said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government had come, or was about to come, to any decision as to the removal of the National Gallery of Pictures from Trafalgar Square to the site recently purchased at Brompton, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of 1854; and whether any, and if so, what, opportunity would be afforded to the House of expressing its opinion on the subject of that recommendation?

said, that the matter to which the question of the hon. Member referred had engaged the earnest consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and had been the subject of investigation by a Committee of that House who sat during three or four months. The result was, that it was the opinion of a large majority of that Committee that the present site of the National Gallery was injurious to the preservation of the collection of pictures there exhibited; that it was in the middle of the town, and it was difficult, if not impossible, to preserve the pictures from injury. The recommendation of the Committee, therefore, was, that the collection of pictures should be removed to that ground at Knightsbridge now appropriated for that purpose. Her Majesty's Government intended to abide by the decision of that Committee, and to take steps for the removal of the National Gallery to that ground. For that purpose it was intended to obtain plans and estimates. Of course, until those plans and estimates were obtained, and until a decision had been come to as to the best mode in which the ground could be prepared for the purpose, no definitive steps could be taken. No arrangements could be made without coming to that House to supply the means, and the subject would therefore necessarily come under the consideration of the House.

said, he desired to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to proceed with the Wills and Administrations Bill? The reason he asked the question was because he had been led to understand that the Bill depended on the Clergy Discipline Bill, which was lately rejected by the House of Lords.

in reply, said that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Wills and Administrations Bills as soon as possible. If the Marriage and Divorce Bill, now in the House of Lords, together with the Testamentary Bill, were passed, the whole of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts would be swept away. There was no connection between the Church Discipline Bill and the Testamentary Bill save, probably, that inasmuch as certain offices were to be abolished, compensation would be given in the proposed Testamentary Bill, which would deal also with officers removed under the Church Discipline Bill.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Secretary to the Treasury whether there was any prospect of the proposed arrangements for accelerating the postal and passenger communication between London and Dublin being completed? Whether any proposals had been made to the Government by the London and North-Western and the Chester and Holyhead Railway Companies, and the city of Dublin Steam Packet Company, for such acceleration, or by the Government to the said Companies for the same purpose? Also, whether the Secretary to the Treasury would have any objection to lay on the table of the House copies of any memoranda, letters, or proposals, that might have passed between the Treasury, the Post Office, and the said Companies, on the subject of postal and passenger communication between London and Dublin, since the issuing of a Treasury Minute, dated 19th October, 1855?

replied, that up to the present time no correspondence had taken place between the Government, on the one hand, and the London and North-Western, and the Chester and Holyhead Railway Companies, and the city of Dublin Steam Packet Company on the other, with regard to the acceleration of the postal and passenger communication between London and Dublin. There were good reasons for the delay which had occurred, but he hoped the time had now arrived when the Government would be able to propose a tender to those Companies in a definite form, and when, in the course of a few weeks, the arrangements for accelerating the communication between London and Dublin would be completed.

said, he would take that opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether any distinguishing mark of honour or reward was to be given to those officers and men who had been engaged in the arduous duty of the trenches, and attacks upon the works of the enemy during the siege of Sebastopol; or whether it was intended that the Crimean medal and Sebastopol clasp, which was bestowed upon all, however employed, was to be the only mark of the enduring constancy displayed by those gallant men through all the hardships and dangers of that protracted siege? Many distinguishing marks of honour and rewards had been given for the various battles that took place during the Crimean war. The Alma, Inkerman, and Balaklava clasps, the Crimean medal, and the Sebastopol clasp had been distributed with a lavish hand; but he did not complain of that, for there were reasons why the whole army actively engaged in the war should partake of the honours bestowed by the country. But he wished to ask the question of which he had given notice, because it related to a body of men who had borne the brunt and hardships of the war, day and night in the trenches, many of whom had been engaged in the attacks on the Redan, in the night attacks, and yet had received no distinctive mark for those services. To illustrate the inequality he could name one young man who was for ninety days and nights in the trenches, from October 1855 to September 1856—who was at the attack on the Redan and at the other battles, and yet had no distinctive mark; while another, who had gone out a few days before the attack, and had only been one night in the trenches, had an equal reward. The Crimean medal and Sebastopol clasp adorned the breast of each; but what had the services and hardships of the one been compared to those of the other? Some distinctive mark surely ought to be given for such services. The struggles to which he had referred, not having taken place under the eyes of the General, the names of those who had distinguished themselves in those attacks had not been given, and hence the reason they were still unrewarded.

said, that there could be no doubt whatever that the duty in the trenches—when the dangers and the difficulties and the privations under which it had been performed were considered—was one of the most arduous duties that a gallant army had ever been called upon to perform, and every one must grate- fully acknowledge that it had been performed by our soldiers with the most generous bravery and zeal. It was, therefore, quite natural for the hon. Member to inquire whether the Government intended to confer any mark of distinction upon that portion of the army which might be called the "hardest worked" portion of the army. In reply, he (Mr. Peel) begged to state that it was intended that the Sebastopol clasp should include this among other services, its object being to reward those who had contributed to the reduction of Sebastopol. Of those who had so contributed none had done more than the officers and men engaged in the trenches. He did not think that it altered the character of that clasp that others wore it whose degree of merit was possibly of an inferior order; nor did he think that it would be possible to give any distinction the principle of which should be that all who wore it should be of precisely the same degree of merit. He could not, therefore, recommend a separate distinction for those who had done duty in the trenches, meritorious as he admitted that duty to have been.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War the intentions of Government as to the constitution of the permanent staff of the militia, in the event of that force being disembodied. In asking the question, he would beg to point out what had been the conduct of the Government in reference to the militia at the close of the last war. It was not until 1829, a period of fifteen years after that time, that it was proposed to make any considerable reduction in the permanent staff of the militia, and in the allowances of officers who had served in it. He would remind the House, that two years ago, when the war commenced, men came forward with alacrity, and left their callings to join the militia, without making any stipulation as to retiring allowances. As regarded the medical men who had joined the militia, the case was especially hard, as the places they quitted for the militia were immediately filled up, and they could not recover their business. At the end of the last war, for fifteen years they were allowed considerable retiring allowances, and at the end of that fifteen years they were allowed minor allowances. He should also like to know whether, what was done in 1814, with reference to the militia, would be the model of what was now to be done?

said, that the question, as to how the permanent staff of the militia should be constituted, and also what gratuity should be given, were matters which at present engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and as soon as a decision had been come to, the result would be communicated to the Lord Lieutenants of counties, and the colonels of the different regiments of militia, and would thus be made known to the public.

who had given notice of a question with respect to the accuracy of a return on the subject of masters in the navy presented to the House in March last, said that he had a small grievance against the Admiralty to which he wished to direct attention. It had nothing to do with the memorable events of Wednesday last, because he had too much experience of the Admiralty to venture out to Spit-head under their guidance. His grievance was the refusal of an act of justice to a meritorious branch of the public service. Last year he called attention to the case of the masters of the Royal navy, whose lives were exposed to every danger, and who were responsible for the navigation of the vessel and for everything that occurred connected with it. Notwithstanding their arduous and meritorious services, those officers had no means of being promoted until an Order in Council was issued which enabled the Admiralty to make them Lieutenants and Commanders. Since the issue of that Order in Council he (Mr. Layard) was anxious to know what had been done in the way of promoting any of those officers; and he, therefore, moved for a return upon the subject. No sooner did that return appear than he received a vast number of letters, complaining of the gross inaccuracies which it contained. Those who had most distinguished themselves had been omitted from it altogether, while the services of others, of a very high order, had only been mentioned in an indifferent manner. Mr. Ball for example—one of the most meritorious officers of this class—took the Penelope off the rocks under a very heavy fire; but his name, although in the despatches, did not even appear in the return. Mr. Williams, again, of the Miranda, was distinguished throughout the whole of the Baltic campaign; he navigated the Miranda in the White Sea, and when compelled by the season to leave there he went into the Black Sea, and buoyed the sea of Azof. That gentleman's services were described in the return as "operations in the White Sea." He (Mr. Layard) confessed that he was indignant, when he saw men, who had done so much for their country, disposed of in such a way. He supposed that some unfortunate clerk would be made the scapegoat for this inaccurate return; and, in fact, he had heard that a supplemental return was to be presented. If he could direct the attention of the House to the subject, and could obtain justice for the meritorious officers to whom he had referred, he should be satisfied.

said, he must beg the hon. Gentleman not to forget the private explanation upon this subject which he (Mr. Osborne) had given him; because, before the hon. Gentleman had called his attention to it, a mistake had been discovered at the Admiralty; and though the hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to cut the ground from under his feet by stating that some unfortunate clerk would probably be made the scapegoat, he (Mr. Osborne) should not lay the blame upon any such person. The error had occurred through the inadvertence of a gentleman at the head of a department, who had been recently appointed, and who was so anxious to furnish the Return that he failed to compare the despatches with the Returns. That gentleman had received a very severe "jobation" before the hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject to him (Mr. Osborne); and when the hon. Gentleman said that a supplemental Return was promised, the fact was that it had been ready seven days ago, and that if anybody were to blame for its non-appearance, it was the printer. He had informed the hon. Gentleman who was so desirous of making captious criticisms on the Admiralty, privately, on his honour, that it was a mistake. The hon. Gentleman knew that—he knew it a week ago; and under the circumstances he (Mr. Osborne) could not admire the spirit which dictated such an attack as had just been made at a moment when the Admiralty was perhaps a little unpopular.

said, he rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the statement made on Monday night that, while no day of thanksgiving or special form of prayer had been proposed on the restoration of peace, inasmuch as the conditions of the said peace had not as yet been formally ratified, preparations for expenditure on a large scale had been authorised by the Secretary of State for the War Department in celebration of the above mentioned event. As to the mere question whether rejoicing should or should not take place in the shape of fireworks and illuminations, upon that he did not intend to touch. There existed with regard to that subject some diversity of opinion, but as to the existence of a feeling of deep and universal gratitude that the country was spared the repetition of the horrors of war no doubt could possibly be entertained. It was a question which affected every Member of that House, and which went to the heart of every man, woman, or child throughout the whole length and breadth of the land. The deep feeling which he entertained upon the subject would, he trusted, be his authority for bringing the question before the House, for he felt it to be his duty to respectfully press upon the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers the expediency of authorising some public expression of the nation's gratitude in the shape of prayer before the contemplated public rejoicings should take place. He should not contend that an absolute necessity existed for setting aside a whole day for the purpose—although upon that point his individual opinion was very strong; but he thought that the Government should advise Her Majesty that she be graciously pleased to issue Her Order in Council, directing that some form of prayer, and it might be as simple and as short as possible, should at all events be used in our churches upon the Sunday preceding the proposed general rejoicings. Such an Order would, he believed, be heartily responded to by the members of all classes and creeds. And he might observe that in Paris, St. Petersburgh, and other continental cities, such expression of the national gratitude for the restoration of the blessings of peace had already been manifested. He trusted that we should not show ourselves to be less thankful for the return among us of those blessings.

said, he very much regretted that any misapprehension should have been occasioned by an answer which he had given on a former occasion to a question which had been addressed to him upon the subject. He had been asked the other night by an hon. Member what day it was proposed to set apart as a day of thanksgiving for the restoration of peace, and he hoped that there was nothing in the answer which he had given which implied that he did not feel as deeply as the hon. Gentleman who made the inquiry that there was ample cause for gratitude at the termination of the war. He had stated, if he remembered rightly, that there was no precedent for the appointment of a day of thanksgiving until a peace had been ratified, and that it would be premature to appoint one. It had hitherto been the uniform practice, on the restoration of peace, to adopt some means of displaying publicly the gratitude of the people of the country, and it certainly was not the intention of the Government to deviate from that practice upon the present occasion, and, in fact, his noble Friend at the head of the Government had been in communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury upon the subject. It was obvious that, if Her Majesty in Council directed a general thanksgiving, it would not take any considerable time to prepare a form of prayer for the occasion, and, indeed, the preparation of such a form of prayer might be going on without the public being aware of it; while, as regarded the display of fireworks, some time must elapse before the necessary preparations, and those preparations must be open and patent to all. He could only add that it was the intention of the Government to advise Her Majesty to appoint a day of public thanksgiving, and it was not improbable that that thanksgiving would be offered up before the display of fireworks, to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Byng) referred, took place.

said, he rose to ask for some explanation as to the intention of Her Majesty's Government of sending troops to Canada. There had been some days back an announcement in The Times newspaper that it was the intention of the Government to send 10,000 men to Canada, and there was an article in that paper assigning certain reasons for that line of policy; and on the same evening, in answer to a question which had been put in another place, Lord Panmure gave a different version of the matter. Lord Panmure stated that the sole intention of the Government was merely to send back to Canada those regiments and munitions of war which had been drawn from that colony under the temporary exigencies of the war, and thus to restore things to the same condition in which they were before the war broke out. Now, most assuredly, in his opinion, some further explanation was necessary, in order that the public should be fully informed as to what was intended, because it had not always been proved that the information of the War Department was better than that of the press. Taking, however, the statement of Lord Panmure to be perfectly correct, some further explanation was still necessary, because the troops were withdrawn from Canada, it was his belief, in accordance with the new system of colonial policy, and not to meet a temporary emergency. When the troops were withdrawn, it was said that the measures which had been passed, giving to the colonists power of self-government, would enable a portion of the British troops to be withdrawn from the colonies, and that our army being kept together, instead of being scattered over the world, it would obtain greater efficiency. He wished to know whether or not it was now intended to depart from that principle? and if it were intended to do so the present time, he considered, was most ill-chosen for the experiment. He could not imagine anything more mischievous, or more calculated to prevent the relations of this country with the United States becoming of a more friendly character, than anything which could be construed into a threat. The sound sense of the inhabitants of the United States was decidedly in favour of a good understanding with Great Britain; but the Americans possessed a high spirit, and were extremely susceptible; and he did not know any people in the world less likely to be coerced by a threat. The West Indian squadron had been increased, and what was the result? Why, in the American Senate £1,000,000 of money was immediately voted for an increase of naval armaments, and if troops were now sent to Canada the United States would immediately increase their military power, and so the two countries would go on in the endeavour to outrival each other at a most ruinous expense to both. There was another point to which he wished to refer. It had been reported that it was the intention of the Government to land a body of troops at Costa Rica to act against General Walker, and he wished to be informed if there was any truth in that report?

I must say, Sir, I am not aware of that similarity and rivalry of official authorities to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—namely, the War Department on the one side, and the newspapers on the other. Whatever is stated by the War Department the hon. Gentleman may take to be true. What is stated in the newspapers he must judge of according to the best of his ability. All I mean to say is, the Government will not undertake the responsibility of whatever is published through channels of that kind. With regard to the alarm which the hon. Gentleman has stated to exist, founded upon these rumours, coming through those left-handed official sources to which I have referred, I really cannot understand upon what foundation any such alarm can be felt. My hon. Friend stated that he understands 10,000 men are to be sent to the British North American provinces. In the first place, that is a gross exaggeration. But I am not aware, even if that number were going, that any man in his senses could imagine that that force was intended to attempt an invasion of the United States. No man who is at all aware of the magnitude, the population, the resources, the public spirit, the warlike spirit of the United States, will seriously dream that, with a force of 10,000 men, any portion of their territories could be invaded. It is well known that when the war began, our army being on a very low peace establishment, it became necessary to resort to every possible means and to every possible quarter for the purpose of rapidly augmenting the force of our army in the East, and among other expedients resorted to was that of stripping our North American provinces of almost every regular soldier that was there. The war being fortunately ended, and the army being now at our disposal, it is our intention to send back to our North American colonies, not 10,000 men nor 6,000 men, but something approaching 4,000 men, to serve as a basis for the proper defence of the military posts there. [Mr. LAING: The troops are not going to Canada only.] My hon. Friend reminds me—but I think I can hardly be misunderstood—that these troops are going not to Canada only, but to all our wide- extended North American provinces. My hon. Friend says it was understood that these provinces were to be thrown upon their own resources for all possible means of defence. I can never believe that will be the policy of the Government. I believe it to be a very injudicious policy. It is expecting too much of a population of the description of that which inhabits our colonies in America. You may rely, no doubt, upon the loyalty, upon the attachment, upon the zeal, upon the courage of the population of those colonies; but they are all engaged in occupations of industry in developing the great natural resources of the land they inhabit, and you cannot expect such a population to devote themselves to permanent military duties. An excellent militia they will undoubtedly afford—a militia meeting during a few days in the year to seek military instruction, which, if occasion called them to defend the land of their birth, would turn out and perform military deeds with all the honour, zeal, and courage which belong to the race from which those people are descended. But it is impossible—and I am sure no military man will think it possible—that a force of that kind, so organised, so maintained, can be a sufficient defence to garrison places such as Quebec, unless there be also the foundation of a regular army on which they may rally and support themselves, and which will serve as an example to them in point of discipline and organisation. That is all Her Majesty's Government are about to do, and I really think any person who raises a cry of alarm that we are going to invade the United States, when we are only sending some 3,000 or 4,000 men to occupy the military posts of Quebec and Montreal, is creating an idle speculation, unworthy of serious consideration, and idly trifling with the feelings of the country. That which we are doing I hold to be the duty of a responsible Government to do. Having these valuable provinces, whose loyalty and attachment to this country, whose public spirit and devotion to the general interests of the empire it is impossible too highly to praise, it is the duty of a responsible Government, I maintain, not to leave those colonies without some foundation for the military support of the defensive militia which they are now occupied in forming, and which, no doubt, will do honour to them, as well as be advantageous to the mother-country. Then my hon. Friend asks whether we are going to land 10,000 men—10,000 more men, I suppose—at Costa Rica. I can assure him, if he has seen that report in any quarter whatever, it has not yet come to my cars, and he may rely upon it that it is entirely without foundation, and should, it be repeated, my hon. Friend can contradict it upon my authority.

said, he had listened with the greatest possible pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Byng), which, in tone, reflected the utmost possible honour upon his religious principles, and thought that these observations deserved to be embodied in some substantive resolution of the House. He had always abstained from making Motions or raising questions which, during the progress of the war, were likely to embarrass the Government, because he considered them entitled to every possible assistance. The war was now brought to a conclusion, and peace was obtained; but it was, undoubtedly, not the peace desired by the people of this country. Indeed, the manner in which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had announced it to that House, as well as the mode in which it had been communicated to the Members of the other branch of the Legislature, was a recognition of its advent so slight that it would appear to find but little favour even with Her Majesty's Ministers themselves. The Government, however, had since begun to think better of it, and were about to enter upon its celebration by a largo display of fireworks. Now that, in his opinion, was a very singular way of spending the public money, and hitherto no information had been afforded as to the amount of the expense or the department responsible for it. It was treated simply as a matter in the hands of the Government, but he trusted, if his motion had no other effect, it would secure recognition of the fact that the finances of the country were not to be thus dealt with. He had thought it more respectful to the hon. Gentleman who first called attention to the subject, that the Motion should be as nearly as possible in his own terms, and he would therefore beg to move, as an Amendment upon the Motion for adjournment—

"That, considering no day of thanksgiving has been proposed for the restoration of peace, on the ground that the Treaty has not yet been ratified, the conduct of her Majesty's Government in authorising preparations and expenditure on a large scale to celebrate the cessation of hostilities, without the previous sanction of Parliament, is a course which the House cannot approve."

said, that the Amendment of the noble Lord was quite irregular. On the question that the House should adjourn to Monday, hon. Members had a right to speak on any question they pleased; but the only Amendment which could be moved was, that the House should adjourn to some other day than Monday.

said, that under those circumstances, he would give notice that he would move his Amendment as a substantive Motion on Monday next.

said, he could not allow this subject to drop without saying that he thought the noble Lord had expressed the feelings of many Members of that House in a manner which was exceedingly well suited to the occasion. In his (Lord Blandford's) opinion, our thanks were due to the Disposer of events, not only on account of the restoration of peace, but also for the signal mercies which had accompanied the British army through the whole course of the expedition to the Crimea. Instances of such mercies were particularly to be found in the battle of Inkerman and the attack upon Sebastopol. Those events, together with others which had occurred in the course of the campaign, were such as to call for an earnest expression of thankfulness on the part of the nation, and the Government would stand higher in the national estimation if it took the initiative in regard to the appointment of such a thanksgiving.

said, that in order to give the First Lord of the Admiralty an opportunity of explaining the cause of the gross mismanagement which had been exhibited in connection with the accommodation provided for both Houses of Parliament to visit the review on Wednesday last, he should ask him whether the Transit, which had been placed at the disposal of the other House of Parliament on Wednesday last, was the same vessel which broke down on going into Plymouth, broke down again on leaving that port and ran into Brest, and then went on to Gibraltar and broke down there? Perhaps the right hon. Baronet would also explain whether it was true that 700 or 800 delicate ladies had to remain on board the Himalaya all night without any place to sleep—almost without any place to sit down in. The Government ought to explain what had been the cause of all this gross mismanage- ment, and why, if they invited that and the other House of Parliament to see a review—which he (Mr. Lindsay) had previously said he believed to be a useless show—they did not make proper arrangements for their accommodation.

I have waited, Sir, until the last moment before addressing the House on this subject, in order that I might not interfere with the question of which notice had been given, and because I thought it desirable that I should hear the charges which might be made before I proceeded to make any observation on the matter. After what had occurred in this and the other House of Parliament last evening, when I had no opportunity of replying, I was most anxious to make a statement to the House, and that statement I should have made even had not the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth addressed to me these questions. I hope the House, therefore, will give me its attention, because it is necessary not only for the justification of the Board of which I am a member, but also, for the satisfaction of hon. Gentlemen themselves, that I should enter, even at some length, into the details of the arrangements which were made by the Government, and I hope that I shall be able to show that on our part, at least, nothing was omitted which could conduce to the comfort of both Houses of Parliament. No persons can have been more grieved at what took place than was every Member of the Board of Admiralty and myself in particular, inasmuch as no persons had so great an interest in the general success of the splendid demonstration which we had been mainly instrumental in calling into existence. We should regret those occurrences the more if we had not taken every means in our power to cause everything connected with that review to pass off as well as possible; and I think, at all events, we have succeeded in showing that the country has good reason to be proud of that display of her naval strength which was exhibited on Wednesday. Great exertions had been made both in Her Majesty's building yards and in the private yards of those contractors who were employed to build a larger number of vessels of war than at one time it was thought could have been provided, as well as by those other contractors who had provided what was still more extraordinary, the large number of steam-engines which were required; and the Admiralty, which had been the means of exciting the contractors to these great exertions, had a pardonable feeling of pride in what had been done, and were most anxious that the country, and more particularly the two Houses of Parliament, who had placed at their disposal the means of providing the enormous fleet which was assembled at Spithead, should have the best opportunities of witnessing the result of our labours. I think, therefore, that the House will admit that we were the persons most interested in the display, and I hope I shall be able to show that, so far as depended upon us, every order was given and every precaution was taken to insure that every hon. Member and every other person who went down under the charge of the Admiralty should see it to the best advantage. I must, however, beg hon. Members to remember that there are two elements—time and tide—over which we had no command, and that with regard to the conveyance of persons from London to the port of embarkation we had but a very limited control. We did all that was in our power to provide that proper arrangements should be adopted by the railway company for the conveyance of the Members of both Houses of Parliament, but it was not for us actually to carry out those arrangements. The review, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, was originally intended to have taken place rather more than a week ago; but I found that, if the review had been then held, in consequence of the state of the tide the manœuvres must have commenced at so early a period of the day that it would have been necessary for persons who intended to witness the proceedings of the fleet to leave London soon after midnight. I represented this to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to sanction the postponement of the review for a week, in order that visitors from London might not be subjected to inconvenience. I went down to Portsmouth along with my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir M. Berkeley) and we found that, in consequence of the state of the tide, the period which could be devoted to the evolutions of the fleet on the day appointed for the review would be about six hours—between eleven o'clock and five o'clock. Before I state generally the arrangements that were made I will notice some of the complaints which, I observe, were made here and elsewhere last night with reference to those arrangements. Com- plaint has been made that the members of the two Houses of Parliament were embarked at Southampton and not at Portsmouth. Well, I can only say that our reason for making that arrangement was simply because we believed it would be most convenient for the two Houses. The question of time was so essential that, as the commencement of the review depended upon Her Majesty's arrival, we thought we should best consult the convenience of all parties by doing everything in our power to insure Her Majesty's embarkation at the appointed hour, and the dockyard at Gosport was reserved exclusively for Her Majesty and those attached to the Royal suite. The two ports of embarkation for the public were therefore Portsmouth and Southampton. There was every reason for believing that by far the greatest crowding and inconvenience would be experienced at Portsmouth, because a large number of naval officers, with their families, were residing in that town and its immediate neighbourhood, and there could be no doubt that they, along with numerous friends, would be most anxious to witness the spectacle. The great mass of people who took an interest in the fleet, and who were desirous to witness the review, were collected at Portsmouth, and I do not know that I can give a better test of what we believed would be the comparative numbers embarking at each port than the fact that we made arrangements for despatching twenty-three steamers for spectators from Portsmouth, and only six from Southampton. As, therefore, the large number of persons connected with the town of Portsmouth, or resident in the neighbourhood, or who might resort there from other points in order to witness the review, was certain to occasion inconvenient crowding, we thought the best course would be that visitors from London should embark at Southampton, where they were less likely to be incommoded by the pressure of crowds than would be the case at Portsmouth. Another consideration which influenced us in making this arrangement was, that the pier at which passengers embark at Portsmouth is half a mile or three quarters of a mile from the station, while at Southampton the trains discharge their passengers within 200 or 300 yards of the wharf. I have a lively recollection of the naval review which took place two years ago, and I remember on that occasion the great difficulty and confusion occurred in getting from the Sallyport or the Dockyard to the railway station, and that such inconvenience was experienced in a far less degree at Southampton than at Portsmouth, in consequence of the smaller distance at the former town between the points of arrival by railway and of embarkation. Another consideration which influenced our decision was, that the distance is less between London and Southampton than between London and Portsmouth, and we thought it fair to both Houses of Parliament to subject them to the least possible inconvenience so far as we were concerned. It was, however, as I have previously said, no part of our business to provide for the conveyance of hon. Gentlemen from the railway station to the ships' sides, and I think it will be admitted that the shorter the distance I between the station and the ships' sides the less inconvenience were passengers likely to experience. At Southampton, as I have said, the railway station is within about 300 yards of the wharf, and we therefore thought that Southampton would be the most convenient point for the embarkation of the Members of both Houses of Parliament.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they might not have been embarked at the Clarence Yard, at Portsmouth?

Sir, the Clarence Dockyard was reserved exclusively for the use of Her Majesty and the persons who immediately accompanied her; and if that dockyard had been open to other persons, we could not have secured that accuracy of time for Her Majesty's embarkation which was absolutely essential in carrying out the proposed review, which must, as I have already stated, have taken place between the hours of eleven and five o'clock in the day time. Southampton had, for all these reasons, been selected as the port of embarkation for the Members of the two Houses of Parliament; and I must here observe, that when I informed the House on a preceding evening of that selection, I heard no objection whatever made to it. I now come to the vessels we had chosen for conveying the Members of the two Houses of Parliament. These were the Transit for the Members of the House of Lords, and the Perseverance for the Members of the House of Commons. Some alarm was expressed with reference to the latter vessel, and questions were put to me on the subject in this House, which I answered. Similar questions were subsequently asked, and I gave an answer, which has been characterised as discourteous, to an inquiry addressed to me by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. O. Stanley). I can only say that it was far from my intention to act discourteously to my hon. Friend; but, if my answer was in any degree discourteous, I must assure my hon. Friend and the House that if they were acquainted with the vexations to which I was subjected in connection with the arrangements relating to the review they would make some allowance for me if I replied with discourtesy to a question which I had answered fully and completely on the previous day, and which was founded on reports which, I believe, were utterly groundless. I hope those Members of the House of Commons who embarked on board the Perseverance have had no reason to complain of the inefficiency of the vessel, or of any want of regard for their comfort. I learn from Captain Macdonald that the Perseverance arrived at Southampton, on her return, at half-past six o'clock, and that every Member had left the vessel at a quarter before seven. Considering the unfortunate delay which took place in the morning, I think, therefore, that time was as punctually kept with regard to the return as could have been expected. The other vessel employed was the Transit. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) seems to think, that because a vessel once met with an accident, no matter how well she might afterwards have been repaired, she must for the future be considered utterly inefficient for the performance of any duty. Now, I should have thought my hon. Friend must have known better than that. The accident had happened to the boilers of the Transit somewhere about a year ago, and since that time she has undergone complete repair. She was reported perfectly fit for service on the 25th of March last, with the single exception that one of her airpumps was affected, but that circumstance in no way injured her boilers. The only result of it would be, that it would reduce her speed—[Laughter]—I am not going to conceal anything—that it would reduce her speed from eleven knots to ten knots an hour. The defect, in fact, was considered a matter of such slight importance that she was reported as about to go to the Crimea, and she would have gone had she not been required on the occasion of the review.[A laugh.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I take leave to inform them that she will go to the Crimea, and I have not the slightest expectation that her machinery will not be found in the most efficient order. A notion has prevailed that some of her machinery was defective on Wednesday. On hearing that this morning, I immediately sent a telegraphic message both to Captain M'Dougal, the inspector at Southampton, and to Sir George Seymour, at Portsmouth, and the answer of both was to the effect that there was no defect in her machinery of any sort or kind. What really did happen to her on Wednesday was, that her fires were let out. That, of course, was a piece of gross negligence on the part of the persons in charge of the vessel. But I hope hon. Gentlemen will see that it was one of those incidents for which it would be impossible to expect that the Board of Admiralty should have issued any order for preventing such a casualty. But it is only fair to the officer in command of the Transit to state what his character is. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) spoke the other night in very high terms of Captain Macdonald, the commander of the Perseverance. I can assure the House that Captain Johnson, the commander of the Transit, is an officer whose character stands as high as that of any man in the navy. He is covered with medals; he served in the most distinguished manner under Sir Charles Napier in the Syrian war; he commanded a steamer for three years in the Pacific, where his good conduct was such that he not only obtained the approbation of the Admiralty, but was thanked by the British merchants in California, and by Lloyd's at home; and he was selected by a private company to command one of their large steamers, which he did during the first year of the war. He then re-entered the Queen's service, and, with his high character, was appointed to the command of the Transit. I firmly believe that there is no officer of a higher character in the navy, and upon that ground he was appointed to the command he now holds. When I heard this morning of what took place on Wednesday I sent an order by telegraph that an inquiry should immediately be instituted for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of so great a piece of negligence as that which allowed the fires to go out altogether, or get so low that it was impossible to raise sufficient steam. It was owing to no fault or defect in the machinery; but I admit it was a most unfortunate occurrence, although I hope hon. Gentlemen will see, as I have just said, that it was not one that could be provided for by any orders issued from the Admiralty. We certainly never thought of instructing the commander of the Transit. to caution his engineers to be careful not to let their fires out. It had been asked why it was thought indispensably necessary to provide such large vessels for the accommodation of the two Houses of Parliament. Do hon. Gentlemen remember the circumstances under which the review took place two years ago? It was in the middle of summer; the weather was exceedingly fine and settled, and we had no great scruple in sending a large number of persons on board the different vessels without providing for foul weather. But in the present month, as hon. Gentlemen know, the weather is not settled, and we therefore thought it necessary to make provision accordingly. We provided vessels in which, if the weather should be found bad, the passengers might be accommodated on the under-decks, where they could witness the spectacle without inconvenience or discomfort. Moreover, two years ago the number of tickets issued to the House of Lords was only 150, whereas on the present occasion it was 400. The number issued to the Rouse of Commons two years ago was 220; on the present occasion it was 450, or, in fact, any number that hon. Members might choose to apply for. Hence it was indispensably necessary to provide larger vessels than those provided on the former occasion. So much for the accommodation at Southampton, and for the Transit and Perseverance. If the House will bear with me, I will read to them the orders given by the Admiralty, which, I think, will show that we neglected no precaution, even to the most minute detail, that could promote in any degree the comfort and convenience of hon. Gentlemen. This was the order sent to Sir George Seymour—

"April 10.

"H. M. S. Transit will embark the House of Peers, and the Perseverance the House of Commons at Southampton, at nine o'clock A. M. of the 23rd instant. Both ships to be there early on the 22nd, or on the previous day. The Commanders of these vessels are to direct the mili- tary stewards to provide breakfast, and also a cold collation during the day, to include sherry, beer, and soda water, for the following number of persons, and at the expense of the Admiralty:—Transit, 400 persons; Perseverance, 450. The necessary plates, &c., must be hired for the occasion. The spare spars, &c., are to be landed from these vessels to afford more space, and tables are to be on the main decks, also platforms round the ships to afford accommodation for those who will be on board. Sir George Seymour to give the necessary orders, and my Lords trust the Commanders of these vessels to give every assistance in their power to carry out the proposed arrangements in a satisfactory manner. Each vessel to carry a distinguishing flag at the fore on the 23rd instant—namely, Transit, white, with blue cross; Perseverance, blue."

On Friday, the 18th, the captain of the Transit wrote the following letter to Capt. Milne:—

"H. M. S. Transit, Friday, April 18.

"My dear Sir,—I have written to the Commander in chief that the dockyard men will have completed as on Saturday evening (to-morrow), and requesting a Southampton pilot. Wines, &c., are on board, and everything in a fair way, promising to turn out well. We have ample room on maindeck to sit down 450 at one time, and could make a few more seats in case of necessity.

"Very faithfully yours,

. R. JOHNSON.

There was a great complaint as to the want of tea on board. Captain Johnson adds:—"We shall have hot water for the million." But the real point upon which, in my opinion, the whole difficulty turned, was the conveyance from London to Southampton. If the conveyance had been performed as we had every reason to suppose it would he, I am convinced no inconvenience would have arisen. Of course it was not our duty to provide for that conveyance, but we communicated with the Managing Director of the railroad, and I hold in my hand a paper which he sent to us stating what he was prepared to do. Here it is:—

"Train No. 3, with the Members of the House of Peers and House of Commons. To leave London for Southampton at 7 A. M., and to arrive about 9.15 A. M., returning from Southampton about 6.30 P. M."

We had several interviews with Mr. Scott, the Manager of the railway. Captain Milne, to whom the details of the arrangement were entrusted, saw him several times, and I myself saw him once. Captain Milne sent him a return of the number of persons who were to be conveyed by the special train two or three days before it was to start, and every possible information was given to him which could enable him to make his arrangements in the most perfect manner. So late as Tuesday morning—the morning before the review—Captain Milne saw Mr. Scott, and informed him how anxious we were that no delay should take place, or inconvenience be caused to hon. Members in their conveyance to Southampton. Mr. Scott assured Captain Milne that he need be under no apprehension whatever—he had taken every precaution in his power, all would be right, and we might depend upon the train delivering its cargo, if I may say so, at the time specified in the paper which we held in our hands. I really do not know what more we could have done to ensure the proper and comfortable conveyance of the two Houses from London to Southampton. Having thus taken precautions that hon. Gentlemen should arrive at Southampton in proper time, we next wrote to the Mayor of Southampton, begging that he would have a free passage kept from the railway station to the wharf side. Here is the memorandum on the subject:—

"April 20, '56.

"Write to the Mayor of Southampton and request that such facilities as may be in his power to grant may be made for the embarkation of Members of the House of Peers and Commons, and request that a clear passage may be made and kept from the railway station to the dock, and Captain M'Dougal has been requested to communicate with him on the subject."

I understand that it has been said that no person was authorised to superintend the embarkation of the House of Commons at Southampton. In answer to this I can only say, that Captain M'Dougall, an old and experienced officer, who has been long charged with the embarkation of troops at that port, was informed, so long ago as the 10th of April, that the Houses of Lords and Commons would embark at Southampton on the 23rd, and he was desired to make the necessary arrangements for conveying them on board. We knew perfectly well that the vessels in which the Houses were to embark must lie at a certain distance from Southampton on account of the state of the tide, and we directed Captain M'Dougal to hire vessels which could lie at the wharf side to transport the Members to the Transit and the Perseverance. He reported that he could only hire two vessels, upon which we ordered three others immediately from Portsmouth, and early on Wednesday morning he had, independently of the Harbinger, four steam vessels of a small draught of water, capable of conveying both the Houses and every one connected with them, in one trip, on board the larger vessels. Among those four vessels were the Alban, the Widgeon, and the Monkey. Captain Milne wrote the whole of these arrangements to Captain M'Dongal. Captain M'Dougal was at the Admiralty on Wednesday morning, and Captain Milne then went through the whole of the details orally with him. I saw him myself, and I told him that we depended upon him to arrange the embarkation of both Houses of Parliament. Commander Macdonald, of the Perseverance, was in town on Monday morning, and I saw him also, and explained everything that was to be done. I gave him one of the charts which hon. Gentlemen have seen, and I pointed out to him on the map where he was to go. Neither Captain M'Dougal nor Commander Macdonald expressed the slightest doubt of the whole arrangements being carried out, provided that the train arrived at or about the time stated by the railway officials. According to their calculation, it might take about half an hour or three quarters of an hour to put the passengers on board the large vessels. We allowed an hour, and we had a right to calculate that they would be on board the large vessels by ten o'clock. Supposing that they had been on board by half-past ten, there would have been ample time to see the whole review. When on board the large vessels they were precisely the same distance from the west end of the line as it was from Portsmouth to the west end of the line—namely, eight miles. The course which was prescribed for them was this:—They were to go to the west end of the line; to pass between the lines to the head of it; they were then to wait till the Queen's yacht arrived, and were to take their places as near the Queen's yacht as they conveniently could. They were then to follow the Queen's yacht till she had passed through to the pivot ships, taking a similar position; and, returning with the Queen's yacht, they were to pass along the whole line of floating batteries and mortar boats; and they would thus have seen everything that the Queen saw. From this statement it will be seen that they ought to have had an hour's start of the Queen's yacht. These were the orders which were given, and I really do not see in what respect the general plan could have been improved. At eleven o'clock on Monday night Captain Milne attended at the Admiralty, and looked over all the orders to see whether anything had been omitted, and he could discover nothing. To provide against the possibility of any contradictory orders being issued at Portsmouth, I myself went down at seven o'clock on Tuesday morning, and communicated the whole plan to the admiral there. Some doubt being entertained at Portsmouth as to the feasibility of the boats containing the two Houses passing between the two lines—and as I thought it essential that they should do so—I wrote down the order with my own hand, and the admiral sent it over to Captain M'Dougal at Southampton. In addition to this, I went to see that the fleet was in proper order, and the Himalaya having come down, I sent for Captain Priest, and, explaining the plan of the four small boats and the Harbinger, asked if he anticipated that there would be any difficulty in the passage from Southampton to Spithead; and he said that under the circumstances detailed there could be none. I then wrote a private letter to Captain M'Dougal, telling him that the vessels containing the two Houses of Parliament were to pass between the two lines, but that their doing so depended upon the time of their starting, and I begged him to see that the passengers were embarked as soon as the train arrived. Those were the orders and those were the arrangements. Public orders were given to the effect that I have stated, and they were enforced by a private letter explaining them in greater detail. Most of the parties we actually saw ourselves, and we explained to them what was to be done; and I declare now, looking back, I do not know what other order could have been issued from the Admiralty to insure the arrangements being carried out, so far as they depended upon us; and sorry, vexed, and annoyed, as I am, that this mistake should have occurred, and that the result should have been so unsatisfactory, I really declare that I canot charge myself, or any member of the Board of Admiralty, with having omitted anything which in the way of precaution or foresight should have been done to insure the arrangements being carried out. I may be asked, perhaps, what became of those four tenders. Upon this subject I can only state what my impression is; and I will read an extract from a letter which I have received from a person perfectly unknown to me, which I think explains the occurrence. He states that, intending to embark in the Himalaya, he went down in the earliest special train from London which followed soon after the six o'clock train. He says that on the way they were delayed by what I suppose I must call an "ordinary" train. [An hon. Member: It was the "Parliamentary train."] Oh! I am told that it was the "Parliamentary" train that stopped the way. They were obliged to wait till the "Parliamentary train" could be shunted, and the consequence was that they arrived very late at the station. He goes on:—

"I have described the train which impeded the first special train in the morning. When we were at length enabled to pass it, I presume it took its own place on the main line again, and offered the same impediment to the following special trains as it had offered in the first instance to our own. That was called the 'breaking down' of an engine. The engineer of that train simply did his duty in getting it forward how he could and as quickly as he could. When the company for the Himalaya arrived at Southampton it was within, perhaps, three-quarters of an hour of the time fixed for the embarkation of one or other of the Houses of Parliament. How was Captain M'Dougal to know that they would arrive at the time appointed? Upon speaking to him, which I did twice in the course of the night upon the subject, his reply was, 'The House of Peers or the Commons were expected to arrive at the time you actually reached the barricade, and I thought it only reasonable that they should have the preference of you; but when I had waited a long time and found the Legislature did not make their appearance, and with an angry crowd of gentlemen before me, I could keep the tenders idle no longer, and sent them full to different ships.' Was not that a very natural thing for the gallant officer to do under the circumstances? As to the wooden barricade, he said he had nothing to do with it. So, then, it comes to this, the gallant officer was left in perfect ignorance of everything that had occurred to delay the trains by the railway authorities, and I and others who could have enlightened him were prevented from approaching the pier by a wooden barricade, erected by the Southampton authorities, no doubt from the best motives. Had the first special train kept its time, no doubt the four tenders would have been at the disposal of the company. They would have been enabled to return in time for the succeeding trains, and everything would have been in order. I have now stated to you briefly my observations."

Now, as far as I can judge, I believe that this is the real explanation of what took place, and the unexpected delay in the arrival of the first train ocasioned all the difficulty, and the company reached the pier at Southampton about three-quarters of an hour before the time named for the arrival of the two Houses of Parliament. Captain M'Dougal declined to allow the company conveyed by that train the use of the tenders to carry them to the Himalaya, but after waiting a considerable time he gave way to their remonstrances, and allowed them the use of the tenders. That accounts for the absence of the tenders upon the arrival of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament. Had the special train been to its time the tenders would immediately have conveyed the company on board the Himalaya, and they would then have been able to return in time to receive the Members of Parliament. That, I believe, is the real explanation of what took place. Hon. Gentlemen will see that it really does all turn on the want of punctuality by the railway company in working the trains. Every arrangement that we could make was made, and up to the last moment the strongest assurances were given that there was no reason to apprehend any difficulty would arise in carrying out those arrangements. I ought to say that I assure hon. Gentlemen that nobody in this House can be more, or feels more, disappointed than myself. We were most anxious that every one should have an opportunity of witnessing the review under the most favourable circumstances; and I believe, if any fault has been committed, it has arisen from attempting to give greater accommodation to the public than ever has been before afforded on a similar occasion. We provided accommodation in one way or another for upwards of 6,000 persons in Government vessels. I am not sure that as matters have turned out it would not have been better to have allowed them to find their own way in their own steamers; hut I can only say, that if anything has gone wrong we did not expect any delay, for we spared no pains to make the arrangements as perfect as possible. Perhaps we attempted more than we were justified in attempting, but we were most anxious that everything should go off as satisfactorily as possible.

said, that referring to the explanation respecting the Transit which he (Captain Duncombe) had made on a previous night, he must remark that the information he had obtained was directly contrary to what they had just heard; for in addition to the machinery of the vessel being generally out of order, he was told that at this very moment her condensers were being repaired at Napiers'. He did not wish at all to detract from the merit of Captain Johnson, who was a most worthy officer, as, indeed, his decorations proved, and who did his duty, under the circumstances, as well as could be expected. It had, however, been stated that but for the accident to the machinery the speed of the vessel would have been twelve knots an hour. Now, he could positively assert that at no time did she move at a rate exceeding six knots an hour; and even on going out of Southampton, where the way was all clear, she did not make up by increased speed for the delay which had taken place. On her return she hardly made steerage way, as he had remarked to the helmsman, who, he supposed, took him to be a thorough green-horn, for he replied, "Why, you see, sir, she is so very long that she will hardly steer." He fully admitted that it was the desire of the Admiralty to give every possible accommodation to the Cabinet and the Members of the two Houses of Parliament; but he wished he could say the same for the railway company, whose management from the beginning to the end was of the most disgraceful description. They had wilfully misled the Members on their return, particularly the Peers, the Peeresses, and their daughters, the consequence of which was that they did not leave Southampton until eleven o'clock at night, reaching London about half-past three o'clock the following morning, when the railway authorities had not even sufficient forethought or courtesy to provide the requisite number of ordinary cabs for the conveyance of the passengers from the station to their homes, and noble Lords, learned Judges, right rev. Prelates, and their wives and daughters, had actually to walk at that unseemly hour through the streets of London to their residences.

said, that he had directed an inquiry to be made respecting the machinery of the Transit, and as soon as the Report was received, he would lay it before the House.

said, he was quite sure that if the two Houses of Parliament had been placed in an anomalous position after having been invited to the review to attend Her Majesty, it was not from any neglect on the part of the Admiralty to ensure for them the necessary accommodation, so that they might present themselves in a seemly and decent manner. Still he must call the attention of the House to the facts which had been brought to his knowledge. It was proposed to move the Members of the two Houses of Parliament to Southampton, for the purpose of witnessing this review. In the first place, he did not think it very wise on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to separate them from the Royal cortége. It would have been better, if he might use a sea term, that they should have been within hail of each other all the way. That, however, was a part of the arrangement which might have been carried out, if they bad not failed to get there. What he wanted to ask, however, was, whether there was no power for direction, in such a case, over railway companies whose lines communicated between the metropolis and Southampton. The South-Western had now become one of the principal lines of military communication between London and the greatest naval arsenal of the country, and he put it to the House whether it was not disgraceful to find that a number of gentlemen, about equal to a single regiment, could not be conveyed that distance within two hours of the time specified? A review of this kind was intended to impress foreigners with an idea of the power, the grandeur, and the organisation of this country, showing that, although we had consented to close the present struggle, we were prepared, if necessary, to continue the war. But all that had been marred by the absence of that communication between different departments, the effect of which was so painfully apparent in the Crimea. The Government had literally failed in reaching Portsmouth and Southampton on a pleasure trip. Did anybody, after the experience they had had, suppose that if an emergency arose which rendered it necessary to dispatch a large number of troops down that line, that great danger would not result from the want of proper organisation, seeing that the railway company had failed in conveying the Houses of Parliament with any degree of punctuality? He hoped the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Chaplin) was in his place, and was also prepared to give some explanation of the conduct of the company relative to the transit of the Members of the two Houses. He wished to ask him what department of the Government he communicated with previous to making any arrangements—was it with the Admiralty? For his (Mr. Newdegate's) part, he always understood that there was a department of the Board of Trade whose special business it was to look after the conveyance of passengers by railway. [No, no!] Well, he might be mistaken, but that was his impression. At all events, the House was certainly entitled to inquire what precautions were taken by the South-Western Railway Company to ensure that the line should be clear on that day? As it was, no information whatever was received at the Waterloo station that the line was obstructed; the consequence was, that their train proceeded a short distance, then it stopped, then it went on and stopped again, and finally it came to a stand-still altogether. He thought the railway authorities must have been aware of the cause of the delay, but all the Members who were in the train knew was that they lost two hours in that short journey. What he complained of was, that there was not sufficient preparation, in the way of spare engines, at Basingstoke or other junctions, to remove obstacles out of the way, and in his opinion they were very fortunate to have escaped as well as they had. They had had a satisfactory explanation from the First Lord of the Admiralty, by which it appeared that he gave all the directions in his power; but as yet they had had no explanation from the representatives of the railway company. How was it that they undertook to convey the Members of the two Houses of Parliament to Southampton in two hours and a quarter, and instead of that consumed about four hours and a half in their conveyance? All that, however, would serve to point a moral, although it did not adorn a tale. Ought, they not seriously to consider the necessity of adopting some measure which would give the Government power to secure the proper management of the line on the occasion of any military emergency? He felt the deepest mortification that, instead of this review showing foreigners that there no longer existed in our public departments those defects which so nearly proved fatal to our army before Sebastopol, it made it evident that there were not means in this country for conveying the Members of the two Houses of Parliament from London to Southampton without interruption. It exhibited only another instance of that lamentable weakness with which we were taunted throughout the world, and proved that some control of the railway company was necessary to enforce greater exactitude.

said, that nothing was so important as to maintain an efficient communication between the first military arsenal of the kingdom and the metropolis, and he fully concurred in the remarks on that subject which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He knew very well that the trite answer would be given, that in this country such matters were left to the management of private enterprise; but where a national object was to be obtained, it was surely the duty of the Government to furnish the means. Various methods had been suggested from time to time to provide the means of direct communication with Portsmouth, but hitherto the Government had shown an entire indifference to them. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Byng) had called the attention of the Government to-night to a very considerable expenditure upon fireworks, which would not be of the slightest benefit to the country. He could not say how far such a sum as £10,000 would be available in improving the railway communication between London and Portsmouth, but the subject was well worthy the attention of the Government. He had for many years endeavoured to accomplish that object, and he acknowledged himself to be an interested party. He and other landed proprietors had made considerable sacrifices both in money and time to break down a most inefficient monopoly, but nothing would induce the Government to come to their assistance. He hoped, however, that the present contretemps would not be without effect.

said, he must beg to express the regret both of himself and colleagues in the direction of the South-Western Railway Company that any hon. Member should have suffered inconvenience by any accident, whether that accident were under their control or not. It should be remembered, however, that the whole of this traffic had to be conveyed from the Waterloo station within two hours, and that it was impossible in that time to start more than sixteen trains, besides all the ordinary local trains. It was also impossible to get a single train back to London in time to perform a second trip, and all intermediate traffic had to be accommodated by stopping trains, in addition to the special trains. The first of the sixteen trains started at five o'clock, and was an excursion train to Portsmouth. The second, at 5.15, was to accommodate the officers at Aldershot. The third, at 5.30, was an excursion train, conveying 670 passengers. The weight of that train was 167 tons, and the engine used to draw it had constantly drawn goods trains weighing 400 tons, being one of their most powerful engines. One feed-pipe, however, burst at Esher, and with the other the train was got as far as Woking. There was no telegraphic communication between Esher and Woking, and no information of the disaster could, therefore, be sent forward. At length an engine from Kingston was got to Woking, and the train was shunted to allow other trains to pass. The fourth train, at six o'clock, was a special train for passengers with tickets for Government ships. The fifth and sixth were despatched at 6.15 with Government officials. The 7th was at 6.20, a special second class. The eighth and ninth, at 6.45, conveyed the Ministers and foreign personages. It was not for him, perhaps, to complain of the patrons of the railway company, but 2,300 tickets for ships were issued to persons to go by a train at that hour. Such a number had not been contemplated, and two trains became necessary. At seven o'clock the tenth train, with the Lords and Commons, started. At 7.15 the 11th, with the directors of the South-Western and other railway companies. The Great Northern, the North-Western, the Midland, the Eastern Counties, and the South-Eastern Railway Companies, kindly lent engines and carriages to the number of 160, and the directors were, in compliment, invited to go and see the review. At 7.30 the Queen's household left; at 7.45 the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth trains started, and at 8.45 the sixteenth left with Her Majesty. Sixteen trains in one morning could not, with regard to that safety which, he was proud to say, had been secured, have been started earlier. He could state also, that the traffic was not of their own seeking. If the company had had the power of control, they would not have engaged to take more passengers than they could conveniently have sent; and they held out no inducement by lowering fares to entice the multitude, and crowd their trains beyond the capacity of their locomotive power, and if, under the enormous pressure of the circumstances, an accident had occurred, to which railways were at all times liable, and which had on that occasion impeded the passage of the trains, he did not think the company could be severely blamed, if it could be shown that they had used all reasonable precautions to prevent accident, and that they did so he thought was proved by the circumstance that they had at least conveyed every one safely over their line. But he denied that the company were re- sponsible for much of the inconvenience and delay, for the directors, who reached Southampton after the Members of the two Houses, had been enabled to see the review; and, had proper arrangements for taking hon. Members off to their vessels been made, they would have done the same. The pressure was, of course, more intense on the return, because people who went down on Tuesday came back with the Wednesday visitors, although the tickets would have permitted them to remain until Thursday. It was quite impossible to regulate the crowds, who broke down all barriers, and got into the carriages by force. The inconvenience resulting to the House of Peers, on their return, was attributable to the confusion, in the midst of which it was stated, in mistake, that their Lordships were in their carriages, and the train left without them. So large was the traffic, that the number of persons conveyed from London on Tuesday was greater than that usually conveyed during a whole week; and from Monday to Thursday night scarcely any of the company's officials went to bed. As far as the company's arrangements were concerned, everything was satisfactory; and the delay which had occurred, and which he deeply regretted, resulted, as he had previously mentioned, from a failure of machinery, which was entirely beyond the control of the directors.

said, he thought that the railway company were not entirely to blame for the delay which took place, although he did not acquit them of much of it. It would only have taken an hour to have transported the Members of the two Houses from the docks to the vessels intended for them had any means of transport existed; and as they arrived at the docks at one o'clock, they would, notwithstanding the breakdown, have been in time to have seen the review. He would, therefore, inquire of his right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he did not think that it would have been better if there had been some responsible agent at the dockyard—they could not expect one of the Lords of the Admiralty, but a subordinate—who might have seen that the vessels were not taken away. His right hon. Friend said it was impossible for him to regulate the time and tide. He (the Marquess of Granby) quite admitted that, but at the same time he bad never known any extraordinary blunder of this kind being made without such an excuse.

said, he hoped that the result of the discussion would be, that the railway system of the country would be placed under proper regulations. Whenever attempts had been made in that House to introduce an efficient control over it the Government uniformly thwarted the efforts of those who wished to give the greatest possible accommodation to the public. On the very day before this review occurred he went to the terminus of the South-Western Railway at eleven o'clock in the morning, and he must confess that he rarely if ever saw a state of more inextricable confusion. The station was so full, that it was with the greatest difficulty that any one could get standing room, there being only two small boxes to get the tickets at, and more than 1,000 persons requiring them. He attributed much of the inconvenience that had arisen to the past negligence of the House itself in not supporting Bills to put the railways of the country under proper control, the consequence of which was, that when a great demand for conveyance arose it was accompanied with much danger and confusion, which offered an extraordinary contrast to continental railways.

said, he much regretted that the House should have sustained any inconvenience on the Southwestern Railway, but he thought that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), had expended a good deal of unnecessary indignation upon the subject. What Government regulation could have prevented such an accident as occurred on Wednesday? Hon. Members had their horses fall down in their carriages now and then, and how, therefore, could the directors of the railway foresee that one of their best engines would burst its feed-pipe, and that thus delay would be occasioned to a traffic so enormous that he (Mr. Hutchins) did not know how they had conducted it so well as they had done. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had forgotten to mention that the Admiralty issued a great many more tickets than the railway company anticipated. The delay of the Houses of Parliament was not entirely attributable to the Railway Company, had the boats of the Admiralty been as good as that employed by the directors of the South-Western Railway Company, noble Lords and hon. Members might have seen the whole of the re view. The directors' train arrived at Southampton after that which conveyed the Members of Parliament, yet they saw the Queen come down the line, went up with her, witnessed the whole of the review, and returned to Southampton, where they arrived at seven o'clock as advertised, and reached London at ten o'clock. He (Mr. Hutchins) was on the platform of the Southampton station when the Members of the House of Commons arrived there in the evening. The special train was ready to receive them. He asked the superintendent where the peers were, and was informed that they were in the carriages behind. He believed that such was the case, and it was not until the previous day (Thursday) that he heard that any Members of the Upper House were left behind. The fact was that the peers were delayed by the accidents to their boat, and did not arrive at Southampton until after the special train provided for the accommodation of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament had left. The result was that they had to be accommodated in one of the ordinary trains, and did not reach London until a very late hour. He did not think that this was entirely attributable to the acts either of the directors or servants of the railway company.

said, that the discomfort and inconvenience about which there had been so much grumbling had been caused by the wonderful assurance of the railway directors and the much more wonderful credulity of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood), which, remembering from how far north he came, did, he must say, greatly astonish him. The ordinary express trains on the Southampton line, carrying no second class passengers, except the servants of first-class ones, took two hours and twenty minutes to go from the Waterloo station to Southampton. How the right hon. Baronet had allowed himself to be so far gulled, even by railway directors, as to believe that they were going to take down trains containing 4,000 or 5,000 persons in five minutes less than the time occupied by an ordinary express had passed his (Mr. Henley's) comprehension. The assurance of the directors in making this proposition and the credulity of the First Lord of the Admiralty in believing that this promise could be fulfilled had been at the root of all the trouble and mischief of this affair. It was similar to expecting that, because you could go through clear streets in a cab at the rate of nine or ten miles an hour, you could proceed at the same rate through New gate Street at that time of the morning at which it was most crowded. It was known that the line would be crowded from end to end, and it might have been foreseen that some of those unfortunate accidents which did occur, and against which no provision was made, would happen. It was, in his opinion, a source of consolation that so many thousand persons were conveyed on the line without any of them being smashed. He gave to the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) credit for a desire to make the best possible arrangements, but he thought that it was an unfortunate arrangement that the ladies should have to be transhipped from one vessel to another; that was at all times a disagreeable, and would in wet or rough weather have been a very ugly operation.

said, that no explanation had yet been given of the fact, that although the train in which the Members of that House returned to town left Southampton at eight o'clock, it did not reach the Waterloo station until considerably after midnight.

I wish, Sir, to make a single observation upon this subject. When the House of Commons attended the funeral of the Duke of Wellington, along with the House of Peers, they themselves appointed a Committee which arranged beforehand the method of their transit from this House to St. Paul's, and if any failure in the arrangements had occurred it would have been visited upon that Committee. Upon that occasion the two Houses attended, if I may so use the expression, officially. In the present case they did not attend officially, and I very much doubt whether it is a good precedent—although I know it has been set before—that the Government should undertake, at the public expense, to provide carriage and entertainment for the Members of both Houses of Parliament to enable them to view a great spectacle. If we are bound to appear as Members of the Legislature, then we should make our own arrangements, and attend at the public expense; but, if we are not so bound to appear, I hold that we ought to go at our own cost. I think we may learn from what has occurred in this case a lesson which neither the Government nor this House will easily forget—namely, that we have functions of a very different character to discharge, and that it is not wise or prudent on our part to ask the Government to entertain the Houses of Parliament upon occasions of this description.

said, he would move the Amendment on this clause of which he had given notice. The object of the Bill appeared to be the extension of the principle of the rural police. Now, the efficiency of the rural police entirely depended on the efficiency of the chief constable. And to find such a functionary as perfectly efficient as was desirable was a matter of no small difficulty. The result of the system had been an entire failure in the prevention of crime, and, for that reason, he objected to the compulsory extension of it. In 1854 the amount and character of crime appeared to be diminishing generally, and it was very remarkable that the system should have been introduced when crime was on the decrease. He should take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to certain statistics which had been furnished relating to the counties of Surrey and Hampshire, with respect to the working of this particular law in this country. These were the only counties with respect to which he could find any Returns dealing with the subject. The former had been furnished by the chief constable of the county, the latter from the evidence taken before the Police Committee. Captain Harris, the chief constable of Surrey, had now joined the metropolitan police, and he had no doubt that he was an able and trustworthy witness. It appeared from the Return lately made before the Transportation Committee, that the number of persons committed for trial, in 1854, were 29,000; and, in 1855, 26,274. The character of the crime had also changed for the better. It was marvellous, but it certainly appeared to be the fact, that in places where there were the most police there were the most offences committed, and the fewer number of detections. Captain Harris, in his evidence before the Police Committee, said that, taking the town of Gosport, and comparing it with this metropolis, it appeared that, in 1851, in London there was one policeman to 457 inhabitants, while in Gosport there was but one policeman to every 3,381 of the inhabitants. Now, let them see what were the convictions in London. With one policeman to every 457 of the inhabitants, not more than one offender in four was brought to justice. In Gosport, with one policeman to every 3,381 of the people, one was convicted on the average in every two and a half. Was that a state of things likely to induce the country willingly to accept such a measure as the present. Taking the particular crime of sheep-stealing—a common offence in agricultural districts, and calculated to test the efficiency of a rural police—he (Mr. Henley) would call attention to the evidence of Captain Harris, which was designed to show how the number of such crimes had decreased in Hampshire. But Captain Harris had not stated how many offenders he had been able to convict. The Criminal Returns, however, supplied that information. The number of offences did not necessarily tally with the number of offenders, as frequently several persons were concerned in the same offence. The number of sheep stolen had diminished more than one-half from 1847 to 1852. But the number of persons committed for trial for the offence of sheep-stealing—the whole number of offences during those six years being 312—was only forty-five. That was a very small proportion, especially recollecting that several persons were often concerned in the same offence. [Sir GEORGE GREY: And sometimes a good many sheep are stolen.] That is an event of rare occurrence, and would be specified when it happened. Now, how many of the persons committed for trial in Hampshire were convicted; one in five was acquitted; so that only thirty-six persons out of upwards of 300 offenders were brought to justice. Now, that certainly was no very pleasing result of a rural police; and in Oxfordshire, where it did not exist, the state of things was not so bad. He would now refer to the returns which had been furnished by Mr. Hastings, the chief constable of Surrey. That county contained, at the last Census, about 112,000 inhabitants, a very moderate, manageable population. If statistics were to be depended upon, the morality of Surrey was as satisfactory as its sanatorial condition. The chief constable's returns divided the criminal part of the population of the county into three classes, namely, those who lived wholly by violation of law; those who followed lawful avocations, but were known offenders; and those who were associates of thieves, "or otherwise suspected persons." The meaning of this latter expression was not explained. In the first class it appeared that only twenty-six females in all Surrey lived wholly by prostitution or plunder; and in the second class, only nine females were ranged; in the third, only one. The males in the first class were upwards of 520, out of a population of 112,000. Nothing could seem more satisfactory. But how many criminals were detected? In 1851, when the police was established, the total number of persons taken into custody were 684; in 1855, upwards of 940. That was not very satisfactory. But how many of those persons were rightly taken up? In 1851 more than one in three were discharged without prosecution. In 1855, out of 947 taken into custody, 310 were discharged without further proceedings. Now, that was a large proportion. It was important to see how many persons were shut up without reason. He was not what was called a "Liberal," nor did he talk much about liberty; but he thought those facts were rather strong as to the infringements on liberty, which took place under the police. [Sir GEORGE GREY: How many were taken up for drunkenness?] The right hon. Gentleman might search for himself in the Returns. But he would remark, that the district he was alluding to was a rural one. And the more the Returns were looked into, the more it would be seen that the proportion of arrests to committals, and of committals to convictions, was extremely unsatisfactory. He found that, in 1851, 314 persons were summarily convicted by the magistrates, 124 committed for trial, and only ninety-four convicted. In 1855, 322 persons were apprehended for indictable offences; ninety-nine of these were discharged by the magistrates. [An Hon. MEMBER: Where was this?] In Surrey. The population was 112,000 only. The chief constable classified the offences under the heads used in the criminal tables. First came the offences of housebreaking and robbery. In 1855 there were committed of those offences thirty-seven—not a very considerable number. There were of sheep and horses stolen twenty-one. No less than forty-seven cases of hen-roost breaking. These comprised the greater and lesser class of offences, amount- ing to 105 offences in the course of the year—not one of the thirty-seven house-breaking class had been apprehended. The cases of horse-stealing, &c., were twenty-one. Only seven, however, were apprehended; the magistrates discharged four, and sent three to trial, but the whole three were acquitted. Thus the country had the satisfaction of seeing persons apprehended and sent to trial, but no conviction followed. There seemed to be a pretty good crop of hen-roost stealing in Surrey—forty-seven "fowl" offences. There were only five apprehensions out of these forty-seven offences; the magistrates discharged three, and three were convicted. Out of the whole array of 105 cases only three cases of hen-roost stealing resulted in conviction. Such was the working of the system in the county of Surrey. A greater failure of justice or of bringing persons to trial he could not conceive. In sporting phrase, there was plenty of game, but a sad want of hounds to catch it. In crowded neighbourhoods there might be advantages in patrols; but in thinly-populated neighbourhoods the practice led to a system of false security. In fact, the thieves better knew where the police were than the police knew where the thieves were. He would now address himself on the subject of acquittals and convictions, upon which, he believed, there could be but little difference of opinion. On a former occasion he had referred to eight counties—four under a police system, and four under a superintending constable system. The results in five years, in counties which had a rural police, namely, Cambridge, Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, were as follows:—In the five years ending 1844, there were committed for trial 11,094 persons; of these there were acquitted 3,380. In the next period of five years there were 10,208 persons committed, and 3,074 acquitted; and in the last period up to 1854 inclusive, there were 11,038 committed, and 2,934 acquitted, being 26 per cent of the gross number—in those five years the average of the fifteen years being 29 per cent. But how did the case stand in the other four counties? In the first period the number committed was 10,321, and the acquittals 2,883; being 27 per cent on the whole number. In the second period the commitments fell to 9,700, and the acquittals were 2,490; being only 25 per cent. In the following five years there was a decrease in the number; of acquittals, there being 10,316 commit- ments, and 2,531 acquittals, being as low as 24 per cent, and the average of the fifteen years being 25 and a fraction per cent. He did not know any other tests by which to reach this question, having sought information in every quarter. Opinion was to be got in abundance, but it was of importance to get at facts. The Reports concurred that parties desired the management of the police to be severed from the magistracy. Last year he had deprecated persons being locked up in this metropolis and discharged without being taken before a magistrate. It might be said that in London the Chief Commissioner was a magistrate, but he could not understand how in counties the magistracy could conserve the peace without having a direct control over the constabulary. He warned hon. Gentlemen representing boroughs that the attempt to force a particular system of constabulary in counties would in time trench on the boroughs. The boroughs might certainly have the privilege of being eaten up the last; but it behoved their representatives to prevent the counties being overpowered by a measure of this nature. Neglect the counties, and the boroughs would not long be kept out of the lion's mouth. The provisions of the Bill of last year showed that the object of the Government was centralisation. Once let the Government establish a uniform system of police in counties, and the days of the boroughs were numbered. Local Government in the boroughs would only be conserved by resisting this encroachment, and he was surprised that those who represented boroughs and were desirous of local Government, should suffer dust to be thrown in their eyes by the slight alteration that had been made in the Bill now before them. The Bill had been only slightly modified; and as sure as the sun at noonday, if the measure in its present shape were passed into law, the entire police force of the country would be as much in the hands of the Home Secretary as if the Metropolitan Police Bill were extended throughout the land. A great central action was contemplated. He deprecated centralisation, and although he was willing to give the Government extensive power in the case of gaols, he did not wish to see the local power broken down. He was willing to accept the principle which governed the boroughs, namely, that counties should be provided with an effective police; but the system was susceptible of improvement. If the Government could show that in those counties where a rural police existed there was less crime than in the others, then, indeed, they might be considered to have a strong case for compelling them to adopt this particular Bill; but in the absence of such evidence he must declare the measure to be arbitrary and impolitic. Nor could he help viewing the means they had resorted to of popularising the scheme as not very creditable to the Government. No doubt a plan which proposed to subsidise with a large grant of public money such counties and districts as had already established a rural police force was one likely to catch a great number of votes. Now he (Mr. Henley) was quite willing that those Gentlemen should enjoy the luxury of a rural police; but on the other hand, he claimed for those who shared his views the exercise of their discretion as to the kind of force they should establish. He therefore begged to propose his Amendment.

said that, if the right hon. Gentleman had not repeatedly assured the Committee in the course of his speech that he acquiesced in the decision of the large majority of the House in favour of the principle of the Bill, he should have supposed that his speech was directed altogether against it. He was bound, however, to take the right hon. Gentleman's declaration that he acquiesced in the principle of the Bill, and he would proceed to discuss the Amendment. It consisted of four distinct parts, and it affected counties only. The first clause provided that in those counties in which a regular constabulary had not been established the justices might appoint a sufficient number of fit men to be sworn in as constables. The second clause of the Amendment proposed to give to constables so appointed extended jurisdiction, enabling them to exercise their functions in every county and borough in England and Wales. That subject was one which he (Sir G. Grey) thought well deserved the consideration of the Committee; but it would be brought more directly under discussion by another Amendment of which an hon. Member had given notice. The third clause of the Amendment gave magistrates the power of dividing counties into districts if they thought a distinction ought to be made in the number of constables appointed in different parts of a county, and to declare the number of constables to be appointed for each district; and the last clause of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment proposed, as well with regard to counties which had established an efficient police, as to those which had not established a police, to repeal altogether the provisions of the existing law which authorised the appointment of chief constables. The effect of the last proposition would be to throw the police force in those counties and districts in which a rural police had been established into entire confusion. The existing Act, which had been designated as of a most arbitrary character and as depriving justices of the peace of all control over the police, had been voluntarily adopted in twenty-four counties and in districts of other counties, and that Act contained a provision which enabled any county, if the working of the police force should be found unsatisfactory, at once to abolish that force and to return to the system of parish constables. In no one instance, however, has that power been exercised, but practical experience had shown the beneficial operation of the measure, and there had, in many cases, been a gradual increase in the number of the police with the view of increasing their efficiency. Magistrates were authorised by the Act to fix the number of constables necessary for the preservation of the peace of counties, the protection of the inhabitants, and the security of property; and they were also required to appoint a chief constable, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, such chief constable, however, being liable to dismissal by the magistrates at any time without any check or control on the part of the Secretary of State if they thought he did not adequately discharge his duty. The Act further provided that the chief constable, subject to the approval of two or more justices in petty sessions, should appoint the other constables and the superintendent constables; and although it was true that the chief constable had the absolute power of dismissing the men under his control, it must be remembered that he was to exercise that control "subject to the lawful orders of the magistrates." The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) seemed to have a strong objection to the appointment of chief constables who should exercise general control over the constables in their respective districts; but for his own part, he (Sir G. Grey) thought it was essential to maintain efficient, active, and energetic men in the position of chief constables, in order to prevent the rural police from degenerating into as useless a body as the existing parish constables. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the efficiency of a police force depended upon the person at its head, and yet, with strange inconsistency, he objected to the appointment of a chief constable, because it would be impossible, in all cases, to secure the services of the best man. So, in the case of a gaol, to which the right hon. Gentleman had also referred, what could be more absurd than to argue that, because the services of the best man could not be procured, therefore there should be no gaoler, but the prisoners should be left to take care of themselves? He would not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the statistics of the question, because in moving the second reading of the Bill he had stated a variety of facts which showed a disgraceful state of things in some populous and rich districts, where no police force existed; and on that occasion the House appeared to be satisfied that, with regard to those districts it was essential that an improved system should be established. The right hon. Gentleman would authorise the justices to adopt any form of police they liked; he made no provision for the government of the force, not even providing that the whole time of the men should be devoted to their duties as police; and the practical effect of the adoption of his. Amendment would be to leave matters, as regarded the counties very nearly if not quite in their present state. With regard to Surrey, he would refer to the Report of the chief constable, who stated that although the Returns showed an increase of seventy-three persons taken into custody, as compared with the preceding year, 1854, that was to be accounted for by the circumstance that last year there were 218 deserters apprehended by the police, whereas in the preceding year there were only fifty-three. Then he said that the amount in value of property stolen was less, and the number of persons committed for trial was also less, Then with respect to Hampshire, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the statistics of sheep-stealing in that county, with the view of showing how few persons were convicted compared with the number of offences committed; but no man knew better than himself that sheep-stealing was one of those crimes in which the difficulty was to identify the property stolen, and that the fact of an acquittal did not reflect blame either upon the policeman or the magistrate. Moreover, the statistics of crime in Hampshire had of late been affected by the existence of the camp at Aldershot; but if there was any force at all in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, it showed, not that the police had been less active, but that the magistrates had been more negligent in the discharge of their duties. With respect, however, to both Surrey and Hampshire, they had the testimony of all the magistrates in those counties to the benefits derived from the establishment of a police force; and the Reports of the chief constables of those counties addressed to the magistrates and justices of the peace, stated, not only that there had been a decrease in the number of offences, but that the character of the crime had been of a less serious description. In that opinion the magistrates and justices of the peace had expressed their concurrence, and he did not believe that the statistics of the right hon. Gentleman would induce them to dispense with the police force which had been established in the county. He hoped the Committee would agree with him that it would be far better to adhere to the existing Acts than to substitute for them the vague proposition embodied in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, as chairman of the Police Committee in the county of Surrey, he was able to testify to the benefits which had resulted from the establishment of a police force. Before that event neither life nor property was safe, and the magistrates were forced into action by a series of daring robberies and the perpetration of a dreadful murder; but since, there had been a degree of peace and security which never existed before. From the county of Surrey, returns had been received for 1855, showing that there were, out of a population of 120,000, no robberies with violence; larcenies from person, two; larcenies by servants, three; and simple larcenies, twenty-five; and out of these there had been twenty-three convictions. Those figures required no comment. The desertions from the army, however, were ninety-one; from the militia, sixty-six; from the navy, fifty-five; from families, eleven; and from service, seven. The statistics of the number of criminals in counties where there were no police had been produced in comparison with the number of criminals where there were police; but that was a false estimate, because it was well known that there were no correct statistics of crime where there was no police. In conclusion, he would give one practical illustration of the effect of the introduction of the police into Surrey. It was this:—when first he acted as a magistrate upon the bench at Guildford, there was hardly a day upon which the bench, could rise before four o'clock, and it was frequently kept till six; whereas, at the present time two hours was found to be ample for the discharge of all the business that came before it.

said, his first anxiety was to show that the allegation made on a former occasion by the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, "that the West Riding was in a most discreditable state," had no good foundation in fact. The West Riding magistrates, consisting of 300 gentlemen, had met and discussed the proposition to adopt the Constabulary Act three times; and on each occasion the proposition had been negatived by very considerable majorities. The magistrates were of opinion that a rural police were wholly unnecessary in the West Riding. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds had presented a petition from Mr. Jonathan Peel, who resided in Yorkshire, on the borders of Lancashire, and the petitioner complained very much of depredations in his neighbourhood. Now, in Lancashire there was a county constabulary maintained at a cost of £33,000 a year, but that did not prevent depredations. Mr. Peel had regularly attended at Wakefield at the meetings of magistrates, and had complained, but nevertheless the magistrates had judged for themselves. It was a singular thing, that though the constabulary had been adopted in many counties, it had not been adopted in any particular district of the West Riding, nor had there been, to his knowledge, any one application to the magistrates in quarter sessions to adopt it for any such district. He should have thought that where parties were annoyed by persons coming from other districts they would have applied for a police force, and he did not think there would have been any objection on the part of the magistrates, as there was a power to rate a district separately. The right hon. Gentleman also quoted from a statement made by Mr. Wilson Overend, the chairman of the quarter sessions at Sheffield. If the right hon. Baronet could prove that there was any good foundation even for this particular charge, he would admit that the magistrates of the West Riding had been guilty of a dereliction of duty. But what were the facts? The West Riding was divided into three districts for the purposes of quarter sessions. One of these divisions extended from Sheffield in the west to Goole in the east, and was about seventy miles long by twenty broad, containing about 200,000 inhabitants. At the last quarter sessions for that district forty-five persons were brought up for trial, and of those forty-five there were twenty-seven from the town of Sheffield itself, in which there was a police force of 145 men, the remaining prisoners having come from the district at large. These facts did not justify the charge which Mr. Wilson Overend had brought against the magistrates of the West Riding, or show that a general rural police was required. He found from the condensed digest of the census of 1851, that, in respect of pauperism and crime Yorkshire favourably contrasted with the other parts of the kingdom, and pauperism and crime generally went together. While there were in the south-eastern counties in every 10,000 persons, 133 paupers and thirty-nine criminals, there were in Yorkshire only thirty-two paupers and sixteen criminals. That was as regarded the county at large, but the West Riding stood still better. The West Riding had no rural police. There was such a force in Cheshire and in Lancashire, and yet there were in Cheshire thirty-nine paupers and twenty-one criminals in every 10,000 inhabitants; in Lancashire, twenty-seven paupers and twenty criminals; while in the West Riding there were only twenty-seven paupers and thirteen criminals. He quoted these figures to show that the population of the West Riding were not in that demoralised state they were represented to be; and he had to remind the right hon. Baronet that in order to make up the return of the criminals in Yorkshire, there were included from 400 to 500 convicts belonging to Government confined in Wakefield prison, who were no part of the population of that county. He found that in Yorkshire pauperism and crime were as low as in any part of the kingdom, and that was the reason why he had always opposed the introduction of a rural police, believing it unnecessary. Indeed, crime in Yorkshire was below the average of the other counties in the kingdom—less than Lancashire, with its police; less than Durham, with its police; and less than Nottinghamshire, with its police. Those were the counties which bordered on Yorkshire, and it might be supposed that they drove all their thieves into it. The returns which he had quoted showed that Yorkshire had still less than any other county in England. The noble Lord (Lord Lovaine) might say that in Yorkshire we did not catch all the thieves, but that was easier said than proved; for it was his (Mr. B. Denison's) belief that they were generally caught, as they all made their way into the large towns, in which there were strong bodies of police, and where they were sure to be apprehended. He confessed he saw no necessity for an alteration in the present Act, under which the county magistrates had abundant power of adopting a rural police, if they thought such a force requisite. There were in Yorkshire 320 magistrates, and they had on every occasion on which the subject had been brought before them rejected it, which they would not have done had they thought that the population was of a character to require such supervision.

said, he had seldom the misfortune to differ from his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), but he must confess that he thought that the suppression of crime was the only object which the Government had in view in the proposed measure, and he saw no difference in the meaning of the words in the original clause, and in the Amendment which his right hon. Friend proposed. It was the meaning of both that an efficient force should be established, but the test of efficiency was that the object for which the force was established was obtained, and that could never be the case, unless the rural police was uniform and continuous throughout the country. His right hon. Friend had used arguments which actually supported the opposite view of the subject to that which he himself entertained. He had alluded to Gosport, to show that the absence of crime was coequal with the absence of police; but Gosport was a fortified town, and did not admit the growth of that class of population among which criminals were for the most part found. He had also said that in Hampshire itself there had been 312 offences, forty-five committals, and twenty-six convictions. Now the only result derivable from that argument was that a continuous police force was required. With regard to Surrey, he had fallen into the mistake of supposing that increased capture was increased crime, whereas it only showed the efficiency of the police in detecting crime, and so much was that appreciated, that no county, which had as yet adopted this system, was willing to give it up.

said, that the petition which he had presented had been adverted to by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Denison), who was quite mistaken in thinking that it was merely the petition of Mr. Jonathan Peel, for it came from several magistrates who, residing on the borders of Yorkshire and Lancashire, were able to judge of the condition of each of those counties. Those gentlemen alleged that there was in Lancashire more good order and less undetected crime than in Yorkshire, and prayed that the same advantages which Lancashire enjoyed in its police might be given to Yorkshire. The hon. Gentleman had stated that, although the question of adopting the system of rural police in the West Riding had been frequently considered, it had been always rejected by the West Riding magistrates. In answer to that, he (Mr. Baines) would ask the Lancashire magistrates if, after sixteen years' working of the system, they wished to rescind the resolution by which they had adopted it—and he was sure they would reply in the negative, for the public opinion of Lancashire was in favour of the force. The hon. Gentleman, however, said that such was not the case in the West Riding; but there, too, a change was taking place in public opinion. The first time the proposition was made it was rejected by a large majority. Two years ago it was brought forward a second time, when there were nineteen in favour of it, and thirty-three against it. The last time it was brought forward was during the past autumn, when there were thirty-three for it and forty-three against it, so that there was a continuous increase in the minority which was in favour of the system. So much for public opinion in that important county, With respect to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), it would appear that he was for any system, or for no system, rather than adopt that which had been tested by twenty-four of the counties of England. That right hon. Gentleman also quoted figures in support of his views from a book which he (Mr. Baines) never saw before, but he had sufficient experience of the House to know how easy it was by figures to prove any proposition, unless those figures were thoroughly sifted. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not use figures disingenuously, but he suspected that his own predisposition in favour of his views led him to see corroboration of them in figures, in which there was really nothing corroborative of them. Facts, however, out weighed such statistics, and it was a fact that, although the Act gave the magistrates the power of rescinding the resolution for the adoption of the police system, they had never in one instance availed themselves of that power, and the experience of magistrates in those counties in which a rural police existed was not only in favour of its being retained there, but also in favour of its being introduced into other parts of the Kingdom. The right hon. Member said that the Government had the intention of substituting a borough for a county police, but he (Mr. Baines) had no knowledge of any such intention on the part of the Government. The simple question was, whether they should introduce into the rest of the counties of England that system, which, from the experience of some sixteen or seventeen years, had been tested in many of the counties, and had been found to be highly satisfactory.

said, he had come down to the House with the intention of supporting the Motion, but he had no expectation that the history of his own county, since 1851, would have been so particularly adverted to. He had learned something new respecting his own county, however, during the evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had told the Committee that the county of Surrey was distinguished for the morality of its inhabitants and for the salubrity of its air. Now, the salubrity of the county might be supposed to have been always the same; but if they were to believe the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland, its morality must be dated from the year 1851, that memorable era when a rural police was first established there. For the noble Lord had said that before that year neither life nor property was safe in the county of Surrey. Now, he (Mr. Evelyn) himself had lived in the county for some years anterior to that date, and he had been quite unaware of the dangers to which he had been exposed. [An hon. Member: Frimley.] Yes, he would allude to Frimley, and he would say that a very unfair use had been, made of the circumstance of the burglary at Frimley that took place in the year 1850. Upon that lamentable occasion, a clergyman was murdered in his bed at the dead of night. But they could not argue from an isolated instance. The dreadful event that took place a short time since in Rupert Street might as well be cited to argue in favour of abolishing the metropolitan police. In the case of every burglary, it was an accidental matter whether it was accompanied by murder or not. Every burglar was morally a murderer. In the case of the Frimley murder, the man who committed the crime was not the most guilty of the three, but the man who did not fire the shot set the other two on. The facts brought out by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had clearly proved that they could not expect to diminish crime by means of an organised police. Then there was the question of expense to be considered. The statement of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was rather calculated to mislead the House with respect to the success of the new system. He said that the magistrates had the power of rescinding the appointment of rural police, and yet there was no one of the counties, in which the police had been established, in which recourse had been had to that step. Unless he (Mr. Evelyn) were much mistaken, such was by no means the case. The Home Secretary could put his veto upon any such step, and it was certain he would exercise that veto, and would not allow a system so favoured by the Government, when once established, to be set aside by the magistrates of any county. So that no body of magistrates, whatever their opinion might be, would be likely to think it worth their while to come to a barren resolution which could lead to nothing. It had been said that the magistrates in Surrey were greatly in favour of the new system. That might be true, of the majority of the magistrates; but he (Mr. Evelyn) was not quite sure that the ratepayers generally were of the same opinion. He believed that the conservation of the peace was, by the laws of England, reposed in the people themselves, and not in a standing army of policemen, separated from the people and acting under central control. Before sitting down, he felt it due to the Surrey rural police to say that they were as efficiently organised and as well commanded as it was possible for such a force to be. He (Mr. Evelyn) had found fault with the system and not with the men. He (Mr.Evelyn) would candidly state to the House that he believed the majority of the magistrates were in favour of it, but he did not think the ratepayers were.

said, that it was very difficult to tell what was the opinion of the ratepayers of counties, be- cause they had no voice in the management of their affairs. He conceived that in this matter counties stood upon a footing quite different from that of municipal corporations. The magistrates were persons appointed by the Crown, and not responsible to the ratepayers. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) proposed that the justices should have the same powers as the watch Committees of boroughs, he ought to give them the same responsibility to the ratepayers. He (Mr. Gibson) was surprised that Her Majesty's Government in throwing upon counties a new expense, had not recollected that they had made a distinct promise that they would introduce a measure which should by means of financial boards give the ratepayers of counties a control over the expenditure. He hoped some Member of the Government would state that there was a disposition to redeem that promise. With respect to the measure now before the Committee he preferred the clause as it stood to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). He did not think that there was any necessity for meddling with the police in municipal boroughs. The police force, which was established some years ago in Manchester, under a Commission appointed by the Home Office, had been replaced by a body of police under the control of the municipal authorities, and the latter system had worked far more satisfactorily than the former. It was true that since the withdrawal of some clauses to which they objected, the corporation of Manchester had given a qualified assent to the Bill, but he believed the population of that city were generally adverse to the measure, that they looked with some jealousy upon a proposition to place them unnecessarily under Government control, and that they objected to the payment of any portion of their police expenses from the public funds. Although he would not go the length of voting against the Government on the present occasion, he should oppose the clauses of the Bill which affected the borough police.

said, that some fifteen or sixteen years ago, when the rural police were established in Worcestershire, many petitions were presented to the magistrates from the ratepayers against the continuance of the system. The magistrates, however, refused to comply with the request of the petitioners; the police were maintained, and only a year ago several petitions were presented from the ratepayers, praying that the police might be continued. He thought that on t the present occasion they had been led too much into a discussion upon the principle of the Bill. He would not enter into any consideration of the statistics to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had referred, for it appeared to him that they did not establish anything; but in reply to those statements he would venture to assert that no quarter sessions occurred in any county in which a rural police had been established at which numerous criminal cases were not tried which would not have been detected but for the vigilance and activity of the rural police. The object of the Amendment seemed mainly to be to vest the appointment of the police in the magistrates, but he (Sir J. Pakington strongly deprecated any measure which would have such an effect, and he blieved that in Worcestershire there were not half-a-dozen magistrates who would desire to exercise the power.

said, that when the establishment of a rural police force in Nottinghamshire was proposed, the proposition was only carried by a majority of one; but he believed there was now scarcely a single magistrate in the county who would not admit that the system had worked satisfactorily.

said, he objected to the Bill, because it was intended to force upon counties a system to which they were averse, and besides it was his belief that in the three divisions of the county of Lincoln a rural police was quite unnecessary. He also protested against counties being compelled to establish a police force, and should support the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, because it would render the Bill less onerous than at present, and would not impose an unnecessary burden upon reluctant ratepayers.

said, the subject of establishing a county police had been long ago brought before the magistrates of Somersetshire. Its plan had been rejected, but last year it was adopted by sixty to one. The magistrates found it impossible to go on under the unpaid system. He therefore avowed himself a convert to the system. He had examined the charge sheets in different districts. He had found in Bedminster that out of sixty-eight charges only eighteen were pressed, at Bath only eight out of eighteen. There never had been in the country so large an amount of undetected crime. It was not true, as far as his county was concerned, that the ratepayers were averse to the establishment of a rural police; on the contrary, they had largely petitioned for it. He heartily supported the Bill, as placing the police of the country under one uniform system in the hands of the Government. He could not therefore agree in the Amendment, which was in fact a new Bill, and he thought, in a police that unity of action was the chief thing to be desired, and with that view he preferred even the Bill as it was originally introduced. As a convert he heartily thanked the Government for the introduction of the Bill.

said, that the ratepayers in Dublin county were almost unanimous in favour of the adoption of a rural police.

said, that the statistics of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had not been answered. In reply to the figures of the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) he begged to state that crime in East Somerset had diminished in the last three years, and had been diminishing steadily for twenty years. Summary convictions had diminished in the same way, and the improvement had been gradual for many years.

stated, that the ratepayers of Leicestershire were, almost to a man, in favour of a rural police.

said, he would beg to express his approval of the Bill now that it had been altered, and he should give it his support.

in reply said, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had argued that the system worked well, because there had been no attempts to get rid of it wherever it had been established, but, on the contrary, the rural districts were petitioning for an additional force. He believed that the fact was this:—The counties started with a certain number of policemen; the system was not found to work. It was then said that the reason was because there were not policemen enough; and the consequence was that people petitioned for more. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was wise in his generation; but he (Mr. Henley) feared that his hon. Friends near him were not wise, and he warned them that directly the Bill became law, county financial boards would follow.

said, he objected to words of restriction, and would suggest that power should be given to establish a sufficient police force in a county, inclusive of any districts in which constabulary force might be already established.

said, he would look into the matter, but thought the clause as it stood fully carried out the object of the hon. Gentleman.

said, that in the hope that the Government would omit the second clause altogether, he would suggest that the hon. Member for West Norfolk should move the addition of his proviso to the first instead of to the second clause.

then moved to add the following words:—

"That after the passing of this Bill the number of constables appointed and paid shall never, at any time, be less than one per 2,000 of the inhabitants of every county or police district, or one per 1,000 of the inhabitants of every city or borough throughout England and Wales according to the last Parliamentary enumeration of the population for the time being."

Taking the average number of the population, he did not think that could be considered too large a minimum, and without some minimum were stated no additional security against the commission of crime would be obtained. It was most desirable to have a uniform system of police, for at present those counties where there was no police were harbours of refuge for thieves from counties where there was an efficient force.

said, that, as the proviso of the hon. Gentleman referred both to counties and boroughs, while the operation of the clause was confined to counties, it was hardly in its proper place. He, therefore, would suggest that the proviso should be brought up as a distinct clause.

said, he would accede to the suggestion, and the proviso was withdrawn.

said, he wished to ask what effect the Bill would have in the town of Huddersfield?

said, Huddersfield would continue under the power of the existing Act.

said, he would beg to put the same question with regard to Brighton.

said, Brighton was an incorporated borough, and had its own police under the Municipal Act.

said, there was a portion of the town not under the Municipal Act, and the inhabitants of that portion of the town were apprehensive of being put under the county constabulary.

said, there was already a county constabulary in Sussex; consequently that would not be affected by the Bill.

said, he wished to know why this clause, which would give the Secretary of State a compulsory power with regard to the division of counties into districts, had been proposed? Such divisions had already been made for purposes of police in several counties, and he thought the local authorities were the persons best qualified to determine the extent and limits of those divisions.

said, that on introducing the Bill he had fully explained the reasons which had induced him to propose this clause, which had been inserted in conformity with the recommendations of a Committee of that House. He was, however, ready on the Report to introduce words into the clause providing that police districts should not be formed without an opportunity being afforded to the local authorities of expressing their opinions on the subject.

said, the clause would destroy the jurisdiction of the justices.

said, he thought the clause ought to be expunged. Though a strong advocate for local administration, he should vote for the first clause, because he believed the counties had been overridden by the ratepayers.

said, he would ask the right hon. Baronet to withdraw the clause, and reintroduce it, in order to enable the Committee to consider the modifications ho had proposed.

said, if the clause were likely to be agreed to, he should have no objection. It was a mistake, however, to suppose that the clause compelled the county magistrates to divide the counties into districts.

said, he thought the clause was very clumsily drawn.

said, there had been many counties already divided into districts, and always with perfect harmony between the magistrates and the Secretary of State.

said, that the only objection to the clause was that the power originated with the Secretary of State. By the words suggested to be added it would come from the county magistrates.

said, that if the Bill was to pass, the object should now be to limit the power of the inspectors. Their efforts could only be intended to establish a police ministry, and he hoped the clause would be withdrawn.

said, he knew something of these matters as the son of a lord-lieutenant, and he would appeal to any magistrate who knew the comparative number of magistrates coming from different parts of the country, whether the number of magistrates was not wholly irrespective of the rating.

said, he was of opinion that in large counties, differing greatly, in respect to one portion being manufacturing and the other agricultural, there ought to be some security that the manufacturing part did not swamp the other. This clause was intended to carry this principle into effect, and he should therefore support it.

said, he was most anxious to uphold local authority, but the purport of the clause was to put the power into the hands of a small minority, and he could not vote for it.

said, he must protest against proceeding with the Bill at that late hour. He could not understand the pressure in bringing forward the Bill. Last Session it had been read a third time in that House owing to a mistake, and in the other House only one had voted for it. There was great opposition to the principle of the Bill in Scotland, and on the 30th of that month there would be meetings throughout Scotland, when the Bill would be considered, and it was not delicate or just to the people of Scotland to put the Bill forward till they had given their opinion. He would not move the rejection of the Bill, but its adjournment for a fortnight.

said, he did not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill, but it was one of the utmost importance to the people of Scotland, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate must be aware that it could not be read the second time without some discussion. At that hour it would be impossible to do justice to the question, and he thought the second reading should not be taken until after the forthcoming county meetings in Scotland. He, therefore, cordially seconded the Amendment.

said, the people of Scotland would consider, not the principle, but the details of the Bill in the meetings referred to. He, therefore, hoped the measure would set the question of education at rest, and would not oppose its postponement.

said, that as there would be no strenuous opposition to the principle of the Bill, he hoped that this stage of the Bill might be passed, reserving the discussion to another opportunity.

said, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should not think that there was no opposition to his Bill on that (the Opposition) side of the House. He should support the Motion for adjournment. Many Scotch Members had gone down, or were going down, to attend their county meetings. He hoped this important stage of the Bill would not then be pressed.

said, that the Bill of last Session had been repudiated by its very supporters. He considered that the people of Scotland ought to be allowed to express their opinion before the second reading of the Bill was passed.