said, he would now beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade whether any steps were being taken by the Government towards the diminution of the risks to shipping by the erection of a lighthouse on the reefs known as the Pratas Shoals, in the China Sea?

said, some steps had been taken, but he was sorry to have to state that no decided result had as yet been the consequence, owing to the difficulties which stood in the way. The first of those difficulties related to the question of how funds were to be procured. The erection of the proposed lighthouse would be very expensive, and the only money at the disposal of the Board of Trade for the purpose were the tolls upon English vessels passing by the lighthouse. They were at present in correspondence with the Government of Hong-Kong upon the subject of whether English vessels would be found willing to pay those tolls or not. The second difficulty in the matter was, that, even though such willingness should be expressed, there would be a differential duty against English shipping, inasmuch as it was not within the power of the Board of Trade to impose tolls upon foreign vessels.

said, he wished to inquire whether the Government had decided upon taking any steps for relieving the great distress now prevailing amongst a large number of the soldiers' wives and children at Colchester, and as to which the chaplain of a regiment lying there had made certain representations to the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Under Secretary for War?

said, the Government were not aware of any distress prevailing amongst soldiers' wives and children at Colchester. He had also made inquiries at the Horse Guards, but found that no complaints had been made there.

said, he held a copy of the chaplain's statement in his hand, and he had been too long a Member of that House to make any statement as to which he was not quite certain.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was the intention of the Government to make any recognition of the services of Sir J. M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch in the Crimea?

said, Sir J. M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch were employed in the Crimea on an inquiry of a very important nature, bearing upon the state and condition of the army, and they performed their duty entirely to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government, and very much to their own credit—with great ability, great perseverance, and great minuteness of research; and no doubt the Report that they made was very useful to Her Majesty's Government in preventing a recurrence of such unfortunate events as had caused their being sent out. But at the same time it does not appear to Her Majesty's Government that their services were of such a peculiar nature as to require any extraordinary recognition. It may be and must be a question whether that usual acknowledgment which is made for special services shall not be made to them, and it will be our duty to consult with those Gentlemen on the subject. But in answer to the question of my hon. Friend relating, as it evidently does, to honours conferred by the Crown, I can only say that the service does not appear to us to be one of a nature requiring the Crown to step out of the ordinary course to acknowledge it.

I wish to know whether it is true that advancement in the army was offered to Colonel Tulloch before he went out, and that since then many of his juniors have been promoted over his head?

I am not aware of any offer of the kind having been made to Colonel Tulloch. He was a colonel in the army. There are between him and the top of the list several officers who distinguished themselves by actual service in the field, and I consider that it would not be fair to promote him over their heads.

said, he would be glad to know when the noble Lord at the head of the Government intended to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Prevention Act?

My hon. Friend may set his mind at ease. We shall take a very early opportunity of moving for the appointment of a Committee.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer having withdrawn from the Committee of Inquiry into the Bank Charter so much of the proposed investigation as related to Joint stock Banks, he wished to know whether he intended to appoint another Committee to consider that subject, or whether he had any measure in contemplation?

Sir, I have no present intention of proposing a second Committee, but I propose to state at an early day the course which the Government propose to take in dealing with the subject of Joint-stock Banks.

said: Sir, I have to request the indulgent permission of the House to take a course which, although it may be somewhat irregular—

said: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but from what fell from him yesterday, and the intimation then given to the House that he was about to bring before us a subject of great importance, I presume that it is not his intention to enter into a mere personal explanation respecting a statement which he made on a previous evening, and the contradiction given to that statement by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Now, so far as my humble vote goes, the right hon. Gentleman should have every indulgence; but I first wish to come to an understanding which is, that being in ignorance as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is about to state that he was imposed on at Paris or not, and as to whether the statements of the noble Lord at the head of the Government upon that point are incorrect or the contrary—the understanding, I repeat, to which I wish to come is this: that if the right hon. Gentleman should go beyond a mere personal statement any other hon. Member may be at liberty to make such remarks as he may think fit upon the observations of the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord, without being called to order on a question of form and stopped by there being no question before the House.

I rise to speak to the point of order suggested by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I think the House will feel, that although my right hon. Friend may be about to take a course not strictly within its rules, yet it is one which has always been permitted for the purposes of personal vindication. When my right hon. Friend has made his statement and the noble Lord has replied, it will be for the sense of the House to determine whether the discussion should be further prolonged.

Sir, I was under the impression that when the accuracy of a statement made by a Member of this House—especially upon a subject of some moment—was impugned, and impugned without any qualification, it was the courteous custom of the House to permit that Member to take the earliest opportunity of appealing to its indulgent consideration to make that statement which he deemed to be necessary to vindicate his accuracy—perhaps, his honour. It is in that spirit I appeal to the House to-night, and if any hon. Gentleman rises to call me to order I shall understand that the permission to which I allude is not to be accorded to me. If it should be accorded to me I trust it will be fairly and liberally extended; and I upon my part shall make no observation which I do not think necessary to clear up the point in dispute. I cannot help feeling that I am justly interpreting the general opinion of the House, when, in recalling the circumstances which have led to this appeal, I express a belief that my appearance in my place to answer the contradiction of the noble Lord at the head of the Government is neither unnecessary nor unreasonable. I shall, therefore, assume, that no hon. Member will again rise to call me to order, and that that indulgence will be extended towards me which, upon many occasions similar to the present, has been granted to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I remember some years ago—it may be eight years since—that there was a discussion in this House upon the proceedings which had taken place at Cracow. The discussion was one of considerable importance, and was adjourned for more than one day. I took some part in the debate, with a view of vindicating the Government of Austria on the particular question at issue, and I recollect that I had had occasion—the treaty of Vienna having during the debate been frequently appealed to—to refer to a guarantee contained, as I alleged, in that treaty, by which England guaranteed to Prussia her Saxon provinces. The noble Lord, at present the First Minister of the Crown, was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and had held that office for no less than seventeen years. On that occasion, when I referred to the guarantee by Great Britain to Prussia of her Saxon provinces, the noble Lord unequivocally contradicted me in the face of the House. He said there was in the treaty of Vienna no such guarantee. "Nay more," said the noble Lord, "there is in the treaty of Vienna no guarantee whatsoever." Upon that occasion I had an opportunity of reiterating my statement, and I mentioned the clause of the treaty in which the guarantee was contained. The noble Lord was still incredulous; he instructed one of his aides de camp to go up to the library,—it was in the old House—and to bring down the treaty of Vienna. The noble Lord then referred to the treaty, and there he found among its provisions a guarantee upon the part of Great Britain of her Saxon provinces to Prussia; and thus the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had been Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a period of seventeen years, and whose reputation as a statesman mainly depended on his knowledge of foreign affairs, then became acquainted for the first time, apparently, with one of the most important engagements of the British Crown. On the first night of the present Session I had occasion in the course of the debate to refer to another guarantee. I mentioned that there was in existence a guarantee by France to Austria of her Italian dominions; I mentioned also that that guarantee was expressed in a treaty, and further I mentioned that that treaty was a secret one. The Noble Lord contradicted me upon that occasion as he had done upon the previous occasion with respect to the guarantee to Prussia. But I was then in a very different position from that in which I found myself placed eight years ago. The treaty to which I referred was not printed; it was not published; it could not be sent for to the library of the House of Commons for the purpose of vindicating my assertion, or of refuting the allegation of the Noble Lord. I did not under those circumstances think it respectful to this House to rise and make a barren reiteration of the statement I had put forward; I felt that such a reiteration would not, under the circumstances, be satisfactory either to the House or to myself. I had a moral conviction when I made the statement that I was correct; that moral conviction of my correctness sustained me while listening to the almost unprecedented form of contradiction which I received from the lips of the chief Minister. I received the information which I presumed to communicate to the House that night for its guidance from a quarter which I felt convinced could not be mistaken, and which I was confident would not have deceived me. And here I may perhaps be permitted to say—although upon such a question I think it quite unnecessary that a Member should be called upon for his authority, yet in consequence of the peculiar observations of the Noble Lord, the House will perhaps allow me to say, that I received that information from no French authority or quarter; and that if I had not made that visit to Paris, to which the Noble Lord with such good taste alluded, that information would equally have been in my possession. Now, I believe I am not mistaking the feeling of the House when I say that I think they will agree with me—assuming that the information I gave was correct, or assuming, what is the same thing, so far as my conduct is concerned, that I had, in consequence of the authority from which I received it, a conviction that it was correct—I think the House will agree with me that it was impossible, under the circumstances, that I could remain silent upon the point. It would be totally out of the question that if the affairs of Italy were brought under discussion in this House, as they had been brought at the termination of last Session—it would be impossible, for instance, that if the subject should be again introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London—and it was a subject which every one supposed would be brought under our notice by the noble Lord—it would be impossible as I felt that I could listen to a Motion upon the subject of the affairs of Italy, brought forward by a statesman of the reputation of the Noble Lord the Member for London—a Motion founded on the proceedings of the Conferences at Paris, and on the direct or implied engagements of the British Government—it would be impossible that if such a Motion were brought forward by the Noble Lord, or any other Member, founded on such authority, and if that Motion should be met by such an answer as that given by the noble Lord last year to a similar Motion—an answer which was then deemed quite satisfactory—I say I am sure the House will agree with me that while I was in possession of such information, and believed it to be authentic, it would be impossible for me, as an honest man, to withhold the statement of what I regarded as a fact that must have totally altered all the reasonings and all the views, all the arguments, and all the feelings of the House upon the subject to which the Motion was addressed. I felt, then, from the first moment that I became, or believed that I became, possessed of this intelligence, that if the affairs of Italy should be again brought under the consideration of the House, it would become on my part an act of peremptory and inexorable duty to make the statement which I did. That statement was well considered. I will not attempt to excuse it by pretending that it was uttered in the heat and hurry of debate—that statement was a well-considered and a long-considered statement, and if it be an erroneous one I am prepared to take upon myself all the responsibility of so grave an error. Now, Sir, there is one point on which I must ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to make one or two observations, in order to prevent misconception. I wish to guard myself from any misunderstanding as to the views with which I look on such an alleged connection between France and Austria as a matter of policy. I wish no one to suppose that in the observations I made on the first evening of the Session it was my intention to offer any opinion upon that question. I alleged the circumstance which I stated, neither in vindication nor in reprobation of Austria, but simply in order to illustrate the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the general management of foreign affairs. I am not bold enough to suppose that there is any Member present who remembers with any accuracy what I may have expressed in this House with regard to the position which, in my opinion, Austria ought to hold in the political system of Europe. But I may be permitted to say, with a view to prevent any misconception upon the subject, that the last words that I uttered in this House before the termination of the last Session, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for London, expressed the opinion which I have long steadfastly and strongly entertained, that it is a matter of the highest European importance to maintain the power and the authority of Austria. That was the opinion which I expressed on the eve of the prorogation of Parliament. Often and often before have I stated in this House that opinion; and even in the debate to which I felt it necessary to recall the recollection of the noble Lord at the commencement of these observations—the debate on Cracow—I was vindicating the conduct of Austria, and asserting her claim to a powerful and an independent position for the maintenance of the equilibrium of Europe. If, then, it be one of the highest objects of European policy that the power and authority of Austria should be maintained—it is no less, in my opinion, for the sake of Italy and the Italians. It is when that authority is questioned—it is when it is weakened by the plots of secret societies, or the machinations of foreign Governments, that the policy of Austria becomes, repressive and retrograde. It was not, therefore, to impugn the policy which dictated the treaty I alleged to exist that my observations were directed on the first evening of the Session. I believe the policy which dictated that treaty on the part of France was a policy founded on that wise, that temperate, and that conservative spirit which has gained for the Government of the Emperor of the French the respect and confidence of Europe. I have made these observations to the House in order to guard myself against the supposition that in the language which I used on the first night of the Session it was my intention to have impugned the policy which would maintain the authority of Austria, or to have created an impression that France was animated in that proceeding, if it took place, by any other motives than those which would have fairly entitled her to the respect of Europe. That which I did complain of the other night, that which I do complain of still, and that which is the point most germane to the question before us is, that if it be a fact that this treaty exists—that if it be a fact that the statement which I made was a correct statement—the conduct of Her Majesty's Government at the same time was conveying to this House, and to the country, and to Europe, an impression that they were pursuing a policy of an exactly opposite character, and that the course of their general policy was a course entirely adverse to that which this alleged treaty was intended to accomplish and maintain. I think it concerns our national honour that upon this matter there should be a clear understanding. If it be true that while this alleged treaty was in existence we were negotiating treaties with Sardinia, animated and occasioned by representations of a contrary character, surely that is a question which ought to be elucidated before the House. That is what I complained of. I complained of this, that Italian policy was made a stalking-horse by Her Majesty's Government. If the statement that I made was a correct statement, the Liberal party in this country, as I wanted to show them, who extenuate their lack of zeal in domestic affairs by an unlimited confidence in the foreign policy of the noble Lord at the head of the Government—not sufficiently warned by the cases of Poland and Hungary—the Liberal party ought to understand that that Italy which they believed was about to be regenerated according to their ideas by the noble Lord, was the subject of a very different policy and of a very different treatment. Now, I want to place before the House exactly and without exaggeration the charges against me involved in the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord. The contradiction which I received from the noble Lord the other night involved two allegations. The first allegation of the noble Lord was, that my statement that there was a treaty, and that a secret treaty, in existence, by which France guaranteed to Austria the security of her Italian dominions, was altogether a fiction; that there was no such treaty in existence; that there was not the slightest foundation for the statement—that it was, to use the noble Lord's words, a romance. That was the first allegation involved in the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord. The second allegation which fell from the noble Lord was contained in a derisive hypothesis. The noble Lord said, "If there be such a treaty in existence"—after having immediately before declared to the House that there was none—"if there be such a treaty in existence, if the right hon. Gentleman has seen it, all I can say is that I have not seen it; that I have not heard of it; that Her Majesty's Government never heard of it; and instead of advising such a treaty, if we had known anything about it, and been consulted upon the subject, our counsel would have been to have made no arrangement of the kind." These are the two allegations involved in the contradiction of the noble Lord. But as everything in such a case depends upon accuracy, I will read the allegations of the noble Lord as I find them recorded in an authority the accuracy of which he will not, I am sure, dispute. The noble Lord said:—"We come now to Italy, and, in reference to that question, the right hon. Gentleman has had access to archives, and has found out treaties of which we never heard. He announces that there is a secret treaty concluded between the French and Austrian Governments, with the sanction of the Government of England, guaranteeing to Austria her Italian possessions. I am bound to say that this is the first time I ever heard of it. The right hon. Gentleman may have seen such a treaty; but all I will undertake to say is, that we are totally ignorant of it; and, so far from having advised such a treaty, if we had been consulted we should certainly have given our advice in an opposite direction." I put it to the House whether or not I have accurately described the allegations contained in the contradiction I received from the noble Lord. I will now address myself to the first of those allegations. According to that allegation, the whole thing is a romance—there is no such treaty—it is a pure invention—I have either been hoaxed or I have created the treaty—and, in fact, it is a pure romance. Now, Sir, let me come to what my statement is. My statement is, that engagements were negotiated between France and Austria with the object—with the main object—of guaranteeing on the part of France the security of the Italian dominions of Austria; that these negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion; that they were expressed in writing; that the written instrument assumed the form of a treaty, and of a secret treaty; and that that treaty was executed on the 22nd of December, 1854. In answer to the first allegation of the noble Lord, that there was no treaty whatever—that the whole of my statement on that point was a mere romance, I am here to re-state that which I expressed the other night. I give the very date of the instrument, the form of the instrument and the purpose and object of the instrument. Now I come to the second allegation contained in the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord. That allegation, as the House must remember, was uttered in a spirit of derision; but I will give the noble Lord the benefit of taking it gravely. The second allegation contained in the noble Lord's demand was, that "if such treaty had been seen by the right hon. Gentleman I have not seen it, and the Government have not heard of it, and instead of advising it the Government would have recommended, had they known of it, that it should not be concluded." That is the second allegation of the noble Lord. Now, I have in my possession evidence—irresistible evidence—which proves to me that throughout the whole of the negotiations of this treaty, which I declare to have been executed the 22nd of December, 1854, by which the security of the Italian dominions of Austria is guaranteed by France—that throughout the whole of the negotiations of this treaty Her Majesty's Government were privy to them from the first; that they counselled them; that the suggestions received their approbation, their concurrence, I will even say their cordial concurrence; and that they were formally advised upon the subject before the execution of that treaty took place. The House will now, I believe, at least agree with me in this, that I have not evaded the issue under our consideration. They will, I think, admit that so far I have placed the very pith and marrow of the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord fairly before them, and that I have directly met these two allegations. But I have a further statement to make upon this subject. I state to the House now that that treaty was not only executed on the 22nd of December, 1854, with the cognisance of Her Majesty's Government, but that it was largely and extensively acted on—that in consequence of that secret treaty Austria withdrew a portion of her troops from Italy—that in consequence of Austria having withdrawn a portion of her troops from Italy, the Italian Governments throughout the Peninsula became alarmed, and that Austria obtained from the French Government permission confidentially to communicate to the Italian Governments in order to tranquillise them—I use, I believe, the very word that was employed on the occasion—that Austria, in order to "tranquillise" them, obtained permission from the French Government to communicate to them confidentially the fact of the French guarantee: I would make upon that point even a further statement, and it is this—that the fact that Austria obtained that permission and communicated the existence of the secret treaty to the Italian Governments was known to Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord has said that I had had access to archives, and that I had found out treaties of which he had never heard. But I will refer now to archives of which the noble Lord has heard—I will refer to the archives of that office over which he so long presided; and I tell the noble Lord that if he will give me, without reserve, the correspondence in the archives of Downing-street during the month of December, 1854, and the month of January, 1855, and if he will assist me in obtaining, though I think it will not be necessary, any official evidence which may be requisite to elucidate some passages in this transaction, I think I may venture to say that I could then prove every tittle of the statement that I have made. The House will, I hope, now admit, at least, that I have not evaded coming to a frank issue with the noble Lord. The noble Lord the other night, when this question was under discussion, treated—as is his custom—a very grave subject in a spirit of levity. I cannot say that I admired at the time the tone which the noble Lord assumed, because, if there was any foundation for what I stated, it required, I think, at least the serious attention of the First Minister of the Crown; and if, on the other hand, it was an inconsiderate statement, and still more, if it were a statement invented by me for the occasion, it was not in a tone of ribald ridicule that it ought to have been answered, but rather in one of warm and vehement indignation. For how stands the case with regard to myself. If I had made upon so grave a matter an inconsiderate statement, my character as a politician might have been damaged or destroyed; but if I had invented a statement of such a kind, it was not a question of my character as a politician, but it was a question of my character as a member of society itself that was involved. If that were at stake—if my conduct were susceptible of so grave an interpretation, surely the tone which the noble Lord, as the leader of the House of Commons, assumed, was not one which the occasion exactly warranted. I have now sat in this House for twenty years; I have laboured sedulously to obtain the good opinion and the respect of the House. They are to me dearer than all worldly possessions. I am conscious that I have frequently addressed the House inefficiently, and sometimes, it may be, with indiscretion; but this I also know, that I have treated this House always with candour. Whether the noble Lord the other night, in his answer to me, treated the House in the same spirit, I care not to inquire.

said: The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the observations he has just made, and in claiming, as he had a right to do, the attention of the House, said that the question at issue involved his character for judgment, and, it might be, his character for honour. But I beg leave to call to the recollection of the House that nothing that I said or insinuated upon a former occasion could in any way whatever justify the right hon. Gentleman in conceiving that any question affecting his honour or his character was here at stake. I did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of having invented the statement which he made; I only charged him with credulity in having been induced to believe a statement which I thought was utterly devoid of any foundation in fact. I can only further say upon that point that I should very much regret if the right hon. Gentleman should harbour in his mind any notion that there was anything in what I said that at all brought in question his personal honour, which I never intended to impugn, and which I am sure no man possesses in a higher degree than himself. But the right hon. Gentleman finds fault with me for not having been angry. He complains that I treated him with too much good humour, or with what he is pleased, while talking of good taste, to call, in language upon which I will not now dwell, "ribald ridicule." Now, it is well known that those who make themselves ridiculous are always the most ready to resent the very ridicule which they have provoked, and it is their habit to charge others with the consequences which their own conduct has naturally and necessarily produced. The right hon. Gentleman has stated very correctly a part of the contradiction which I gave to his statement on the opening night of the Session, but he has omitted some very important points in the case. I beg leave to recall to the attention of the House what was the charge—for it was distinctly a charge—which the right hon. Gentleman brought against Her Majesty's Government, and what were the allegations by which he considered that he had proved that charge. He certainly could not have brought it as a charge against Her Majesty's Government that they were anxious to maintain Austria in the possession of her dominions. During the very last debate we had in the last Session of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, among the principles of the foreign policy of the party of which he was the leader, that the leading alliances with England ought to be alliances with Russia, with Austria, and with the United States. I had then occasion to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he had accidentally omitted in his list of our most valuable alliances our alliance with that Power—namely, France—with which we were bound in the most intimate alliance, and for the most important objects. But it being the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that a close and intimate alliance with Austria was the best and soundest policy for the British Government, he could not mean that in the abstract it was a breach of duty on the part of Her Majesty's Government to be a party to a measure tending to secure the integrity of the Austrian dominions; and, indeed, in the course of the observations he has made this evening he has fairly stated that he considered the maintenance of Austria, not only to the north, but, if I understood him correctly, to the south of the Alps also, in full and undiminished power, to be a matter in which were involved the general interests of Europe. But what was the charge which the right hon. Gentleman brought against Her Majesty's Government? Why, it was this—he said that we were professing a great interest for the Italians; that we were professing to sympathise with their feeling of aversion to a foreign yoke; that we wished to encourage Italian nationalities; and yet that while we were doing all openly on the one hand, on the other we were secretly instigating the French Government to give a guarantee which, as far as the possessions of Austria are concerned, are directly at variance with the sympathy expressed for Italian independence. I stated, in reply, that which I now repeat—that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no treaty between France and Austria guaranteeing the Italian possessions of the latter Power; and the right hon. Gentleman, I must observe, has given no proof of the existence of such a treaty. He has not offered any explanation of the grounds on which he made that assertion; and therefore it rests now, as it rested before, simply on hearsay evidence, or what somebody or other, whose name is not mentioned, told the right hon. Gentleman. He talked of "good taste." Of course every man is the best judge of the degree of latitude given to him in regard to the publication of communications which he may have received; but I own it appears to me that if a person is told of a secret engagement contracted between two other parties, he would not under ordinary circumstances deem himself at liberty to make that secret engagement public without the consent of some one, at least, of the parties immediately interested. This matter reminds me of a peculiarity that I remember in my late hon. Friend Mr. Hume, who used constantly to ask us to make known to the House the application of the secret service money. But secrecy and publicity seem to me to be matters not easily reconcilable with one another. The right hon. Gentleman, however, says that a sense of public duty rendered it necessary for him, even before any discussion has been raised in reference to the affairs of Italy, and merely in anticipation of such a discussion, to take the earliest possible opportunity of informing the House of this secret transaction between two foreign independent Governments. That is no doubt a matter for the exercise of his own discretion. What I stated the other evening was this—I said we do not believe in the existence of any such secret treaty—that we had never seen any such treaty, that we had never heard of it; and that unless the right hon. Gentleman had seen it, and had access to archives of which we knew nothing, and made the statement on his own knowledge, my view was, that he had been imposed upon by false information which had been given to him in some quarter or other. I also said that the only foundation which I could imagine he had for the statement which he made was, that in the early part of the war, when there was a hope that Austria might have joined the Allies in active co-operation against Russia, a communication did take place between France and Austria, the object of which, on the part of Austria, was to ascertain that, if she took part in the war in conjunction with France, France would undertake that no advantage should be taken of the opportunity to disturb her Italian provinces. That is the only foundation, as I believe, for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but it is perfectly true, as he has mentioned, that about December, 1854 and there are other hon. Gentlemen in the House, who are not Members of the Government, but who at that time were Members of the Government, who will correct me if I am erroneously stating the course of events as far as their recollection goes, if they choose to impart what took place when they were in office—it was hoped that Austria would join offensively and defensively with England and France, and in that case she would know that her armies would come into collision with those of the Emperor of Russia. Of course Austria naturally wished to know—supposing Russia to do that which as a belligerent Power she would be perfectly justified by the recognised law of nations in doing, namely, attempt to cause a disturbance or an insurrection in Italy for the purpose of distracting the attention of Austria—what course the French and English Governments would take. And the French Government did inform that of Austria that as an honourable ally it would not take advantage of any such disturbance or insurrection. It stated, moreover, that if that state of things arose, if the Austrian army joined the arms of France and England, and if during the war any disturbance should break out in Italy, any French force—necessarily a small one—that might be in Italy at the time, would of course act in concert with whatever force the Austrian Government might think proper to employ for the purpose of putting down any insurrection in the Austrian possessions of Italy. This arrangement was undoubtedly known to the English Government. That answer was a very fit and proper one under the circumstances, and it would have been inconsistent with honourable conduct if any other answer had been given. The arrangement was embodied in the shape of a convention; the right hon. Gentleman says that convention was signed on a certain day in December. I can only say that from information received as late as yesterday from a quarter likely to be correct, there is great reason to doubt that that convention was ever signed at all. Still if it had been, it was as different from the treaty which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman as two things can possibly be, and that between that and a guarantee there is, as has been stated by a French publication which I have read, and doubtless the right hon. Gentleman has also read, a complete abyss, a gulf which separates the two as an impassable barrier. What I denied at the time, and what I again deny, is that there is, to my knowledge and belief, any treaty in existence, or that any treaty has ever been concluded and signed by which France guarantees the integrity of the Italian possessions of Austria. I am inclined to believe that the information which we have received is correct, and that the convention itself, which was merely a temporary convention and to have force only during the war, was never signed—and why? Because the foundation of that convention was, that Austria should join with England and France in offensive operations against Russia; but Austria never did join in those active operations. It was her policy, and of that she alone was the judge, to remain neutral, and therefore it was not necessary that the convention should be completed. No doubt the new engagements which the convention was intended to create would have been acted upon if the case had arisen, but it is a total perversion of things to represent such an arrangement as a guarantee given by France for the integrity of the Austrian possessions in Italy; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman having repeated that assertion, I can on my part only repeat the denial which I have already made. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for not having been angry with him the other night, and I hope he will excuse me for now treating the subject in a manner which I think is not likely to give offence to any man. I must throw myself on his indulgence for not having spoken with more indignation than I have done to-night. My object has been to vindicate the Government from the charge of bad faith towards the House and of deceitful conduct towards the Italians in having secretly instigated the treaty, for the other night the right hon. Gentleman actually charged Her Majesty's Government with having not only approved and encouraged, but even having instigated and originated the secret treaty. To-night the right hon. Gentleman only says that the transaction was made known to us at the time. Having, Sir, as I hope, succeeded in vindicating the Government on this point, I shall sit down without further troubling the House.

said that he had given notice of a Resolution—

"That whereas the Act of Parliament (18th Vict., c. 20) contains a proviso which by its technical construction would inflict in a time of Peace a second year of full War Income Tax upon the loyal but heavily burdened subjects of Her Majesty, this House is of opinion that the provisions of the said Act should cease and determine from the 6th day of April next"—

That he had done so in vindication of his position as chairman of the Anti-Income Tax Association, but expressed his sense of the disadvantage under which he laboured of having to address the House after the eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and the reply of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He hoped, however, that the House would extend its indulgence while he made a short statement explanatory of the policy he intended to pursue. He would not weary the House with a long statement, but prayed its kind consideration, while he reminded them of the fact that since the prorogation of Parliament an unparalleled agitation had taken place in opposition to the continuance of the war tax after April next. That agitation was taken up by the Association over which he presided, had been supported both in metropolitan boroughs and large provincial towns, and resolutions condemnatory of the continuance of the war tax had in almost every case been agreed to. At the late meeting at Exeter Hall he had felt it his duty, when addressing a large assembly of taxpayers, to make a specific statement, and in the absence of any statement on the part of the Government as to their intention to abandon the war tax, he pledged himself to that assembly to place on the books of the House such a Resolution as would elicit a definite statement from Ministers on this subject. He had listened with attention to the Royal Speech, but he had sought in vain for any reference to this most interesting subject, for he must say that he never read or heard an address containing less information than that Speech. He had no intention to go into an elaborate statement of the finances of the country in connection with the subject, for the Press had done ample justice to this great movement. [The Speaker inquired whether the hon. Gentleman intended to conclude with a Motion as otherwise he was out of order in continuing his observations?] Major Reed said that then he would conclude with his Motion, but as he had observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come forward and stated his intention of bringing in his Budget on Friday next, he should not press his Motion to a division in the belief that the right hon. Baronet would satisfy the just expectations of the country by his forthcoming financial statement. He could not but be rejoiced to find that such an intention existed, but in reference to that Gentleman, he would call the attention of the House to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Education at Hertford, in which he expressed his opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never supposed that the full tax could be continued another year, and that the clamour raised was most unnecessary, He (Major Reed), however, considered that the agitation had been attended with good results; for in the first place, it had had the effect of bringing on the Budget much sooner than usual; and he thought the ultimate result would be, that this abominable war tax would be abolished. He thought it would be but courtesy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant him the grace he desired, and he (Major Reed) should, therefore, withdraw his Motion, on the condition that, if the right hon. Gentleman did not announce his intention of reducing the income tax by the additional war tax, he should be at liberty to re-introduce it.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the care and education of vagrant, destitute, and disorderly children, and for the extension of Industrial Schools, observed that it was not his intention at present to trouble the House at any length, because this measure was in principle the same as one that had already been passed for Scotland, and was commonly known as Mr. Dunlop's Act. Its details were, indeed, necessarily somewhat different, in order to adapt them to the circumstances of England; and although they would require the careful consideration of the House, yet that consideration would be more satisfactorily bestowed on them when the Bill was in the hands of hon. Members. It was, however, incumbent on him now to state very briefly the main grounds why such a measure ought to be introduced. The large class of children to whom the Bill referred was one peculiarly demanding their care and attention, not simply from motives of humanity, but from reasons of State policy connected with our criminal legislation. The difficulty of dealing with our criminals would be materially diminished if we could cut off the supply of those criminals at its source; and, as the worst of them were those who had been trained to crimes from their earliest years, the best interests of society would be consulted by taking them in hand before they became hardened. It might be asked, why not leave it to the reformatory schools to work out this object? Those schools were no doubt doing great good; and, though much was yet required to bring them to completion, it might perhaps seem better to allow that system to perfect itself before we dealt with another class. But, looking to the large number of children who were now running about our streets, and constantly swelling the ranks from which those schools, supported as they were, in part at least, from the public purse, were recruited; and looking, moreover, to the likelihood of those ranks being thinned by the adoption of a measure like that now operating in Scotland, it would be well to reflect whether it would not be wiser and move economical to apply such an Act at once to England. The Reports of our prison inspectors appeared to show that about 7,000 were annually added to the criminal class of this country; that might be, and he hoped was, an overestimate; but the number, whatever it was, represented a much larger body of children who ran about the streets, getting constantly into trouble, and continually coming into the hands of the police, and on whom our present schools failed to make any impression. In Bristol, last year, there were apprehended of this class 525 children under sixteen years of age, of whom only 126 were committed for trial or summarily convicted, the remainder being left to wander about uncared for. In Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other populous towns a similar state of things unhappily prevailed. This class not only constituted a dangerous element in our society, but, from their neglected condition, had a strong claim on our pity. How, he asked, did our existing institutions meet the wants of this class! The national schools did not meet the demand, for they were too high to reach the children in question. The children with whom his Bill proposed to deal would not choose to mix in their rags with the children of a superior class who now attended the national schools, neither was the discipline of those schools such as was necessary for the proper government of children of the lowest class, who required not a high scale of education, but the training of strict discipline and control. Neither on the other hand were the reformatory schools suitable for those children, whom, not having yet committed crime, it would be unjust to associate with those who had. The ragged and industrial schools which had been established throughout the country were the proper places for the children with whom his Bill proposed to deal; but the difficulties at present attending those institutions were a want of power to compel children to attend, and a lack of means for the full development of the schools. He proposed to adopt the principle of the Scotch Act, which gave the magistrates a power to commit to industrial schools all children found in the streets begging or committing acts of vagrancy. It was true great care must be taken to define the class of children who should be subject to the exercise of this power; but if that were done he had no doubt that schools of the right kind would spring up in such numbers as, with those at present in existence, would be sufficient for all purposes. A large proportion of the children who were to be found wandering about the streets had been either deserted by their parents or were encouraged by them to beg or steal; therefore he proposed to introduce into this Bill that which was a principal feature in the Scotch Act, a provision that would make the parents liable in every case for the maintenance of their children in those schools. Allusion had been made to the small sums collected from parents under the Reformatories Act, and the difficulty of collecting even those; but he submitted that the principal object of requiring those payments was not so much to relieve the Treasury as to operate upon the minds of parents, and in that respect he thought that that provision had not been without effect. He found from a letter he had received from Mr. Dunne, the chief constable of Newcastle-on-Tyne, that since the Act had been enforced in that district the number of juvenile criminals had diminished one-half, and Mr. Dunne stated that he knew that many parents who formerly sent their children to beg and steal about the streets had discontinued the practice, and sent them instead to some of the free schools of the town. The head constable of Liverpool had given similar testimony, and therefore he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought, as the effect of the provision in the Reformatories Act, rendering the parents liable for the maintenance of their children, had been so beneficial, there could be little doubt as to the desirability of extending it to children who were idle and vagrant, but not yet criminals. In support of this Bill he would call the attention of the House to the successful working of the Scotch Act, the operation of which had been attended by a marked decrease in the committals of juvenile offenders. In Aberdeen, before the establishment of the free schools, the average annual number of juvenile vagrants taken into custody by the police was 342, while the average annual number in five years after their establishment was only six. In Edinburgh and Glasgow similar results had been produced. With such evidence of the successful operation of the system in Scotland, he thought the House would regard its extension to England as a wise measure of economy and humanity. The subject was one which had excited much interest. A Committee had been sitting at Birmingham, and the matter had been taken into consideration by the Law Amendment Society, by a committee of which the Bill he now asked leave to introduce had been prepared. The hon. Member then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the care and education of vagrant, destitute, and disorderly children, and for the extension of industrial schools.

confirmed the statement of the hon. Baronet as to the admirable manner in which the Scotch Act had been found to act, and mentioned that eighty per cent of the children who had been sent to the House of Refuge at Glasgow had been found, after quitting that institution, to be pursuing an honest career of industry.

also bore testimony to the excellent effects of the Scotch Act, and thought its extension to England would be of the highest advantage to the country.

said, he should not object to the introduction of the Bill, but must withhold any promise of support until he had seen the details upon which so much would depend.

said, that in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the sale of beer, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment, he desired to excuse himself for presuming to take up a subject of such importance, and that he did so on the ground that the Government were overwhelmed with business, and that he had been requested to do so, and that he felt a deep interest in it. The question of regulating the sale of beer had been dealt with by Parliament on several occasions, and every attempt to improve the law had only brought discredit on the Legislature, and had only served to show that the present system was unsuitable to the wants and feelings of the country. The first Act passed in the first year of the reign of William IV. allowed any person to obtain from the Excise a licence for the sale of beer on the payment of £2 2s. That was found objectionable, and in the fifth year of the same reign another Act was passed rendering it necessary that the house should be of the rateable value of £10, and requiring certificates of good character, signed by six inhabitants and certified by the overseer. The House knew how easily certificates of character were obtained, and that even among the higher classes gentlemen were not ashamed to put their names to testimonials which were not strictly true; so that persons altogether unqualified found no difficulty in complying with the provisions of that Act. In the 3 & 4 of Vict. another attempt was made to remedy the evils by raising the rating in towns of 10,000 inhabitants to £15, and to a proportionate amount in smaller places, and requiring a certificate of rating from the overseers. By collusion with overseers the provisions of that Act were evaded. In 1834, a Committee of the House sat to inquire into the evils which arose from drunkenness. They declared that, in their opinion, the beershops were, to a great extent, the cause of intoxication, and they offered some strong recommendations, which were not, however, carried into effect. In 1849 and 1850, Lord Harrowby obtained a Committee of the House of Lords to inquire into the nature and character of beershops, and how far they had proved of advantage or comfort to the working population, it appeared from that inquiry that the comforts and morals of the poor had not been only not improved, but had been impaired by beershops. Another Committee of the House of Commons, which sat in the years 1853 and 1854, reported that the beershop system had proved a failure, that it was established in the hope that the public would obtain beer cheap and pure in houses where the disorders incident to houses for the sale of spirits would not occur, but that that hope had proved fallacious. Nothing resulted from that Committee, except a controversy on Sunday drinking, which he much regretted, and into which he would not enter, as the Bill which he proposed to introduce did not affect that part of the question. He believed that at present there were not less than 41,000 beershops in England, besides 80,000 public-houses. In Manchester one house in 35 and in Leeds one house in 45 were devoted to the sale of intoxicating liquors. In large towns there was every facility for drunkenness, and in the secluded districts, where these houses were removed from the close supervision of the police, they served as places where crime could be concocted almost without the risk of detection. When people said that drunkenness was becoming less, his answer was that there wore no statistics with respect to the increase or decrease of drunkenness on which reliance could be placed. In some towns no drunken persons were taken up unless they were riotous and disorderly; in other places, if they were taken up, they were only locked up for the night, discharged in the morning, and never brought before a magistrate. They were, therefore, unable to tell whether drunkenness was decreasing or not; but every one knew that destitute wives and children came upon the poor rates in consequence of their husbands and fathers haunting public-houses and beershops, and that there would not have been the necessity for reformatories and industrial schools of which they had heard this evening if Parliament had done its duty in protecting the morals of the people from the destructive and baneful influences of public-houses. In this view he was confirmed by Mr. Wright, the philanthropist, who said that of all destitute children there was not one whose misery and destitution could not be traced to the neglect of parents caused by drunkenness. Although the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) referred last night to the great diminution of crime, yet, on reference to the criminal returns, he found that crimes nurtured by drunkenness—where the victim, being drunk, tempted men to rob him, or where men, being drunk, first assaulted, and then robbed—had greatly increased. In the five years from 1846 to 1851 the number of robberies was 1,951. In the five years from 1851 to 1855 they were 2,377, having increased about 21 per cent. He did not wish to make a sweeping charge against every man who kept a beershop, because he knew there were many exceptions, and that numbers in the metropolis, as stated by Sir Richard Maybe, were as well conducted as public-houses; but it was proved before the Committee of 1853–54 that beershops were places where thieves met, where stolen goods were disposed of, where burglars planned their attacks, and where poachers and sheep-stealers associated before starting on their expeditions. It seemed remarkable that, although beershops had been in existence, and the system had been complained of for twenty-six years, no attempt had yet been made to put beershops on the same footing as licensed public-houses, by taking away from the Excise the power of granting licences and placing it in the hands of the magistrates. Many complaints had indeed been made respecting the partiality shown by magistrates, but he believed that those complaints, generally speaking, had come from persons whose applications had been rejected, and that the publicans generally were contented with the present system; although some magistrates might have acted improperly, he believed that the gentlemen of England had done their duty in this respect, and he hoped they would for the future perform it even more strictly and efficiently. He might be asked, whether he could show the difference between public-houses and beershops? He said he could. The chief constable of Bradford gave a return of all the convictions of keepers of public-houses and beershops. There were 135 public-houses in the town, and 240 beershops. The offences of public-house-keepers were only 5 in the year 1856, being 1 in 27; of beershop keepers, 42, or more than 1 in 6. In Manchester the convictions of publicans were 22 per cent, and of beershop-keepers 47 per cent. Thus, therefore, it appeared that the system of magisterial licences acted far better than that of excise licences, and indeed Mr. Hogg, the chief constable of Wolverhampton, ascribed the greater respectability of publicans to their having once a year to meet the magistrates and the black book of the police. Now, what were the remedies which had been suggested for the present state of things? The Committee of 1853 had recommended that every person of good character (meaning every person who has not been convicted of any offence), should be entitled to a licence, on payment of a large fee, and that it should be obligatory on the magistrates to grunt it; and that the licence should permit the sale as well of spirits as of beer. There was another proposal—that the licences granted should be subject to a certain restriction, that no more than a certain number should be allowed for a given area, and according to the population. There were some who suggested the Maine law (prohibiting the sale of fermented liquors altogether); and then, for himself, he had a measure to propose different from all these. With respect to the first, it appeared to him that if the licences were very high, it would tend to prohibit and destroy the trade it desired to regulate, and if not too high, to leave the trade remunerative, there would be introduced into the sale of spirits the same system of unrestricted competition which had proved so injurious in the case of beershops. The chief constable of Bradford stated in the Report before referred to that there were 27 beersellers in that town who kept prostitutes in their houses, and 10 had brothels upon, or attached to, their premises. The restriction of the number of licences according to the population was impossible, because the population upon different areas was so variously distributed. With regard to the Maine Liquor Law, he had the highest respect for those who advocated it, but it would first be necessary for them to purge their own houses; and, as he admitted he was not prepared to give up either wine or beer, he should consider he was only acting a part in a system of organised hypocrisy if he attempted to compel the humbler classes to give up those beverages. It would be necessary to search the cellars of Bellamy's for spirituous liquors at the opening of each Session, as the cellars were formerly searched for gunpowder, if the Maine Law were adopted. This law could only be carried when hon. Members had adopted its principles in their own persons, and then there would be no need of any compulsory law on the subject. A great reformation in this respect had taken place amongst the higher classes. Formerly there was scarcely a German prince who did not go drunk to bed every night, and too many of the higher classes followed their example. He believed that the alteration which had taken place in the habits of the upper classes would spread to the lower, and that the time would arrive when the latter would enjoy themselves moderately, and drunkenness would be abolished. He now came to the provisions of the Bill he intended to submit to the House. In the first place, he proposed to adopt the recommendation of the Committee of 1853–4, and to respect vested interests. Where licences had been given, therefore, no alteration could take place; as, however, the 41,000 beershops now in existence changed hands, or the licences were withdrawn, they would come within the operation of the measure, and he proposed to vest the licensing in the magistracy. He proposed that beershop licences should be granted at all annual licensing meetings, and also at the special sessions, held from four to eight times a year, for the transfer of licences, under 9 Geo. IV. The new police afforded the means of investigating the character of the persons applying for licences, and also of those who certified to the character of the applicants and the amount of their rating. He proposed that persons intending to apply for licences should give twenty-one days' notice to the superintendent of police, and should furnish him with a copy of their application, and of the certificates of character by which it was to be supported. The magistrates would then be furnished with all the materials for forming a judgment. At present no beershop-keeper forfeited his licence except after a third conviction, and the magistrates had then to give the Excise notice, so that the licence might be withdrawn. But upon this point the evidence was singularly conflicting, for, while some of the magistrates stated that they were in the habit of sending information to the Excise, Mr. Wood, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, said he could not call to mind that he had ever received one of these notices. The Excise, indeed, received the certificates and issued the licences in a perfunctory manner, since they had no means of inquiry. Thus it sometimes happened that the magistrates deprived publicans of their licences for notorious and flagrant crimes. These men then obtained an excise licence for the sale of beer, and kept open their houses under the noses of the magistrates. This was an intolerable evil and abuse. He proposed, therefore, to put all these houses under the same jurisdiction. He should also propose to carry out the provisions of what was generally called the Tippling Act with regard to beer. A petition had been presented to-night which had been forwarded and favoured by the County Judge of Salford upon this subject, and it had been stated to him that beershop-keepers sometimes sued a man for debts of £12 or £14, which the debtor declared he knew nothing about, having been run up while he was in a state of semi-intoxication. He proposed that no beershop-keeper should sue for beer drunk on the premises, unless he commenced his action within one week. It would be hard where a man had treated a great number of persons on the same night that the beershop-keeper should have no remedy. It was his intention to make the Bill applicable to another class of persons. In the report of the Committee of 1853–4, a recommendation was given that all coffeehouses should be placed under the supervision of the police. In the metropolis the keepers of coffee-houses were forbidden to harbour bad characters, but there was this great anomaly mentioned by Sir Richard Mayne, that the police had no authority to enter such houses to ascertain whether bad characters were harboured or not. He did not indeed propose to touch coffee-shops, temperance hotels, shell-fish shops, and places of that description, which were kept open during the day time; but he proposed to give the police a supervision over all those houses which were kept open between nine at night and four in the morning. It was to such places as these that bad characters resorted after they were expelled from public-houses, and in many cases they had not the least difficulty in obtaining illicit spirits. In 1854, Mr. Hogg, the superintendent of the police of Wolverhampton, who was in London to give evidence before the Committee, went into one of these coffee-shops at night and asked for some gin. They gave him some without difficulty, but not in a glass. They served it to him in a coffee-cup, and told him that if the police came he must pour some milk into the gin, and then they would think it was coffee. He proposed that these houses so open between the hours of nine and four should be licensed and pay a small sum annually, and that they should be subject to the supervision of the police in the same manner as beershops. He also proposed to levy penalties for selling spirits, for harbouring disorderly characters, and permitting gambling. A clause in the Towns Police Bill prohibited the assemblage of disorderly characters in houses of this description, and this clause was adopted in most private improvement Bills. There seemed, however, no reason why it should not be extended over the whole country. He proposed to levy fines upon drunken and disorderly persons who refused to leave licensed houses when required by the landlord or his servants; and he proposed, not only to fine the landlords for permitting spirits or beer to be drunk at unlawful hours, but also to fine those who were found drinking in these houses at such times. He was glad to hear that the Government did not intend to oppose the introduction of his Bill, and he implored the House to give the measure their fullest and most mature consideration. The aim of the Bill was to improve the condition of the poorer classes, to diminish their temptations, to promote their domestic enjoyments, to render them better husbands and better fathers, and without some such Bill as this all the efforts which were being made for the spread of education would be entirely frustrated. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved for leave to bring in his Bill.

seconded the Motion. He only knew very recently that he should be called upon to take part in the discussion, much less that his name was to be put upon the back of the Bill. But he had given his consent to that course upon the understanding that he was not to be committed to all the details of the measure, He belived that while beershops existed to such an extent throughout the country, all the efforts of clergymen, dissenting ministers, city missionaries, ragged schools, and institutions of that kind would prove failures. He had in his hand a compendium of the crimes which had occurred in beershops, and the picture was a terrible one. There had been in the course of the past year no less than 711 broils and violent assaults, 294 robberies, 237 cases of atrocious cruelties upon wives and children, 166 serious accidents, 162 actual and attempted suicides, 520 terrible deaths, and 120 murders and manslaughters, all arising from the vice of drinking. He did not go the whole length with the Alliance, which had been formed, but this he would say, that if he was to have the alternative, whether these frightful crimes were to continue or licences destroyed, he should have no hesitation in saying that he would have all licences destroyed, and the sale of intoxicating liquors entirely suppressed. A Committee was obtained and presided over by Lord Harrow by last year. Before that Committee there was given the testimony of forty chaplains of gaols, who were unanimous in attributing the vast majority of the crimes for which prisoners were convicted to the influence of the beershops. He would refer also, to the united testimony of the City Missionaries, who were so well acquainted with the habits of the people in the courts and alleys of the metropolis. They agreed that the beershop was the first step to crime, that it was there crimes were concocted, and there where the wretched people went to gloat over the wickedness they had committed.

said, he would not then enter into a premature discussion on the provisions of the Bill as other opportunities would be afforded him of stating his opinions on the subject. There could be no doubt as to the effect which drunkenness had in increasing crime, and the great point to be solved was, what was the best means of preventing drunkenness. How far the provisions of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill would have that effect would be better discussed at a future stage than at present. The Committee of 1853–54 had taken a great deal of evidence on the licensing system and the beerhouse system, and the conclusion they came to as to the expediency of abolishing the distinction between beerhouses and public-houses was the same as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but they came to a very different conclusion as to the hands in which the licensing power should be placed. It would be well if hon. Members, before the second reading of the Bill, would look into the evidence taken before that Committee, which contained much useful information on this subject. As a great deal of interest would no doubt be excited in the country by the Bill on account of the great amount of property embarked in the beer trade, as well as from other and higher causes, he would suggest that a sufficiently long interval should elapse before the second reading to allow the public to become well acquainted with its provisions.

said, he doubted whether there was any subject on which opinions were more unanimous than on that of drunkenness being the chief source of crime. There could not, he maintained, be a greater nuisance than beershops as they were at present constituted throughout the country. He was therefore glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had undertaken the task of supplying a remedy for the evil. At the same time he must express an opinion that it ought not to have been left to a private Member to deal with the subject. He thought the country had a strong claim upon Her Majesty's Government, who should have made an attempt to deal with this great national evil. It was not by any means a new subject. For the last six or seven years the attention of Parliament had been drawn to it. In 1850 and 1851 the Earl of Harrow by conducted an inquiry into the evils of these beershops. In 1852 he (Sir J. Pakington) gave notice of a Motion on the subject, and it was taken up by the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes). Then a Committee sat in 1853, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) on behalf of the Government. He, as a member of that Committee, had hoped that after that long inquiry, and after a Report had been presented to the House, Her Majesty's Government would have taken some steps to have carried through some legislative measures based upon those recommendations. But 1855 and 1856 passed without anything being done, and he believed that 1857 would also have passed by had it not been for the exertions of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had that evening asked leave to introduce his Bill. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would not be content with merely complimenting the hon. and learned Gentleman; but would do what they could towards carrying out the Report of their own Committee and bring legislation of the subject to a successful termination.

said, he rose to notice the assumption made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the limitation of beershops would necessarily be beneficial and diminish the ranks of drunkards. It appeared to him that this Bill began at the wrong end. The people did not drink because beerhouses were there, but the beerhouses were there because the people drank. There were two classes of people in this country, those who had an unbounded command over the means of intoxication, and those whose consumption of intoxicating liquors was limited by their means. Now, it was said that there was less intoxication, but that was amongst those classes who had an unbounded command over the means of intoxication. It might be true that robberies and other offences were concocted in these houses, but were counting-houses and banking-houses free from such imputations. He thought they should not prevent the people from having access to these houses when they were properly conducted. It was a mistake to impose restrictions on those who were sober, because some persons got drunk.

observed that the wish expressed by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that the Government should carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee could hardly be realised, inasmuch as the Committee was in favour of throwing open the trade altogether, and the Bill of the hon. and learned Member proposed to limit as much as possible the number of public-houses.

believed that every additional house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors was an additional temptation. People did not begin through a desire for drink, but they went to beershops in the first instance for company. The fact was, that the number of these houses was so great that the keepers of them could not possibly get a living without additional immoral incentives besides selling drink. It was an evil that ought to have been taken up by the Government, but as they had failed, he was glad the hon. Gentleman had taken it up. He would engage that the licensed victuallers would be almost unanimous in favour of the Bill, and the majority of the beersellers also. All who had now got houses would be in favour of licences being granted by the magistracy instead of the Excise.

regarded the proposed measure as one in the right direction; but it was in direct antagonism to the Report of the Committee, and he hoped the Government would not let the Session pass without themselves legislating on the subject.

hoped the hon. Member would not suppose that because this Bill was now read the first time, with the general concurrence of the House, that it would not excite some opposition. He entirely differed from him as to the remedy he proposed. The hon. Member had greater faith in the magistracy of this country than he had, in reference to the granting of licences. He should be much more disposed to throw the trade open, and to deprive the magistrates of the power they at present possessed. He could not promise the hon. Member his support; on the contrary, he thought he should be obliged to oppose the Bill.

remarked that the source of the evil lay in the character of the people. Unfortunately their education had not been sufficiently attended to. The hon. Gentleman made two allusions which reacted against his own proposition. He said the rich class in this country had reformed themselves. And also that no restrictive laws were imposed on them; taverns were not closed, and yet education, and that which was still higher than education—religion and morals—had improved them. With regard to the working classes, they allowed no such means; but they wanted to put them down with restrictive laws. He was a friend to anything, in a reasonable sense, which might lead the people to conduct themselves better. He looked to such places as working men's reading-rooms, and places of that kind, as more likely to lead the poor classes away from these houses, and to give them higher aspirations than such measures as were now proposed.

agreed most cordially with the proposition that the granting of these licences should be taken from the Excise and vested in the magistrates. In the borough he represented there was a beerhouse which was kept up as a brothel of the lowest character, the resort of all the thieves in the neighbourhood. Representations had been made by the magistrates to the Excise; but the Excise said they had no discretion or option in the matter, but were obliged to grant the licence.

replied: He wished to maintain a distinction between beershops and public-houses, as he thought it was of the utmost importance that those who frequented beershops should not be tempted there by the sale of ardent spirits. He was surprised to hear an hon. Member say that drunkenness was not increased by adding to the number of taverns and beerhouses. The throwing open of spirit licences during the last century had produced a degree of drunkenness quite horrible to contemplate, and Lord Chesterfield denounced the Act which produced that addition as a measure which sanctioned the sale of poison. He (Mr. Hardy) was a free trader in everything but in the sale of intoxicating liquors, because he believed that a system of restriction was the only means by which drunkenness could be checked.

Resolved—"That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the general Sale of Beer by retail, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment."

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the mode of securing and paying fixed incomes to ecclesiastical corporations, aggregate and sole, said, he believed he should be consulting the convenience of the House by not entering at the present moment into any statement as to the measure. He entertained the greater confidence in asking the House to assent to the introduction of the Bill, inasmuch as on two occasions they had agreed to the second reading of a Bill, which, although differing in some points of detail from the present Bill, was the same in principle. Those differences in points of detail he believed would be found to the advantage of the measure. He would not now enter upon those details, but take an early opportunity of doing so, and also of stating his views upon the subject generally.

seconded the Motion.

hoped the day fixed upon for the second reading would be after the production of the Report of the Commissioners.

seconded the Motion.

said that, although he had no intention to offer any opposition to the appointment of this Committee, he must at the same time express his surprise sit the present Motion, inasmuch as on Thursday next it is well known he was about to submit a Motion on a much larger but kindred question, of which the present proposal was a mere fragment. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Lord, he (Mr. Napier) believed the evil to lie much deeper than had been stated, more especially when it was found that Government Bills, prepared under Government auspices, failed in their objects, and the complaints by the Judges of want of accuracy in the framing of Acts were met by charges of technicality in those learned persons. The phraseology and construction of our laws constituted a disgrace to a civilised country. The remedy required was an entire, not an homœopathic remedy. He doubted the efficacy of the means suggested by the noble Lord, for it was difficult to suppose how a Committee of that House could sit in judgment upon the Commission, which numbered in its ranks the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, and other legal luminaries. He trusted that on Thursday the House would pass an opinion on the larger proposition he should make. Last year the Government had assented to a Resolution moved by him in a large and comprehensive shape, and affirming that something should be done. They then asked him to wait. The Report came out in March, 1856; but the Session passed without legislation, and at the close, seeing that nothing was done, he gave notice of his intention of renewing his proposal this year. He should, on Thursday, therefore, take the sense of the House upon it.

said, he concurred in thinking that the learned Commission who had reported were better able to settle the phraseology of Acts of Parliament than any Select Committee of that House that could be named. Before we could hope for a return to that simplicity of language which had marked the Acts passed in the reigns of our Edwards and our Henrys, the Minister of Justice, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Napier), must be appointed. On Thursday he would give his best support to the hon. and learned Member.

said, that he thought the argument of Mr. Napier conclusive that this was dealing in a very fragmentary manner with a very wide subject. This was not a new scheme. It was proposed in the time of Elizabeth, in the time of the Commonwealth, in the reign of Charles II. and that of George III. A commission in 1806 had no result, Another in 1816, which cost £37,000, and another in 1833, had also no result. Another in 1844, also, after costing £12,500, had no result. In the course of that time they had paid to Mr. Bellenden Ker, £10,000, and that gentleman had received £1,000 from the Committee which sat in 1853. He did not think a Committee of that House would accomplish that which so many Commissions had failed in doing. The statutes of this country were beyond all question verbose, tautologous, obscure, and perplexed. They were complained of not only by Englishmen, but by foreigners, and especially by the Government of the United States. He (Mr. Phillimore) had never listened to a speech, even of a Minister, which had occasioned him more profound disappointment than that which the speech of the Lord Chancellor had caused him when the noble Lord stated his views on the subject of the consolidation of the law. The result of all the money which had been expended was eight Bills, which were to be models for future legislation. He would give the House a specimen. The Act on treason enacted that it should be treason to violate the king's companion, or to kill a Judge sitting in eyre, although the office had been abolished ten years. There were in the proposed Bills provisions relating to corruption of blood, though the thing was abolished in the time of William III. There were provisions relating to the appointment of the officers of the South Sea Company, though the company did not now exist; penalties were provided for destroying of Exchequer tallies, though they had been disused; and a provision relating to the "Spencean philanthropists," though the sect had long since been extinct. Tautology in Acts of Parliament began in the reign of Henry VIII., and since then they had abounded more and more in prolixity and confusion. Nevertheless there were Acts which might have served the Commissioners as models of lucidity and common sense—such were the 5 Eliz. c. 4, and the Acts drawn by Mr. Deacon Hume for the regulation of the Customs. Contrast those statutes with an Act of George II., which regulated weirs on the Thames, provided measures for preventing the spread of distemper amongst horned cattle, which contained provisions relating to attorneys and solicitors, the more frequent return of writs from the county Palatine, the making of rates, and the assessments on the inhabitants of London, and the allowing of affirmations by Quakers in lieu of oaths. He hoped that such prolixity, confusion, and tautology would not be perpetuated by the Commissioners.

was prepared to contend that the Report of the Commission which was the subject of the present Motion was entitled to great praise at the hands of the Legislature. To that Report were appended names no less distinguished than those of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Chief Justice Jervis, the Lord Advocate, Sir Alexander Cockburn, Vice Chancellor Page Wood, Mr. Justice Keogh, and others. Now, he thought any suggestion emanating from such persons might well be considered worthy of being remitted before a Select Committee. It had been said, however, why appoint a Committee to go over again the same ground as a Commission? Now, to suppose they would have to go over the same ground was a mistake, for the Commission and Committee would be appointed for perfectly distinct purposes. The object which his noble Friend had in view was to discover the best means of carrying out the Report of the Commission. Undoubtedly there were suggestions thrown out by the Commission which might be fairly considered open to review. For example, it might be well worthy of consideration whether the task of improving the wording of Acts of Parliament should devolve upon a single officer or upon a Board. Whether, again, each House should have a separate officer to superintend its work of legislation. However, the real question now before the House was, whether the suggestion of the Commission was one containing sufficient good to be deserving of further scrutiny.

said, he rose to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the appointment of chief constables for adjoining counties, and to confirm appointments of chief constables in certain cases. The first object of the Bill was to remedy a defective proviso in the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 93, the Act which first sanctioned the appointment of a county constabulary. Henceforth it would be lawful for adjoining counties to appoint the same chief constable, subject to the consent of the magistrates at quarter sessions of the district last electing him. Another part of the Bill related to a provision of the existing law which rendered the election of chief constables subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and also declared that the persons chosen must not exceed the age of forty-five. A case had lately occurred in Staffordshire in reference to which the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken, and they were of opinion that, under the terms of the Act of Parliament, the magistrate had no option but to elect a person qualified according to the rules prescribed, and that the Secretary of State could not by his consent render valid an election at variance with those rules. Under these circumstances, as doubts might arise as to acts done by chief constables who had been thus elected and approved by the Secretary of State, it has been thought desirable to bring in a Bill to render valid all acts done by them in the discharge of their duties.

said, he wished to inquire whether the Bill referred to appointments very recently made?

said he wanted to know whether, in future, candidates above the prescribed maximum age could be elected?

said, he must explain that up to the present time it had been assumed that the approval of the Secretary of State would cure any defect in the appointment. There had only been four such cases in which approval had been accorded by three different Secretaries of State. As, however, it appeared that, according to the construction of the Act, the rules must be strictly adhered to, he had thought it necessary to alter those rules, to render them less stringent, and to provide for the exercise of discretion in special cases by the Secretary of State.

said he rose to move an Address for tabular "Returns of the names of all Officers in the Army and Navy who have been decorated with the Order of the Bath since the 1st day of January, 1854, with the degree and date of such decoration; the date of entrance into Her Majesty's Service, and promotion to their different ranks therein; giving also the Staff or other appointments or commands, with the emoluments attached, held by them respectively, and stating the engagements in which they had taken part; and of the Civilians who during the said period have been honoured with the like decoration, and the date." In moving for the above Returns, he wished to disclaim doing anything invidious, or an intention to find fault with the distribution of honours. On the contrary, he apprehended that, if the Returns were granted, they would show with what strict impartiality the patronage had been exercised, and all mistaken notions would disappear on their publication.

said, he thought that, according to strict practice, some Parliamentary grounds should be shown for the production of Returns—such, for example, as the setting right of some grievance, or the supplying of some peculiarly useful information. However, if the hon. Gentleman thought that misapprehensions really existed as to the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown—if those would be removed by the production of the information asked for, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing against the Motion for an Address.