asked the Secretary to the Treasury if the withdrawal of the coast guard for employment in the navy in 1854 and 1855 had been followed by any appreciable increase of smuggling and loss of revenue; and if he could state, in approximate terms, the difference of expense between the coast guard and the temporary substitute which replaced it?

said, it was well known that a number of coast guards had been withdrawn from the service in the year 1854, and that their places had been supplied by other officers. There was no reason to believe that any increase of smuggling had taken place in consequence of that change; and as a proof of that, he might state that the duty on tobacco, which was the article that gave rise to most smuggling, had increased from £4,750,000 in the year 1853 to £4,871,000 in the year 1854. The expenditure for the coast-guard service had diminished since the change by a sum of £21,000 a year.

asked the Under Secretary for War whether all candidates for commissions in the army were required by the authorities of the Horse Guards to produce certificates of confirmation as a condition of their admission into the military service?

said, that members of the Church of England, in undergoing their preliminary examination, previously to obtaining commissions, were required to produce certificates of confirmation. But no such request was made of persons who were not members of the Established Church; and in the case of those members the only object of the demand was to obtain a guarantee for their character by showing that they had been brought up in the religion which they professed.

asked the First Commissioner of Works if he had taken the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, as to whether the sale of refreshments on Sunday in the booths about to be erected in the public parks would expose the vendors to the penalties imposed by the Act 29 Car. II. c. 7? He would remind the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works that the sale of refreshments on the Sunday was forbidden, not only by the Act of Charles II., but also by the Act of the 3 Geo. IV. c. 106, s. 16.

said, he had to state, in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he had not thought it necessary to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in that case, and for this simple reason, that the present practice in Kensington Gardens and Victoria Park was merely an extension of the practice which had before prevailed in those places, and more particularly in Victoria Park. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman should be of opinion that that was a case which came under the provisions of the statute of Charles II., he must be well aware, from his legal knowledge, that any person could proceed against parties infringing it. The Act was a very stringent one, and if it were strictly enforced, every confectioner's shop should be closed on the Sunday, every railway company should shut up its refreshment rooms and every steam-boat should cease running on the same day.

said, that a document had that day reached him, purporting to be an advertisement connected with certain ragged schools in Dublin, in which it was put forward that one of the objects of the supporters of those schools was to carry out a system of proselytising among the Roman Catholic children in that city. The name of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant was placed at the head of the document, and it was stated that a bazaar was to be held for the benefit of those schools under his patronage. He (Mr. DeVere) begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland whether it was true that the Lord Lieutenant, for whose character he entertained the highest respect, had given the sanction of his name and authority to any such proceeding.

said, it was not true that the Lord Lieutenant had in any way given his sanction to the issuing of any placard containing matter such as that referred to by his hon. Friend, painful and offensive to any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. The principle which the Lord Lieutenant had laid down for his own guidance, and which he impressed upon all persons connected with the Government of Ireland, was, to refrain from associating themselves directly or indirectly with any society whose proceedings were of a religious character, or calculated to give offence to any portion of the population of that country. The facts of the case referred to by his hon. Friend were these:—There were ragged schools in Dublin established by the Roman Catholics, and others established by Protestants. Early in the year—in the month of February, he believed—an application had been made to the Lord Lieutenant by the committee of the Roman Catholic Ragged Schools, stating that they were about to open a bazaar for the benefit of those schools, and requesting him to allow his name to appear as the patron of that bazaar. He replied that they might so use his name, but that he would not himself be present upon the occasion. Within the last fortnight a similar application had been addressed to him, in the same terms, for the same purpose, by the committee of the Protestant Ragged Schools; and to that application he had given a precisely similar answer. Subsequently a placard had appeared, stating that the bazaar was to be held, and announcing in very conspicuous letters that it was to be under the patronage of the Lord Lieutenant; and then followed in smaller type a number of extracts from speeches and reports of Protestant societies on the subject of the advertisement, and containing matter calculated to give pain to Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Horsman) could only state that the association of the Lord Lieutenant's name with the offensive matter in the placard had been made entirely without the knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant, and certainly did not meet with his approval.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury what communications had passed between the Foreign Office and the Portuguese Government on the subject of the claims of Yuille, Shortridge, and Company, upon that country, for breach of treaty, since a Select Committee of this House reported on those claims; and whether he had any objection to lay the correspondence on the table?

said, that his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office had instructed Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Lisbon to make demands in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee to which the hon. and learned Member referred, and a note had been in consequence addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Lisbon in the month of June last. No answer having been returned to that note, another note had been forwarded to the same quarter in the month of January, but he was sorry to say, that hitherto the application had not been attended with the desired result. He could have no objection to produce either the instructions of Lord Clarendon upon the subject, or the notes addressed to the Portuguese Government, if the hon. and learned Gentleman should think proper to move for them.

asked, whether it was intended to grant the Crimean medals to the Sardinian army as well as to the French army?

said, that it was the intention to grant the medals, not only to the Sardinian army, but also to the Turkish army, and arrangements had been already made to send the medals out to the troops of those two nations.

said, he must request the indulgence of the House, as it was against rule for him to speak again after moving the adjournment. He had great pleasure in stating to his hon. Friend and to the House, that the announcement which had appeared in the papers this morning was entirely and perfectly true. Her Majesty, following the impulses and dictates of those generous feelings by which She was so eminently distinguished, had determined to take advantage of the return of peace, and of the unexampled loyalty which prevailed from one end of her dominions to the other, to do an act of grace and clemency towards all persons under sentence for political offences, with the exception of those unhappy men who had broken all the ties of honour and fled from their place of banishment. The amnesty would be general, and would include Mr. Smith O'Brien, Mr. Martin, and those others who had been referred to by his hon. Friend.

observing that he had not quite understood the answers which had been given either in that House—or in another place—to the questions which had been put to the Government with reference to the disembodiment of the Irish militia, begged to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the Government contemplated their immediate disembodiment? There was a rumour that these regiments were to be disembodied in the months of June and July. Now, he believed that it was the unanimous opinion of those who were connected with Ireland or knew anything about the country, that the period of the year between the middle of May and the middle of July, was a period in which the greatest possible difficulty would be experienced in the absorption of so much labour as would thus be thrown into the market in that part of the kingdom. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had expressed himself on the previous day in the most flattering manner with respect to the militia, and of course by implication of the Irish militia. He (Mr. Herbert) believed that his observations respecting the want of employment would not apply to the English militia, because he was informed that at that period of the year a considerable amount of labour was required in England. The noble Lord had last night paid a just tribute to the merits of the Irish militia; but he hoped that his noble Friend would excuse him if he reminded him of a very homely, but at the same time a very true proverb, namely, that "fair words butter no parsnips," and even if they could have that effect, he believed that the Irish militia, if hastily disembodied, would experience a very great difficulty, considering the present state of the labour market, in obtaining that useful vegetable. He was informed by a statement which had reached him that day, that the employment of a tenth of the weavers in the north of Ireland had been taken away by the power-looms, as the manufacturers were making arrangements to put up a great many more looms, they not having contemplated so early a termination of the war. He fully subscribed to the doctrine that the militia were embodied for the service of the country in a time of war, and that no Government would be justified in employing them long after the conclusion of peace. He thought, however, that it would be an act of great unfairness to call for the services of a number of men, and to dismiss them at a season when they were unable to return to those employments from which, for the most part, they were taken. Such a proceeding would inflict a great and grievous hardship upon a body of men who, it was admitted upon all hands, had rendered the most essential service to the country. He also wished to call the attention of the Government to the case of the subaltern officers in the Irish militia regiments, who were circumstanced very differently from their brother officers in this country. The Irish militia had only been embodied eighteen months, and consequently the officers' pay was not sufficient to cover the money actually out of pocket for their outfit and expenses, as would be seen on referring to the actual figures. They had lost those other employments which they had before they joined the regiments, and unless some consideration was shown them they would be actually out of pocket by their loyalty. As a mere question of policy he thought this worthy of consideration, and that the House ought not to let a matter of a few months' additional pay, now that the war had been brought so rapidly to a successful termination, to stand in the way of doing an act of justice to those officers. The class to which he alluded particularly was that of subalterns, surgeons, and paymasters. If the Government failed to do them justice or were guilty of a mean stinginess on this occasion, they might perhaps look in vain for them when their services were again required.

said, that before the hon. Gentleman answered the hon. Member's question, there were one or two points to which he wished to draw his attention. He would, however, first suggest that if the commanding officers of regiments were instructed to allow the men to retire as employment offered, it would have the effect of gradually diminishing the force without causing serious inconvenience. Of course, now that the war had been concluded, it was impossible to keep up the militia; but he thought the case of the officers a peculiarly hard one. Formerly, the House would recollect, every officer of the militia was obliged to possess a qualification, which qualification was removed at the commencement of the war, and the consequence was that a large number of officers whose circumstances were not so good, and whose pay was of consequence to them, were induced to give their services. They had no resources but what they had derived from their employment, and they naturally enough asked, now that they were to be disembodied, that they should not be out of pocket. The pay of a militia ensign was, he believed, about £95 a year; his outfit cost him £70, and he was obliged to live in mess the same way as the officers in the line. He thought that this class of officers deserved the consideration of the Government. The remuneration ought not to be extravagant, but, at all events, some should be given to them. In his view it was of the highest importance to keep the militia staff in an efficient state, otherwise they might just as well save the £23,000 or £24,000 a year that it cost the country. The whole question of militia ought now to be taken into consideration, and proper means adopted for securing that efficiency. With regard to the honorary colonels of militia, if these officers were abolished in the disembodying of the militia, he did not see how the business would go on at all. Then, with regard to the stores—the counties ought not to be put to the expense of finding room for the stores, and he hoped the Government would find room in some of the barracks for them. The question of the clothing of the men was also one deserving of attention. It was no disgrace to them to say that at the time they entered the service they had very little to call their own; and, although after one year's service the clothing was given up to them, he thought it would hardly be fit for much. He thought that the Government were bound to allow the men some kind of clothing before they quitted the service, and he submitted this with the other points to which he had called the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War.

said, that he was very much surprised that the paymasters were left out of the list of officers to whom it was proposed to give some additional pay. They had performed the most important services, and were taken from their professional duties for that purpose. They ought, therefore, to be placed in the same position as the others. The speech of the noble Lord last night, and its reception by the House, was a proof that something ought to be done for the militia; and he was, therefore, justified in asking what compensation, if any, would be given, on disembodiment, to the staff officers, subalterns, non-commissioned officers, and privates of militia?

said, that, in answer to the question put by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. H. Herbert), he could only state what he said the other evening—namely, that the militia of Scotland and England would be dealt with in the same manner as the Irish militia. He was not before aware of the distinction between the two countries at the present moment with respect to employment, and, therefore, what had been said on that subject was not without weight. No one could be more anxious than the Members of the Government that the militia should return to their employments at a time when a fair chance of work was afforded to them. Of course all that he could engage to do was to take care that the subject should have the best attention of his noble Friend at the head of the War Department. It would he satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen to know that it was intended to place the paymasters in the same category as the other officers referred to. The continuance of half-pay generally had reference to the time during which the militia were embodied. In this case they had only been embodied eighteen months, and it was intended to continue the half-pay for three months. The suggestions thrown out by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Dunne) should have the best attention of the Government.

wished to ask whether, on the appointment of Mr. Pashley to the office of Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions, any condition was made as to the continuance of his private practice at the bar? He put the question because, in a public journal of large circulation in the metropolis, a letter appeared, the writer of which had enclosed his name to the editor, and which stated that, on the day before, the court over which Mr. Pashley presided adjourned for half an hour, in order to enable the learned Judge to go to Westminster Hall to transact private business of his own, and that on the following day, May 2, the counsel, jurors, parties, and witnesses were kept waiting from ten o'clock till half-past ten while the learned Judge was similarly occupied in Westminster Hall. No statement in answer to that letter had yet appeared. He would not contend that in the absence of any contradiction it was just to assume that the report was correct; but, as the subject was one of interest to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought the absence of any contradiction justified the course he had pursued. If the representations of this letter were not true, then it was due to the learned Judge that he should be relieved from the odium of this irregularity. If, on the other hand, they were correct, he would only express his own hope, and he believed also that of every Member of the House, that the right hon. Baronet would take steps to prevent the recurrence of a proceeding which was irreconcilable and inconsistent with the proper administration of justice.

In answer to the question put by my noble Friend, I have to answer that I made no stipulation with Mr. Pashley in appointing him to the office of Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions that he should discontinue his private practice, and for this reason—that he was appointed under an Act of Parliament which imposed no such restriction upon him. The Recorder of London, the Recorder of Bristol, with every other Recorder, and the Common Serjeant of London, have judicial business to perform quite as important as the Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sussions, and they are not prevented from taking private practice. With reference to the allegations which are said to have appeared in the papers with regard to Mr. Pashley, I never heard of them until now. But I am informed by my learned Friend the Attorney General that Mr. Pashley has seen them, and has authorised my learned Friend to state that they are quite incorrect, and that the business of his court has not been impeded by his attention to his private practice. I quite admit that if any gentleman chooses to accept a judicial office he is bound to give his first attention to the duties of that office, and that he would be very culpable if he allowed his private practice and interests to stand in the way of the proper discharge of the duties of his office.

, in rising to submit some observations to the House relative to the state of Greece, said, he wished to remind the House that on the 3rd April, the noble Lord (Visct. Palmerston) in answer to a question put to him, said, that such was the administrative talent of the Government of Greece that in no part of the kingdom were life and property safe except in the three miles of road between Athens and the Piræus. The accuracy of that statement had been assented to by the whole population of Greece, but their pride had been somewhat hurt that the road in question was stated to be only three miles in length when it was as much as five; and therefore there were five miles of direct communication in Greece where life and property were safe by day and by night. There had not been any assurance on the part of the protecting Powers that measures would be taken for acting upon the Government of Greece, and much despondency had therefore been felt by Her Majesty's subjects in that country that nothing had been done. The present condition of Greece had been brought before the recent Conferences in Paris, for he found in the protocol of the 22nd of April the following important reference to it:—

"Count Walewski says that it is desirable that the Plenipotentiaries, before they separate, should interchange their ideas on different subjects which require to be settled, and which it might be advantageous to take up, in order to prevent fresh complications. Although specially assembled for settling the Eastern question, the Congress, according to the first Plenipotentiary of France, might reproach itself for not having taken advantage of the circumstance which brings together the representatives of the principal Powers of Europe, to clear up certain questions, to lay down certain principles, to express intentions—in fine, to make certain declarations, always and solely with the view of ensuring the future tranquillity of the world, by dispelling the clouds which are still seen looming on the political horizon before they become menacing.

"It cannot be denied, he says, that Greece is in an abnormal state. The anarchy to which that country was a prey has compelled France and England to send troops to the Piræus at a time when their armies, nevertheless, did not want occupation. The Congress knows in what state Greece was; neither is it ignorant that that in which it now is, is far from being satisfactory. Would it not, therefore, be advantageous that the Powers represented in the Congress should manifest the wish to see the three protecting Courts take into serious consideration the deplorable situation of the kingdom which they have created, and devise means to make provision for it?

"Count Walewski does not doubt that the Earl of Clarendon will join with him in declaring that the two Governments await with impatience the time when they shall be at liberty to terminate an occupation to which nevertheless they are unable without the most serious inconvenience to put an end, so long as real modifications shall not be introduced into the state of things in Greece."

It should be remembered that the protecting Powers had created the kingdom of Greece. In 1845, Lord Aberdeen stated that the position of Greece was, that the kingdom had been created by the three protecting Powers, who were bound to protect her independence; and, moreover, a loan of money had been secured, the interest of which was guaranteed by them. The result of this, however, had been, that the Consolidated Fund of this country had been burdened to the extent of £376,000 already on that account, and was charged to the extent of £47,000 per annum. This would be less unsatisfactory if the money thus retained by Greece was devoted to proper purposes. But what was the state of the country and the conduct of the monarch? Why, his civil list absorbed one-twelfth of the entire revenue, and the country was without local improvements, everything being in the hands of the Court, and all parties who were interested in the country naturally looked to the protecting Powers to bring about some alteration of this state of things. The last speech made by the late Sir Robert Peel enunciated the principle, repeated the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts, of non-interference in the affairs of friendly countries. But could Greece be looked upon as a friendly Power when she had been base enough at a moment of exigency to raise troops to annoy and invade the territory of our Ally the Porte? But the occupation by the allied forces of the Piræus marked the present as a period when this country should interfere. The country was one scene of brigandage and outrage. In one month not less than eighteen persons had been executed in Athens alone for murder; and thirty-five persons were known to have been murdered or tortured by the brigands. Under these circumstances, surely the subjects of this country resident or interested in Greece were entitled to expect from the Government, not only a declaration of its policy and of its sympathy with the inhabitants of that country, but some intention to interfere in order to bring about a better state of things, and relieve the wretched inhabitants from their present unhappy position. The occupation of the Piræus by the Allies had failed to produce any effect in quelling the disturbances which existed, because the Government of Greece had given no assistance to those who were endeavouring to effect that result. The question was whether we, who have joined in setting a Sovereign upon the throne of Greece, not the fittest for the post, were not now called upon to interfere in a state of misgovernment under which our own subjects resident in that country suffered severely, and our commerce had fallen off one-fourth. As a matter of form, and to enable the noble Lord at the head of the Government to answer him, he would move the adjournment.

however, did not rise to reply.

said, the adjournment could not be moved.

could not help calling the attention of the House to the situation in which they were likely to be placed by what might be called a licentious use of the privileges of Members. Between a question whether a certain judge of a court of justice had kept a jury waiting while attending to his private practice, and a question with respect to the persons to whom the amnesty was to extend, an hon. Gentleman had introduced one of the most grave and difficult questions of European policy which could be brought under the consideration of the House. He proposed that the three protecting Powers should interfere for the purpose of solving the great problem connected with the state of Greece, and took the opportunity of the Motion for adjournment to make that proposition. It was far too grave a question to be introduced in such a manner. The hon. Gentleman read a passage from a protocol from which, he said, it would seem that the Conference had met for the government of the world; but if the hon. Gentleman was making a legitimate use of the Motion for adjournment, might it not be remarked that the Motion for adjournment was made to give him an opportunity to discuss the government of the world? The kingdom of Greece was limited in extent, but the questions connected with it were of the utmost importance, and it was not creditable to the dignity of the House that such questions should be discussed in this haphazard manner. Weighty words might be dropped, and conclusions of portentous magnitude pointed out, in mere inadvertence. The noble Lord did not, indeed, appear inclined to reply; and he hoped his noble Friend would refuse to do so. He took a great interest in the affairs of Greece, and he demurred to the accuracy of the picture drawn by the hon. Gentleman; but he certainly would not follow his example by entering into any detailed statement.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had been very hard upon his hon. Friend, who had taken a very usual course; to which, however the right hon. Gentleman in this instance might object, he had no reason to single out his hon. Friend's question as an exception to it. His hon. Friend had stated the information he had received, and he (Mr. Spooner) knew that the information which his hon. Friend received was accurate. His hon. Friend had truly stated that great sympathy had been excited by what appeared to be the state of Greece, and that many persons in that country felt deeply what had fallen from the noble Lord with reference to what had passed at the Conferences. His hon. Friend had been naturally anxious to know whether the noble Lord had directed his attention to the condition, not only of the people of Greece, but of our own subjects there, with a view to their protection and security; and wanted to know whether they were to remain without protection in their present state. His hon. Friend had a right to make such inquiries, considering that we paid £47,000 a year for the interest on the Greek loan. The noble Lord ought to be prepared to give some assurance that something would be done to remedy such a state of things.

made no reply.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had claimed exemption to the general rule of introducing a desultory discussion on the Motion for adjournment, on the ground that something was about to happen in the ensuing week which would render his mentioning it at a future period of no benefit. He was sorry to cut away the ground from under his hon. and learned Friend's feet, but such was not the case. The East India Directors had, as was known to the hon. and learned Gentleman and many others, passed a resolution with reference to their granting a pension of £5,000 a year to Lord Dalhousie; but by the law, and also by the by-law of the Company, they were obliged to submit the resolution to two Courts of Proprietors for approval. One court would be held on Wednesday next, and the second on the following Wednesday, which would be after the reassembling of Parliament. After that the Directors would have to submit the resolution to the President of the Board of Control and the Government for approval; and after that the grant must be submitted within a month to the sanction of Parliament. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) considered the hon. and learned Gentleman had submitted a case to him for his opinion that ought to have been submitted to the legal officers of the Crown. It was one he declined then giving any opinion on, but he assured the House that if there were any doubts with regard to the power of the East India Board of Directors to grant this pension, he should take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown before consenting to it. The question now stood in the position which he had stated, and not having heard the grounds upon which the East India Directors proposed to grant this pension to Lord Dalhousie, he declined pledging the Government one way or the other. He thought, however, there was nothing extraordinary in the East India Directors being desirous of marking their approval of the satisfactory manner in which the noble Lord had discharged the duties of his high office. The noble Lord's administration in India had received the unanimous approval of the Board of Directors, and, in consequence, he had been prevailed on by them to protract his stay beyond the usual period, in spite of severe domestic calamities and much personal suffering. It was, therefore, nothing extraordinary that the Court of Directors should wish to visit with special reward the great services of that eminent man, whom Her Majesty had already advanced to additional honours in the peerage. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he doubted the power of the East India Directors to grant this pension; but he did not appear to have stated whether the power of granting it was taken away from the Board of Directors in 1853, or had never existed. Having had his attention called to the question, he (Mr. V. Smith) had gone over the various Acts of Parliament with reference to it, and there appeared to him to be nothing in the Act of 1853 which destroyed the previous powers of the Board of Directors to grant pensions. The 55 Geo. III. c. 64, in his opinion gave them the power to do it, with the consent of the President of the Board of Control. It was under that Act of Parliament that pensions were granted to the Marquess Wellesley and to Lord Hardinge. He could only repeat, that if there was the slightest doubt that the Board of Directors had not the power to grant this pension, he should consult the law officers of the Crown on it before he consented to the grant or submitted it to Parliament.

said, that the House would probably remember that on the 28th of February last, a discussion took place relative to the Bank Charter Act, and a Committee was then appointed to inquire into its operation. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the importance of the subject, but thought it an inopportune period at which to, move for the appointment of a Committee, on account of the continuance of the war; and added, that if the Motion had been made at a later period of the Session, he would not have opposed it on the part of the Government. He (Mr. Malins) again called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the subject, because the evils which were then alluded to had not diminished, but were in full operation at the present time. On that occasion the right hon. Baronet stated that the bullion in the Bank of England was £10,575,000; but since then it had dropped to little more than £9,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman thought there was no danger in the bullion in the Bank at that time being so low, because the reserve, or unemployed notes, amounted to £5,500,000; but since then they had dropped to £3,500,000. Recollecting that the country was exposed to great peril in 1847, when the balance had sunk so low as £8,000,000, he wished to know what the Government proposed to do on its getting down again so low as that, and whether they intended to allow this great commercial country to be again exposed to similar perils without attempting any remedy. He, then, would put the following question to the right hon. Gentleman:—Whether, seeing that the bullion in the Bank of England continues to diminish, it is the intention of the Government to allow the present Session of Parliament to expire without taking any measure to relax the strictness of the provisions of the Act of 1844, which regulates the issue of bank-notes?

said, he must answer the question with regard to the present state of things by a reference to the amount of bullion in the Bank on the week ending the 5th of January last, when it was £10,537,000; on the 26th of April it was £9,723,000, and on the 3rd of May £9,807,000, showing a deficit since the first week of the year of £730,000. That was the whole of the diminution of the amount of bullion in the Bank of England, compared with the first week of the year. It was to be observed that the drain of bullion on the Bank of England had been caused, to a certain extent, by the Turkish loan, the residue of which, now in the Bank of England, was £650,000. That drain would now cease, and the supplies required for the Commissariat chest, now the war was at an end, would be much less than it had been lately; so that, under these circumstances, it was more than likely that the amount of bullion in the Bank of England would increase rather than continue to diminish. The Government had no intention at present to propose any measure for altering the Bank Charter Act of 1844.

said, that although no good could spring from a discussion not terminating in any Motion, the hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to every consideration, for the question was one of life or death. If the House should overrule the decision at which he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) had arrived, no one would rejoice more than he, because it would relieve him from a weight of very painful responsibility. He trusted that he understood the duties he had to perform, not only as regarded the unhappy convict, but as regarded the public, whom, in these matters, the Attorney General in some degree represented; and, if he had not the moral courage to perform those duties to the best of his skill and judgment with fearlessness and firmness, he should be unfit to fill the office which the Queen had been pleased to confer upon him. He did not complain of the course which had been pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but there was clearly great misapprehension upon the subject. There appeared to be an impression that the prisoner had been unfairly treated, by not being afforded the opportunity of challenging peremptorily the jury. Whether there was or was not any technical irregularity, he (Mr. FitzGerald) would assert most confidently that the trial of the prisoner was most impartial, and he was at a loss to discover a single point upon which it could be alleged that an injustice had been done to the prisoner. He was not aware whether the proceedings in criminal trials in this country were in every respect similar to those in Ireland, but there they were of a most solemn and impressive nature, and had been observed most carefully upon the occasion of the late trial. The complaint was, that the prisoner had not been allowed his peremptory challenge. The course of criminal trials was this—when a jury panel had been drawn, it was the duty of the Clerk of the Crown solemnly to apprise the prisoner that he had a right peremptorily to challenge twenty jurors; that was to say, to object to any twenty of them without assigning any reason for so doing, by merely saying the word "challenge"—and also that he had an unlimited right of challenge "for cause." That warning was given to the prisoner. It was also the duty of the Clerk of the Crown, at the commencement of the trial, to apprise the prisoner that then was the time to challenge—that warning also was given to the prisoner. There was a further protection offered him. As a prisoner, from his humble circumstances, was often unable to have the assistance and advice of counsel, the following precaution was provided for him by the Crown—and this was done in the present case—when a juror was sworn he was required to hold the Testament in his hand, the Clerk of the Crown saying these words—"Juror, look upon the prisoner; prisoner, look upon the juror," the object being to give the prisoner the opportunity of challenging. In this particular case every one of these formalities was gone through, and a jury of twelve was sworn, the prisoner having exercised his right to challenge peremptorily, and six persons having been set aside upon the ground of their coming from the neighbourhood of the place where the crime was committed. In addition to this, he (Mr. FitzGerald) took care himself to lay down certain rules for the guidance of the Crown solicitor, inasmuch as the nature of the trial was peculiar, and he was desirous that nothing irregular should be done. It was the right of the Crown to "set aside" jurors; and though that right had been sometimes abused by the Crown for the purpose of "packing" a jury, he hoped that it could never be said of him that he used the power for any such unworthy purpose. He now held in his hand a copy of the instructions which he had given to the Crown solicitor:—1st. Remove all publicans and persons in the spirit trade. 2nd. All whom you have good reason to believe to be members of the Riband Society or other illegal societies. 3rd. All persons from the immediate vicinity of the scene of the offence. 4th. No juror to be set aside by reason of his religion. In addition to this, if the prisoner's counsel objected to a juror, the Crown did not put him to his challenge, but exercised its right in the prisoner's favour, and set him aside. There was another provision made for the prisoner; inasmuch as it was a Special Commission, and the prisoner was poor, he had the whole Bar to select his counsel from, and the Crown undertook to pay the expense. The prisoner named to represent him a gentleman of undoubted skill, of high character, and great experience, and with such assistance for the prisoner, the trial proceeded. After the jury had been sworn and the counsel for the Crown opened the case, but before any witnesses had been examined, or other steps taken, it was announced in court that one of the jurors was so ill that attendance upon what threatened to be a protracted trial might endanger his life. Accordingly, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas asked him (Mr. FitzGerald) what course ought to be adopted. The ordinary course was to swear a medical man to examine the juror, and if it were found that he was too ill to proceed, then to discharge him. That course was adopted, and upon the certificate of the medical man the juror was discharged. Under those circumstances, although the trial had not commenced, although no witnesses had been examined, the jury was formally discharged, and another jury was sworn. The new jury was sworn, consisting of a new juror and the original eleven, every one of whom was re-sworn, with the same forms and solemnities as had been originally observed, except that the formal warning was not given to the prisoner by the Clerk of the Crown, that he was at liberty peremptorily to challenge the jury; but the counsel and attorney of the prisoner were by, and they might have challenged. When the jury was called over, and the Clerk of the Crown came to the new juryman, he asked the prisoner if he had any objection to this new man; and, no objection being made, he was sworn. The trial proceeded, no objection was taken—no suggestion was made, and he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) observed that in the statement which had been drawn up there was no allegation that the prisoner's counsel was not aware that he had the right to challenge. The trial occupied two days, and after a very long speech from the prisoner's counsel, and much evidence on his behalf, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that, after the jury had returned their verdict, the prisoner had another opportunity of urging any reason why the judgment of the Court should not follow. The Clerk of the Crown went through the solemn form of calling the prisoner forward, of informing him that he had been found guilty, and asking him if he had anything to urge why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced. Nothing was said—no suggestion of irregularity or unfairness was made either by the prisoner or his counsel, and the sentence of the law was pronounced. It was not until some weeks after that anything further was heard upon the subject, when an application was made to the learned Judges who tried the case to grant their certificate, for the purpose of taking the case before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The learned Judges refused their certificate. Application was then made to him (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) to grant his fiat for a writ of error. It was undoubted law that a writ of error could not issue in Crown cases without the fiat of the Attorney General, but it was not a thing to be granted or refused at the mere pleasure or caprice of the Attorney General; and in withholding it in this case he had acted on his deliberate judgment. He was in London when he received the papers; but, entertaining a strong opinion on the case, he proceeded to Dublin for the purpose of hearing the counsel of the prisoner—and, on Monday last, every ground was urged upon him in support of the prisoner's case. In the course of the discussion, he put this question to the prisoner's counsel, "Did you at the trial observe what you now alleged to be a defect, or was it something which afterwards occurred to you?" Counsel answered— "I did observe it at the trial; got two persons to take a note of what occurred; and I did not take the objection at the trial, because I intended to take it afterwards." That was to say, he took his chance of a verdict, and when he found it was adverse to him, he endeavoured to take advantage of a technical objection. Having heard all counsel had to urge on the prisoner's behalf, he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) entertained not the slightest shadow of a doubt that there was no question to be raised or discussed on a writ of error, and he therefore felt it to be his duty to refuse his fiat. The objection, if there was any ground for it, ought to have been taken at the trial, and he felt it would have been an improper exercise of the discretion vested in him if he had allowed his fiat to have gone forth. The only effect of it would have been to have prolonged the unhappy position of the convict, without giving him the slightest ray of hope; but if there had been the smallest ground for acceding to the application, he would have been glad to have done so. The application to him even rested on error in the record; but on looking to the record, a copy of which he had now before him, the allegation of fact was entirely negatived, and a writ of error would have been a most idle and mischievous proceeding. He had acted to the best of his judgment, and with the mental intrepidity which became him; but if the appeal to the House of the hon. and learned Gentleman should have the effect of reversing the decision at which he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) had arrived, no Member would more rejoice than himself.

said, he should not do justice to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland if he did not say that he had not the slightest shade of doubt that his hon. and learned Friend had exercised a sound discretion in this matter. It was certain that a writ of error could not issue without the fiat of the Attorney General. This he stated not simply on his own judgment or opinion, but on the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. In a case which had recently come before the Court of Queen's Bench in this country, where the Attorney General had refused his fiat, application was made to the Court to issue its mandamus to compel the Attorney General to give his fiat. Having satisfied himself that this was not an objection arising on the record, he had looked to see whether, in his opinion, justice had been substantially done. If justice had not been done he would have granted his fiat, that the error might be rectified, but he was satisfied that substantial justice had been done to the prisoner, and refused his fiat. The Court held that the matter was entirely within the discretion of the Attorney General, and they could not control it; but they added that they entirely concurred in thinking that the Attorney General was right in refusing his fiat where he was satisfied that justice had been done, and when the error was a technical one, of which advantage might have been but had not been taken at the trial. It was not the fact that the right of challenging the eleven jurymen before the twelfth was sworn had been withheld from the prisoner; he did not claim, and did not exercise it. Even if the officer of the Court had a right to challenge he did not think that would be a ground upon which error could be assigned. It was part of the law, which every one was presumed to know. But in this case the prisoner and his counsel were informed as to their right; instead of exercising it they took their chance of a verdict; and after the prisoner had been convicted they applied to his hon. and learned Friend for his fiat upon this purely technical point. His hon. and learned Friend, however, acted upon the sound principles laid down by the Court of Queen's Bench in the Queen v. Newton, and thinking that substantial justice had been done, he had the moral courage to take on himself the responsibility of refusing his fiat. This question had been brought forward in another place, and all the luminaries of the law—.Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Campbell, Lord St. Leonards, Lord Brougham, and the Lord Chancellor—expressed the opinion that his hon. and learned Friend had acted legally and constitutionally. After the statement that had been made that evening, he was sure that no one would believe that perfect justice had not been done to the prisoner.

on the whole, thought it would have been better if the Crown had informed the prisoner that he had a right to challenge the eleven men again before the twelfth was sworn. He was by no means sure that it was the duty of the counsel for the prisoner to point out any error in the proceedings instead of taking advantage of it. When he defended Smith O'Brien he took the objection—he could now confess that it was a bad one—that the prisoner had not been furnished with a list of the witnesses for the prosecution. It was a question whether it would not be better to allow a doubtful point to be argued before the Court of Criminal Appeal upon a certificate of counsel, instead of leaving it, as at present, to the option of the Judges. He doubted, too, whether it was in accordance with our beautiful system of law that the prosecutor should have power to refuse his fiat for a writ of error. He did not think, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had improperly exercised his discretion in this instance.

agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last as to the advisability of having given the prisoner an intimation that he had a right of challenge, but he considered that the Attorney General for Ireland was justified in withholding the fiat in this instance.

read a passage from one of the affidavits to show that the prisoner would have struck off one of the eleven jurymen if he had the opportunity. Ours was a law of usages and customs, and if the right of challenge were a component part of it, and not simply an idle and unmeaning form the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted. There was no precedent to justify such a departure from the ordinary practice as had been permitted in the present case. There was the high authority of Chief Justice Holt for the doctrine that the writ of error was a matter of right, not grace, and that it did not depend on the discretion of the Attorney General. The sooner the House arrived at a clear understanding on the subject and decided that when there had been erroneous judgment the case should be reviewed by a competent authority, the better would it be for the administration of justice. The people would have greater confidence in the tribunals of the country, and the Judges would be more careful in dealing with the lives and liberties of their fellow-subjects. As the present was a new case, the safest course would be to give it a liberal construction, and there was an additional inducement to do so in the reflection that, whatever injury might follow from rejecting the petition, none could possibly result from granting it.

gave his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) every credit for having acted with boldness and manfully doing his duty on the present occasion. At the same time he was bound to express a hope that the refusal to allow the writ of error would not be drawn into a precedent; the issuing the writ did not imply a reversal of the original sentence; it simply afforded the opportunity of examining whether the proceedings in the Court below had been strictly regular. The real question to be considered was, had the prisoner the right. No matter how technical the objection, no matter what the impression as to his guilt—had they a right to take away his life, except according to law? Now, in the present case, the prisoner alleged that he had not been tried according to law; while a gentleman whom he (Mr. Butt) might say ranked amongst the highest of the common law Bar in Ireland—he meant Mr. Fitzgibbon—deliberately set his hand to the statement that in the present proceedings there was "error"—and that that error was sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. There was no instance on record of an Attorney General refusing his fiat after such a declaration, had been made by so eminent a counsel. And there was the less reason why the fiat should have been withheld in the present case, inasmuch as the error complained of was that of the Attorney General himself, who was bound to give the prisoner every right the law permitted. The Attorney General had, with the best intentions, asserted a prerogative that was objectionable in principle, and had already proved mischievous in practice; for it was no light matter that the extreme sentence should be carried into effect on any man in regard to whom there was a reasonable cause to doubt whether he had had such a trial as the laws of his country prescribed.

considered that no injustice had been done by the refusal of his hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to give way on a mere technical point. There might have been considerable excitement in Ireland on the subject, but it must have arisen from an entire misapprehension of the facts. The hon. and learned Members for Enniskillen and Dublin had been quite convinced by the explanation of the Attorney General, and it must be satisfactory to his hon. and learned Friend to know that those who were best qualified to judge had pronounced their entire approbation of his conduct. In addition, the highest judicial authorities in another place had given their opinion that the Attorney General for Ireland had acted with the strictest propriety. He (Mr. Baines) hoped his hon. and learned Friend's conduct would serve as an example to future Attorneys General, when called on to perform a painful and delicate, but indispensable duty.

thought that this was a most anomalous power to lodge in the hands of the Attorney General, and that it was most desirable it should be removed from him. He was, however, satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman had exercised it in the present case with great propriety and with that moral courage which society had a right to expect from a man occupying his position.

said, that he could not conceive that, with a due regard to the duties of his office, the hon. and learned Gentleman could have followed any other course than that which he had pursued. If a writ of error were to be granted upon such frivolous grounds as those put forward in this case, writs of error would be sued out upon every conviction that took place. He would defy any lawyer to get up and state to the House and the country, that in this case there was error upon the record. Had there been a challenge, and that challenge refused, and a statement of that refusal indorsed on the record, it would have been different. But if there had been any failure of justice, which he did not believe, it would be owing to the fault of the prisoner's own counsel in not taking the trouble to whisper across the table to the Attorney General that he wanted to challenge one of the jurors. He deprecated very strongly hon. Members standing up in that House and making statements which went to insinuate that a man had been improperly convicted.

said, it was true that, strictly speaking, this was not a matter of error on the record, and so far the Attorney General was quite right in saying that he would not grant his fiat for a writ of error when there was no error on the record. But that was not the substantial question before them. It was rather a matter for the discretion of the Crown, advised by the Attorney General, than a matter for the discretion of the hon. and learned Gentleman whether or not he would grant a new trial. The prisoner had challenged twenty men peremptorily; but as, from the illness of a juryman, the other eleven had to be re-sworn, with the new juryman, this was in reality a new jury, and the prisoner had the right of peremptorily challenging twenty more. He could not help thinking, under all the circumstances, that the Attorney General would have taken a better course if he had distinctly informed the prisoner of his right to challenge, and if he had called the attention of his counsel to the power which they could exercise. Not having done that, he was of opinion that the Attorney General would have done well to advise the Crown to permit the opinion of the learned Judges to be taken upon the question.

Sir, the distinguished and brilliant services of General Williams are so fresh in the recollection of everybody I am now addressing, that I feel that I should really almost be doing injustice to that gallant individual by entering into any detail of the grounds on which I propose to move an Address to Her Majesty in answer to Her gracious Message. It has seldom fallen to the lot of any man to be able, in his own person, to perform services more brilliant, displaying more the energy of a commanding character, or more calculated to produce important results, as far as those results depended on the exertions, talents, and efforts of the gallant officer himself, than have been performed by General Williams. I will only make one remark, and that is, that General Williams is, I believe, a native of Nova Scotia; and it therefore must be a matter of satisfaction to the House to feel that our fellow-countrymen in North America have partaken, through the person of General Williams, in the distinguished services which marked the war in the East. I have only to add that Her Majesty has been pleased to confer upon General Williams the dignity of a Baronet, and, in order to mark more distinctly the services for which that honour is conferred on him, Her Majesty has been pleased to grant that the dignity be held with the style and title of Sir William Fenwick Williams, of Kars. I beg to move to resolve—

"That the annual sum of One Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to be settled upon Major General Sir William Fenwick Williams, K.C.B., for the term of his natural life, to commence from the 8th day of May, 1856."

Sir, I believe that in point of strict form, it is not necessary that a Resolution moved when the House is in Committee should be seconded. Nevertheless, I hope I may be allowed the great gratification of stating in a few brief sentences how cordially I concur in the proposal now submitted to the Committee by the noble Lord. Sir, I feel convinced that not only will the Motion of the noble Lord be carried with acclamation by all within these walls, but I hope and believe that out of doors the proposal will receive the sanction and support with no less unanimity of every subject of Her Majesty. Sir, no Member in this House concurred more heartily than I did in the tribute of gratitude paid to the gallantry of the army and navy yesterday, so eloquently proposed and so unanimously adopted by the House. I feel very strongly that next after those signal mercies for which during the late war this nation has reason to be grateful to Divine Providence, the early and successful termination of the war must be attributed to the wonderful gallantry of the British army and the noble spirit of the British people. Never were those high qualities more conspicuous than they have been during the late war; and I am glad to take this opportunity of stating that I entirely agree with the observation which fell the other evening from the noble Lord the Member for London, when he said that the events of the late war have offered an additional and a triumphant proof of the vigour and power of free institutions. But the position and services of General Sir William Williams of Kars have been altogether peculiar, and quite distinct from those services recognised in the unanimous vote of yesterday. In the case of General Williams, neither the high spirit of the British people nor the gallantry of the British army could exercise any successful influence on the defence or fall of Kars. Had it been otherwise, perhaps, there is nothing presumptuous in believing that the fate of that fortress might have been very different from what it was. I think, Sir, I should only give expression to what every man must feel, when I express the opinion that the conduct of General Williams, in the defence of Kars, displayed a combination of all the highest qualities of the British character—that it was marked, by all the valour, all the sagacity, and all the skill which make an eminent commander. Amongst other reasons for our rejoicing at the termination of the war is the consciousness that the restoration of the blessings of peace terminates the captivity of General Williams; and I cannot allude to his captivity without uttering some words of recognition of the generous treatment he has received from General Mouravieff. That generous treatment has been recognised by General Williams himself, in the most grateful language; and we find interesting records of the same behaviour in the pages of Dr. Sandwith. General Williams, I hope, Sir, will in a few days return to this country. I trust that upon his return, with restored health and covered with honour, he will be received with that enthusiasm which his eminent services so fully deserve. I am convinced that upon his return to his native land General Williams will be deeply gratified—as I, in common with my countrymen, feel grateful to Her Majesty, and, I must say, to Her Majesty's Government—for the prompt, generous, and appropriate recognition of his services, which, though not crowned with success, will stand out in history as amongst the most conspicuous and distinguished of those glorious deeds of which there have been so many instances in the late brief but sanguinary war.

said, he could assure the House that he had no desire to interpose by any observations of his to prevent them from proceeding with the business that was immediately to follow this Resolution; nor was he presumptuous enough to suppose that anything which he could say could add value to the statements of the noble Lord or the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. But while they remembered with admiration and gratitude the distinguished and eminent services of General Williams, he hoped he might be pardoned if he expressed a hope that they would not forget the very valuable services of the small but gallant band who had stood by General Williams's side through the many eventful months of that memorable siege, and who had contributed almost as much as their distinguished chief to make the character of British officers admired and respected throughout the world. He must take the liberty of saying that he thought the country had neither been generous nor prompt enough in its recognition of the claims of the companions of General Williams at Kars. For instance, let them take the case of Colonel Lake. That gallant colonel was a distinguished officer in the East India Company's service when he was engaged by Her Majesty's Government to go to Kars; and though he was at the time on leave of absence in this country, he gave up a valuable and important post in the East Indies to comply with the wishes of the Government. He was employed at Kars on a very reduced salary. Every one knew that he there rendered most important services. He had in a short time succeeded in making what had been the trifling fortress of Ears an almost impregnable fortress; of which fact they had the testimony of the Russians themselves, who had styled him the English Todleben. He thought we might take a lesson from the manner in which the Russian Government had recognisd the services of General Todleben, who, from being a subaltern in the Artillery, had been raised to the rank of general, and had received every honour which his Sovereign could confer upon him. Then there was the case of Lieutenant Teesdale. No one who had read the report of that able officer could have failed to be struck by the intelligence and prudence of all his arrangements. His skill and intelligence could only be equalled by his gallantry and humanity. Dr. Sandwith mentioned one cirumstance connected with Lieutenant Teesdale which was not forgotten by the enemy when he was at length taken prisoner. It was, that in the midst of a storm of grape and musketry he leaped over a battery to save the life of a Russian officer who was being ill-treated by some fanatic Turks. From all that they knew of General Williams, he (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) was sure that though he would gratefully appreciate the value of the present recognition of his services by the British Parliament, he would still feel that something was wanted to make his triumph complete if honours extended to him were not shared in by those who, by their counsel and personal valour, had contributed to his success. He (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) did not know that Government might not have some honour in store for those officers: at all events, he hoped that no mere routine—nothing of that which was called red-tapeism—would prevent unprecedented services from being marked by unprecedented rewards.

said that, of course, he could not know how the Government proposed to carry out the wishes of Her Majesty; but he was sure that it would afford increased pleasure to the country if it were known that the baronetcy which was to be conferred upon General Williams was bestowed free of all the ordinary fees upon such occasions. In the case of Sir J. Burgoyne the fees had been paid by the Government.

They are always paid by the Government when the baronetcy is conferred for services in the field.

expressed his satisfaction that such was the case. He regretted to hear that, under the present statutes of the Order of the Bath, the distinctions of that Order could not be conferred on those young men, the distinguished companions of General Williams. He, however, hoped that there would be a considerable increase made, on the occasion of the Queen's birthday, in the number of those who obtained the Bath distinctions—that those young officers would then be remembered, and that the distinguished veterans of the Peninsular war would not be forgotten either. One case would illustrate the hardship of the present statutes of the Order. A young soldier, Lieutenant Colonel Packe, took the command of the 7th Fusiliers, after Colonel Yea was killed, and was shot down in the attack on the Redan, near the abbatis. He was unable, owing to the severity of his wound, to sign when the list of the killed and wounded was being taken, and was omitted from Lord Raglan's despatch. So that the circumstances of his having been badly wounded, which should have entitled him to additional honour, actually shut him out from a participation in the honours of the Order of the Bath. He (Colonel North) had seen letters from Generals Codrington and Simpson, and the officer who commanded the brigade on the occasion, all concurring in their statement of the services of Lieutenant Colonel Packe. He (Colonel North) thought that this case illustrated the necessity of a change in the statutes of the Bath.

said that, as the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) had paid so graceful a tribute to some of the comrades of General Williams at Kars, he must be excused if he ventured to mention the name of Dr. Sandwith, who had been liberated by General Mouravieff on account of the humanity and skill with which he had treated not only Turkish but Russian soldiers. This circumstance reflected great credit upon Dr. Sandwith. It was not for him (Mr. Stafford) to suggest to the Government, how they should treat the brave comrades of General Williams, because he saw that there was every disposition on the part of the Government to reward those men who had shed such lustre on the British name; and he would only add that, since his return to England, Dr. Sandwith had, by his modesty and ability, conciliated the esteem and regard of all who had the happiness of knowing him.

said, he thought it a great hardship that there should be thirty-five officers between Lieutenant Teesdale and promotion. His conduct in the defence of the batteries, and the bringing up of the troops, had very much contributed to the glory achieved by the general defence of Kars. Mr. Teesdale's duties were not those of a lieutenant, but those of a consummate general. Such abilities were very rare in our army, and Lieutenant Teesdale should get promotion for the duties he had performed. They had found an officer of ability and education, and they ought to promote him.

said, he should be extremely glad if the power given to the Secretary of State could be dispensed with; but the object of the Bill in proposing to grant money for the police was to carry out the efficiency of the police; but the effect of the Amendment would be to make it necessary for the Government to issue orders for grants of public money, whether the police were efficient or not. He could not take upon himself any such duty. He was ready, if any additional check could be imposed, to provide it as to the power of the inspectors. There had been a suggestion of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), that the Report should be transmitted from the inspectors to the Government, and by the Government to the proper authorities; but such suggestions could not be inserted in an Act of Parliament; it would be difficult to find words for them. He was, however, prepared to insert a clause to the effect, that when a certificate for expenses was refused a statement of the ground of such refusal should be laid before Parliament. This he thought would meet the difficulty.

could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe), because he thought that, in cases where a grant was made from the public funds, some security should be provided that that grant was properly applied; and he was also of opinion that the proviso suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) would go a long way towards meeting the objections made to the clause. However, he (Sir J. Pakington) thought that the clause was still open to objection; for, though the inspectors would no doubt be very respectable persons, they might make reports that might be very much objected to by the parties locally interested. The proviso of the right hon. Gentleman did not meet that. Justice required that, before the grant was withheld, those parties who should suffer by the withholding of it should be heard—that the Secretary of State should communicate the report of the inspectors to the local authorities in boroughs and counties, and call on them for an explanation. In case that explanation were not satisfactory there could be an intimation that if the police force were not placed in a more satisfactory state the grant would be withdrawn.

thought that the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) was the very one which a Secretary of State would take; but there was a difficulty in defining by a clause the particular modus operandi.

considered that, in cases where the report of the inspectors was unfavourable, it would only be fair that the parties concerned should have the opportunity, not only by the equity of the Secretary of State, but by the law of the land, of making an answer to it.

said, that although he had in the Committee on this Bill differed from the majority, yet, as the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill, he thought it his duty to make the measure as good as it was possible to make it. If the principle of a compulsory contribution to the police was to be established, it was necessary that there should be an inspectorship; and, if so, there must be reports from the inspectors in order to show that the whole police system was working upon a uniform principle throughout the country.

was of opinion, that if the House could now go into the consideration of the hon. Member for Norfolk's (Mr. Bentinek's) Amendment, much time would be saved. He thought there should be a minimum as to the number of police fixed by the Act. If this were not done, and the clause now before the House stood as it was, the inspector sent to a particular county or borough, might be of opinion that the number of police was not sufficient; and thus the inhabitants, after having gone on for a year, might find themselves deprived of the contribution of one-fourth, which was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Again, this grant might be withheld on the report of the inspectors that the police force was not in an efficient state of discipline, though the magistrates had no control over the chief constable, and that officer could not be appointed without the sanction of the Secretary of State, who thereby became responsible for his appointment. [Sir G. GREY: The magistrates may dismiss him.] That was true; but they would have no control over him in matters of discipline, and, therefore, he thought that the present arrangement was not a satisfactory one. At all events the number of police ought to be fixed, and not left to the capricious judgment of local parties and inspectors, who might arrive, respectively, at such opposite conclusions. He thought also, that the report of the inspector should be sent in the first instance to the authorities of the police, so that they might have an opportunity of being heard before the Secretary of State gave his final judgment upon the matter.

said, that if the report of the inspector was dealt with as had just been proposed, it would be placing the entire power in the hands of the magistrates. He did not concur with those who imagined that the Secretary of State was likely to interfere every time that a case was brought before him by the report of the inspector. He was not at all likely to incur the trouble and animosity consequent upon such interference, in which he would be sure to be accused of unfairness and partiality. The danger was in the contrary direction—that owing to all those difficulties, the Secretary of State would interfere too little. He should be glad to see a measure established, at least in regard to numbers. He should vote for the clause as it stood.

said, that without a minimum he could not imagine anything more dangerous than the power given to the Secretary of State. It was placing in his hands an army of policemen to any amount. The power of fining given by the Bill without trial seemed to be intolerable, for the way in which the rates were to be levied, in the case of a police reported insufficient, amounted to a fine.

thought that the Government would be neglecting their duty, if they did not insist upon the right of inspection. He admitted that some difficulty would arise upon the question of numbers; but that was a reason why the Amendment of which he had given notice should be adopted.

thought that if the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), were acted upon, the other suggestions that had been made would fall into the background. Where a police force had been recently established, and Government had approved of a certain number in proportion to the population, it would be perfectly unreasonable that they should listen to the representations of an inspector that the number there was insufficient. He granted, however, that if the county, district, or borough, went on a long time resisting what was a case of emergency for increasing the number, then the case would have arisen in which the Government ought to refuse their aid. So also with respect to the question of discipline the same rule should apply. He attached great importance to the reports of the inspectors being well checked, and he hoped the Secretary of State would endeavour to give rather more effect to the suggestion of Sir F. Baring than was given by the Bill in its present shape.

said, it appeared to him that the only penalty for not adopting the Bill would be, that the county or borough omitting or refusing so to do, would not get the money; but in some instances this would be a positive advantage and saving of expense to the locality. He confessed, however, that the Bill completely puzzled him. Take the West Hiding of Yorkshire for instance. There they had no rural police. Pass the Bill, and send it down to them. How were they to be compelled to adopt it? Why, they were not bound to appoint any number of constables unless they liked, which meant that they would not get any money unless they complied with the recommendations of the inspectors. The fact was, he believed, that the same anomalous state of things would exist after the passing of the Bill as they found to prevail now.

said, that all counties that had adopted a police had found it an efficient one, and he felt confident that if the Bill passed in its present shape, an efficient police would be appointed in those which had not yet adopted one.

was decidedly of opinion that the inspectors' report should be furnished to the justices or other parties who were accused. He did not think that the certificate should be required for the first year after the passing of the Bill; for in all probability, when they came to bring the new force into action, it would be without discipline or efficiency, and possibly be insufficient in number; but surely it would be very hard at the expiration of only a year for the Secretary of State to refuse his certificate to the Treasury merely upon the report of the inspector, but if any deficiency was reported afterwards, he saw no reason why the reports of the inspectors to that effect should not be acted upon by the Government.

objected to the clause, that a large amount of the public taxes—from £200,000 to £300,000—was given when nobody asked for it, and when there was an efficient police in all boroughs and in most counties.

thought that discipline might very easily be dealt with, but the difficulty would be with regard to numbers. This made it important to fix a minimum of numbers.

said, it was difficult to fix a general minimum, because the population varied so much in counties; but, since it seemed to be the general feeling of the Committee that an arbitrary power should not be vested in the Secretary of State, without giving the parties affected by the Report an opportunity of answering the grounds upon which it was made, he had proposed a proviso, which he proposed should be annexed to the clause in these words—

"That, before any such certificate shall be finally withheld with respect to the police in any county or borough, the Report of the Inspector relating thereto shall be sent to the Justices of the county or to the watch committee of the borough, and they may address any statement to the Secretary of State in every case where the certificate is withheld, and the grounds upon which the Secretary of State refuses such certificate, together with any such statement, shall be laid before Parliament."

said, the proviso of the right hon. Gentleman came so near to the suggestion he had made, that he was quite satisfied with it.

also observed, that the objections which he entertained to the clause were very much removed by the proviso. At the same time, he thought the clause was one which there would be extreme difficulty in carrying out. He would not, however, put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.

proposed, in that section of the clause which provides that the Commissioners of the Treasury shall pay such sum towards the expenses of the police "as shall not exceed one-fourth of the charge for their pay and clothing," to substitute the words, "one-half" for "one-fourth." In his view, the object of this Bill was to establish a compulsory system of police in England and Wales, and he thought the proposed contribution from the Treasury of one-fourth of the cost of such force was not sufficient. He might remind the Committee, that a very large sum of money was now paid by the State for police purposes. A great portion of the Irish police, a certain portion of the metropolitan police, and the stipend Magistrates of London and Dublin were maintained by a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, amounting to nearly £800,000 annually. It must be remembered that the ratepayers of England and Wales contributed their proportion to the taxation from which that charge was defrayed; and he maintained that, if a police force was established compulsorily, it was not consistent with principles of equity and justice to throw three-fourths of the cost of such police upon the ratepayers. The ratepayers of England and Wales constituted a very small proportion—not more than one-sixteenth—of the whole population, and the property upon which they were rated did not comprise more than one-fifth of the property existing in those districts of the kingdom. Was it right, then, to charge three-fourths of the expense of maintaining the new police force upon one-sixteenth of the population and upon one-fifth of the property of the kingdom? The rateable property of England and Wales was estimated at £63,000,000 or £64,000,000, upon which, in the shape of poor rate, county rates, and other similar taxation, a property tax of 10 or 12 per cent was levied. Indeed, the local taxation amounted to a charge of 16 or 18 per cent upon rateable property, and from such charge the whole personal property of the country, which was precisely that description of property requiring the protection of police, was entirely exempted. It was a difficult matter to ascertain accurately the amount of personal property in England and Wales, but it was estimated by Mr. Porter and other eminent statisticians at £2,500,000,000. It was indisputable that there was an enormous mass of property which did not contribute a single shilling to any one of the local rates; and, he asked, what right they had to impose the new burden proposed by this Bill upon the ratepayers who were owners of a particular description of property? He would ask the Committee to consider who were the ratepayers of this country. If they took £100 of rate, it would be found that four-tenths of it were levied upon men occupying houses and buildings, comprising many just above positive want, but who were struggling for a livelihood; five-tenths were levied upon persons engaged in agricultural pursuits, who were rated according to the amount of their produce; and the remaining one-tenth was imposed upon mines and other descriptions of property. How, then, could the right hon. Home Secretary justify his proposition that the owners of a particular class of property should be called upon to provide for the protection of life and property, which was an obligation resting upon the nation? He hoped those principles of justice which uniformly influenced the House in dealing with questions of taxation would induce the Committee to adopt his Amendment.

said, the hon. Baronet seemed to suppose that the object of this clause was to impose a direct burden upon all the rateable property of the country, whereas its object was to exempt rateable property from charges to which it was now legally liable, and to defray those charges partially from the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Baronet raised the whole question of local taxation, and asked the Committee to agree to his Amendment, on the ground that a great portion of the property of the country was altogether exempted from such taxation. That question had been frequently discussed in the House; and he (Sir G. Grey) believed they had, by general consent, arrived at the conclusion that it was impossible to subject personal property to the taxation which was applied to real property, and that although personal property was exempt from rating, it was almost always enjoyed in connection with houses or land; and, therefore, those who paid in respect of their houses or land, did, in fact, enjoy the protection of the police for their personal property. The hon. Gentleman had shown no good reason for substituting one-half for one-fourth, and the Government, after consideration, were of opinion that the proposition they recommended was fair and liberal. The hon. Gentleman's argument, indeed, would go to throw the whole of the local taxation of the country on the general revenue. The Government thought one-fourth a fair proportion for the relief of local taxation, and they hoped the Committee would sustain them in this proposal. If, however, the Committee should adopt the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the Government would have to consider whether they were justified in proceeding with the Bill or not.

thought it obvious that the great proportion of the property stolen was personal property.

said, he could not think that the right hon. Gentleman had met the argument of his hon. Friend (Sir H.Willoughby). The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that if they adopted the Amendment, the Government would be obliged to withdraw the Bill. [Sir G. GREY: No, I did not say that]. The right hon. Baronet said that the hon. Gentleman had failed to adduce any argument in favour of his Motion, but neither had the right hon. Gentleman given a specific reason for adopting the proposition he had recommended. Indeed, taking the figures of his hon. Friend, it seemed doubtful whether the proportion borne by the Consolidated Fund should not he four-fifths or fifteen-sixteenths of the whole.

said, that although the hon. Gentleman's Amendment only went to substitute one-half for one-fourth, his principle, if carried out, would abolish the entire system of local taxation. ["No!"] If the hon. Gentleman's argument were good for anything, it was good for imposing the whole charge on the general revenue. The hon. Gentleman not only said that the police rate ought not to be an exclusive charge upon real property, but that the poor rate, the county rate, and the borough rate ought also not to be exclusively borne by real property. He could only say that, if that principle were adopted, the House would find itself under the necessity of adding £15,000,000 to the annual Ways and Means to be voted by the House. He did not know the hon. Gentleman's authority for the statement, that the ratepayers were only one-sixteenth of the population, and that they held only one-fifth part of the property of the country. But it was clear that the ratepayers were by far a more numerous class than any class that was liable to direct taxation. They were not so numerous, of course, as those who paid indirect taxation, because the indirect taxes were paid by the whole population. But every occupier of land or houses, however small, was by law rateable, and he could only escape the rate by being struck off by the magistrate on the ground of poverty. The question, then, was whether they would transfer these £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 from the ratepayers to the Queen's taxes. What would the House think if it were proposed to add £10,000,000 to the income tax? The income tax was now at the rate of £6 13s. 4d. per cent, and to raise it £10,000,000, the House must increase it by l0d. in the pound, each penny in the pound raising it about £1,000,000. Would any hon. Gentleman contend that if the income tax were raised to this amount, it would be a less grievous burden than the local rates which were distributed over so large a portion of the population? Let any Chancellor of the Exchequer try to double or treble the assessed taxes, the house tax, the taxes on tea, coffee, and sugar. Let him try to impose a tax on salt, or taxes from any other source, and he would find that the commutation of taxation recommended by the hon. Gentleman was anything but a relief. [Sir H. WILLOUGHBY: I recommended no such thing]. But if the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman were carried into effect it would be anything but an advantage to the country. The Government had been asked why they had taken one-fourth rather than one-half? The Government had taken the example of the Metropolitan Police Act, where the rate was fixed at a maximum of 8d. in the pound, of which 6d. was paid by the parishes and 2d. by the Government. That arrangement had been acquiesced in by the parishes since 1829. If one-fourth were a fair proportion to be borne by the parishes in the case of the metropolis, where the police were employed in attending upon the Houses of Parliament, great ceremonials, and similar, public purposes, it could not be said to be an unreasonable proportion to be paid by the county rate. He trusted that the Committee would not agree to vote a larger sum than £200,000 out of the Consolidated Fund for this purpose. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had stated that if the Motion of the hon. Baronet were adopted, it would become a serious question with the Government whether they ought to proceed any further with this Bill; but he had not said that they had come to any positive determination on the subject. What his right hon. Friend had declared was, that the Government regarded this as an important part of their measure, which had been proposed after mature deliberation, and that if this Amendment were carried it would be a matter of grave doubt with them whether they ought to persevere any longer with the Bill.

said, the real question before the Committee was, whether it was reasonable to add £200,000 a year to the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ready to award to the counties. A larger amount than that would be saved to the Government by the suspension of transportation—the risk consequent upon which measure would he thrown upon the public; and therefore it would be only fair that an allowance of 50 instead of 25 per cent should be made to the counties. The Government would be gainers, in a pecuniary sense, by such an arrangement. Chancellors of the Exchequer were naturally very jealous guardians of the Consolidated Fund; but it was unjust to press so severely as was done upon the real property of the country, which financiers seemed to view as an excellent milch cow, to be drawn upon to whatever extent their convenience or their fancy might dictate. Land was now burdened with £14,000,000 of local taxation, in addition to which its owners had to contribute in common with all other classes to the imposts on articles of consumption; and beyond all question it was worse used than any other kind of property in the kingdom. All he asked for real estate was justice, not encouragement; and the same principle which warranted the concession of 25 per cent was equally good for conceding 50. The rural police of Lancashire cost £40,000 a year, and yet it was not better looked after than Yorkshire, which possessed no such force. If Parliament, however, insisted on the general adoption of a rural police, the proportion of the expense borne by the Consolidated Fund could not in equity be less than 50 per cent.

thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the triumphant case he had made out for granting to the metropolitan parishes more than the 25 per cent. He denied that the object was to keep down the grants to counties, but contended that if £200,000 were granted to the ratepayers of counties, the same relief ought to be given to the ratepayers of the metropolis. Of course there were always a great number of persons and a great deal of property protected which no rate could touch, and it was exactly that class of property and persons which involved the necessity of establishing an efficient police. For the worst description of house property seldom paid anything to the rates, and the tenants were but too often composed of those who added to the crime of the country. All classes were benefited by the establishment of the police, the taxes of the country were very fairly demanded for their establishment, and certainly he had heard no reason for supposing that the one-fourth was the right proportion to be given by Government.

said, he did not think it necessary to go into the whole question of local taxation, however important; but it was desirable to consider whether this Bill laid a heavy burden on the ratepayers. He dared say that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be very much shocked, but really he did not think that the county rates ought to be relieved by sixpence. The second Report of the Committee on this subject showed that the establishment of a rural police was of the greatest advantage to the country. Surely, then, it was a peculiarly modest request to make on their part that the country should pay half the expense of its establishment, when the evidence before the Committee went to prove that the establishment of rural police had not cost the counties a farthing; and the Report itself stated that its adoption had been attended with advantages both of a moral and an economical character. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had himself stated that he would give much more for landed property in a county which had a police force than in one which had it not. If this was true, he could not understand why hon. Gentlemen should ask for 50 per cent out of the public revenue as compensation for the introduction of a system which was not only economical in itself, but actually improved the value of their property.

having had much practical experience in the transaction of county business, could state that he had frequently been oblighed to fight against the suggestions of inspectors, who had little or no practical knowledge of their business, but merely wished to exercise their authority. He objected to giving them power to enforce their suggestions by enabling them to exercise a control over the payment of these charges.

was opposed to the payment of one-fourth of the expenses by the Treasury, as it was founded on a bad principle. The hon. Baronet's proposal was merely a concealed system of communism; he wished, in effect, to place a large sum in the middle of the table, and let everybody grasp at it. The promised contribution from the Consolidated Fund was a "sop" to propitiate the county Members, who otherwise would have offered such resistance to the measure as would have insured its rejection. As it was, they had seen the opposition gradually melt away, and though furious at first, they next became mild, and ended by giving their support to the Bill. Nevertheless it might be well questioned whether it had rendered the Bill more worthy the acceptance of the House. The proposal to send down to the counties and boroughs a Government inspector, on whose fiat the grant should depend, was highly objectionable. The inspector would be to all intents and purposes the commander of the police, and his interference would be most detrimental as depriving the resident gentry of the inducement they at present possessed to look after the public interest of their respective localities. It was a fatal argument against the Bill that it would militate against that principle of self-government to which the English race in all parts of the world were so devotedly attached, and which had been of such inestimable value to them in forming their national character and fitting them for the enjoyment of the rights and liberties they so dearly prized. All encroachments on that principle were to be viewed with grave alarm.

observed, that the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. E. B. Denison), was mistaken in supposing that the contribution from the Consolidated Fund was to be justified on the ground of a saving occasioned to the Government by the abolition of transportation. True, there had been, consequent on that measure, a saving of colonial expenditure, but the advantage thus acquired was counterbalanced by the increased outlay for prisons and convict establishments at home.

said, the objection taken by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) raised a question of great political importance; but the House had decided in favour of the principle of the Bill. The present question was far more narrow. It was merely a question of amount or degree, the principle of an allowance out of the Consolidated Fund being admitted. Attempts at rating stock-in-trade had been discontinued, not because it was unjust, but because it was impracticable. To compensate for that it was just to make allowance out of the Consolidated Fund in aid of county rates; and the only question was as to the proportion to be adopted. No answer had been offered to the argument that personal property was most protected by a police.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) observing that, if any portion of the police expenditure were to be defrayed from the national Exchequer, he deemed it the simpler and more equitable arrangement that the Government grant should cover one-half of the whole disbursement.

said, that the Government being pledged to the principle of a contribution from the Treasury, the only question to be decided was that of amount. Precedent justified a grant equivalent to one half of the whole expenditure. The case of the Irish police was strictly in point. On the institution of that force the Government contributed in the proportion of one-half of the expense incurred. In gaols, although not nominally, yet really, the Government paid one-half of the cost of that class of prisoners for whom they paid at all. The only reason which had been assigned for fixing the proportion by this Bill at one-fourth was, that that was the proportion of the cost of the metropolitan police which was paid by the Government.

denied that he was one of those who had accepted the proposition of the Government as a sop. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Evesham, and if that were rejected he should then go with the hon. Member for Sheffield, that no allowance should be made from the Consolidated Fund. The police ought to be a local force, carried out under local superintendence and by local taxation.

said, he agreed in deprecating the abolition of local self-control; but as the Bill was forced down their throats against their wills he should vote for the Amendment. It was not one-fourth of the whole charge which the Government offered, but only of a portion, and it would not amount to more than one-sixth of the whole charge. He thought one-half was the proper proportion.

then moved the addition of the following proviso:— "Provided always, that the police force for any county or borough shall be deemed efficient in point of numbers in all cases where there shall be one police-constable for such county or borough to every 1,500 of the population, according to the last census then made."

objected to the proviso. There were many counties in which such an arrangement would cause considerable additional expense. The matter had better be left to the Justices of the Peace, who were the most competent judges of what police were required.

said, it was quite impossible to fix any minimum, and, even if it were, one in 1,500 of the population would be quite inadequate in very many boroughs, to say nothing of counties.

thought there was enough spirit and right feeling in the various counties throughout England to enable them to manage their own police, and that the Government were paying the magistracy a very bad compliment by endeavouring to cram this Bill down their throats.

then moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

said, considering the length of time they had spent to-night in a miscellaneous discussion, he hoped they would be allowed to go on with the Bill.

said, the real question was, whether in these small boroughs, some of which had a population of not more than 2,000, there could be an efficient police unless the police of those boroughs was incorporated with that of the county. He thought it was obvious they could not. If they chose to maintain their own police, they could do so without any great expense.

, after Clause 2, proposed to insert a clause:—

"That the Justices of the Peace of every county in England and Wales may, at the next or any subsequent general or quarter sessions after the passing of this Act, and so from time to time thereafter as they shall deem expedient, appoint, for such time as they shall think proper, a sufficient number of Justices, who shall be the police committee or committees for such county, and may, till the next general or quarter sessions, delegate to such committee or committees all or any of the powers as to the police force within such county, which, by the two first recited Acts, or by this Act, are given to the Justices in general or quarter sessions, except as to the increase or diminution of the number of constables, and the appointment or dismissal of any chief constable or his deputy, and may from time to time re-appoint, amend, or discontinue the appointment of such committee or committees, and all the powers given to such committee or committees may be executed by the majority of those who shall be present at the meeting of such committee or committees, the whole number present being not less than three."

objected to the clause.

proposed to insert a clause enabling the County Justices, in quarter sessions, to grant a retiring gratuity to any constable who should be certified by the chief constable to be incapable, from some infirmity of mind or body, of discharging his duties, although such constable should not have served so long as fifteen years.

then proposed a clause providing that, in any case where the superannuation fund, mentioned in the Act of the 3 & 4 Vict, was insufficient to pay the superannuation and retiring allowances and the gratuities authorised by this Bill, the deficiency should be defrayed by the police-rate of the district. The clause was only introduced out of abundant caution, and if the superannuation fund should continue solvent, this clause would be inoperative.

thought the inadequacy of the superannuation fund ought not to be made up at the expense of the ratepayers.