to that now submitted to the House, and near about the period he had named.

seconded the Motion. He said that the present system of giving precedence to Motions on the evenings of Tuesday and Thursday was objectionable in this respect, that it had the effect of keeping a large quantity of unfinished business continually on the Votes. A private Member might easily obtain leave to bring in a Bill, but the subsequent progress of the measure was encompassed with difficulties. When set down for second reading it became an "Order," and having in that character to yield precedence to Motions, it might be postponed from night to night for weeks together. It was to be hoped that the Government would refrain from offering any opposition to the Motion, as its adoption, he considered, was necessary for the due transaction of public business.

said, it had always been the custom, as the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) proposed, to arrange for Orders of the Day to take precedence on Thursdays after the Easter vacation; but this year Easter came much earlier than usual; he should, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the date when the Resolution was to take effect should be the 1st of May instead of the 17th of April.

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion, as he had long seen the great disadvantage which Members laboured under in bringing on Motions. If a disagreeable Motion was on the paper, it was usual to get rid of it by there being no House on that day; but assuredly hon. Members had the remedy in their own hands.

said, he believed that much might be said on both sides of this question. If hon. Members who had Motions to make thought they were too much limited in the times at which they could be made, they availed themselves of the privilege of bringing forward Motions on Supply nights. It was true that that course was attended with a good deal of inconvenience; and if he might be allowed without offence to revert to an instance which took place recently, he should say that the speech lately made by an hon. and learned Gentleman about life peerages and the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, was one that did not appear to be very much connected with a Motion to go into Committee of Supply. On the other hand, it certainly was desirable to give opportunities to private Members for carrying the Bills which they had introduced through the subsequent stages. He thought that, perhaps, the time fixed by his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Dunlop) was rather too near, especially when it was remembered that Thursday, the 10th of April, had already been determined to be an Order Day for the purpose of the Resolutions to be moved by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) on the subject of education. He thought, therefore, that the House might close with the Amendment, and fix the 1st of May for the day upon which Orders of the Day should take precedence of Notices of Motion; but on the part of the Government he should put in a claim to share and share alike with private Members.

said, he would not oppose the suggestion of the noble Lord, but he thought the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) and others had not sufficiently considered the matter. It would have been wiser for the independent Members not to have diminished their privileges in any way. Generally speaking, individual legislation could not be very successful in that House; but the use of those two days, the Tuesdays and Thursdays, was that they served as safety valves, and, if there was any subject of great interest which ought to be brought before the House, gave opportunities for its discussion. Now, the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) when he agreed to the Amendment, intimated that the Government would come in for a share of the Thursdays, and it would be, no doubt, the lion's share. That would not be to the advantage either of individual Members or of the public generally, and he thought the agreement had been rather precipitately made.

said, that, so far from its being a new agreement, it was an arrangement which had been adopted before, and in favour of which they had the experience of the last three years. The Government has always had a share of the Thursdays from the first week in which Orders of the Day had precedence.

said, he was of opinion that Governments were apt to receive but scant justice in matters of this kind, their applications in the middle of the Session for a larger share of the time of the House to be devoted to public business being invariably treated as though they contemplated some personal privilege, or sought some alleviation of their responsibility. Yet, if any Government wished to shirk its duty, nothing could better suit its purpose than that a greater proportion of the time of the House should be appropriated to the Motions of private Members; for the more nights they set apart for the transaction of Government business, the greater must be the labour and responsibility of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) said the two nights in the week open to private Members were safety valves; and, certainly, nothing could be more absurd than to repress unduly the activity of independent Members in the discharge of their duty to their constituents and the country. Admitting the principle of safety valves, he would ask the House to consider the extent to which they already existed. They had, for a considerable part of the Session, the safety valve of two days in the week for Notices of Motion; there was a third day in each week devoted to the "Orders" of private Members; and hon. Gentlemen also enjoyed considerable liberty—which was very indulgently permitted by the House—of putting questions, and frequently occupying in this matter half an hour or an hour out of the six or seven hours which were available for business. Another of these safety valves was to be found in the Motion made every Friday for the adjournment to Monday, upon which any question might be raised, and which gave occasion for miscellaneous discussions that frequently lasted an hour or two. Another of these safety valves he might mention was that, whenever a question was brought before the House by a private Member under circumstances of peculiar urgency, an appeal was invariably made to the Government to give a day for the purpose of the debate. There was still another safety valve in the opportunity afforded of raising any question on going into Committee of Supply. It must be recollected that, while these opportunities were afforded to private Members, the Government were expected, during the limited portion of time left to them, to perform—and they actually did perform in every Session—the duty of carrying through nine-tenths of the entire legislation of the House. He had always felt, when he sat on the Treasury bench, that the Government, with reference to that subject, scarcely received the consideration they might expect, and to which he thought they were entitled.

said, he wished to make a few remarks with respect to one item in the Votes, in order to prevent confusion. A Return had been asked for as to the Enfield factory expenses, and the Return furnished did not meet the view of the Mover. The Resolution of the Committee some time ago set forth that an account showing the actual profit and loss was to be furnished annually, and the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance then stated that at the end of every year such an account would be presented, showing every halfpenny of the expenditure. The Return that had been recently granted was not the Return that had been promised, and he, therefore, appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil his previous promise.

said, that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway), without giving such a notice as would have led to the supposition that he was about to make a statement affecting the Directors of the East India Company, or rather a particular Director, had merely put on the paper notice of a question as to the payment of certain law expenses connected with the case of Mr. Dyce Sombre. The hon. Gentleman had made a statement which was calculated greatly to mislead the House. The facts were these. Mr. Dyce Sombre, five or six years after the commission of lunacy had been issued against him, became, if not sane, at least so well, that the Lord Chancellor accorded to him the entire possession of his property and power of expending it. While in that state he made a will, the whole of which, as he (Sir J. Hogg) believed, was in Mr. Dyce Sombre's handwriting, and also some drafts of it and comments upon it. The will was attested by three of the first physicians in Paris. Mr. Dyce Sombre died, and by that will he had bequeathed £200,000 for the establishment of a great institution in India, for the education of the natives of India. When he died, the Directors of the East India Company understood that the will was to be contested on the ground of insanity. He (Sir J. Hogg) would ask the House and the public whether the East India Directors would have been justified in foregoing a bequest of such magnitude, made by a person apparently sane, for the benefit of the people of India? The course which they adopted was simply this. They desired to put the case before their legal advisers, who should adopt the proper course to ascertain whether or not this was the will of Mr. Dyce Sombre. The case accordingly went before the Prerogative Court. It was heard, and so difficult was it that the Judge took seven months to deliver his opinion, which was at length against the sanity of the testator. Now the hon. Member for Stafford had led the House to suppose that the Directors of the East India Company had some personal interest in the matter, especially Mr. Prinsep. It was true that the will contained a large bequest to Mr. Prinsep; but could it be supposed that that gentleman would be influenced by such a consideration? There was also a bequest of £1,000 to each of the Directors, and £1,000 a year respectively to the President of the Board of Control and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the East India Company, who were regarded as trustees for the management of the charity. That was the state of the case, into the merits of which he would not enter. From time to time the Court of Directors had expended money on legal proceedings, independently of any control of the President of the Board of Control. He was informed that the law officers of the Government said that those expenses ought to be subject to the approbation of the President of the Board of Control. It was of very little consequence, but there was a specific reservation that the Court of Directors should have power to communicate with their legal advisers, and expend the necessary money for doing so, without the sanction of the President of the Board of Control. But he, although his sanction was not asked, had known of every farthing so expended and every such resolution of the Directors; and their determination to take the opinion of a Court of Justice on this will appeared in their Minutes, which were submitted to the President of the Board of Control. The Directors were mere trustees for the public of India, and had thought themselves bound to try the validity of a will by which £200,000 was bequeathed for an educational establishment in India. In discharging their public duty as trustees, they tried the validity of the will, and there was no way of doing that but by taking the opinion of the Prerogative Court. The same reason that induced them to do that, induced them to carry the case to a higher Court. When he was Chairman of the East India Company, he received a letter from Mr. Dyce Sombre, stating that he wished to make his will, and requesting him to send a solicitor to him. But inasmuch as a commission of lunacy had been issued against Mr. Dyce Sombre, he judged it best not to answer his letter, and not to send to him the gentleman he requested him to send.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary for the Home Department to an order which had been issued respecting the construction of a lunatic asylum in South Wales. The order had been addressed to the magistrates of Pembrokeshire, calling on them to provide a separate asylum for eighty pauper lunatics. Two or three years ago it was contemplated to erect one for Pembroke and the three adjoining counties; but an inspector having reported against the site selected, the asylum had not been erected. Another site had been selected in the western part of Glamorganshire; but that also had been objected to. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would consider the case, and would suggest to the Commissioners of Lunacy that they should give their assistance in the matter.

said, that by the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, counties and boroughs were required to provide suitable accommodation for pauper lunatics. By the 29th section the Secretary of State for the Home Department could call upon them to provide such accommodation, if they had not done so, within a year after receiving notice. On the 15th of February last he had received a Report from the Commissioners of Lunacy that in the counties of Cardigan, Glamorgan, Pembroke, and Carmarthen, there was no sufficient accommodation for lunatics, although they amounted to 586 in a population of 500,000. They had urged him to put in force the provisions of the Act, and he had accordingly directed notice to be sent to those counties. It was not intended that there should be a separate asylum for each; and if an asylum were erected sufficient for the pauper lunatics of the four counties, the terms of the Act would be complied with. He was sure every reasonable assistance would be given by the Commissioners in establishing such an asylum.

said, he wished to put to the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question of great commercial importance. It was generally understood that a Conference had been lately sitting at Copenhagen, but which had not as yet been concluded, with reference to the abolition of the Sound Dues. He had heard from common report that, at the last sitting of the Conference, which took place on the 2nd of February, the Danish Government communicated a definite plan for the abolition of those dues, which had been considered acceptable, and referred to the several Governments taking part in that Conference for their approbation; and that it was at the present moment under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. If that were the case, he thought that the present was the proper moment, before Government decided one way or the other upon it, to revert to a subject which he had brought under the notice of the House in 1839. He alluded to the toll charged by the Danish Government on goods carried by the road from Hamburg to Lubeck. That was then a new duty, and was levied for the protection of the Sound Dues, as the road between those two cities having been improved, the trade between the North Sea and the Baltic was beginning to be carried out. Under those circumstances he first called the attention of the British Government to the subject; and the noble Lord opposite, who was then Foreign Secretary, remonstrated against the impost, and threatened the Danish Government with retaliation. That toll was still levied; and if they were now about to do away with the Sound Dues, and establish perfect commercial freedom between the two seas, it would be incomplete if they did not include in it the abolition of the transit dues between Hamburg and Lubeck. He did not, of course, wish that the noble Lord should tell the House what the plan proposed by the Danish Government was. The question he would put was simply this—that as the proposals of Denmark were now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, whether they had directed their attention to the removal of the transit dues charged in Holstein and Lauenberg?

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that communications were going on between the Danish Government and other Governments concerning the trade to the Baltic, on the subject of a commutation of the Sound Dues. Of course his right hon. Friend could not expect him at present to enter into any details of the arrangement, or to state what they were. No communication had been made to the Danish Government on the subject of the tolls adverted to by his right hon. Friend. When attention was drawn to the subject in 1839, representations were made to the Danish Government, and the toll was to a certain degree lowered. What passed at that time showed that Government might consider itself entitled, if a proper occasion occurred, to make representations to the Danish Government on the subject.

said, that when the House was in Committee on the Army Estimates, it was stated that when any Estimate exceeded the amount required for the public service the surplus remaining in the hands of the Government was, by the Appropriation Act, turned over to any purpose which the Government might think proper to apply it to without the control of that House. Now he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which that power was worked by the Government. Take first of all the Estimates for the Army. Last year the Vote was for 212,000 men. He was informed that on the 1st of January there was a deficiency of 45,000 men, and that a deficiency equal to that, or nearly so, existed almost the whole year, so that the Government had received during the last year an amount of revenue equal to the maintenance of at least 40,000 men, which they had been at liberty to divert to any other purpose that they might think proper to apply it to. That was as regarded the Estimates of last year. This year Government proposed to them an additional number of 30,000 men, the Estimate being for 246,000 men, so that in order to complete that Estimate Government would have to raise no less than 70,000 men in the course of the current year. In addition to that, the loss of the army in time of war might be taken at about 30,000 a year, so that if that Estimate was to be fairly carried out they must raise within the year at least 100,000 men; and they all knew it to be impossible for them to raise even 50,000, which was more than had ever been raised within any one year. They would, therefore, have an enormous amount of surplus money on the Army Estimates in the present year. Then the Estimate for the Militia was for 120,000 men. Now it was well known that they had not got half that number of men, and if they got half as much, that was as much as they could expect to raise on the volunteer system. The Estimates for the Militia amounted to about £3,000,000, so that Government would have a surplus on that head of about £1,500,000. He trusted that Government would be able to offer some explanation as to what they did with that large surplus.

said that, as he understood the question, it was this:—If there were a sum of money taken for a certain number of men, and that number of men were not raised, what became of the surplus money? The rule with regard to this particular Estimate, and to all Estimates, was this: At the close of the year the accounts were made up, and they were audited by the Commissioners of Audit. If there was a surplus, it was returned into the Exchequer; and if there was a deficiency, it was provided for by a Vote. The House would bear in mind that the Votes of the House in Committee of Supply bore no relation to the money in the Exchequer. The cash account was one thing, the estimated expenditure was another and a different thing. There might be a large excess of expenditure for which the moneys in the Exchequer were not sufficient. On the other hand there might be a great diminution in the expenditure, and there might be no surplus in the Exchequer. The House would perceive that whether the moneys in the Exchequer were sufficient to meet the whole expenditure did not depend altogether upon the Votes of Supply, it depended also upon the amount of revenue within the year; and although it was always estimated in the Budget that the revenue from all sources would be sufficient to meet all the Votes, yet if the revenue fell short, as it had done this year, the Estimates would, of course, be insufficient. Had the whole of the militia been embodied last year and the whole of the £3,000,000 that was voted for the militia been expended, the effect would have been that the increased expenditure over and above that which was likely to have taken place would have been £1,500,000 in addition.

said, that, if the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) would look to the mode in which the increase of 30,000 men was distributed, he would find that the increase was in the Artillery, the Engineers, the Land Transport Corps, and the Foreign Corps. There was also an apparent increase, which was not really an increase, arising from the transfer of some regiments from the Indian establishment to our home establishment, the expenses of which, consequently, were no longer borne by the Indian, but by the Imperial Treasury.

said, that, with reference to the observations made by his hon. colleague (Mr. Newdegate), he wished to explain that the accounts which he (Mr. Spooner) had asked for were totally distinct from those which his hon. Friend had asked for. The accounts which he himself had asked for were those recommended by the Committee of last year, and had reference to the special expense of the cost of the manufacture of small arms at Enfield.

said, that, as the Enfield factory was not yet at work, it was obviously impossible to furnish the returns required by the hon. Member of the number of small arms it had turned out.

said, he wished to know under what authority money voted for one purpose had been applied to another? He was aware that, under the provisions of the Appropriation Act, the surplus of one Vote could be applied to the purposes of another by going through certain forms, but that power was never meant to be carried to such an extent as it had been in this case. Now that the Army, Ordnance, and Commissariat Estimates were all lumped together in one Estimate, it would be perfectly possible for the War Minister to spend the whole £35,000 voted without any control, just as he pleased, and the functions of the House of Commons, as guardian of the public purse, would be entirely nullified. It was a question for consideration whether some change ought not to be made in the Appropriation Act to meet the case.

said, he thought this was a question of great importance, and he should be glad to hear some explanation from the Government as to what they intended to do with regard to it. Formerly the Army, Ordnance, and Commissariat Estimates were all voted separately, and though, with the consent of the Treasury, the surplus of one Vote in the Army Estimates might be applied to the purposes of another Vote in the Army Estimates, money could not be transferred from the Army Estimates to the Ordnance or Commissariat Estimates. Under the new arrangement, however, Army, Ordnance, and Commissariat Votes, all being taken in one Estimate, it would be perfectly possible to apply money voted for Army purposes to Ordnance or Commissariat purposes, or vice versâ. Under those circumstances the check possessed by the House of Commons over the expenditure of the public money was very much weakened. He would suggest that a Committee should be appointed to consider in what way Parliament, without interfering with the efficiency of the public service, might retain, what it ought really to have, some check over the issue of public money.

said, he thought that the proper time for providing against the risk of abuse in the transfer of money from one Vote to another would be when the Appropriation Act was brought forward. From what had passed on a former evening he had gathered that the subject had engaged the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should confer with the noble Lord at the head of the Government before the whole of the Estimates were voted, and endeavour to come to some decision as to what course it would be most advisable to adopt to meet the difficulty caused by the new mode of preparing the Estimates.

said, that with respect to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), it was quite true that in former years there were separate Estimates for the Army, Ordnance, and Commissariat, and that, by restrictions in the Appropriation Act, the surplus of the Ordnance, could not be applied to meet deficiencies in the Commissariat or of the Army, and vice versâ. Now, all those services were included in one Estimate. Unless some new provisions were made in the Appropriation Act, there would certainly be the power of devoting the surplus arising under one head to meet deficiencies occurring under another. The Committee would see that, unless some latitude of the kind were permitted, great inconvenience to the public service might arise. He quite admitted that it might be proper, now that the three services were included in one Estimate, for the House of Commons to consider whether some different arrangement ought not to be made in the Appropriation Act. With respect to the Ordnance, it must be remembered that formerly one military branch, the artillery corps, was quite separate from the rest of the army. That corps was now connected with the army, of which it might be considered a part. There were, also, other changes in regard to stores and works of different kinds; and, no doubt, the subject was one deserving of consideration when the proper time came. The Committee, however, must remember that they were only taking Votes on account, and that the whole of the Estimates must again come under their consideration at a later period of the Session, when there would be an opportunity for discussing the subject.

said, that the Vote now proposed was not a Vote on account, merely, but was for the whole sum required. He would suggest that a Vote on account only should be taken for these reasons. When the Estimate was framed it was, of course, impossible to foresee whether peace would be made or the war continue. In the Vote there were some omissions, and, also, some slight additions, to both of which he objected. The reason of the omission was that, as long as the war continued, it would be impossible to institute any new system of instruction for officers in the army. If peace should be made, he would take the earliest opportunity to discuss many subjects connected with the future peace establishment of the army—not only as to its numbers, but to its organisation, concentration, and employment, and, above all, the education to be given to military officers. He wished, therefore, to postpone that discussion until the question of peace or war was decided, and, with that view, he would suggest that a Vote on account only should be taken.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Government to a question connected with the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. A Select Committee had some time ago been appointed by that House to take into consideration the propriety of making provision for the education of a limited number of the orphans of officers of the army and navy in that establishment, and that Committee had recommended that ten such orphans should be admitted last year, and that that number should as early as the present time be increased to twenty. Now, notwithstanding the recommendation of that Committee, not a single orphan had as yet been admitted to the institution, although it appeared that twenty-five cadets, who paid at the rate of £25 a year each, and two sons of field officers, who paid at the rate of from £60 to £80 per annum, had since obtained admission. He might add that the most anxious desire of the Committee was, that the orphans of those gallant officers who had fallen in defence of their country should be enabled to enjoy the advantages which the institution afforded. While speaking upon that subject, he might be allowed to advert to the fact, that the Governor of Sandhurst College—a most distinguished Peninsular officer, who had served his country well for a period of between sixty and seventy years—had been discharged from his office as one might discharge a drunken groom, after having received a six weeks' notice. Having said thus much with reference to the institution at Sandhurst, he should beg next to call the attention of the Government to some circumstances connected with the Military asylum for the sons of the non-commissioned officers of our army. The subject was one which had been brought under the consideration of the House in the year 1854, and a decided wish had, upon that occasion, been expressed to the effect that the number of orphan sons of our non-commissioned officers in the asylum should be increased by 120. Some months after that decision had been arrived at, he (Colonel North), being anxious to ascertain whether the wish of the House had been carried into effect, had addressed a letter to his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Herbert) who at the time held the office of Secretary at War, expressing a desire to obtain some information upon the subject. His right hon. Friend, with his usual courtesy, had stated, in reply to that letter, that a building for the reception of 120 boys would be in readiness in the spring of 1855; but he (Colonel North), on visiting the site of the building in the month of June or July of the same year, had found that very little had been done towards its erection. He had again paid the place a visit about a fortnight ago, and had found that the building had been placed in a position to admit fifty boys towards the end of last year, and that, in consequence of a notice which had been given by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), to the effect that he would bring the matter under the consideration of the House, an order had been received upon the very morning of his (Colonel North's) visit to admit seventy more boys, making a total of 120. Now, he hoped some satisfactory reason would be given by the Government why those 120 orphans, the sons of our brave soldiers who had perished in the Crimea, had been thus deprived of the advantages of education for a period of twelve months.

said, he must admit that the Report of the Select Committee upon Sandhurst College had not yet borne any visible fruits, but he hoped the Committee would not infer that the recommendations of that Committee had been overlooked or disregarded by the Government. The Government were bound to satisfy themselves that when those youths completed their education they would have the means of giving them commissions in the army, but he had always understood that the commissions which fell vacant without purchase were not more than sufficient to provide for the young men who at present completed their education at that college. The number of those commissions was rather reduced at the present moment in consequence of the arrangement by which, for every seventy-five men volunteering from the militia into the line, the Government gave a commission without purchase to an individual nominated by the commanding officer of the militia regiment. Under that arrangement some fifteen militia officers would be shortly entitled to commissions in the regular army, and, if you added twenty more young men to those educated at Sandhurst, it was quite clear that the Government could not fulfil their engagements. For those reasons it had hitherto been found impossible to comply with the recommendation of the Select Committee; but attention would be paid to the subject, and at the first fitting opportunity that recommendation would be carried out. With regard to the arrangement made in 1854, for the addition of 120 boys to the Military Asylum, it was necessary in the first place to construct a building for the purpose of accommodating that additional number, and the sum of £10,000 was so appropriated. He understood that that building was now completed, that fifty of the 120 boys had been at once admitted, and the remaining seventy were on the point of admission. As to the proposition of his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Herbert), the Government could have no objection to accede to it, and they would therefore take a sum of £200,000 on account, leaving the remaining £38,404 to be voted at some future time.

was not satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's reply. If the Government were able to find commissions for twenty-seven youths whose parents could afford to pay £125 a year, he should like to know why they could not find commissions for twenty whose fathers had been slain in the service of their country? With respect to the Royal Asylum, what he complained of was that the children of private soldiers, who had also died in the field, should have been kept for upwards of a year out of the advantage promised them. As for the buildings to which the hon. Gentleman referred, any private person would have had them put up in less than a month.

said, he was glad to find that part of this Vote was to stand over. Four years ago he had stated his conviction that the British Army was the least educated of any in Europe, and he regretted to say that his impression remained still the same. His late Friend, Mr. Hume, was very anxious to have a reform in the education of the army, and had furnished him with Returns showing how vastly superior was the education of the Prussian army. As, however, the Vote would again come under the notice of the Committee, he would defer his observations upon that subject to a future occasion. With regard to examinations, he should be glad to know whether the standard was to be raised, and whether there was to be an examination not only upon appointments, but upon promotions in the army? Observing in the Vote a charge for libraries and other institutions, he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would give a return of the military libraries and schools, like that which had been laid before the House on military savings banks.

said, he wished to point out that the hon. Gentleman's strictures upon the education of British officers were not deserved, for he could state to the contrary from what had come under his own observation when attached to the Quartermaster General's Department in Ireland. It was during a time of considerable popular excitement, and Sir Edward Blakeney ordered an examination into the condition of the military posts throughout the country, requiring from the officers of detachments plans to show how they proposed to extricate themselves, if necessary, in the event of disturbance and to fall back upon larger bodies of troops. He (Captain Vernon) was astonished to find, from the plans sent in accordance with that order, the great knowledge of their profession which existed among the officers of the line. There was only one officer who did not send in a plan, but the rest were most excellently drawn up, and two in particular—one executed by an officer of heavy dragoons at Athlone, since dead, and another by Captain Reynolds, of the 11th Hussars (a regiment not generally supposed to devote itself much to study), were the finest he ever saw in his life. He had seen a good deal of foreign armies, but he must maintain that the officers of those armies were not better educated than our own. As regarded the Engineering Staff at Chatham, it was, in his opinion, far too small when the duties which had to be discharged were taken into consideration, He was glad to see the increase in the Estimate for the school at Hythe, but he should be glad to know why the salary of the Superintendent at Shoeburyness was only £200, when that of the secretary of the Select Committee at Woolwich—a civilian—was raised to £300 per annum.

said, that out of the sum named in the Vote £200 was allowed for providing practice for officers of Artillery, and the remainder was spent in giving instruction to those officers who, having passed through their studies, were desirous of improving themselves. The officer who was charged with the instruction of the junior officers of Artillery had most important duties to perform, and, as those duties had greatly increased, it did not appear unreasonable to increase his salary. He was happy to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the establishment at Chatham was about to be increased by a Deputy Adjutant General of Engineers being sent there. With regard to the secretary to the Select Committee at Woolwich, he was an officer of artillery and not a civilian, and his duties were certainly of greater importance than those of the superintendent at Shoeburyness, and therefore it was only fitting that his salary should be greater.

said, that as the Chairman of the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the expediency of providing instruction for a limited number of the orphans of our officers at Sandhurst, he could not help expressing his great disappointment at the statement which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary at War in answer to the hon. and gallant Member oppeosit (Colonel North). That Committee had made a recommendation to the effect that ten such orphans should be admitted to the college at once, and that the number in the subsequent year should be increased to twenty. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary at War, however, had stated that in consequence of the demand for commissions without purchase created by the war, that recommendation could not at present be practically acted upon. But the evidence adduced before the Committee went to prove that in times of peace the number of vacancies were necessarily few; so that if the Government could not carry out the recommendations of the Committee now, it was highly improbable that they would be in a better, or indeed so good, a position to do so when peace was concluded. It was highly desirable that means should be found for providing instruction, and afterwards commissions, for the sons of those gallant officers who perished in their country s service, and he trusted, therefore, that the recommendations of the Committee would be promptly and faithfully carried into effect.

said, that some of the recommendations of the Committee, such as the last two to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, were matters for the consideration rather of the Commissioners who superintended the affairs of Sandhurst College than of the Government. The suggestion that the senior and junior departments should be separated, and that the charge of the former should be thrown upon the Estimates, was accompanied by a recommendation that, in filling up staff situations, the Government should not neglect the claims of officers who had passed through that department if they were otherwise fit. The filling of staff situations with students from a particular college was a matter which could not be decided upon without much consideration. He could assure the House that there was no intention to disregard the recommendations of the Committee, and he had no doubt that they would in time all receive the attention of the Government. With respect to the increase in the Vote for the school of musketry at Hythe, to which the hon. and gallant officer (Captain L. Vernon) had adverted, he had to state that that increase was the result of a change in the system under which the expenditure was incurred. The school in question could not afford accommodation for more than one man and one officer from each regiment in the service at a time; and as the instruction of each individul occupied three months, it was evident that an unlimited period must elapse before all the men in the army could go through the training which was there provided. The system at present adopted was that each regiment should have attached to it a captain and a subaltern, receiving extra pay, whose duty it would be to give to the soldiers the same species of instruction which was at present given at Hythe; while district inspectors were appointed to see that captains and subalterns properly fulfilled their duty.

said, he considered that too little importance had been attached to the training of men to the use of the musket. He also thought that the Report of the Sandhurst Committee had not received due attention from the Government. Possibly the Committee might have travelled out of its functions, but that was no reason why its recommendations, which were extremely valuable, should not be carried out. He was glad to hear that the subject of the education of officers would be brought under the attention of the House on a future occasion. He could confirm what had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Vernon) as to the high degree of education possessed by most of the officers. No subject was more important; and it was the duty of the Government, wherever they had the opportunity, to do all in their power to promote education in the army. The United Service Institution was, as was well known to gentlemen conversant with our military arrangements, a very useful establishment, containing as it did a valuable library and very interesting and instructive models of military works. He thought that all those who felt an interest in the prosperity of that institution must regret that it was subject to very heavy charges, which the Government might well remit. It paid a ground rent of £205 to the Crown, £96 in the shape of taxes, and £130 in the shape of rates; making a total charge of £431 annually. He trusted that the Government would take into their favourable consideration the expediency of diminishing that burden, and by that means increasing the usefulness of the Institution.

said, he was anxious to know whether there was to be any change in the Military Academy at Woolwich; and also, whether the establishment at Carshalton was to be done away with? He also wished to say a few words with respect to the establishment at Chatham. He believed that Chatham was one of the most profligate places in England, and yet young officers sent there to complete their military education were left entirely free from control. He understood, too, that the officers, when leaving Chatham, were subject to no examination, and thus one great inducement to a diligent application to their studies was removed. He would further take that opportunity of alluding to the great and unnecessary expenditure which was frequently incurred in messes in the army. He believed that was a matter well deserving the attention of that House, and one in which the well-being of the officers was very considerably involved, He had himself heard young officers complain that they were obliged to drink quantities of wine at their messes, although on other occasions, when left to themselves, they drank water by preference. The result of an extravagant expenditure at messes would necessarily be to exclude all except rich men from the military service.

said, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member who had just addressed the Committee, that the heavy cost of the messes in the army was a matter which required considerable reform. He wished to know whether any alteration had of late been made in the system of examining officers on their first obtaining their commissions? He approved the Vote for travelling expenses of young officers desirous of visiting the military institutions of other countries, and should be glad to learn how many had availed them-selves of the privilege? He also wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay on the table a return of the number of schools and libraries in the army.

said, he had to state, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Buck), that it was not the intention of the Government to place a civilian at the head of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, but that they proposed to do away with the establishment at Carshalton as soon as possible. He believed the hon. and gallant Officer must be in error with respect to the control exercised over the young engineering officers at Chatham. He understood that those officers were under the strict superintendence of the heads of the establishment, and from whom they were obliged to receive a certificate of good conduct before they left it.

said, in reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), that he was not aware that any alteration had of late been made in the system of examining officers previously to their obtaining their commissions. There would be no objection to the production of the returns the hon. Member had inquired about.

said, that the United Service Institution was of the greatest importance to young officers, who had an opportunity of attending lectures there and acquiring scientific knowledge. It would be a great advantage to that institution to have some allowance made for the rent and taxes.

said, he would also press the same point on the consideration of the Government, for he could bear testimony to the value of the institution.

said, he wished to know whether the Reports of the Inspectors of Military Schools would be laid before Parliament?

said, that would be a subject for the future consideration of the Government.

said, with reference to Sandhurst College, that the Sandhurst Committee were of opinion the means of acquiring a qualification for staff appointments were singularly defective, and, as the senior department was actually robbing the junior in the matter of instruction, he thought it might be as well to transfer some of the senior officers to the camp at Aldershot. With regard to regimental messes, there seemed to be a general impression that they were necessarily expensive. That, however, was not the case, and he thought he should be borne out by all officers who had had the management of messes that it greatly depended on the commanding officers what the expenses should be.

said, he was anxious to know, in reference to the Royal Military College, how many applications, if any, had been made for the admission of orphans to the institution since the Report of the Committee? He was anxious to be informed whether, on any future vacancy of the office of Governor, the Government was prepared to take into consideration the propriety, if not the necessity, of either abolishing the office or reducing the salary? In the course of the examinations before the Committee it came out that the funds of the institution were not large enough to support the number of orphans who might be introduced into the institution. The number had been much reduced from the amount in former years. Many years ago there were nearly 400 cadets in that establishment, and then a Governor and Lieutenant Governor might have been, perhaps, necessary; but now, when the number of those cadets who were almost entitled to receive education from the country was reduced in consequence of the want of funds, it seemed rather inconsistent to keep up the double office of Governor and Lieutenant Governor when the duties might be discharged by one officer. If the salary of the Governor were reduced from £1,000 to £500, five orphans might be introduced into the institution and supported by the saving; and eight orphans, if the office of Governor were abolished altogether, and £200 added to the salary of the Lieutenant Governor.

said, that the applications referred to were not made to the War Office, and he was not aware that it was in consideration to make any alteration in reference to the appointment of the Governor.

said, he rose, according to notice, to move "To reduce the Vote by £100, the sum proposed to be granted to Sir Richard Airey, with a view to the postponement of the same until after the result of the Commission of Inquiry be known." Since this pension was voted last year to Sir Richard Airey, circumstances had transpired affecting his professional character while holding the post of Quartermaster General of the army in the Crimea. The Report of the Commissioners sent out by the Government to inquire into the miseries endured by our troops while before Sebastopol attributed the greater part of the army's misfortunes to General Airey's department. He (Mr. Layard) would not say whether Sir Richard Airey was or was not guilty—he would cast no imputation whatever upon that gallant Officer—all he asserted was, that while the inquiry into the allegations of the Crimean Commissioners' Report was still pending, the House of Commons would egregiously stultify itself if it voted a good service pension to an individual whose conduct was called in question by the Report which the Government had laid upon the table, and to examine into the truth of the statements contained in which they had lately appointed a Commission. He had no wish to deprive General Airey of this pension, which was very paltry in amount if really deserved; and therefore he (Mr. Layard) had intended to move that it be postponed until the gallant Officer had had an opportunity of stating his defence to the Commissioners; but, having been informed that that mode of procedure was irregular, no other alternative was left to him but to propose that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100, on the understanding that when the Estimates, or at least a portion of them, came to be considered, as he presumed would be the case, later in the present Session, the Government would be able, if the inquiry were then concluded, and General Airey's character cleared, to renew their application to the House for the amount of that gallant Officer's pension. In the event of the investigation resulting in the acquittal of Sir Richard Airey, he (Mr. Layard) need scarcely add that he would with great pleasure support the Government in a Motion to restore this item to the present Vote.

said, he had occasion, a few days previously, to direct the attention of the Committee to a speech made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) at Liverpool in the course of last year, in which he attacked the late Lord Raglan, Lord Hardinge, and Lord Westmorland. On the same occasion, the hon. Gentleman is reported to have said that, having been long absent from England, he was not well acquainted with this country, or its mode of conducting public affairs. Anything truer than that observation had never fallen from the lips of the hon. Gentleman. If he had known his country, or the character of his countrymen, he would have been aware that, from the Throne of the Sovereign to the cottage of the peasant, there was no stronger feeling among all classes than the love of justice; that it was customary for the people of this country to regard every man as innocent till he was proved guilty; and that whenever a doubt existed the accused invariably received the benefit of it. The hon. Member, however, now called upon the Committee to do nothing more or less than to prejudge, dishonour, and disgrace as brave a soldier and as good a man as ever breathed. From an acquaintance of many years with his gallant friend, Sir Richard Airey, and from the known intelligence and activity of that distinguished officer, he believed that he would come out of the impending inquiry with undiminished honour. Now, what was the origin of this Report? The Report of the Crimean Commissioners originated in certain rumours affecting the characters of many gallant officers, which reached this country from unofficial and anonymous sources, and induced the Government to order an inquiry to be instituted on the spot. With regard to Sir Richard Airey he would only say that it was not for his services as Quartermaster General only, but for his distinguished services generally, that Her Majesty had been pleased to award him a good-service pension. It was not in the Crimea alone that he had served his country. During the rebellion in Canada, where he commanded the 34th Regiment, and had the supervision of the whole frontier, he acquitted himself with uniform discretion and success, and that under circumstances in which one injudicious movement might have imperilled our friendly relations with the United States. In the East the same gallant officer had charge of a brigade, and, owing to the fact that General Sir George Brown was employed elsewhere, he (General Airey) had repeatedly allotted to him the command of the entire Light Division—a duty which he discharged in the most creditable manner. The hon. Gentleman, however, now called upon the Committee to withdraw the pension Her Majesty had awarded to this meritorious officer; but it was to be hoped that the Committee would decline to do so, and remember that the officers impugned by the Report had been already ill enough treated in being so long deprived of the means of vindicating themselves. Every Englishman, however, must desire that justice should be done towards Sir Richard Airey—a thing impossible if his case were to be thus unfairly prejudged. He trusted that the Government would at once discountenance the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He could not resume his seat without attempting to say a word on behalf of two other gallant friends of his, whom the hon. Member for Aylesbury had aspersed in the course of the last Session. He alluded to Lord Burghersh and Colonel Hardinge. On that occasion it would be recollected the hon. Gentleman prepared a return so adroitly drawn up as to enable him the better to attack officers of the staff and members of the aristocracy. But the House was not then aware that, owing to the personal intercession of the hon. Member, a relative of his (Mr. Layard's) was placed upon the staff of our army, by the very man (Lord Raglan) who was most harshly handled by the hon. Gentleman. That, however, was a matter of taste, and might perhaps, too, be one of very questionable gratitude. But what he wanted the hon. Gentleman to explain was the uncandid manner in which he mentioned the names of certain officers on the staff in his letter to The Times. Not being a military man, the hon. Gentleman must have taken great care in the preparation of his list of the staff. Among other names he included those of "Colonel Strong, Alma and Inkerman; Colonel Wilson, West Indies, Alma and Inkerman," & but when he came to Lord Burghersh, he inserted the fact that that noble Lord was the son of Lord Westmorland, appending to his description the words, "without purchase, staff." The Hon. A. Hardinge was described as "the son of Lord Hardinge," but without any mention being made of his foreign service. If it was necessary to mention the parentage of the officers, or if he only confined it to the sons of Peers, why did not the hon. Gentleman, if he wished to do equal justice in giving the name of Lord Dunkellin, add that that gallant officer was "the son of Lord Clanricarde?" and why did he omit to state that Lord Burghersh and Colonel Hardinge also had both served in India? It so happened that these last two officers had been more service than all the rest put together. Lord Burghersh was present at the Punjaub campaign and also at Goojerat; he was likewise at the Alma, and only prevented from being at Inkerman by having been despatched on other duty which rendered that impossible. At Chillianwallah the 24th Regiment lost nearly the whole of its officers, and Lord Burghersh, who was then serving in another part of India and belonging to a regiment not included in Lord Gough's army, with a high feeling of honour, immediately relinquished his position on the Governor General's staff, and volunteered to serve with the 24th Regiment, with which he fought at the battle of Goojerat. Colonel Hardinge also served on the Sutlej in 1845 and 1846, and was at Moodkee, Ferozeshah, and Sobraon, where he was the only officer out of ten of Lord Hardinge's staff who was not wounded, and yet he had his horse shot under him. The same gallant officer was present at the battles of the Alma, Balaklava, and Inkerman, and served throughout the whole of the siege of Sebastopol. Under these circumstances, why did the hon. Member for Aylesbury draw up his Report in so invidious, and, he would add, disingenuous a manner, in relation to these two gallant officers. If this was the treatment which the officers of the army generally were to expect at the hands of that hon. Member, the House ought wholly to disregard his present attack upon an old and distinguished officer like Sir Richard Airey.

said, he must oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, and he hoped the Committee would not enter into the merits of the questions at issue or the services of the officers who were concerned. He objected to the Amendment on the ground that the Committee could not adopt it without, in his opinion, prejudging the whole case, without prejudicing the public against the officers who had been referred to, and possibly even prejudicing the Board of General Officers. He thought the hon. Gentleman had not put the question before the Committee quite fairly. The question was not whether the Committee should grant to General Airey the reward to which he was entitled for distinguished services, for in that case it might be proper to postpone the vote while an inquiry was pending; but the fact was, that this annuity was voted last year. It was granted to General Airey for his services as Quartermaster General at Alma and Inkerman, and if the Amendment were adopted, its effect would be to suspend a payment of which General Airey had been in receipt for several months past. He thought it was impossible for the Committee to take such a course at the present moment without prejudging the question. The hon. Member for Aylesbury might with equal propriety have declined to vote the salary of the Quartermaster General; for if General Airey was unfit to receive this reward for distinguished services, he must, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, be equally unfit to fill the office of Quartermaster General. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would negative the proposition of the hon. Gentleman.

said, that the Clerk of the Ordnance, on introducing the Estimates, had enumerated several measures adopted with respect to the army during the past year, and which, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, had been beneficial in their operation. He (Lord Hotham) entirely approved the change made with regard to the letting of canteens, a subject constantly pressed on the present Minister for War, when Secretary at War, by the hon. and gallant Member for Wigan, and which would prevent soldiers from being plundered as they had hitherto been. The arrangement for providing recruits with kits at the expense of the Government was one of which nobody at all conversant with the subject could fail to approve. The grant of 6d. a day additional pay to the army in the Crimea was a measure of much more doubtful policy and wisdom, however. The right hon. Gentleman had also alluded to the newly established Order of Valour, and on this subject he (Lord Hotham) particularly requested, for a few moments, the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. When the warrant establishing that order appeared, the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was asked if he would produce copies of any instructions which might be issued with reference to it, and the reply of the noble Lord was, that, in his view, the warrant was perfectly plain, and that no instructions were required for its elucidation. He (Lord Hotham) hoped, however, that the noble Lord would reconsider the opinion he then expressed, for unless clear explanations were given as well to what was, as to what was not, to constitute a claim to this distinction, complaints would constantly be made that the distinction was distributed unfairly and partially. He would remind the Committee of the discussions which had lately taken place with regard to the Order of the Bath, the distribution of which had been carried to so great an extent as to have lost half its value—those who had obtained it complaining of its having been made so general, while those who had not obtained it were disappointed because it had been conferred upon many who were no better entitled to it than themselves. If the new Order were (as the Royal Warrant represented it to be Her Majesty's wish that it should be) highly prized, its distribution would be watched with unusual jealousy, and the Government ought, therefore, to give a clear explanation of the circumstances under which it was to be conferred, in order to avoid complaints and discussions upon the subject, Session after Session, in that House. There were two other points to which he wished to call the attention of the hon. Under Secretary for War. By the regulations of the army, a field officer, becoming a general officer, was not entitled to the full unattached pay of £400 a year unless he had served for six years in that rank; otherwise he was only entitled to the half-pay of his last commission, about £200 a year. But cases had occurred in which this rule was evaded, by giving to general officers not entitled to the full unattached pay, pensions of £100 a year, and then, in consequence of their having these pensions, dealing with them as if they had completed the required period of service. The regulation itself he (Lord Hotham) considered just and proper; but he complained of its violation in the cases of favoured individuals, and the more especially as the effect of such violation was to put an officer not having completed the period of service required, in a better situation than those who had. A short time ago the Commander in Chief or the Secretary for War was empowered to allow a certain number of officers who had served for, he believed, thirty years on full pay, to retire upon full pay, with an additional step in rank. That was a liberal and a very proper provision for officers who had thus deserved well of their country; but a practice had sprung up, by which officers, applying for permission to retire, exacted large sums by way of bonus from their regiments. He thought it would be undesirable to do away with the system of purchase, but he hoped that this practice, which he considered highly reprehensible, and which had worked so prejudicially in the Indian army, would not be imported into England, and he therefore wished to know whether it had the approval of the military authorities?

said, with respect to the first question of the noble Lord, the whole of the regulations with regard to the pay of general officers were contained in the warrant of October, 1854, and a general officer must serve for six years with the rank of a field officer before he got the £400 a year. There were but two exceptions to that rule—one was, if the officer received a military governorship, or received the appointment of major general on the staff. If any such instances as the noble Lord alluded to had occurred, it must have been before the warrant of 1854 was issued. With regard to the question whether he was aware that officers, who desired to retire upon full pay, and received permission to do so, were accustomed to stipulate with the officers of lower grades in their regiment for a bonus to retire, he was not aware of the existence of such an arrangement, but he could understand very well that such an arrangement might exist, as it was important for every officer to got a step of promotion without purchase. He had no knowledge whatever of the arrangement referred to having taken place in any one instance; and it certainly would not receive the approbation of the Government. But with regard to putting a stop to any such arrangement, if it existed, that was another question; for there appeared to him to be no way of doing so but by saying that the promotion in all such cases should go into another regiment, and that would not be an advisable measure to pursue.

said, that, of course he should not give either names or dates, but would simply state that the cases which he had before him, when he asked his first question, were not at all touched by the answer he had just received; however, as he understood from the hon. Gentleman that what he complained of could not occur under the new warrant, he would say no more on the subject. With respect to the second question, nothing could be more easy than for the Commander in Chief to issue an order prohibiting this improper practice, and to exact from every officer applying for leave to retire on full pay, a distinct engagement that such order had not been, or would not be, in his case, directly or indirectly violated.

said, he wished to call attention to the omission of the name of General Freeth, late Quartermaster General, from the list of recent promotions in the Order of the Bath. That gallant officer had served the country for a long term of years, and the whole army felt that something like a slight had been passed upon him.

said, that, according to the Royal Warrant of October, 1855, the Friends of officers killed in action within a certain time after receiving their commissions, were to receive the purchase money of those commissions. In the case of an officer killed at the battle of Inkerman, leaving two sisters and a younger brother, an application was made to the Secretary for War for the value of his commission; but the noble Lord replied that, in consequence of there being a younger brother, he was precluded from granting any allowance. That circumstance, he considered, demanded some explanation.

said, that it was never intended to return the purchase money of commissions to the friends of officers killed in action, except as a substitute for pensions. It followed, therefore, that persons who were not entitled to pensions had no right to the value of commissions. Such must have been the position of the family referred to by the hon. and gallant Admiral.

said, it was impossible for any soldier to enter Kilmainham Hospital unless he were fifty-five years of age. The inmates were, he understood, scarcely able to carry on the business of the hospital from extreme old age; and he wished the Under Secretary for War to consider the propriety of relaxing the restrictions, so as to fill up the number. Soldiers, too, were unwilling to surrender their entire pensions, which they had to do on entering Kilmainham. The out-pensioners were anxious to become in-pensioners, if they could get to Dublin; but there was no fund to assist them, and they were therefore left in the provinces. The annual expenses of the hospital were about £6,000, and only 142 persons were maintained in it? but, by a small increase of expense, 200 or 250 in-pensioners might very well be maintained at Kilmainham.

in moving, by way of amendment, that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £50, the salary of the Roman Catholic Chaplain, said, he objected to this portion of the Vote on conscientious grounds, and did not hesitate to declare that his firm and decided opinion was, that for the State to support the Roman Catholic religion in any way whatever was a national sin. He believed it was wrong for the State to pay for the religious teaching of any nonconformists, its duty being solely to support the National Church; for otherwise it ceases to be the National Church. If they deviated from that principle by paying Roman Catholic priests, upon what ground could they possibly refuse to pay the ministers of any of the denominations: Baptists, Independents, and others? He (Mr. Spooner) appealed to hon. Members belonging to the Church of England especially, and reminded them that by assenting to this Vote they would be paying for a religion whose Ministers were bound to maintain the sacrifices of masses, which are denounced in the Articles of our Church as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits," and against which the Clergy of that Church, as well as the Sovereign herself, are solemnly engaged to protest.

said, the establishment of Kilmainham Hospital was regulated by Royal Warrant, which provided for the support of a Roman Catholic chaplain there. It was not true, however, that spiritual provision had been made for one particular sect, and that the Roman Catholics; for there was also a Protestant chaplain in the institution, with a salary of £250 a year.

Was there any other minister paid than the Roman Catholic chaplain and the chaplain belonging to the Established Church?

No.

Well, that was his argument.

said, he should support the Vote, and would entreat the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) not to divide against it.

said, that if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire divided against the Vote, he should go into the same lobby with him, though upon totally different motives, namely, the voluntary principle.

said, he would remind the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) that a large portion of the army consisted of Irish Roman Catholics, and he must express a hope that he would withdraw his amendment. If his hon. Friend divided the Committee, he should certainly vote against him.

said, he was really surprised at the objections to the Vote. It was only an act of justice to the Catholic soldiers, who had not been backward in the present war, in their service to their Sovereign. Why should not the Irish Catholic soldiers have the spiritual consolation which was given to the soldiers of the Protestant faith? The hon. Member (Mr. Spooner), as a Protestant, was bound to support the right of private judgment. Ought not the Roman Catholic to have the right of exercising that judgment in attending the service of his own Church? Then, again, the hon. Member should bear in mind the Catholic nature of Ireland, was it right to call the religion of so large a portion of Her Majesty's subjects a national sin? Certainly it was not a course likely to ensure the loyalty of those whose religion was so traduced.

said, that the argument put forth in favour of this Vote would, if concurred in by the Committee, be equally good for the establishment and support of the Roman Catholic Church and the payment of the whole priesthood. If it were true that, Ireland being a Roman Catholic country, it was right to act in the case of the whole country as they would act in this particular instance, then they might, with as much propriety, undertake to pay the whole priesthood of Ireland. In the name of Heaven, why did they make this an exception to the ministers of all other denominations? Where was the payment for the Presbyterian minister? They had heard nothing about it. He would ask them whether for a moment they could conceal from themselves the fact that the Church of Rome was of such a character as to render it impossible for them, as the representatives of a free people, to encourage the establishment of that Church in a Protestant country? And if they could not afford, for the sake of the liberties of the people, to establish the Church of Rome, how could they contend for the validity of the Vote now under discussion? Let them look abroad. Let them look to the habits in those countries where the Roman Catholic Church was the established religion. Look at Austria, where, if they could believe the newspapers, an order had been recently issued throughout the whole army for every soldier to confess, and to report that he had done so by the production of the certificate of the priest to the commanding officer, who was himself to make his report to the higher authorities of the country. Was that the kind of system which they wished to establish in this country? If, then, they did not wish to establish that Church, and, knowing its despotic character, why did they put forward one excuse or another in favour of such a Vote as the one in question? If they granted this paltry sum, they should grant assistance to the ministers of all other establishments. He should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.

said, he had always understood that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was the strenuous supporter of the Protestant Church, but he had that night become the advocate of dissent, for he asked how could they think of giving this grant to the Catholic priests in Kilmainham while they refused any grant to the clergy of dissenting bodies. The soldiers in Ireland, who were the supporters of this institution, were principally Catholics. He could not, therefore, understand upon what principle of justice or equity they could refuse means for the inculcation of religion and morality to these poor soldiers after they had fought the battles of their country. He confessed he was extremely sorry to see those religious discussions introduced into that House—discussions which took away their attention from the observations of the hon. Member for Dublin, who stated that there were only 142 pensioners supported in Kilmainham Hospital, at the enormous expense of £6,000. He quite agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member that they should endeavour to make the establishment more serviceable than it really was. He trusted that he should live to see the day when that House would set its face against the introduction of religious discussions—whether those discussions referred to Catholic, Protestant, or Presbyterian chaplains. Such polemical discussions were most unseemly in that House, and were calculated to injure materially the character of the people of this country. He hoped, however, that the people of this country were far too enlightened to allow themselves to be led away by the ill-directed eloquence of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. They were too wise in their generation to entertain such illiberal ideas. The Committee would of course see the justice of this Vote for the benefit of as true and loyal subjects as any in Her Majesty's dominions. He, however, thought that the Government would do well to make this institution more effective than it really was at present.

said, he hoped that the same advantage would be given to officers attending military hospitals as the officers in the navy had in respect to naval hospitals.

said, he wondered that 5,000,000 Catholics in Ireland could come to that House asking for such paltry grants. If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) were put, he would vote with him to strike off the £50 for a Roman Catholic chaplain, and he would then move that the £250 for the Protestant chaplain be also struck off. If Catholics must contribute to pay a Protestant chaplain, how could the hon. Gentleman in fairness resist Protestants contributing to pay a Catholic chaplain? He was opposed on principle to both grants, and would so vote. He insisted that it was a great moral wrong to tax the people for the support of a Church to which they did not belong. Those miserable wrangles scandalised religion throughout the land, and they made infidels by wholesale. Let the contest amongst them be one to show which of the religious denominations was most Christian like and most like their Divine Master, who was reverenced by them all. He should vote as he had stated with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but hoped that, to be consistent, that the hon. Member would follow out his principle by also objecting to the Votes for other chaplains.

said, that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) might consider himself very consistent, but he would remind him that he had already swallowed a camel, and now should not strain so much at a gnat. Looking at the details of this Vote, he saw a charge made for the keeper of the Hypocaust. Now, he would be anxious to ascertain the meaning of this word and what the vote was for. It might be some monstrous heresy, for all he knew.

said, he should now move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £250, paid to the Protestant chaplain at Kilmainham Hospital.

said, this was the largest Vote of the kind ever brought before that House. He found amongst the officers superannuated, forty belonging to the Ordnance Department, and amongst them the name of Mr. Thomas Hastings, who was one of the most efficient servants the Government had. He had served only nine years and a half at a salary of £1,200 a-year, and now he was on the superannuated list with a pension of £400 for his life. He (Col. Boldero) wished to ask how it was that forty officers belonging to the department of the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance had been placed on the superannuated list?

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member must have anticipated the answer he would receive, as he knew an alteration in the War Departments had been made which had occasioned great changes, amongst them the supression of many old offices and the creation of many new ones. In those alterations the places referred to had been filled by persons who had spent a large number of years in the service, but upon their retirement many of those offices had not been filled up. In the course of next year, a considerable number of barrack-masters will be suppressed. He would take that opportunity of correcting an error made on a former evening in answering a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Glamorganshire (Sir G. Tyler). He (Mr. Monsell) thought, from the Return given to him, that the Government purchased the site for a battery at Swansea, but he found that the inhabitants of that place had given the site on which would be erected a small battery.

said, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation on that point, and he now wished to know why a Vote of last year for erecting defences at Swansea did not appear in the Votes of the present year. He wished to know the intention of the Government on that point?

said, the whole question of harbour defences had been referred to a Committee, presided over by Lord Hardinge, and assisted by Sir John Burgoyne, Major-General Cator, and other eminent military authorities. The Government would consider this subject, which was one of great importance. It was worthy of attention as to whether it ought not to be a sine quâ non condition for erecting batteries that the inhabitants should supply sites for them.

said, he could not help thinking that compulsory measures had been taken to make some of the officers of the Ordnance Department retire from the service. Many of the men were efficient, and ought to remain in the service.

was understood to say that no compulsory steps had been taken to make efficient men retire from the service.

said, he must complain that the warrant regulations of the army were not properly issued. He wished to know whether there would be any efficient protection to the officers of the army, so that they might be able to procure them?

said, steps would be taken to have the warrants issued properly and cheaply.

said, he had now to propose the Motion on this subject which had been concurred in by the Government and hon. Members opposite.

said, he could not allow the present Motion to be agreed to without expressing his regret that the discussion on the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had not been proceeded with, as he was sure that, had it gone on, it would have been found that the shipping interest received a full equivalent for what was paid in local dues.

said, that the conduct of the Government with reference to this question appeared to him to be very extraordinary and unbusiness-like. The Royal Commission, appointed in 1853, had sat sixteen months, and presented a voluminous Report to the House. Now he was of those who thought that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade, framed as it was on that Report, would have passed, if Government had persevered with it, because, as he believed, it laid down sound principles. If there was any danger to it, it was not on account of its principles, but because of Government not having fully considered it. Indeed, the opposition which it had met with was chiefly founded on legal objections, and neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General rose to answer them. He did not think that the Law Officers of the Crown had ever been consulted upon it, and he should like to know if a Cabinet Council had ever considered the Bill. They seemed to have left the whole matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and then when the measure was opposed, to leave him in the lurch; and now, when they proposed another Motion upon the subject, they actually adopted the words of an Amendment proposed by the Opposition. Their whole conduct in the matter was most unbusiness-like; and the whole question—one, too, of such importance that it was recommended to the House by a Speech from the Crown—had virtually passed from the conduct of Government into the hands of the Opposition.

said, that that part of the Bill which related to passing tolls had met with general acquiescence, and he wished to know if some arrangement could not be made for introducing a Bill during the present Session dealing with that part of the subject alone?

said, that no doubt the Committee would be at liberty to consider that part of the subject by itself and to report upon it separately.

said, that the conduct of the whole matter had been so arranged as to leave the public out of doors under the impression that the House had pronounced an opinion adverse to the principle which the Government propounded in the Bill. Now he contended that the House had expressed no opinion whatever upon it. He thought those who had advised the withdrawal of the measure had not shown so much confidence in its principle as they ought to have done; for he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had proceeded with it he would have carried it by a large majority. But he wished to understand in what position it was now, and what was the effect of the new order of reference to the Committee? How was the action of the Select Committee now, under ther terms of reference proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) to be different from that which it would have been under the reference originally proposed by the Vice President of the Board of Trade? As far as he could understand the question, the powers of the Committee would be the same in either case, and if that were so, he could not see why the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) should have come forward, and announced another defeat of the enemy, when nothing had been acceded to but a mere change of words. He thought the scope of the inquiry was to be still the same, and he repudiated the assertion that there had been any defeat of the principle of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Stamford had ingeniously brought into the discussion a mention of the sum of £384,000 as having been paid by somebody for the Liverpool town dues. Now for what and by whom was it that that sum had been paid? Why, the City of London—not the Liverpool Corporation—paid that sum to King Charles I. for a thousand manors; and afterwards one of I those manors only was purchased by the Molyneux family, which was subsequently sold by them to the Corporation of Liverpool for £700. But the fact was that the town dues were received by the Corporation of Liverpool long before any dealings took place with the Molyneux family. They were the old port duties, no doubt arising from a grant of the port, long before that time, made to the Corporation of Liverpool. He quite agreed that the property of corporations, as well as of individuals, ought to be respected. The Bill, he maintained, contained the principle, not of confiscation, but of restoration. Its object was, since those dues were originally granted by the King to keep in repair the port of Liverpool, and in the course of time bad been applied to other purposes, now to restore them to the uses for which they were originally bestowed.

said, he thought that was a very inconvenient occasion on which to discuss the principle of a great measure. The right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat said, that the principle of the Bill was restoration and not confiscation; but restoration to whom, he would ask? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one corporation it was actually proposed to take away that property which had been granted 400 years ago, not merely for the repairs of the port, but for the general purposes of the town? As had been well pointed out by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger), they could not import into a Bill of that kind the supposed principle of the Municipal Corporation Act, which was in reality a measure of restoration, and not confiscation. Why, even the Government acknowledged that it could not justify the measure upon such a principle, by the number of special provisions which they inserted in it. From that moment the original principle of the Bill was given up, and in place of it was substituted the determination to deal with each individual case upon its respective merits. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) likewise accused the Government of undue timidity in withdrawing the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Walpole) preferred to think that in doing so they had but observed the old proverb, that "discretion was the better part of valour." For it was plain enough that not merely was there a strong conviction against the Bill on the Opposition side of the House, but that some of the best friends of the Government felt unable to sanction it. He thought, therefore, that the Government had acted fairly and wisely in allowing the measure to be investigated by a Select Committee. He thought, also, that the Government was right in adopting the course suggested by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford, rather than that of the original Motion, for the latter assumed the whole question in dispute by supposing that the recommendations of the Commissioners were generally accepted, whereas the Amendment proceeded upon the notion that the Committee would have to consider how far those recommendations were justifiable.

said, he believed that the public out of doors were fully impressed with the opinion that the Bill, as it stood, ought never to receive a second reading, a conclusion in which he begged fully to participate. The opinion of the House was clearly expressed, and Her Majesty's Government were bound in deference to that opinion to withdraw the Bill upon the second night's debate. He thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford was much to be preferred to the terms of the original reference; for there could be no doubt that, as regarded many of their recommendations, the Commissioners had exceeded their powers, and had simply volunteered a number of suggestions.

said, some observations had been made by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) and by the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed them, which he was unwilling to pass over in silence. They had both said that the House, although not in terms, had expressed its decided opinion against the principle of the measure. Now, if that had been the case, he did not think the Government would have been justified in proposing that a Committee upon the same subject should be appointed at all. That House had neither affirmed nor negatived the principle, as he considered; but the details of the Bill, and the principle of it, were so mingled together that it was impossible to separate them. Now, what would have been the fate of the measure if it had been persisted in, he was not curious to inquire. Whether it would have been carried or successfully resisted, he was certainly not skilled enough in the division lists of that House to offer an opinion. But he was quite ready to state that, in his opinion, there was a degree of opposition in that House offered to the Bill that quite justified the Government in taking the course they had done, so as to enable the House to investigate, not merely the details, but the principles of the Bill, which, as he had said, were so mixed together. And the Government, anxious for the success of that measure, were adopting what he considered the best course for that end, and the course which was most respectful to the House, by asking the House to examine into this question in the only satisfactory manner—by a well constituted Committee. He believed that examination would dispel many illusions and mistakes now prevalent on the subject in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman who opposed the second reading said, why not separate the measure, and pass that part of it which relates to passing tolls, a question resting on distinct grounds? When the question was examined, it would be found that all the argument which could be urged against the rest of the Bill applied to that part also, and that the abolition of those tolls, without compensation, would quickly affect the ratepayers in the boroughs in the same way as the abolition of any of the others. He only wished to protest against the supposition that the Government, by consenting to the appointment of the Committee, had abandoned the principle of the Bill; they only asked the House to consider the principle and the details it involved. On the other hand, he did not mean to say the House had affirmed the principle; it was neither affirmed nor denied, but by referring it to a Committee they would be able to arrive at a conclusion as to the best mode of dealing with it.

said, he could assure the House that the statements of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) would receive a full and satisfactory answer before the Committee. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman assert there was no difference between the proposal of the Government and that of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger). As the Amendment stood the Committee would not be confined to the Report of the Commissioners, but would be entitled to take evidence and enter into the consideration of the whole subject.

said, he was bound in the name of his constituents to complain of the manner in which the Government had dealt with this question. A measure founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission, which had been sitting for nearly two years, recommended in the Speech from the Throne, and introduced by a Cabinet, had been debated for one evening, and then withdrawn in the middle of the debate. It was true that during the first evening the Members who caught the eye of the Speaker were those who were opposed to the measure. The other side was scarcely touched upon; but that was not because there were no Members who were prepared to defend the measure, but because they thought it good tactics to allow their opponents to exhaust themselves before they replied. The second evening's debate would have completely altered the aspect of the question. What, he should like to know, could justify the conduct of the Government in withdrawing the measure? Not because they were defeated on a division, but because, as it appeared, they thought they were beaten in the debate. To make the matter more unaccountable, scarcely a Member of the Cabinet, and no law officer of the Crown, rose to defend the measure. It was the most extraordinary and unaccountable circumstance which he had witnessed during the whole course of his Parliamentary experience. He would not deny that hon. Gentlemen opposite had a triumph as against the Government; but he did deny that the result of the debate had been to show that the opinion of the House or of the country was, as they had inferred from the conduct of the Government, against the principle of the measure. He could speak for his own constituents; he did not believe there were two opinions in the West Riding of Yorkshire on the subject. They were supporters of the Bill; but were they, therefore, to be characterised as persons who were reckless as to the rights of property, and prepared to undermine its very foundations? Liverpool was the keystone to the arch of this iniquitous system of monopoly, injustice, and spoliation; and the case as between his constituents and the corporation of that town was pretty much the case as it affected the whole country. The cutlers and steel manufacturers of Sheffield were importers by way of Liverpool, and as much might be said of the various merchants and manufacturers in Halifax, Bradford, Leeds, and all the other great towns of Yorkshire. And Low was the produce of their industry dealt with in Liverpool? Whether their wares came into Liverpool as raw material, or passed out of it as manufactured articles, in each case a heavy tax was imposed upon them by the corporation of that town. Was ever anything more unjust, more cruel, more alien to the spirit of modern legislation? Export duties, even for the benefit of the Crown, had been long ago abolished. We no longer taxed for that purpose either the raw material or the manufactured article. The Legislature had set its face against the system years ago; but that which the Legislature would not venture to attempt, the Corporation of Liverpool was to be allowed to do unchallenged; and that, too, after whatever fashion and to whatever extent they pleased. Not only did that august body take upon themselves to tax his constituents, but they applied the taxes to purposes altogether different from those originally contemplated, and totally inconsistent with every principle of common justice. Of the £150,000 levied by this monstrous process of local taxation, not £10,000—not £5,000—was expended on such objects as could alone justify the imposition of such tolls. The money was devoted to such purposes as the widening of the streets of Liverpool. Why should not Liverpool widen its own streets? Sheffield, Bradford. Halifax, and Leeds, did so. On what principle, then, of common sense or common honesty could it be contended that they should not only widen their own streets, but those of Liverpool also? The hon. Member for that town had made no scruple of admitting that the money was spent on such works.

I did not say that all the streets were widened, but only those leading to the docks. These had to be widened to facilitate the transit of goods.

Exactly so; and the people of Sheffield have to widen their streets to accommodate their manufactures and to facilitate the operations of their commerce. Their docks were the best investments that the Corporation of Liverpool possessed, and the works connected with them should be executed at the expense of those who alone derived pecuniary profit from them. It was easy to understand why Liverpool should desire the continuance of the present system, seeing that its streets were widened and its municipal arrangements conducted so effectively at the cost of other people that there had been no necessity to levy a borough rate there, as at Manchester and elsewhere, in accordance with the requirements of the Corporation Act. But the time had arrived when such a preposterous abuse should be swept away. Every large manufacturing town in the midland counties—every farmer who obtained his raw produce by way of Liverpool—was interested in this question. The evil had attained such a magnitude as to be no longer endurable. No sooner did a new commodity, previously unknown to the tariff of the Liverpool Corporation—such, for instance, as guano—suddenly make its appearance, than that body pounced upon it, and insisted that, on every bag of it that might be imported by a gentleman or farmer in Staffordshire or Warwickshire, a tax, say of 6d., should be imposed; and they were to be told, forsooth, that gains and practices such as these were as worthy of respect as personal property, and rested on the same foundation. If this was so, all he could say was, that there was no very secure tenure for personal property in this country. But he was not there to advocate the total abolition of those taxes. All he required was, that if they were still to be levied, they should be honestly and rightfully expended, and not grossly misappropriated as at present. If they were laid out for the benefit of commerce, as was contemplated by the project of the Government, he should not have a word to say against them. With such an arrangement his constituents would be perfectly content. They had no fear that if those imposts were in the hands of the Government they would be misapplied; but they had the strongest conviction that, as long as they were under the control of the Liverpool Corporation, they would be subject to flagrant malversation. The only wonder was, that this undefined and irresponsible mode of taxation, not very unlike that which cost an English monarch his life, should find advocates in any assembly of Englishmen, and least of all in that House. In conclusion, he would only observe that, whatever might be thought by the Opposition of the manner in which the question had been dealt with by the Vice President of the Board of Trade, he (Mr. Cobden) was of opinion that that right hon. Gentleman had not argued it in a manner of which he had the least cause to be ashamed; and it was only to be regretted that the Government had not given him a more stedfast support. The right hon. Gentleman had treated the question with signal ability, placing it upon a proper footing, and presenting it in a form which rendered it easy of comprehension to the whole community; and the country would have been true to the Government if it had only been true to itself, which unfortunately it had not.

said, whatever complaints hon. Members might have to make against the Government, he thought the House had some complaints to make of the manner in which those hon. Members had acted. The right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) said he was not fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye when the Bill was discussed. He watched the right hon. Member, and never saw him rise on that occasion. He thought the House had adopted a fair course in adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford. He trusted the Committee would enter on the subject without any bias, and would give the subject that fair consideration which its importance deserved.

said, the people of Liverpool were only desirous that the Committee should go fairly into the subject, and deal with it in a manner that would do justice to all parties.

said, he did not think the fault lay entirely on Government, but the representatives of large towns were to blame in not rising in greater numbers when the subject was debated. He took blame to himself along with the rest. These dues were kept up, not for the purpose of keeping the channel navigable, but to build large halls, and for other municipal purposes. He hoped the Committee would not be asleep, but that they would soon make a report, in order that the matter might be shortly brought forward again.

said, the question had been argued as if it were an exclusively English question; but that was not so, because the tolls were levied on Irish produce.

said, he presented a petition in favour of the Bill, and he thought it most unjust that the hardworking cutlers of Sheffield should be taxed for the erection of St. George's Hall and other public buildings in Liverpool. When the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) next had a special retainer, when he next went to St. George's Hall, let him observe the worm at the root—the tax which was levied upon the poor cutlers of Sheffield for its maintenance.

said, he would now ask leave to bring in a Bill for the improvement of the University and Colleges of Cambridge. He would postpone to a future opportunity a statement of the provisions of the Bill.

said, he hoped that, if the Government were determined to interpose in the matter, the question would be pursued to a conclusion during the present Session, for the suspense in which it was left was a great evil. Had it not been for the interposition of the Government the University would, in the course of the last seven years, have accomplished all the desired objects.

said, he would beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to abolish the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in all matters relating to the probate of wills and grant of letters of Administration, to establish a Court of Probate, and otherwise amend the law in relation to the Administration of the estates of deceased persons. It was necessary to postpone the Bill of last year, because a promise had also been given to introduce two other measures for the purpose of dealing with the entire subject relating to the Ecclesiastical Courts. However, in reference to the Church Discipline Bill considerable difficulties arose; but he was now happy to say, that the Lord Chancellor had that night laid upon the table of the House of Lords a Bill for the improvement of Church discipline, and the noble and learned Lord had also brought in, or would shortly bring in, a Bill on the subject of Marriage and Divorce.

said, he was glad that the Government had adopted the course which he was favourable to last year, of introducing the three measures together, and he trusted that they would be considered solely with reference to their own merits.

said, he begged to ask whether the hon. and learned Member intended to lay his Bill on the table that night? He also wished to know whether the Bill embraced the deeply important question of matters matrimonial, and whether it was still the intention of the Government, by the Bill in question, to transfer the jurisdiction over all those important subjects to the Court of Chancery?

in reply said, that it was his intention to bring in the Bill at once. He trusted that it would be in the hands of Members within three or four days. With respect to matters relating to marriage and divorce, they would form no part of the present measure, but, as he had just said, would constitute the subject of a separate and distinct Bill, either already laid on the table of the House of Lords, or shortly to be introduced there. With respect to the transfer of ecclesiastical and testamentary jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, that was not done by the Bill of last Session, though for the purpose of misrepresentation it was so stated out of doors, and even, occasionally, in that House. The Court proposed to be created was a distinct Court, though armed with the same authority as the superior Courts of Common Law and equity, and would be wholly independent of the Court of Chancery.