in moving as an Amendment that the House would upon that day three months resolve itself into the said Committee, said, that when the Public Health question was brought forward in 1848 it was considered to be virtually settled by the Bill of that year, and the present Bill, differing as it did so materially from that measure, was a breach of faith with the public. The Bill now before the House differed not only from the Bill of 1848, but also from that which was introduced in 1854. All the stringent clauses of the Act of 1848 were retained, while all the remedial clauses proposed by the Bill of 1854 were omitted. That was his first objection. His second objection was, that it repealed the 145th section of the present Act, which gave the public a right of appeal against the Board of Health; and his third objection was, that it doubled the amount of money allowed to be raised on mortgage of the property of the ratepayers wherever the Act was enforced. Now, that duplication, he contended, was unnecessary. The fact was, a great many of the towns where there were local Boards of Health had spent all the money they were empowered to raise under the Act of 1848, and yet the works were not completed. That had arisen in consequence of the engineers of the General Board of Health having been exclusively employed to make the estimates, the towns themselves not being allowed to employ their own men. Those towns had been assessed at the rate of l-16th of the yearly value of the property; it was now proposed to subject them to another assessment to the same amount; making the rate 1-8th of the value, and that without giving them any voice at all in the matter. Now he therefore submitted that those parties should be heard before any such tax was imposed upon them. It was his belief that the repeal of the 145th clause would be most injurious. All reasonable protection ought to be afforded against large companies supplying water and gas; and the right of appeal which the 145th clause gave afforded that protection. Many of the local Boards formed themselves into those large companies, and they had the power to oppress the neighbouring districts, and it was only by the right of appeal that those districts had any check upon such local Boards. To show how that portion of the Bill would work, he would mention the case of the town of Luton, with a population of 10,000 or 12,000 inhabitants. It used to be drained' by cesspools. There ran by the town the river Lea, which was from twenty to thirty feet wide, and capable of being used for all sorts of domestic purposes, and it was always full of fish. A Board of Health was established at Luton, and they immediately drained the town and emptied their sewers into that river, rendering it a most horrible nuisance. The river was turned into a filthy open sewer; the fish all died; the water was unwholesome for drinking purposes; the sheep that were washed in the river came out dirtier than they went in, and the bottom of the river was covered for full thirty inches deep with decomposed matter, having only fifteen inches in depth of water running over it. Nothing could ho more disgusting, or more contrary to the rules laid down by the Board of Health themselves, who, in their Report on the use of impure water, had shown that cholera and other disease were greatly increased by persons drinking bad water. The people of Luton, by virtue of the 145th clause of the existing Act, took proceedings before the Vice Chancellor to obtain redress, when the local Board; promised that the nuisance should be abated. It was very natural therefore that the Board of Health should wish to get rid of this the only security which the public had against them. Should the present Bill pass it would confirm every abuse which the people had so much struggled against. He should, therefore, press the Amendment of which he had given notice.

said, that when the Government thought it their duty to bring forward a measure which interfered with property of every description—with property in land, in water, in canal shares, harbour shares, and with the administration of the local government of towns—they ought, at least, to bring it forward at a sufficiently early period to admit of the question receiving that due consideration which such important interests demanded. He was perfectly aware that hon. Gentlemen on the other (the Ministerial) side of the House had some very liberal notions of the rights of property which had never yet been acquiesced in by the House of Commons; and he trusted that, as long as the House of Commons existed, the rights of property would be maintained sacred, and that no interest would be suffered to be taken away in a morning sitting, at the close of the Session, by a Bill which professed to be one thing, but which in reality was of a totally different description. When the Government brought forward an amended Bill, purporting to contain certain saving clauses, they should be saving clauses, and not enabling clauses, it was a most unfair way, he considered, to attempt to obtain power by bringing in such clauses, pretending to be saving clauses, but which in reality gave to the President of the Board of Health a control and a jurisdiction over property which had never yet been conceded by that House. The question of the powers of the Board of Health had on various occasions been brought forward, but it had always met with one result—defeat—because it grasped at a despotism which the House of Commons, he trusted, never would sanction. As far as he was personally concerned, he thought it might be better not to reject the measure altogether, but to permit the Bill to go into Committee with the understanding that all the clauses which gave to the Board of Health powers which they did not at present possess—all the saving clauses which were in reality enabling clauses—should be omitted, and that the Board should be continued for a limited period. If the House did not take that step, great evils might arise and much injury be done to local interests.

said, he must confess that when he went into the Select Committee on the Bill he was greatly surprised at finding the most popular part of it withdrawn, and that clauses were introduced which had met with great opposition; but as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Health had since withdrawn those clauses he should not oppose the Bill going into Committee. He had the honour to represent a very large population where the Public Health Bill was in operation (Bristol), and he thought it just to state that, under the management of the local Board, it had given general satisfaction.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had gone at some length into particular clauses of the Bill, but as those clauses did not affect the principle of the Bill, he should not say more than that they formed part of the Bill submitted to the Select Committee, and that evidence had been heard both for and against them. Some of the clauses had been copied verbatim from the Bill which had been sanctioned by the Select Committee after every attention had been paid to local and private interests, and it was generally understood that those clauses were assented to by the canal and other companies. He apprehended the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knight) to be that the House should not consider any Amendments of the Act of 1848. He was exceedingly surprised that a Motion to that effect should come from such a quarter. If the hon. Gentleman were an admirer of the Act of 1848 he could understand it, but the singular fact was that the hon. Gentleman particularly objected to that Act. The hon. Gentleman appeared to say that, as the House could not adopt the Bill of last year, therefore they ought not to adopt any lesser Bill. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be reviving the cry which was very powerfully raised some years ago in reference to the Reform Bill; and he seemed to say that he would have "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." But such a cry, however useful it might have been when originally raised, was very inappropriate now, because there was no possibility of getting the whole Bill in the course of the present Session. Hon. Members must be well aware of the impossibility, at that late period of the Session, of attempting to discuss and carry a Bill containing between 200 and 300 clauses. Then came the question—would they have the instalment which he (Mr. Cowper) now proposed, or would they postpone the whole subject till next year? He had endeavoured, but in vain, to bring the whole subject under discussion at an earlier period of the Session; and he therefore thought the best way of dealing with the matter would be to propose a Bill that should contain clauses which would amend the Bill of 1848 in its practical details, and which the local Boards said prevented them from carrying on their work efficiently. There were many ambiguities in the law which it was desirable to get rid of. Alterations were also required respecting the power of purchasing land, the establishing of gasworks, and other such practical matters. He thought therefore that it would be better to make those Amendments in the law, and then proceed next year to deal with the other and more important branch of the subject, namely, those organic changes which were deemed necessary in the constitution of the Board of Health—such as the mode of voting, the qualification of electors, and other machinery connected with the more theoretical portion of the subject. He really thought that by thus separating the practical details from the theoretical part of the Bill he was advancing the object which the hon. Gentleman himself wished to accomplish. He was not aware that any part of the present Bill would give rise to any serious difficulty. But if any of the clauses should appear to require much discussion, he was perfectly willing to postpone the consideration of them to another year. He hoped the House would not shut the door altogether against the only Amendments of the Act of 1848 which he was now able to propose. There were 209 towns in which local Boards of Health existed. They were under local representative government, and they wished the Act under which they ministered to the health of the inhabitants to be amended.

said, it was his belief, that the Act of 1848 was not very popular, and had not been very successful. That Act was referred last year to a Select Committee. After much discussion that Committee produced a Bill, dealing with most of the difficulties proposed to be dealt with by the present Bill, and with many others besides. For some reason, best known to himself, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) did not produce that Bill. He had given no reason why, except that it was more easy to take up a part of the subject than the whole. It would have been but fair on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he had only taken a part of the Bill recommended by the Select Committee, if he had referred this limited Bill to another Committee, so that some reason might have been obtained why this small portion of the larger Bill should alone be submitted to the House. But the right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to clear up some doubtful points, make some Amendments, and supply some defects. But the right hon. Gentleman would not pretend to say that if the Bill now under consideration were allowed to pass there was the most remote chance, after the Board of Health should have obtained all the powers which the Bill would give them, of any of those grievances which the public now suffered under being attended to and redressed. That was the real question which was before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had got himself clear of light and water by withdrawing the clauses relating to the Water and Gas Companies; but that was, he supposed, because gas and water interests were somehow always represented in that House. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had treated very lightly the fact, that in different places the local Boards of Health had created intolerable public nuisances by draining towns into the small streams running through the country, and thereby killing the fish, poisoning the people, and ruining manufacturers. The great sanitary improvement of the country had resulted in a vast system of what was called pipe drainage. This vast system discharged all the filth of the towns somewhere. In the metropolis it was discharged into the Thames; and the Metropolitan Board of Works were now engaged in the undertaking of cleansing the Thames. There were clauses in the Act of 1848 which afforded some protection against this system; and the people were becoming awake to the evils with which they were threatened, and were prepared to say that the Board of Health should not poison the health of the neighbourhood by polluting their water. But by a very short clause in the Bill now before the House, it was proposed to do away with all power on the part of a Court of Law to interfere, and thus the owners of property would be left without any means of protection. That was a sample of what the right hon. Gentleman called an amendment of the law. It was an amendment of the law with a vengeance, but was it a just amendment? It was also proposed to extend the power of borrowing over fifty instead of thirty years, the only effects of which would be to produce extravagance in the expenditure of the money, because it would not have to be repaid for a very long time. Every grievance that had been complained of in the old Bill, and the jobbing that was carried on under it, were left totally untouched. He hoped that the valuable time of the House would not be wasted in a long discussion upon a measure that would be of no use when carried. Everybody knew that the object of the Bill was only to pass certain miserable clauses for the satisfaction of those parties who went roaming about the country putting their hands into the tax-payers' pockets, and creating work and expensive jobs for their own benefit. The Bill would give those parties double taxing power, and for that reason and because the measure was utterly useless, he should oppose its going into Committee.

said, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Health, had consented to postpone any clauses to which objections of a serious nature were entertained; but there were portions of the Bill involving matters of great importance, as to which no doubt was entertained on either side, which it was desirable should be passed into a law. The first part of the Bill was to continue the General Board of Health. It was true that Board would exist to the 1st of July next, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament; but his experience at the Poor Law Board convinced him that it was most important not to defer the renewal of an Act to the very last Session, because no one knew what would become of that Session. It might be cut short at the end of the next week after it met. That part of the Bill ought, therefore, to be passed. There were many other provisions also which would afford no matter for controversy in Committee.

said, he would warn the House, that if it once allowed bit by bit legislation on the law in question, they would never have the law satisfactorily amended. There had not been the shadow of a reason assigned why the whole measure should not have been brought forward in the early part of the Session, so as to give the House sufficient time to consider all its provisions. If, however, the House confined itself to renewing the powers of the Board of Health for one Session he would not object to it.

said, the House owed it to its own dignity to reject the Bill altogether. The Board of Health was limited in its duration by the Act of 1848. A Bill was brought in last year and submitted to a Select Committee. He (Mr. Barrow) had objected to certain clauses, which he was assured across the table should be abandoned. With the Bill which came from the Select Committee, however, it appeared the Government did not agree; and in the Bill laid on the table by the Government, the objectionable clauses which it had been promised should be abandoned were reintroduced into it. There was one clause, however, which was particularly objectionable, namely, that which gave to the temporary occupiers of property a right to tax the owners of that property for a period of fifty years, in a rate for the purposes of the Board of Health. The clause exempted the occupiers from payment. That clause, however, he was bound to say, was not in the amended Bill; but it showed the animus of the promoters of the measure; and under the circumstances he could not vote for the Bill going into Committee, because he wished to force the Government to reconsider the entire subject by next Session. He must also complain that the Bill was not introduced to the House at an earlier period, so as to bring it to a public discussion, and enable the public to become acquainted with its provisions.

said, he was much of the same opinion as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could not give his vote for the Bill, even on the ground laid down by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. Greene)—namely, that the Board of Health would expire next year. The right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) had endeavoured to alarm the House by representing that some dire calamity would befall the country if the Board of Health wore altogether to expire. Before, however, the House or the country felt any alarm upon the subject it would be well to inquire what that Board had done, what it had cost the country, and what it proposed to do. During the present Session, he had moved for a Return, in order to ascertain what the Board was about. Since 1848 the Act was applied to nearly 300 towns during the five years for which that Act was passed. The Act was then renewed for another year, and to the end of the next Session of Parliament. In 1853 the Act was applied by order of the General Board of Health to six towns, and by order of the Privy Council to three towns, making together nine towns; in 1854 and 1555 the Act was applied by order of the Board to thirteen towns, and by order of the Privy Council to six towns, making altogether twenty-eight towns from 1853 up to the present year; and the expenses incurred amounted to £36,000, being a very pretty sum to be dealt with for those towns. It was now proposed to continue the Board for three years longer. The last Bill did not propose to renew the Board for more than two years, one of which had already expired. He did not know whether there was any Member present who was what was called an administrative reformer. He did not see the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). That hon. and learned Member was going to reform the Administrative Reform Association itself, he ought, therefore, on such an occasion as the present, to be here. He is going to set us all to rights, not only in. Leadenhall Street, but in New Palace Yard, at Somerset House, at the Admiralty, at the Horse Guards, and at Downing Street. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman would come down to this neighbourhood he would find in a corner of a street a little hole called the Board of Health, and where lie would discover comfortably ensconced a near relation of the Prime Minister, a brother of a Cabinet Minister, and the relative of another Cabinet Minister—all very snug berths for Ministerial patronage to bestow. No wonder Ministers want to continue the Board of Health. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene) says, "Continue the Board for another Session." Why, he would undertake to say that before the discussion closed the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Cowper) would jump at the proposition and be anxious to accept the boon for another year. But if the chairman of the Administrative Reform Association would just call in at the Board of Health he would find those three Gentlemen he had named sitting there, and if he were to ask them what they were about, and say to them—"You cost the country a great deal, and we have a right to ask you what you are about?" he was certain the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford would reply— "That is the great difficulty. We have nothing to do; we want to know what we are to do, and how we are to humbug and delude Parliament, in order to get it to continue the Board. We have one plan in our head; we are going to adopt the cowpox throughout the country, and we mean to superintend it. We had also another plan, which we tried to accomplish; we proposed that the President of the Board of Health should be President of the new council of medical men." But that Bill has all of a sudden dropped; so that one of their supports is gone. But there is one more chance, and what, perhaps, the House will ask, is that? Why, the Home Department proposes to transfer the administration of the Burial Act to the Board of Health—a very pretty sequel! First, you superintend the general health of the people; next, you promote vaccination; then you would preside over the Medical Board; and then, when the curtain drops, you come to the Burial Board—the last shot you have. He was against all the powers which the Bill proposes to confer. Let the people do the work themselves. He should oppose the Board on any terms. It has got one year to live; he hoped it would be its last, and that we should never hear of it again.

said, as the decision had been adverse to him, ho must fall back upon the suggestion made by the lion. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Lancaster, and he should therefore propose a continuance Bill for next year; his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. T. Duncombe) would then have the opportunity of again amusing the House with the proceedings of the Board of Health. He was himself much amused by the manner in which the hon. Gentleman stated the case, but he a little overstated it—for instance, a large portion of the money voted, was for the Medical Council. The only charge against the Board of Health was that they had a desire to do work, and that was not a heavy imputation.

said, he wished to propose that a limit should be put to the power of appointing a receiver by enacting that no receiver should be appointed where the debt did not exceed £150 a year.

said, the mischief and misery that had been worked in Ireland through the receiver system could hardly be exaggerated, and he did not think the Bill was of a nature to overcome those evils. He would suggest, however, that a limit should be fixed below which no receiver should be appointed, not only as to the amount of the debt, but as to the amount of the rental of the estate on which the receivership was appointed.

said, he was willing to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

said, he thought £150 was the lowest amount that could be adopted.

said, that in many cases receivers were appointed over an estate for a debt of £20, the costs incurred by such, appointment being ten times that amount, while receivers were appointed in several instances also where the annual value of the estate was only £50. If the rental was limited to £100 a year, he (Mr. Whiteside) would accept the Amendment.

said, that receivers had been the curse of Ireland, but the Amendment would compel the sale of estates, or of a portion of them, over which a receiver could not be appointed. The sooner the system of receivership was abolished, however, the better.

said, the receiver system in Ireland had been shown to be atrocious, and of benefit to no one but the receiver. The debtor lost his debt, the tenants lost their interests, and the owner lost his property by the deterioration of the land under that system. He was glad, therefore, to see the limitations proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen, however indefensible on principle.

said, he was very glad to hear that the House was going to place a limit upon the receiver system.

said, he thought that the limitation of the rental was more important than the limitation of the debt, and that in all cases where a petition for a receiver was presented, the Court ought, in order to prevent fraud and injury to creditors, to be satisfied that the property was applicable to the benefit of the party seeking the appointment. He should propose that the rental should be limited to £100 a year.

said, that he would adopt the sum of £150 of debt, but be thought the £150 rental was too high. Therefore he proposed to give the Court of Chancery a discretionary power to appoint a receiver without any limitation as to the amount of rental.

said, he objected to the clause, all but that part of it which proposed the appointment of a new Judge. The ex-Chancellor Blackburne, one of the ablest men in Ireland, was receiving a pension of £4,000 a year, and he was doing nothing but amusing himself at the Privy Council. He (Mr. Whiteside) wished to obtain a pledge from the Government that this great lawyer should be the first Judge of the Court of Appeal, with his pension to count as a portion of his salary. He also objected to that portion of the clause which rendered the Judge of the Court removable at the pleasure of the Crown, thereby going back to the days of the Stuarts; and he objected likewise to the selection of Common Law Puisne Judges, which the clause proposed, to sit as Judges of Appeal in Chancery causes. Nor did he like the mode in which the salaries were proposed to be regulated, though it professed economy. The Judges were, in fact, to have £5,000 a year, the same salary proposed for the Deputy Speakers of the House of Lords. The Amendment he intended to propose was that, instead of confining the appointment of the other Judges of Appeal to the Puisne Judges of Appeal to the puisne Judges of the Common Law Courts, the choice should be extended to the elder members of the Bar—say men of twenty years' standing.

said, that the clause had been framed in deference to the opinion of the majority of the Commission, to whom the subject had been referred. The clause had been printed last year, and had been introduced in the Report of the Commission of which ex-Chancellor Blackburne was one. Sir John Romilly and one of the Irish Chief Justices were also on that Commission; and he (Mr. FitzGerald) had adopted the recommendation on their authority, though it was rather contrary to his own opinion. Various propositions were brought before the Commission to create an Appeal Court from the Court of Chancery in Ireland: and it was pointed out that there were several Judges in Ireland from time to time available for the purpose of presiding over the Court. Ex-Chancellor Blackburne, however, was the party pointed at. But then it was suggested that that Judge might again be named Chancellor; and, therefore he, (Mr. FitzGerald) was cast back upon the Common Law bench and the Bar for a selection. The Commission had recommended the selection of the additional Judge from the Common Law department. The Judges were appointed during Her Majesty's pleasure, because the creation, of the Court was an experiment, and it was not, therefore, known, how it would act. Besides, the Judges of the Court were only in the position of the Lord Chancellor in that respect who was removeable at Her Majesty's pleasure. He was, however, willing to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside).

said, he did not understand that the Judges of the Common Law Court taken for the Appeal Court were still to remain Judges of the Common Law Court after their appointment to the Court of Appeal.

said, he thought the range of selection for Judges of the Court of Appeal should be perfectly free, and that any qualified person might be selected. It was like casting a stigma on the Bar to designate a particular person. There was no man who had a higher character than ex-Chancellor Blackburne; but the omission of the Judge of the Prerogative Court in Ireland from the Bill, though mentioned in a former Bill, showed that the wisdom of leaving the selection open was admitted by the Government.

said, he quite agreed with the modification suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and would adopt it in the Bill.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies when the geological survey, now understood to be making, of the West India islands, would probably commence in Jamaica?

said, in reply, that some time ago, on the application of the colonists, Government agreed to pay the salary of a scientific person to survey and ascertain the mineral resources of those colonies, on the understanding that the colonies were to pay all the other expenses of the survey, and that the colonies were to have the services of the surveyor in the order in which they applied for those services. Under that arrangement, an eminent scientific person had been appointed by Sir Roderick Murchison, at the request of the Government. The two islands which had made applications were Trinidad and Jamaica, and under the arrangement agreed to the survey of Trinidad had been commenced and was now in progress. He had given instructions that the survey should not be a complete one for scientific purposes, but only such a one as would ascertain in a general way the mineral resources of those islands, and therefore there was a hope that in a short time the survey of Jamaica would be commenced. If, however, the Government and Legislatures of that island were desirous of an immediate survey, the Government would have no objection to appoint another surveyor on the advice of Sir Roderick Murchison, but in that case the colony must pay both salary and expenses.

said, he observed in the Orders of the Day the following:—"Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords).—Salaries and Retiring Pensions.—Committee thereupon." It was with great surprise that he had seen that notice placed on the Orders of the Day, after the discussion which had taken place on the subject the previous night, which had shown that a great portion of the House were opposed to the measure. He trusted that, although his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed the Order on the paper, it was not his intention to proceed with a measure of which no notice had been given, and which it was impossible to discuss fairly under the circumstances.

said, his noble Friend was aware that it was impossible to introduce a clause into a Bill coming from the Lords, to authorise the payment of salaries, unless there was a previous Resolution in Committee. That Resolution would not fix the amount of the salary, but merely give power to introduce a clause which would afterwards be discussed in a Committee of the House. He hoped, therefore, that no opposition would be offered to the Resolution.

said, he hoped that the House would not agree to the proposed Resolution, and was proceeding to discuss the question, when

intimated hat the hon. and learned Member could not make any observations upon the subject until the Order was before the House.

said, he understood the Committee was to be taken on Thursday.

Precisely so; and it is to enable the House to go into Committee that we propose to take the Resolution to-night.

said, he was apprehensive that if they went into Committee that night, they would bind themselves to the maximum salary to be paid.

said, he must beg to explain that the Resolution would only be a general one, and would not fix any specific amount.

brought up the answer from The QUEEN to the Address of the House. "I HAVE received your Address, praying that a Royal Commission may issue, to determine the Site of the new National Gallery, and to report on the desirableness of combining with it the Fine Art and Archæological Collections of the British Museum: "AND, having taken the subject into consideration, I have directed that a Commission shall issue for the purposes which you have requested."

said, in submitting the Motion of which he had given notice relative to the disadvantageous position of certain officers in the navy, he should be very glad if the Admiralty would take the matter out of his hands, and save him the trouble of laying it before the House, for none could be more deserving of their consideration than the officers whose cause he was about to plead. He considered that the case of these meritorious men was a peculiarly hard one, and he hoped before he sat down to convince the House that it was one which demanded immediate redress. They were about to do honour to-morrow to brave men who had fought the battles of their country for two years, but the men whose case he wished to bring before the House had fought through a twenty years' war. All of those persons had been wounded several times—some had lost legs, some arms, and others the sight of their eyes. He would not indulge in any declamation on the subject, but confine himself to the facts, and he trusted, if any official reply was made to him, that the Government would do the same, and show that there were good and substantial reasons for refusing the request made by those officers who claimed, and he thought justly claimed, to be placed in the same position as the governor, lieutenant-governor, and chaplains of the hospital, and to receive their half-pay in addition to their residence in the hospital. It might be taken as a general rule that none but poor men would take the benefit of Greenwich Hospital. Many of them had large families, too, and it was a great consideration to them to get a residence free. They had to pay rates and taxes, however, and they had duties to perform which put them to a certain amount of expense in uniforms and the like. Those officers, eighteen in number, addressed a memorial to the Admiralty, praying for their half-pay, in the middle of last year, and to that the Admiralty replied that they had no power to grant their request. There appeared at that time to be some idea at the Admiralty that there was an Order in Council which did not allow of half-pay being given to these officers; but that was found to be a mistake. The officers memorialised again in January, and then the answer given was that it was not deemed advisable to comply with their prayer. Acting on his (Captain Scobell's) advice they memorialised again about six weeks ago, that time through their Governor, who himself backed their request by a letter to the Admiralty. To this memorial they received a very cold reply, to the effect that the Admiralty "could not comply with their request." Every step for securing justice had been taken in vain, and they now came to that House as a final Court of Appeal. The Governor and Lieutenant-governor had, as he had previously stated, their half-pay in addition to residences and large salaries. The chaplains had also their half-pay in addition to their salaries. The officers not receiving half-pay had been in active service from forty to sixty years, when the pay was less by fifty per cent, than it was now, and it was exceedingly hard that having, simply for the advantage of a residence in the hospital, given up their chances of promotion, that such an exceptional mode of dealing should be applied to them. He would read some documents which bore on the case of these officers. He would not, however, read the memorial of the officers, though some parts were very strong, and it was signed by the eighteen officers who conceived they were the subjects of the hardships complained of. According to a return, moved for by Mr. Hume, in 1854, the Governor of Greenwich Hospital got £2,266, including half-pay, and the Lieutenant Governor, £1,256 a year, including half-pay. The captains, including all emoluments, got £456; the commanders, £353; the eight lieutenants, £275; the masters, £245; but the two chaplains, who had not served for fifty or sixty years, and had not been wounded and so cut to pieces, £500 each; and the surgeon £650. If those arrangements had been intentional they would have been most disgraceful, but he believed that no such bad intention existed. The officers at Greenwich both above and below these had their half-pay, and it was but fair that these officers should be put on an equal footing with their superiors and inferiors. He had in his hand an account showing the services of each of these men. Of the four captains one was eighty-four years of age, and had served sixty-seven years; another, seventy-one years of age, had served fifty-eight years; another, seventy-two years of age, had served fifty-eight years; and the last and youngest, fifty-eight years of age, had served forty-seven years. The result of the account was that the eighteen men had, in the aggregate, served 1,000, or an average of fifty-five years each. They had among them forty-two wounds, including losses of legs, arms, and eyes; and had received thirty medals and clasps. The average period during which they enjoyed the scanty advantages of Greenwich was but nine years. In some cases men had died so poor that their widows had not been able to administer to their wills, or subscriptions had to be raised for the payment of debts which they had contracted in order to furnish their humble dwellings. They were all men with families, having children to educate; and they had not the means of showing to each other the common courtesies of life. Now, if the First Lord of the Admiralty doubted that statement, let him go and dine with one of them, and judge for himself. The sum which would be required to give those men their half-pay was not so much as the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) may be an excellent First Lord, but be (Captain Scobell) did not see why thou- sands should be lavished on those who did duty at Whitehall, while those who had done their duty and had still to discharge duties at Greenwich were neglected. If it should be said that those gentlemen, when they went to Greenwich, knew what their emoluments would be, he would reply that during the time that the present First Lord of the Admiralty was President of the Board of Control, his salary was increased by about £1,000 a year. The memorial of these officers having been referred to the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, they said, in a letter to the Admiralty, that as the funds of the hospital were not affected, they had no opinion to offer, but stated, at the same time, their conviction of the justice of the claim and also of the value of the boon to the memorialists. The Lieutenant Governor had also written a letter in which he recommended that this small addition should be made to the pittance of these officers. Last year his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott) brought forward the case of Captain Dickinson. That officer came up to him (Captain Scobell) in the lobby, and said that if the House refused his request it would be the death of him. The Motion was lost by a minority of one, and within a month the gallant captain was dead. There were civil service clerks, some of them connected with the Admiralty, who had £700, £800, or £1,000, a year retirement. What business had they to have more than these old men? Was that the way in which warriors—in which men who had fought and bled for their country, were to be treated? Many public situations were held by naval officers who received half-pay. It was received by Lords of the Admiralty being naval captains, by the Controller of the coastguard, by the Deputy Controller, by the Usher of the Black Rod, by the two Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, by the captains, commanders, and masters serving under the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners, by the naval officers serving under the Board of Trade, and by those employed in the Customs. Captain Drew, the storekeeper at the Cape of Good Hope also obtained half-pay. Yet none of those gentlemen I had nearly so strong a claim as the class of officers whose cause he was advocating. Their case was one of such hardship that he entreated the noble Lord at the head of a Government which called itself "Libe- ral" to do justice to these aged and meritorious officers. Coming next to the old commanders and lieutenants in the navy, their position was certainly a most extraordinary one. He had in his hand a list of retired captains numbering 100, to whom had been lately added about 144 more. Before being placed on that list they all received 10s. per day, and now 10s. 6d. was given to them. The first 100 of these officers, none of whom had served less than fifty years, were clearly entitled to rank with colonels in the army, each of whom received 14s. 6d. per day if in the infantry, and 15s. 6d. if in the cavalry. He would ask why was there that disparity of remuneration in favour of the army and against the navy? The fact was that the former service was more effectually represented in Parliament, and if such a grievance as he was describing existed in the army it would be rung in the ears of the House—and very properly so—until it was redressed. But, happening in the navy, the thing was not exposed; although it could not he supposed that the country begrudged fair and equal remuneration to the officers of both services, rank for rank. But what he had stated was not all. By the warrant of last year £60,000 per annum was apportioned among officers of the army to induce them to retire on full pay; while not a single man in the navy could retire on full pay. It was manifest, then, that the naval officers were grievously oppressed. The old commanders were in this position:— there were 551 on the active list, and of these 342 efficient men were unemployed. There were ninety-seven reserve commanders, who had all served upwards of forty years and been decorated with medals, now receiving 7s. per day—an allowance for below that paid to a major in the army, of corresponding rank. 100 retired commanders only received 8s. 6d. per day, being 2s. 6d. less than a major; while another list of retired commanders, 246 in number, only obtained 7s. The old naval lieutenants were not better off—indeed, the lower they descended in rank the greater they would find the hardship. Only thirteen out of between 600 and 700 retired lieutenants got 7s.; 150 of them got 6s.; and the remainder, though many had been wounded, and wore several medals on their breasts, got but 5s. That was the reward given to men who had bonâ fide the same rank as captains of marines and captains in the army, whose allowance was 7s. per day. He had calculated the service of twenty modern lieutenants, with such names as Rowley, Balfour, and the like, and found that when put together it only amounted to seventy-four years; while the service of the same number of old officers of corresponding rank amounted in the aggregate to 700 years. The latter twenty bore such plebeian names as Smith, Thompson, White, and Johnson, and were men who, of course, never got on, but were left half-starving. The twenty men who had been so rapidly advanced had only three medals among them; while the men who had been kept back had almost all medals a piece. Now, that was an illustration of the treatment received by the navy; and if the House, now that it had been made acquainted with the system pursued, did not see that it was speedily amended, it would be responsible for all the oppression which that system inflicted. The question was one wholly unconnected with party considerations, and might be impartially and dispassionately dealt with. If his Motion were not favourably entertained by the First Lord of the Admiralty, he should feel it his duty to divide the House. It was not enough for him to expose the injustice done to deserving officers; he must take the opinion of the House whether that injustice should be suffered to continue. He was actuated by no personal feeling, although his own name was on one of the lists. He had been kept on half-pay much against his own wish, and although he had used every exertion in his power to get afloat, he had not sufficient interest to accomplish his object. If he had had nothing to depend upon but the pittance he received as half-pay, he could not have worn a gentleman's coat on his back. He now committed the case of these old neglected officers to the decision of the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Officer concluded by moving that the disadvantageous position of the captains, commanders, lieutenants, and masters of the Royal Hospital at Greenwich, and other officers of Her Majesty's navy, is worthy of the early and favourable consideration of the Board of Admiralty.

in seconding the Motion, said, that his hon. and gallant I Friend the Member for Bath had made an appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty on behalf of the officers to whose case he had called attention; but the person upon whose heart it was necessary to produce an impression was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who exercised control not only over the Board of Admiralty, but over all other boards. He (Sir G. Pechell) might remind the House that, although officers who were placed in the Royal Hospital at Greenwich, as a reward for their services, were deprived of half-pay, officers who held civil appointments were allowed to receive half-pay. For a series of years the naval Lords of the Admiralty, whose salaries were £1,000 a year, did not receive half-pay; but a very cunning and clever Secretary to the Admiralty found out an Act of Parliament, under the provisions of which the Lords of the Admiralty might receive their half-pay; and it was speedily arranged that they should not only enjoy half-pay for the future, but that they should receive the back-pay of which they had been deprived. He hoped the case of the officers to whom his hon. and gallant Friend's Motion referred would be taken into consideration by the Government. He (Sir G. Pechell) had brought the subject under the notice of the House on several occasions some years ago, and he had suggested that the amount received for the conveyance of bullion in Her Majesty's ships from South American ports, amounting to some £50,000, or £60.000, or £70,000 a year, might be applied to meet the claims of those officers; but he could never induce the First Lord of the Admiralty to turn his attention to the matter.

said, he had thought it his duty, when the gallant officer (Captain Scobell) placed his Motion on the paper, to go to Greenwich Hospital for the purpose of procuring the best information in his power on the subject. He then addressed himself to the Governor, Sir James Gordon, one of the most distinguished Admirals in the service, who, with a singleness of mind and sincerity of heart and purpose that did him the highest honour (characteristics which had endorsed him to his profession), freely communicated to him his own sentiments, and made him acquainted, as far as lay in his power, with all that he desired to know. In making one or two observations, he should set out with stating that the officers of Greenwich Hospital were paid out of the funds of the hospital, and received nothing from the Government; that in the year 1812 the salaries of the officers were arranged by the authorities of the hospital, and from that year up to 1829 the half-pay of those officers was paid into the Exchequer, the nomination of those officers being in the same year transferred from the hospital to the Admiralty. From that time to this he (Admiral Walcott) could gain no information as to what had become of this half-pay; but this much was certain, that it was not received by those officers. He contended that half-pay was given for good and meritorious services performed, and not in anticipation of future services, provided only, if called upon, officers were capable of service; in this case these officers were deterred from ever entering on actual service by an Order in Council of January, 1856, and therefore the Admiralty was not justified in withholding from them the half-pay to which they were justly entitled. The Governor of Greenwich Hospital told him that these officers obtained their nomination at a very advanced period of life for wounds received, or for gallant service. They had a house given them, but no furniture, and in order to furnish it they were generally obliged to go to their agents and borrow money. If they did not live sufficiently long to repay the agents, the consequence was, the furniture was sold, and their families left in a state of great distress. Because the funds of the hospital provided the salaries of the officers of the department, the existence of such a fund should not be considered a bar to their half-pay. On what plea did the: Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the hospital receive their half-pay, when, as the Governor himself told him, they had no claim to it which those officers did not possess? It must not be supposed they had no duties to perform, as they were placed over some hundreds of old men, who require a great deal of care and attention. He would not go into any invidious comparisons of the difference of pay received by officers in the two services; but he would remind the House that the surest evidence of the decline of a nation was its neglect of those who had fought its battles in the hour of need, who with the promptitude of youth devoted their lives to the service of their country, and redeemed that pledge by the gallantry of manhood; to them assuredly is due all becoming testimony, and which ought to be dealt out in a free spirit and with an ungrudging hand; but if those in power will permit meritorious services to pass unrewarded, and favour to rule dominant in the bestowal of honours, promotions, and employment, then those who have a voice there will lift it against the decision of unreasoning judgment, for fear the absence of a decoration should be considered the credential of honour, and the insignia of distinction become the by-word of the brave. He earnestly implored the First Lord of the Admiralty to take the Motion of the hon. and gallant officer opposite into his favourable consideration, and he would only add that no circumstance of his life would give him more gratification than that he had raised his voice in the House of Commons in the support of the claims of those poor and meritorious officers.

said, he did not know whether it was owing to any change which had taken place in the constitution of Parliament, but when he first knew the House of Commons it exercised very considerable influence in checking the disposition of Governments to what was deemed unnecessary expenditure. That course, however, was now very much reversed, and in order to prevent an increase of expenditure, the Government felt themselves obliged to check Motions made in the House, from time to time, in favour of the claims of particular classes of officers or other public servants, and those often made entirely without reference to claims of others. The hon. and gallant Member for Bath, who introduced the subject, stated that officers of the navy of the same rank with those in the army did not receive the same amount of half-pay, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently forgot that the officers of the army purchased their commissions, and that a great part of their half-pay must be regarded in the light of interest on the purchase-money of those commissions. It would doubtless be remembered that on one occasion an hon. Gentleman brought forward the case of the officers of marines as one of great hardship. He (Sir C. Wood) represented at the time that they were really better paid than the officers of the navy of corresponding rank, but the House was of a different opinion, and it was carried that every officer of marines ought to have a higher rate of pay; and now his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Scobell) brought forward the hardship of the ease of the navy officers as compared with the marines in their turn. In this way the House of Commons was every now and then taking up individual cases, one at a time, without taking a general view of the different branches of the service. With regard to the first class of officers whose case his hon. and gallant Friend had brought before the House, the captains and commanders of Greenwich Hospital, he could only say that he was quite disposed to agree in the well-merited eulogium which had been paid them. The Governor of that hospital was one of the most distinguished officers in the service) and had suffered much in the discharge of his duty to his country) and the Lieutenant Governor and other officers had served with great distinction. Sir James Gordon had received one of the few prizes in the naval service, and he should be sorry to see his emoluments reduced. But the hon. and gallant Member had forgotten the difference between the pay of active service and the retirement allowance for past service. The chaplains and surgeons of Greenwich Hospital were actively employed in the duties of their profession. The surgeon was not appointed for his past services, but for his surgical skill, and it was not quite fair, therefore, to compare the salaries and emoluments given to such officers of Greenwich Hospital with the pay for past services. The surgeon might not have been wounded or shed his blood in defence of his country, but he was paid for performing active surgical duty in the hospital. With regard to the naval Lords of the Admiralty, an Act of Parliament was passed twenty-four years ago regulating their salaries. It was then considered that the salaries they received as Lords of the Admiralty were low in proportion to their duties and position, and it was provided that they should receive their half-pay in addition to that salary. His hon. and gallant Friend appeared to be labouring under some misapprehension with regard to the amount received by some of the officers to whom he had referred. When, he (Sir C. Wood) was told that those appointments were not worth having, he did not find that that was the view taken of them by the naval profession, by whom they were considered not at all bad places, and who were most anxious to obtain them. The hon. and gallant officer said that the officers of Greenwich Hospital were inadequately remunerated. Their duties, however, were of a light character, and if the hon. and gallant Member compared their half-pay and allowances with the half-pay of officers of much higher rank, he would find that they were not so inadequately remunerated as he seemed to think. The half-pay of a vice admiral was £593 a year. The captains in Greenwich Hospital were found in apartments. It was difficult to estimate the value of the apartments, but one of the captains was not provided with apartments, and he received£2 12s.6d. per week in lieu thereof. Putting that estimate, then, upon the value of the apartments, the emoluments of the captains in Greenwich Hospital were £595 per annum, being£2 more than the half-pay of a vice-admiral, an officer of much higher grade in the service. He therefore could not honestly say that he thought that a very inadequate payment for a naval officer of the rank of captain. The half-pay of a rear-admiral was £456 a year. The allowance of a commander of Greenwich Hospital might be estimated at £492, being £36 more than the half-pay of a rear-admiral. The lieutenants of Greenwich Hospital received an allowance of £417, taking apartments into account, which was more than the half-pay of a captain, which was only £365 a year. He could not say, therefore, that such a retired allowance was insufficient for officers of their rank. His hon. and gallant Friend had complained of a letter in which the Admiralty stated that it was not in their power to give these officers half-pay in addition to their allowances. That was quite true, because the Admiralty could not give them half-pay without the sanction of the Treasury. When the Admiralty were again applied to they replied, "We cannot do it." He saw nothing discourteous in that reply, which was simply true. In considering the question the House were bound to regard it in relation to the general question of allowing half-pay to be received with other emoluments derived from the public. The hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott) had declared that half-pay was a reward for past services, and not a retainer for future services, [Admiral WALCOTT: It is a retainer, I admit.] Then it was not simply a reward for past services, as the hon. and gallant Admiral seemed to think. [Admiral WALCOTT: That is still my belief.] He could assure the hon. and gallant Admiral that he was quite mistaken; it was both a reward for past and a retainer for future services. It was in the power of the Treasury to allow half pay, with other emoluments; but it was generally withheld when other emoluments of considerable amount were enjoyed. Considering the amount which the officers of Greenwich Hospital received one way or the other, he did not think the decision not to allow them half-pay so exceedingly hard, and if they were allowed it, a large class of officers in the country, who were receiving other emoluments, would also press their claims upon the Government. With regard to the old commanders and lieutenants, Government had, in the course of the present year, asked for an increased Vote of £11,000 a year, for the purpose of malting additions to their half-pay. A considerable number of commanders had been given the rank of captains, with the lowest half-pay of captains; those who had not obtained that advantage would become entitled to it by seniority, as vacancies occurred; and on looking through the list, he could not see any great number not included in that number, who had any strong claims on the score of service. With regard to the old lieutenants, he could only repeat what he had said on a former occasion. Promotions were made largely in the years 1814, 1815, and 1816, and from the reduction of force consequent on the peace and it was perfectly impossible that any great number could afterwards be employed. The consequence was, that very few had seen much sea-service. Many of them had received half-pay for forty years; they now received a higher rate of half-pay, and a number had been promoted, the number of commanders having last year been increased. He quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath, that it was unjust not to reward officers who had devoted themselves to the service of the country, and he did not believe Parliament would begrudge the application of public money to officers who had distinguished themselves; but he must say that a great number of lieutenants who had served in the late war had seen far longer sea service than many of the old lieutenants, and there was no reason, in his opinion, why the House should vote a larger sum to the latter officers. He believed he had now replied to all the points touched upon by his hon. and gallant Friend, and he trusted that he had satis- factorily explained to the House why he thought there was no ground for giving still larger boons than had already been extended to those officers.

said, he was sorry that the First Lord of the Admiralty had mixed up the captains' claims with those of the commanders and lieutenants, he quite agreed that a great deal had been done for the commanders and lieutenants, but he thought the officers of Greenwich Hospital were not treated with the liberality which the Admiralty ought to exhibit. The naval Lords of the Admiralty received half-pay, in addition to their salary; and if the united amount of salary and half-pay was only proper remuneration for the naval Lords, he should like to know how it was that the lay Lords did not receive £600 or £700 a year additional salary, to make their remuneration equal? All the members of the Board of Admiralty were in the same boat, and they ought not to make fish of one and flesh of the other. He did not think the comparison between Greenwich captains and vice-admirals a fair one, because the vice-admiral and the rear-admiral were both on the active list, while the Greenwich captains bad totally retired from the service. The Greenwich captains could get no further, and whether provisions were dearer or cheaper their pay was exactly the same. They were in a most pitiable condition. They had formerly been forced to live, perhaps, in a small cottage in the country. They came up to Greenwich to good and large apartments. They were obliged to borrow money of their agents to fit out the apartments, and when they were removed by the hand of Providence their widows and families were left in a very precarious position. That was the case of nine out of ten of all the Greenwich officers, and he could not understand why they should not receive the same advantage as other naval officers holding different situations in the country. For instance, the Usher of the Black Rod received a large salary, and he also received his half-pay. He considered that the Board of Admiralty had behaved well in giving to wounded officers appointments to Greenwich Hospital, but at the same time he did not think those appointments were sufficient rewards. While the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital enjoyed their half-pay, he (Sir C. Napier) could see no reason for a distinction between them and the officers of lower grade, except, perhaps, that the higher officers had more influence and interest. The House had perceived the justice of representations made of the case of Sir James Gordon, whose salary as Governor was only equal to his pension and half-pay, leaving his house as the only benefit he derived from his appointment in Greenwich Hospital. In that case the First Lord of the Admiralty had no difficulty in persuading the Treasury to allow the increased emoluments, and it was to be hoped, after the discussion of that evening, the present First Lord would see the propriety of allowing the junior officers of the hospital to receive their half-pay.

said, he should be extremely sorry that a question relating to the English navy, of which they were all so naturally proud, should be summarily disposed of. He considered, in point of fact, that the entire of the money which was devoted to the pay of the officers connected with Greenwich Hospital was not voted by the country, but was defrayed out of private funds belonging to the institution itself. That being the case, he should wish to know if the nation was entitled to save the half-pay of those officers, for such, he contended, would be the result of refusing to grant them that half-pay, upon the ground that they received emoluments from other sources.

in reply, said, he was ashamed of the cold and callous feeling exhibited by the First Lord of the Admiralty for the position of those gallant officers. He (Captain Scobell) must declare that he would rather be what he was—an humble captain in the service—than the First Lord of the Admiralty with such opinions. The fact was, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, that the sweets of the service were given to political and family favourites, and that coldness, neglect, and insult were the only portion of the class on whose behalf the Motion had been made.

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not justified in saying that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had treated the case of those officers with coldness. His right hon. Friend was as anxious as any other man to see naval officers properly rewarded, and to give them an increase of income in their old age; but he had a public duty to perform, and that public duty obliged him to look at the subject, not in an isolated point of view, but as a whole. It was not correct to say that those situations were not coveted, because there always were several applications for each one that became vacant. The present Governor and Lieutenant Governor were gentlemen who had risen by merit alone, and were not indebted for their position to those adventitious circumstances to which the hon. and gallant officer referred. He would again repeat, that he was just as anxious as any Member in the House for the good of the navy, but he must say that he did not think that the present claim was well founded.

said, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to take into consideration the injury inflicted on those lieutenant colonels of the army who attained that rank before the 20th day of June, 1854, and who had been superseded by the retrospective action of the warrant of the 6th day of October, 1854. Previous to the warrant of the 6th of October, the principal if not the sole object was to obtain the rank of lieutenant colonel, from which all the higher ranks in the army spring. Up to that rank all the grades of the army were purchasable, but beyond that they were obtained by brevet. The peculiar feature of the old system was this, that once an officer became lieutenant colonel, from that no officer could pass over his head to the higher ranks unless for the special cases of distinguished services or aide-de-camp to the Queen.