said, he wished to give notice that when the Right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford brought forward the Resolution of which he had given notice, he should move, by way of Amendment—

"That this House, in its present state of information, abstains from expressing an opinion on the Policy of any Proclamation which may have been pursued by the Governor General of India in relation to Oude, or on the course pursued by the Government with reference to such Proclamation"

said, he thought it probable that it might be the wish of Her Majesty's Government that the Motion of which he had given notice for Thursday next should come on the first thing on that day, and he should, therefore, beg to make an appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), and also to the hon. Member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon), whom he did not see in his place, but to whom he had written—although the Motion of which he had given notice would not occupy much time—and lastly, to his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) and ask their leave that his Motion might be allowed to take precedence on Thursday next.

said, he felt considerable reluctance to give way; but, as he well knew that it was impossible to get any measure discussed against the general feeling of the House, he would not stand in the way though his consent must be contingent upon the circumstance that the other Orders of the Day be given up in the same manner.

said, he did not wish to delay the discussion of the Motion of the right hon. Member for the City of Oxford, but, as he was beholden to the Government for giving him Thursday for the resumption of the debate in Committee upon Church Rates, he could not give way unless some other day was given to him.

In the event of hon. Members not allowing my Resolution to take precedence on Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer allow the discussion to be taken on Friday?

Friday is quite at the right hon. Gentleman's service.

Then I give notice that on Friday next I will move the Resolution which stands upon the Paper in my name.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Board of Control, whether it is true that the three new European Infantry Regiments, already authorised for the Bengal Establishment, are to be officered by a simple transfer of European Officers borne on the rolls of the first six Native Sepoy corps of the line; if so, what peculiar claim the officers of the first six Native regiments, no longer existing, have over the other extinct Native regiments?

said, that it was quite true that three new European regiments were to be raised for the Bengal service. The officers of two of the Sepoy regiments were to be taken bodily for two of the new Regiments, and the other was to be officered by the officers of the first six Sepoy Regiments, but the two regiments from which the officers were to be taken bodily were left to the selection of the Governor General of India.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if Her Majesty's Government intend to legislate this Session upon the Report of the Endowed Schools (Ireland) Commission, with a view to the improvement of Endowed Schools in Ireland, for the better management of their Endowments, and for the better regulating, managing, and governing of such Schools, and for the general promotion in commotion with them of Academical Education in Ireland?

said, it was not the intention of the Government to propose any measure to Parliament during the present Session.

said, he rose pursuant to notice to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have settled the amount that ought to be claimed as compensation from the Neapolitan Government for the Engineers of the Cagliari, Watt and Park; and, if so, whether the demand has been actually made, or whether it has been left to arbitration under the arrangements suggested at the meeting of the Congress of Paris?

said, that before the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs answered the question of the hon. Member for Perth, he wished to put another question of which he had given notice. He wished to know whether his attention has been called to the report of a speech of Count Cavour in the Chamber of Deputies at Turin on the 6th instant, in which the Count states that in Lord Malmesbury's despatch no precise mode of solution was pointed out, but that it was the Sardinian Government that had proposed the modes of action; and, if so, whether he desires in any way to modify the statement made by him on the 4th instant, to the effect that the Sardinian Government had cordially accepted the proposals made to them by Lord Malmesbury? He also wished to know whether any reply has been sent to the despatch of the Marquess d'Azeglio, dated the 24th of March last?

said, in reply to the last question which had been put to him, he would appeal to the House whether anything could be more inconvenient or more unfair than to ask questions of such a nature without previous notice. In answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), he was in a position to state that the Government had instructed Mr. Lyons as to the definite amount of compensation to be claimed from the Neapolitan Government for the Engineers of the Cagliari, Watt and Park.

said, he would repeat his question on Thursday.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War why Captain King, of the Depôt Battalion Department, was promoted to a Majority, he not being, the Senior Adjutant or Senior Captain of that Branch of the Service; and is not such appointment contrary to the rules of the Service?

said, he must really appeal to the House whether he ought to be called on to state the circumstances under which individual officers were promoted. The only answer he felt it his duty to give was, that he considered that he was fully competent to make those promotions, and that he was responsible for them.

said, he wished to ask the late Secretary to the Treasury the cause for altering the Port of arrival and departure for the Cape of Good Hope Mails in England to Devonport in place of Southampton, as set out in the Copy of the accepted Tender of the Union Steam Shipping Company, bearing date the 27th day of August, 1857, laid on the table of this House (No. 119), whether at the desire of the Postmaster General, the Board of Admiralty, or the inhabitants of Devon-port; and also, why the additional sum inserted in the contract should be £3,000, in place of £1,200, as named in the 8th column of the Tender, for such change of the port of departure.

said, he could inform the hon. Gentleman that no alterations had been made in the contract since the acceptance of the tender. The tenders were received from various persons—some from Southampton, some from other place. They were accepted on the condition that the ships should go from Plymouth Sound, that being the first port which was reached by railway. Those conditions being accepted, no additional charge was made by the contractors. The £3,000 referred to had been given for the performance of additional services not included in the contract. With respect to the insinuation in the question, he could inform the House that no person from Devonport, dither directly or indirectly, had attempted to influence the Government in this matter.

said, that the course taken by the House, in adjourning the debate on a question which, if not altogether new, had not been raised for upwards of 100 years, was, lie thought, a safe and convenient course; but, at the same time, he was hound to say that he could not conceive that any reasonable doubt could be entertained on the question before the House. The Motion that had been proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) was that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild be added to the Committee nominated, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for London for the purpose of settling the reasons for disagreeing from the Lords' Amendments to the Oaths Bill. In the discussion on the preceding day, be (the Solicitor General) thought two questions, which were essentially distinct, were in some degree mixed up together. One of those questions was, the right of this House to call on every individual who had been elected a Member of it to perform the duties which, as a Member, he had to discharge; and the second was, as to the obligation imposed on every Member of the House to observe the necessary formalities before he took on himself the discharge of those duties. The first and, as it appeared to him, the only question then to be determined was the right of the House to call on its Members to perform their cervices. On that he thought no doubt whatever could be entertained. He apprehended it was perfectly clear that the moment the name of any person was returned to this House as a Member to serve in Parliament the House had a right to call on that Member to do that which every Member of Parliament was bound to do in the shape of service to the House. Of that a familiar instance was afforded by a call of the House. Suppose a call of the House was made after a general election, that call was virtually an order on every Member who had been returned to the House to attend in his place; and when a Member presented himself in obedience to that summons, it was the business of the House to see that he did not take his seat without observing the necessary formalities. Then, with regard to Committees, the House had a full right to call upon any Member to serve on a Committee. The House had a right to require that; but, having done so, it left it to the Member himself to determine what steps he ought to take to place himself legally in the position of a Member performing any of the acts pertaining to a Member of Parliament. In fact, the first question was as to the right of the House to order the attendance of its Members; and he (the Solicitor General) would ask the House to consider, as a fair and legitimate test, what would be the consequence of holding a different doctrine. The consequence, he apprehended, would be this. A number of Members of the House, after their election, might neglect to take the proper oaths appointed to be taken; and, in that case, the arm of the House would be virtually powerless to compel them to perform their duties as Members of the House. The case of Sir Joseph Jekyll had been referred to, and it was an authority very much in point. It was to be found reported in the sixth volume of Chandler's Parliamentary Debates. It appeared that in 1715 the House assembled after an election in the month of March. The Speaker was chosen on the 23rd of that month, and on the 9th of April, General Stanhope moved that certain papers which related to the negotiation of a peace that had been concluded shortly before, and which papers were too numerous and voluminous to be perused by all the Members of the House, should be referred to a Select Committee of twenty Members, who should make a digest of them, and then report to the House. A discussion took place; one Member moved that the Committee should Consist of twenty-one Members, instead of twenty, which was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to choose the twenty-one Members by ballot. A report was made of the twenty-one Members so chosen, and among the number was Sir Joseph Jekyll. An objection being made to Sir Joseph Jekyll, on the ground that he bad not then taken the oaths, he being at that time on circuit as Chief Justice of the county palatine of Chester, the answer was that that was not a voluntary neglect on his part; and it was resolved that Sir Joseph Jekyll, being a Member of that House, was capable of being chosen a Member of the Committee of Secrecy, although he had not been sworn at the table. It did not appear whether Sir Joseph Jekyll in fact sat on that Committee without taking the oaths; but if he (the Solicitor General) might be permitted to conjecture, he apprehended that the first thing Sir Joseph Jekyll would naturally do on returning from circuit would be to present himself at the table and take the oaths. What he was anxious to show was, that the two questions were perfectly distinct from each other—the one implying the right of the House to come to a Resolution nominating any one of its Members a member of a particular Committee; the other, whether it would be proper and expedient for Baron Rothschild, if so appointed, to sit and serve on that Committee. He was perfectly ready to admit that there was nothing, so far as he could see, in the Act of Parliament to prevent the House nominating Baron Rothschild to sit on this Committee, but another question might arise which the House was not called on to entertain, and which it would be wise not to entertain,—namely, how far it would be necessary for Baron Rothschild, if he should desire to sit on that Committee, to take the oaths which were required of the Members of that House. The precedent of Sir Joseph Jekyll, to which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had referred, was perfectly silent on this question, and he did not pretend to say that according to the words of the Act of Parliament it would be necessary for Baron Rothschild to take the oaths. The Act was the 1st of George III., and it set forth that no person who was a Member of the House should presume to vote not having taken and subscribed the oath, and that every Member so offending should be subjected to penalties. It then went on to enact that no one who bras a Peer of the realm or a Member of the other House should have a seat in the House of Commons, and that no one Who should now or hereafter claim to be a Member of that House should be entitled to sit and vote without taking the oaths after the Speaker was chosen. He did not say there was anything in these words that could be applied to a Committee of the House, but he wished to press on the House that that was really nut the question now before them. The question was whether, if the Douse should choose to nominate Baron Rothschild to a seat in this Committee, there was anything in Parliamentary practice or precedent to prevent their doing so? He thought there was not. It would be wrong in him to express an opinion on the other point. It would be for Baron Rothschild to inform himself, and act on such advice as he might think it proper to take, as to whether the oaths should or should not be taken by him, and whether he could serve on that Committee Without taking such oaths. He might be allowed to state that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department who spoke yesterday, and could not again address the House on this subject, entirely concurred with him in the conclusion at which he had arrived. The House was aware that he (the Solicitor General) had not voted with the noble Lord the Member for London in disagreeing from the Lords' Amendments on this Bill; but the question now before the House was one quite distinct from the main question of the admission of the Jews. This was a question Which might become a precedent hereafter, and it was the duty of both sides of the House to endeavour to arrive at a sound conclusion regarding it, not in reference to their individual opinions on the subject of the admission of the Jews, but on what might appear to them to be a sound and legitimate construction of the Act of Parliament, and by bringing to the case such Parliamentary precedents as they were in possession of.

said, he wished to give the House a brief explanation of the reasons which urged him to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. It should be observed what the question really was, and what would probably be its result. The House was asked to nominate Baron Rothschild a member of a Committee to draw up Resolutions with a view to a conference with the Lords without his having taken the oaths. He did not find that there would be any limit to his power if he was appointed, and therefore it must be the intention of the hon. Member for Finsbury that Baron Rothschild should take the same part and have the same privileges in the Committee. as any other Member. He (Mr. Whitbread) should like to learn whether there was any real distinction between a vote in Committee and a vote in the House. He could not see ally difference. He believed that Committees were to all intents and purposes parts of the House, and he thought if anything could be more safely asserted than another on the subject, it was that Parliament had been extraordinarily careful in the appointment of Committees, and that in delegating its powers to a small number of its Members it had been extremely careful in then selection. He thought that the result of appointing Baron Rothschild on the Committee would be that the House would place itself in a position from which it might have to retreat with no great dignity. Suppose Resolutions drawn up by the Committee; there might be a conference with the other House. Who would naturally be the managers of the conference? Why the Members of the Committee. Was the House sure that in "another place" there would not be some objection to receiving reasons from a body which contained a Member of the House who had not been sworn? What was the object of the conference? Was it not to conciliate a difference of opinion that existed between the two Houses, and would that be taking the right way to conciliate? Those were grave questions, and required consideration. If Baron Rothschild was appointed on this Committee he could be appointed on an election or any other Committee. Suppose Baron Rothschild was appointed to a Committee, be might be chosen Chairman, and it would be his duty to report to the Speaker. Was the House prepared to see him come to the bar with a report? He might sit on au Election Committee, for there was no oath which he would be required to take for that purpose which he could not take on the Old Testament. The House prevented any Member sitting on an Election Committee who had any charge hanging over him which might disqualify him from sitting in the House, even after he had taken his seat and the oaths; and yet it was proposed to appoint Baron Rothschild. The case of Sir Joseph Jekyll occurred some 140 years ago: he had looked into that case, and he could see nothing in it applicable to this. Did hon. Members suppose that the House would have allowed Sir Joseph Jekyll to have been chosen on a Committee if he had been in the position of Baron Rothschild? He was chosen by ballot for the Committee, and he had not taken the oaths, merely because he happened to have been absent on business, and it might readily be assumed that being a Judge on circuit, and not having taken the oaths, be probably took them before he sat on the Committee; for soon after he was named on another Committee, and would not some Member have said on that occasion that they had allowed the excuse that was given for his not having taken the oaths, but that they would not allow it a second time. It seemed to him (Mr. Whitbread) that the present proceeding was very like trying to find a right precedent for that which was manifestly wrong. Whilst expressing an opinion adverse to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury he might say that he thought that the conduct of Baron Rothschild throughout this long Parliamentary struggle reflected great credit upon him, for he waited at the doors of the House to be admitted as soon as the Legislature thought fit, and did not attempt to enter it himself, although he might have done so if he pleased on the meeting of the new Parliament, before the election of the Speaker. He had done nothing that was in the slightest degree undignified Or distasteful to the House, and he (Mr. Whitbread) only hoped that those who were so ardent in his cause would follow his example; and if they did so it was not improbable that before the end of the present Session they would see Baron Rothschild at the table taking the oaths. They might be anxious to admit Jews to Parliament, and to pass the Bill which had met so many galling refusals; but it was more important that the customs and laws of the House should be kept inviolate, and as they were about to take a step which might become a precedent for the future, they should be well sure that they stood on reason and justice.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General in his remarks, which he apprehended were quite sufficient to justify the House in agreeing to the Resolution under discussion. In his opinion, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had pictured imaginary difficulties, to which a sufficient answer could be given. The hon. Gentleman asked what difference there was between the vote of a Member in the House, and in a Committee of the House. The answer was short and simple—that the Act of Parliament referred to a vote in the House, but was altogether silent as to a vote in Committee. In one case the letter of the bond would apply, and he for one was not prepared to go one jot beyond it. The hon. Gentleman then said, that if Baron Rothschild were appointed on one Committee, he might also be appointed upon another, and that he might possibly be chosen one of the managers at the conference with the Lords. But he (Mr. Headlam) could see no reason why Baron Rothschild should not be chosen upon another Committee, or why he should not be chosen as one of the managers at a conference. He admitted that it would be absurd to appoint him one of the managers, but the whole question of his exclusion was an absurdity, and the best course the House could adopt would be to do away with the absurdity as soon as possible.

said, he felt it impossible to listen to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) without offering a reply. He agreed in every word that had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitbread); and he would add another consideration that weighed much with himself—that there was no precedent—for the only one that had been cited was not to the purpose—to show that the House had ever appointed a Member to perform a service for the House, knowing and intending that the Member should never be called in question for the manner in which he had performed his duty. He agreed with the hon. and learned Solicitor General as to the dry question of the power of the House to appoint Baron Rothschild upon a Committee; but had the House in its discretion ever exercised that power in the case of a Member who they knew was never going to qualify himself to appear in that House? The case of Sir Joseph Jekyll proved that the Member so appointed must show that it was through no fault, omission, or intention of his own that he had not taken the oaths. If it had appeared that Sir Joseph Jekyll had either conscientiously or contumaciously absented himself from taking the oaths, it was clear that his nomination to act upon the Committee would have been revoked. The question was not whether the House had power to appoint a person, who had not taken the oaths, on a Committee, but whether, in the exercise of their discretion, they would be guilty of the mockery of appointing a Member to perform a duty for the House when the Member was not going to appear in the House, and when the House did not mean to question his conduct, supposing that he refused to obey its orders. To appoint Baron Rothschild a Member of the Committee under such circumstances would be, in his opinion, highly derogatory to the dignity of the House.

said, he was surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Macaulay) deny that the case of Sir Joseph Jekyll was one in point, when it was so treated by the Solicitor General and by all the authorities. In Hatsell's Precedents the House would find the following passage:—

"Notwithstanding all these laws which are introductory to a Member's taking his seat in the house, a person when returned, is, though he should not have taken his seat, to all intents a Member, except as to the right of voting, and is entitled to the same privileges as every other Member of the House."

The absence of Sir Joseph Jekyll then, could not have been the only ground on which the House proceeded. His hon. and learned Friend had spoken as if the House was about to visit Baron Rothschild with penalties for contumacy. But the case really stood on this footing—Baron Rothschild being duly elected a Member of that House, and being anxious to perform his Parliamentary duties, had been prevented from taking his seat by a statute which was never intended to apply to his case. But, because by sheer accident he was prevented from performing a portion of his duties and debarred from a portion of his privileges, was that a reason for depriving him of the rest? If there were any duty which Baron Rothschild was interested in performing, it was in conferring with the other House upon a matter which so nearly concerned himself and the members of the same faith, and the letter of the Act ought not to be allowed to stand in his way. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) thought that the other House might object to the nomination of Baron Rothschild upon the Committee. But the House of Commons and not the House of Lords were the judges of those whom they elected to serve upon their Committees, and the other House would not be so ill-advised as to raise an objection to his appointment. He trusted, therefore, that the House would by a large and over- whelming majority elect Baron Rothschild to serve upon the Committee.

said, he thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Bedford bad been misstated. He had supposed that the House wanted to conciliate the other House, and he had thereupon asked whether it was wise to employ a person who was known not to be a conciliator? But did Gentlemen opposite want to employ conciliation? Did they want to bully and overbear, or did they wish to use the mollia fandi? Hon. Members opposite argued that a person might be a part of a thing when he was not a member of the whole. There was so much profound law in such an assertion that he could not understand it.

said, he quite agreed with the Solicitor General that the present question had nothing to do with that of the admission of the Jews to Parliament; it was a distinct question affecting the regularity of the proceedings of the House. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) had stated, as a reason why it was competent to the House to appoint Baron Rothschild on this Committee that the Act of Parliament applicable to his case mentioned voting in the House, but did not mention voting in Committee. He (Mr. Malins) thought that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down disposed of that view of the case. It was certainly new to him (Mr. Malins), to hear that a Committee was not a part of the House. Certain business was so minute in its details that it could not be done by the House, and the House deputed it to Select Committees, and the votes of Select Committees became the votes of the House. ["No!"] He would prove it. What he was going to say was, that there was a particular Act of Parliament. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] He would take it with or without the Act. The question whether a Member was duly selected to serve in Parliament was referred to a Select Committee appointed under an Act of Parliament, the vote of which Committee was conclusive; and if it reported to the House that such Member was not duly returned he was no longer a Member of the House. It was not attempted by those who sought to appoint Baron Rothschild to this Committee to draw a distinction between one Committee and another; but could any one say that Baron Rothschild could sit on a Select Committee, of which he might be appoint- ed Chairman, and have to appear at the bar to report whether a Member had been duly returned or not? They were told that that was a case which arose under a particular Act of Parliament; but there might be other cases referred to a Select Committee in which the report of the Committee would be conclusive, and could there be a greater absurdity than to appoint Baron Rothschild to sit on such Committees, for his case was not like that of Sir Joseph Jekyll, who had not taken his seat in the House merely because he was absent on his circuit, who did not contumaciously refuse to take, and had no reason for not taking the oaths, and who must be inferred to have taken them. The present case was one involving a question of the highest importance—namely, whether a Jew returned to that House, who did not comply with the law by taking the oaths, was competent to take part in the proceedings of that House? The proposition was—and it was an insult to common sense—that a man who could not take any part in the proceedings of the House, or sit in the House, could sit and take part in the proceedings of a portion of the House; for he would assert that a Committee was the House—that Members sitting in a Committee—room were sitting in the House, and giving a vote in Committee was giving a vote in the House. Independently, therefore, of the main question—of the admission of Jews to Parliament—it was necessary to decide the important question whether the House was to have any part of its proceedings conducted by those who, for all practical purposes, were not Members.

said, he would accept fully the arguments of the two hon. Gentlemen, that a man could not be part of a whole, without belonging to the whole also. They drew from it the inference that Baron Rothschild could not be a Member of a Committee of the House, because the Committee was a part of the House. He drew an opposite inference, and, as it was admitted by the Solicitor General and almost every lawyer in the House, that Baron Rothschild could be a Member of a Committee, why, it followed that he might be a Member of the House. When the hon. Member for Finsbury made his Motion on the previous evening he (Mr. Puller) asked himself the question, "Cui bono?"—what good could come of it? But the speeches of the hon. Members for Bedford and Wallingford bad shown that the hon. Member for Finsbury was right in making his Motion; for, by showing that Baron Rothschild could be a Member of a Committee, it would show the House of Lords that he was not only in name, but, in substance, a Member of the House, and that would dispose of a favourite argument against the admission of Jews to Parliament—namely, that if the House was not exclusively composed of Christians, it would lose its Christian character. If Baron Rothschild could sit on a Committee and become the Chairman of an Election Committee, it was impossible to say that he was not, bonâ fide and substantially, and not merely in name, a Member of the House; and, that being so, what became of the Christian character of the House? Question put.

said, he wished to appeal to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), who had a Motion on the paper to move for a Committee to inquire into the allegations of a petition presented from the town of Hanley complaining of the mining operations of the Duchy of Lancaster, to postpone his Motion, for the purpose of enabling the Government to proceed with the Indian Resolutions.

said, he could not comply with the right hon. Gentleman's request, for if he were to postpone his Motion until the Indian Resolutions were disposed of there was very little chance of his ever being able to bring it on. His Motion referred to the conduct of the Duchy of Lancaster—a department which had always been to him a puzzle and an enigma. It was a department for the administration of certain property to the amount of £36,000. And yet for the administration of that amount of property there was a Chancellor, a Vice-Chancellor, two Chief Justices, two puisne Judges, a whole host of counsel, and an army of stewards, collectors, bailiffs, receivers-general, and clerks and other functionaries quite sufficient to ruin any property. There were no less than sixty-four persons employed in the management of that estate, and the sum paid for salaries and retiring allowances amounted to no less than £9,476. He did not see why it was necessary that the Chancellor of the Duchy should be a Member of the Cabinet, and take part in the performance of the duties of the Government of the day; but that being so, he held the Government responsible for the proceedings of that functionary. His present charge against them was, therefore, that for the sake of a revenue of some £2,000 or £3,000, the Duchy of Lancaster had carried on operations which had imperilled the lives and destroyed the property of many of Her Majesty's subjects, and which now threatened ruin and devastation to a town of 30,000 inhabitants and 7,000 houses. The town of Hanley was founded by the celebrated Wedgewood about 100 years ago, with the view of establishing there the manufactory of earthenware, which had since become one of the staple products of the country. One of the conditions of the success of this manufacture was, the presence of an abundance of coal and of a peculiar description of coarse clay near the spot where it was carried on, and this condition was amply fulfilled in the neighbourhood of Hanley. The town, therefore, was built with the knowledge that the coal would be taken from beneath it, and that the clay would be taken from the surrounding neighbourhood. In 1838 it was discovered that ironstone, which was also to be found there in abundance, bore a great value, and the Duchy of Lancaster, taking advantage of that circumstance, immediately countenanced mining operations for the purpose of obtaining ironstone. That mineral formed the prop of the surface of the ground, and immediately it was removed, the surface began to fall in, and great destruction of property, accompanied by terror and alarm, resulted. Upon representations being made to the Duchy of Lancaster they undertook that no extension of the lease which had been granted for obtaining the ironstone should be made without notice to the inhabitants, so as to give them an opportunity of redeeming the surface. The Duchy, however, did not observe their promise; for twelve years before the expiry of the lease it was surreptitiously and mysteriously renewed, and from that moment devastation, havoc, and ruin reigned in Hanley. Shafts were sunk in all directions, galleries were carried under the town, houses fell in, and the appearance presented was that which would follow upon the shock of a violent earthquake. Indeed, there could be no doubt, if these operations should be continued for a few years longer, that the whole town of Hanley, with its 30,000 inhabitants, its numerous institutions, and its industrious population, would disappear from the face of the earth. (The hon. Gentleman then read copies of several letters from individuals corroborative of his general statement, which had been addressed from time to time to the Duchy of Lancaster.) The only answer which these complaints elicited was the stereotyped one of the Duchy, which ran something in this style:—"Sir, I have received your letter complaining of your manufactory being utterly destroyed by mining operations carried on under the Duchy of Lancaster, and I have communicated your complaint to the lessee," which was very much as if a magistrate, on being informed that somebody was going to set a man's House on fire, wrote back and said, "Sir, I have received your letter, and have forwarded it to the gentleman who is going to commit the act of incendiarism referred to." He might be told in answer to the statement which he had just made that some of the facts which lie had advanced were unfounded; but if that were so, it would, he thought, be scarcely consistent with fairness that the Government should refuse to him the means of proving the truth of his statements before the Select Committee which he asked to have appointed. It might also be said on behalf of the Government that the Crown was entitled to commit the depredations to which he now called the attention of the House, and that in the exercise of that right it was determined to persevere, whatever might be the consequences. Such an answer as that might suit the despotic Government of Naples or Russia, but in England, where millions were expended to promote the health and comfort of the humbler classes, he believed it was impossible that it could find expression. If, however, such a declaration were to emanate from the lips of a Minister, it would, he felt assured, find no support in the House of Commons. At all events, he was convinced that the refusal to take the subject into consideration would involve a heavy responsibility, inasmuch as it was more than probable that if things were permitted to go on as they were, some fatal day a grievous casualty would occur.

seconded the Motion.

said, that having lately had the honour to fill the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and as there was no hon. Member connected with the Duchy then in the House, he hoped the House would permit him to state a few facts which he thought it material should be borne in mind. If the House, in the result to which it should arrive, should be of opinion that any inquiry ought to be instituted into the conduct of the Duchy of Lancaster during the time that he (Mr. Baines) was Chancellor, so far from deprecating such an inquiry, he would willingly accede to such a proposal. But it was a question whether a Committee of the House or an application to the courts of law was the proper remedy in this case, to which he wished to address himself. It was very material that the House should bear in mind what were the circumstances of these mining districts. The manor of Newcastle-under-Line, in which the town of Hanley was situated, had belonged to the Duchy of Lancaster ever since the origin of the Duchy. So far from its being the fact that the practice of getting iron-stone from these mines was only of recent date, he could assure the hon. Member for Stoke that the records of the Duchy clearly showed that mines of coal and ironstone were worked in this manor as far back as in the reign of Richard II., nearly five centuries ago. The present was a complaint on the part of the copyholders of the manor. Now, nothing was more certain than that any person who held or took a copyhold took it upon the condition that it was to be held subject to the customs of the particular manor in which it was situated. That was an elementary principle of law. It had been found by a jury that there was an immemorial custom affecting the copyholders of this manor, where the minerals are of far greater value than the surface, that the owner or lessee of the minerals had a right of getting the minerals free from any liability on account of injury done to the buildings on the surface. This custom was so notorious that in consequence of this liability to disturbance, all the copyholders purchased their copyholds at a very much smaller price than they would otherwise do. This difference in price was always observed in every transaction between buyer and seller, and for the last forty years, when any person was about to build, distinct notice was served upon him by the lessee of the minerals, that if he was about to raise any heavy building, he would be liable to disturbance in consequence of the right to get the minerals from below. There were two points, therefore—one, that there was an immemorial custom established by the clearest evidence, and affecting all the copyholders; the other, that upon every transaction between vendor and purchaser, the existence of this custom was regularly acknowledged. Having stated the custom of the manor, he would now direct the attention of the House to the mining operations which had been going on, which were not the operations of the Duchy of Lancaster. As far back as the year 1731 the whole of the mines within the manor were leased to the ancestor of the present Earl Granville, and by renewals had remained in that family ever since. The mining operations which had taken place in this district had not been undertaken by the Duchy but by the lessee. In the year 1844 a person named Hilton, brought an action against Earl Granville to try his right of prosecuting mining operations without being liable to damages for the injuries he might cause to the buildings on the surface of the copyholds. This was the commencement of lengthy proceedings, both at law and equity. Upon the application for an injunction in Chancery to stay the working of the mines, the Lord Chancellor Cottenham said, he would not grant the injunction, so as to interfere with mining transactions of such importance, but would give the parties leave to try the question at law. He further said, that if a custom such as that which was asserted to exist in the manor of Newcastle were an immemorial custom, in fact, it would not in itself be bad in law. It was true that the Court of Queen's Bench, in the time of Lord Denman, on certain pleas which did not raise the question of copyhold, expressed an opinion that such a custom would be invalid in point of law; but the Court had since virtually reversed that decision. A special jury found that this custom had existed from time immemorial, in the manor. It was shown when the trial took place that the plaintiff was a person who had occupied a house which had been built by a budding society. This society had run up a complete street, on one of the copyholds, taking the risk, which they knew perfectly well; and when the house gave way the plaintiff brought his action, and the result was what he had stated. It was also proved, that more than half the wages earned by the labouring population of the district were earned in Lord Granville's mines. The hon. Member for Stoke had given no notion of the existence of these facts in his opening address, and he (Mr. Baines) had therefore thought it his duty to bring them before the House. Towards Christmas last year some fifty or sixty letters claiming compensation for damage were addressed to the Duchy of Lancaster. Many of those letters were in the same handwriting, and gave evidence of having proceeded from the same quarter. The Duchy immediately referred to the agent of the lessee, Earl Granville, to consult him with regard to these letters. A Report was received from him; but as it was received only a day before he (Mr. Baines) left the office, he had no opportunity of doing anything in the matter. But he saw enough in the Report to satisfy him that, although undoubtedly there were some cases in which injury had occurred from the falling of houses built in places where no right of building existed, yet, on the whole, there had been great exaggeration. In nineteen cases it was ascertained that no mines had ever been worked at or near the spot where the alleged injuries occurred; and it was shown with reference to some of these nineteen cases that the parties had been excavating marl and clay, that they had filled up the cavities with rubbish and built upon it, and the foundations gave way. [Mr. J. L. RICHARD: From whom did that information come?] From Mr. Wragg, the mineral agent of the lessee. [A laugh.] The hon. Member had stated what the complaint was, and surely he had a right to state what the answer was. He most sincerely commiserated the sufferings of these men, if they had been misled by others to build on those places that were not fit for buildings; but it was his duty to ascertain what the facts were, and he sent the letters to Mr. Wragg, who was a gentleman of high respectability, and told him to ascertain what the facts were. And Mr. Wragg sent him the Report to which he had alluded. He had stated that nineteen of the cases had reference to buildings where there were no mines, eleven of the cases happened twelve or sixteen years ago, and no complaint was made at the time. Then there were two cases in which it appeared the damage, such as it was, took place thirty years ago; and there was one case in which it was proved that the party was distinctly warned that coal had been excavated; but he proceeded to build, and was now one of the complainants. Then the hon. Gentleman said that applications had been made to Earl Granville. He was afraid it was believed that Earl Granville would pay any money. One of the persons who had complained was a Mr. Hamlet Wood. This person, in the year 1857, had told him (Mr. Baines) that he had laid out a sum of £220 on his property, whereas, in 1854, his statement to Earl Granville on applying to him for a gratuity was, that the sum which he had expended was about £100. This only showed the character of the exaggerations which had been made, and which he (Mr. Baines) feared were extended to more important matters. At the same time, there was no doubt that if the custom in question were invalid in point of law, or if the lessee of the minerals had been careless in the mode of working the mines, then he would be liable to any action that might be brought against him. It was for the House to say how far this case was distinguished from other cases which could be tried at law, and whether that was not the proper remedy. He could only say that if he had remained at the head of the Duchy he would have given every assistance, and rendered every information, to put the matter in a train for being tried in the simplest and least expensive manner, and no doubt the noble Duke now at the head of that Department would do the same. His (Mr. Baines's) duty had been to bring these facts before the house, because he believed they were material in the determination of the question whether a Select Committee should be appointed of not.

said, he did not wish to argue the point of law laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, but would ask the House whether it would show its sympathy with the copyholders by driving them into courts of law for redress, a process which had already ruined one person who had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman? He had been astonished to hear that the complaints made to the Duchy had been sent to the agent of the lessee for verification. Mr. Wragg was undoubtedly a most honourable and upright gentleman, but he had only been there about three or four years, and it would have been fairer to refer the matter to some independent judgment. If the noble Earl would himself inspect the dilapidations and ruin which had been produced in the district lie would be convinced that an end must be put to the present mode of proceeding. He had yet to learn whether it came within any right possessed by the Duchy of Lancaster that land should be so spoilt and deteriorated by the calcining of ironstone. He knew properties of great value, erected long before the mining operations in question began, which had been thereby almost entirely ruined. He held in his hand a photographic sketch of the present state of a property consisting of buildings, which were erected a few years ago at an expense of upwards of £6,000, and formed one of the most complete earthenware manufactories in that district of the Potteries, but which was now utterly destroyed by these mining operations. The place looked as if it had been ravaged by an earthquake. It was built long before any of these mining operations commenced; as a manufactory it was totally valueless, and yet not the least compensation had been given to the tenant. Connected as he (Mr. Alderman Copeland) was with some of the mining interests of the country, and particularly with those in the parts of the country in question, he did not hesitate to say that he never in his life saw such a reckless mode of working mines, or such an apparent determination to destroy if possible that part of the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent in which thousands of people depended on the making of earthen ware for their daily bread. He asked, would the Crown or the advisers of the Crown, for the paltry rental of some £3,000 a year, derived from this lease, suffer a whole district of country to be destroyed, and the lives of a great number of Her Majesty's subjects to be endangered by those operations? He feared the Dunchy of Lancaster would not be induced to do what was right in this matter until some dire and dreadful calamity befell that district, and in his conscience he believed that day was not remote. It was easy to say try the question at law; and no doubt as there were some men of property amongst those persons who had suffered from these operations the question would be tried; but then it must be remembered that the Crown would come to the aid of its lessee; the Attorney General and the Solicitor General would be employed, and the Crown paid no costs. He would put it to the House therefore whether this was not a subject for inquiry by a Committee, as well in the interest of the local population as for the honour of the Crown.

said, if he thought it possible that any advantage could be derived from the proposed inquiry he should not object to it; but he was convinced that no good could come from it, and, besides, the House was asked to delegate to a Committee the decision of a purely legal question, to which he could not consent. He thought the case had not been put quite fairly as regarded the Crown in reference to the damage alleged to have been done and the peril said to be incurred. The truth was that the Crown had no interest whatever in the property in question until the expiration of the existing lease. Therefore all the arguments which had been brought forward in respect of the expense to the country of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the number of officers employed under it, did not bear upon the point which the House of Commons had to decide, and they had been introduced with a view of raising a prejudice with respect to the case. His hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Copeland) had talked of the ruinous expense of fighting a battle of this kind in a court of law with the Crown, inasmuch as the Crown paid no costs. His hon. Friend knew, however, that when this question was first brought under his (Mr. Walpole's) notice, and after he had given it his consideration, he arrived at the conclusion that for the sake of the people who had been represented as poor copyholders there was a course by which it could be tried and determined with but little expense; that he should be prepared to recommend the Crown to adopt that course, and that he had reason to believe the lessee would also adopt it. He (Mr. Walpole) recommended that a special case should be prepared and submitted to a court of law, subject to a right of appeal either to the Exchequer Chamber or to the House of Lords, if either of the parties felt themselves aggrieved, and that that decision taken on 'behalf of one should bind all the parties and put an end to all litigation on the matter. He believed that was the proper course to adopt, and the best for all parties; but he put it to the House whether they thought it desirable in a case of private property, such as this was, to appoint a Committee to make inquiries which would lead to no result, and to decide a question of law. As far as he could ascertain, the total number of cases which had formed the subject of complaint was fifty-seven; that of the great bulk of the—more than one-half—there was no ground whatever for saying the damage was occasioned by the mining operations; that in others some little damage might have been caused by those operations, but certainly not the whole damage alleged to have been done; that in others, suitable props had been placed in the mines so as to support the roofs; and that in all those cases there was previous notice given to the parties that if they built contrary to the custom they would build at their own peril. In addition to that, these gentlemen had been selling the property to others knowing that it was liable to be undermined, and consequently to be depreciated in value. They had been purchasing and selling, kowing that in consequence of the mining operations the surface of the land was twenty per cent less in value than otherwise it would have been. If, as he was informed, that was the case, these copyholders, not having a right to build on the surface of the land, were not entitled to complain of hardship or to lay claim to property which they had neither paid for nor inherited. These were the simple facts of the case as they had come to his knowledge, and he hoped that the suggestions which he had thrown out would be accepted as the best means of putting an end to litigation and settling the question for the benefit of all parties.

observed, that when Earl Granville took possession of the property, he changed the direction of the mines so as to avoid, if possible, the most populous parts of the town. He could also state that the Earl Granville approved of the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in this case; and would give every facility for having the decision of a court of law obtained on the legal question. He (the Marquess of Hartington) was altogether opposed to making a Committee of the House the sole judge of the law. In his opinion, no case for inquiry had been made out, although Earl Granville would have challenged investigation but for the bad precedent which such a course would have set.

said, he conscientiously believed that this was a fair case for inquiry, and he hoped the House would grant a Select Committee.

said, he would ask for what purpose a Committee was required? If a Committee were appointed, and reported that all the grievances of which they had heard existed in the duchy, what good would thereby be effected? He would ask the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo) to tell him whether the things of which he complained were legal or illegal. If they were legal the House would be establishing a most dangerous precedent by assenting to the Motion. If they were illegal why did not the parties seek a remedy in a court of law? The answer to his question had been given in a manner which he rejoiced to hear by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who had declared that if they desired to have a speedy termination of the matter in a court of law, every thing should be done to facilitate the accomplishment of that object. That offer was perfectly fair, and as the facts were ascertained, the case might be decided by the courts of law within four or five months from the present time, and at very inconsiderable cost. The fact was, that the qustion was easily resolvable by common sense. There was a great disposition on the part of the inhabitants of this district to run up houses and shops, and let them to people who were employed in the mines. These buildings were raised with the greatest amount of improvidence, want of forethought and care; and if the House of Commons were to interfere in this instance the result would be, that every case of thoughtlessness, inattention to law, and want of prudence and foresight would be brought before them and discussed here. In his opinion, there was no earthly ground whatever, either in a moral or legal point of view, for the interference of the House; and if an inquiry were directed it would only lead to this conclusion, that it would be utterly impossible to determine anything until the legal question had been decided.

said, he thought that the proposition of the Home Secretary was a reasonable one, and he wished that it had been acceded to by his hon. Friend n the part of his constituents. It was said that the copyholders had no right to build, but four Judges had decided that these persons had an unalterable right to the foundations of their buildings.

said, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Bethell) that even if the Committee sat and reported it would literally have done nothing. That of itself, therefore, ought to be a cogent and conclusive reason enough for refusing the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It would not conduce to the dignity, power, or reputation of any assembly that its forms should be used, or rather abused, for the purpose of obtaining results which were unattainable, and effecting that for which proper tribunals and authorities were provided, and which it was better, therefore, on every consideration, to leave to the decision of those tribunals. If the matter was reagitated, however, a court of law would hold with Lord Cottenham, that if a custom could be established in point of fact, it would be valid in point of law. If a Committee were appointed the witnesses who would be called to make out an ex parte case would have to be paid for by the country, and to this, as a Member of the House of Commons, he must object, especially as there were proper tribunals in existence, before which the parties could proceed at their own expense and peril. The fact was, that this was an attempt to constitute a new, inoperative, inefficacious, and utterly idle tribunal for the purpose, and to get out of the coffers of the State the means of setting on foot an inquiry which must be altogether useless, and so thinking, he should vote against the Motion.

, in reply said, that perhaps he had been a little unwise bringing forward the question before the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire (Lord R. Cecil) had been disposed of; because, amongst the array of officers who were employed in the Duchy he found the name of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken figuring in the capacity of a Queen's counsel. True, his emoluments were not very extravagant, being only £2 a year; and this the hon. and learned Gentleman had well earned by his speech that evening. The only answer which had been given to his case was, that the facts were not as he had described them; and he held that it was not fair or just to refuse an investigation where the facts were denied. It was not true, as had been represented by so many legal Gentlemen, that he asked for a decision of the House of Commons upon matters which ought to be decided by a legal tribunal. He asked for nothing of the kind. All he required was an investigation, and that a Committee should report whether they saw any means of redress for an evil which had been universally acknowledged by every hon. Gentleman who had spoken to-night.

, in moving the following Resolution—

"That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the investigation into the merits of Private Bills, at present conducted by Select Committees of this house, should in future, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, be conducted by a paid and permanent Tribunal."

—said, that it could hardly be denied that Select Committees were both costly and inefficient, and yet they wielded enormous powers in relation to the commercial interests of the country. It had been calculated that within the recollection of the present generation upwards of £300,000,000 had been invested in railway enterprise, the whole of which had been expended in accordance with the decisions and under the superintendence of Select Committees of the House. But railway enterprise was not all, or anything like all, the business that had been entrusted to them, for besides matters of railway enterprise, they exercised the same duties with regard to the internal administration of most of the principal towns, and the commercial communications of the country, so that he did not think he should be far wrong in saying that something like two-thirds of the amount of the National Debt would represent the capital of which these Committees bad within the period referred to, directed and superintended the application. This money they had disposed of by the exercise of power of the most unlimited description; for, with the exception of the Committees of the other House of Parliament, there was no appeal from their decisions, which must be taken as absolutely final. Now, with such enormous powers as were vested in their hands, and with such important interests as were at stake, one would suppose that those tribunals would consist of men who bad been very carefully selected for the arduous duties they had to perform. How was that consistent with the fact? So far from its being the case the fact was that they were chosen by their constituents without the slightest reference to their intellectual fitness for the official duties which they were called upon to exercise. One man was liked because he was favourable to the ballot, another because he was opposed to Maynooth, and a third because he held particular views respecting the franchise; but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom not a single person was elected on account of his proficiency in the management of private business or his fitness for the discharge of those judicial duties, which the custom of the House imposed upon him. Still, it might be said, that such an assembly as this which contained the collective wisdom of the country would be sure to furnish sagacity and talent enough for all purposes. But unfortunately all the intellect of the House of Commons was carefully weeded out before it entered upon the private business of the House. It was the House of Commons—brained—that did all the work of the Select Committees. It had become the practice of the Committee of Selection, before proceeding to name the Committees, entirely to omit from the list of Members all persons of great political distinction in the House, and others of high intellectual character, whose public duties would be interfered with by their being called on to sit on private Committees of the House. It was no doubt a very proper and necessary practice, and the business of the House must very soon come to a standstill if it were not adopted. At the close of last year he (Lord R. Cecil) moved for and obtained a list of those Members, who during the late Parliament were not appointed upon Select Committees; and that list was exceedingly instructive, inasmuch as it showed how carefully the Committee of Selection had weeded out the large majority of those to whom hon. Members were accustomed to look as maintaining the intellectual character of the House. It might be safely said, that almost every man who had been in a Cabinet, or who happened to be in a Cabinet, and all the distinguished merchants, bankers and lawyers were taken out of the list of those from whom the Committee of Selection considered themselves at liberty to select judges before whom those private enterprises were decided. Speaking of the last Parliament he found amongst those who were excluded from the list, the names of such men as Mr. Baines, Sir Richard Bethell, Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Bright, Mr. Cairnes, Sir Alexander Cockburn, Mr. Collyer, Mr. Cowper, Mr. Corry, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Denison, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Buncombe, Mr. Mimes Gaskell, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Goulburn, Sir James Graham, Sir Bulwer Lytton, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Horsman, and so on; he might, if he chose, increase the number. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) was an exception, and there were some others; but the general rule was as he had stated it. He might add that he (Lord R. Cecil) was himself one of those who served on the Committees, and he should therefore be acquitted of anything like invidiousness when he spoke of the utter incapacity of those Committees. As if that were not enough to ensure the incapacity of these tribunals, it also happened that a Bill was never tried before the same Committee a second time. It was a constantly varying tribunal. The men who tried the matter at issue one year did not try it the next; and what was the result? Why, that this tribunal differed from all others in this respect—that it had no consistent collected body of precedents by which its decision could be guided. Hence had arisen such an amount of confusion, as to have become quite a proverb. Our railway system was a conspicuous instance of this. At one time competition of lines had been forbidden, at another time encouraged; at one time a line would be prevented from supplying a particular district, next year the privilege would be granted. One year a railway would be encouraged to encroach on a neighbour's territory, another year encroachment would be summarily forbidden, and so on. Many towns were debarred from undertaking ordinary sanitary improvements because of the expense which must be incurred in obtaining the necessary assent of Parliament. In many cases, too, towns had been put to the greatest inconvenience by the contradictory proceedings of the Private Bill Committees. The noble Lord then mentioned two or three cases by way of illustrating how the system of thus employing judges who were not trained to their ditties, and were constantly changing, had practically worked in the social and internal administration of towns. Amongst them he might mention the case of the town of Liverpool, where the local government was conducted under no less than sixty Acts of Parliament. Two of these Acts were brilliant specimens of Private Bill legislation; so much so, indeed, that be would take the liberty of mentioning them to the House. Both were passed in the Session of 1842; and whilst one of them enacted that the Commissioners of Highways might prosecute a person who erected any obstruction on the footway, the other—passed, be it remembered, at the same time—provided that any person might erect an obstruction on the footpath with the consent of the corporation. The result it was not difficult to predict. A person did, under the authority of one of these Acts, erect an obstruction; that was to say, he built a house. He was at once taken up by the Commissioners of Highways under the other Act; and the magistrates had the duty imposed upon them of deciding between two private Bills which were passed with two contrary objects, and in the same Session of Parliament. Another Act was passed in reference to Liverpool, which gave the Commissioners of Sewers power—not to compel persons to drain their houses into the main sewers—but absolutely to prevent them from doing that. He also begged to call the attention of the House to the opinion expressed by a Select Committee, appointed twelve years ago, with regard to the mode in which Private Bill legislation was conducted, and the effects arising therefrom. That Committee stated that under the present system, the expense of obtaining the most necessary or desirable Private Bill was needlessly heavy, whilst the great mass of those so-called "Private Bills" materially affected public interests, and, though local, were essentially public Bills; that the public at large were often greatly prejudiced by local Acts; that, besides this, there were often introduced into local Bills, provisions of the most objectionable nature—some varying or interfering with the general statute or common law of the country; some, though ordinary in their nature, perplexing and difficult to understand; and, finally, some so contradictory and mutually discordant as to render their enforcement impossible. Very often the Committees were called upon to decide important questions of a legal character relating to the conveyance of land; and he would ask the House whether they thought that a Select Committee was a tribunal calculated to inspire public confidence in that respect. A case which occurred last year well illustrated the difficulty of the questions of this class, which were sometimes submitted to Committees. Land, it was well known, was only conveyed to railway companies in trust; and a question arose whether the land was thus conveyed downwards beyond the depth required for the purposes of the railway. How the question was decided he did not know. The next objection to the present system was the enormous expense it entailed upon all persons engaged in Parliamentary contests and in Private Bill legislation. Not only were the fees extremely high, but witnesses were obliged to be kept in London at an enormous expense, sometimes for weeks together. The Committees were seldom able to sit much more than three hours and a half a day, especially when the business before the House was heavy, on account of the enormous physical labour it imposed upon them, whereas a Judge was able to sit six or seven hours in trying cases, and consequently the services of counsel and solicitors had to be retained for a much longer period than would be necessary in the case of an investigation before an ordinary legal tribunal. Select Committees not being trained in the law were exposed to all the tricks of the counsel, and could not check them when they introduced irrelevant evidence or observations. Solicitors had a direct interest in keeping up the present system, because Parliamentary fees were larger than even those in Chancery. Hence, when solicitors condemned the system, their evidence was conclusive against it. On this point he had the evidence of Mr. Baxter, the solicitor to the Great Northern Railway, and much engaged in private bill legislation. Mr. Baxter said, "Supposing the opponents to a Bill went before a Committee, and that the Committee did not consist of thorough business men accustomed to sit on Committees and despatch the matter in hand with decision, the counsel became irregular, and confusion, delay, and expense resulted." As an example, he instanced the Great Western Railway, which had been fifty-seven days before a Select Committee, at an expense of £40,000; and they had to abandon the Bill for the Session, owing to the length of time that was occupied. [Colonel W. PATTEN observed, that that evidence had been given several years ago.] That made no difference—Members were just the same now as they were then. Another cause of ex- pense was, that a peculiar class of counsel had to be employed. The great majority of Members who sat on Committees were not experienced in judicial inquiries, and the counsel who could apply their tricks with the greatest energy and skill were worth their weight in gold. Mr. Scott, a barrister, himself engaged in Parliamentary business, had published a guide to counsel employed in Committees and to Parliamentary agents, and the advice he gave the latter was always, if possible, to select as a leader some lawyer who was acquainted and on speaking terms with the members of the Committee. The result was, that expert counsel required enormous fees. One case had been mentioned to him in which a learned Gentleman asked, and readily obtained, 100 guineas for a single day's work. The Great Northern Company, before it put a spade in the ground, spent £432,000, of which a large proportion—£103,500—was expended in opposing other lines. Liverpool spent £80,000 in ten years in private Bill legislation. The waterworks of St. Helen's cost altogether about £3,000, of which £1,000 was expended in getting the Bill, and he believed that the expense of constructing waterworks in small towns was about equal to the Parliamentary expenses. These facts afforded sufficient grounds for dissatisfaction with the existing system. Private Committees united all the evils, except venality, which could disgrace a tribunal; the judges were inefficient, and the proceedings costly. But there was another disadvantage connected with them, and that was the enormous amount of labour which they imposed upon hon. Members whenever Parliamentary work was heavy. It was impossible for any hon. Member to keep up with the progress of public legislation if he were compelled to spend his mornings in a private Committee. The remedy rested with hon. Members themselves. He had no doubt that his Motion would be opposed by all those distinguished statesmen who were excused, on account of their eminence, from sitting on private Committees. They did not feel the chain, but those hon. Members who were liable to serve were in a majority, and he hoped they would stand up against the great authorities. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Colonel W. Patten), having held the office twenty-five years, well knew the evils of the system, and ought to lend his aid in redressing them. But he might be asked what he would put in the place of the ex- isting system. He had no plan of his own, but would refer the House to one recommended by a thoroughly practical man (Mr. Blamire), the Copyhold Commissioner. It was analogous to that employed in enclosures. The proposal was to establish a permanent and paid tribunal, the members of which should, if necessary, go circuit; that they should decide upon every scheme brought before them as rapidly and cheaply as possible; that they should make their report in extenso to the House, and thon the Government should introduce and pass Bills in accordance with their recommendations, and in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the Bills so framed would pass with perfect unanimity. This was done every year with enclosure Bills. Formerly those Bills cost an enormous amount; now the average expense was £20, and the Bills were passed without opposition. But it was said that the functions of these Committees were not judicial but legislative. Even if the business was one of legislation, it did not follow that any five Members appointed on a Committee had the requisite qualifications for the duty of legislation, which was properly vested in the House. Thirty years ago Select Committees were really legislative bodies, consisting of eighty or one hundred Members, and "whips" went round, towards the close of the case, to secure a decision on one side or the other. At that time ten or twelve Members made the investigation, and then a large number who had not heard a word of it came in at the end and gave the decision. That was a disgraceful system, because the duties of the Committees were really judicial, and not legislative, and it was put an end to. A Resolution was proposed by Mr. Green and Mr. Shaw lefevre—

"That the business of Committees in private Bills is of so judicial a character, and so frequently involves the decision of rights and pecuniary interests of so vast an amount, that it is expedient to assimilate them as much as possible, in functions and practice, to judicial tribunals."

That was what he was now asking—that they should make the judges competent and justice cheap and accessible. Another argument was, that if there was a preliminary examination, the subject would always be reopened in that House. This had been the case where a Committee was appointed after a preliminary investigation had taken place, and very often the decision had been reversed. But if time system of Select Committees were done away with, this could not occur. At One time all the Members for the towas interested in any Bill were allowed, most im- properly, to sit on the Committee, and this system had been upheld by the late Sir Robert Peel. He imagined that interested Members, if excluded from Committees, would re-open the question in the House; but his fears had been proved to be groundless, and he had no doubt that those now expressed would be shown to be equally idle. Finally, he was told that the course he proposed would be unconstitutional, and would surrender the privileges of the House. There might have been some weight in such an argument in the time of the Stuarts; but now that that House was supreme in the State, he hoped that it would, by amending its own tribunals, template the work which had commenced with the reform of the Courts, and would disregard all fears which arose out of a barren love of privilege and power. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Resolution.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the House was deeply indebted to the noble Lord for calling attention to a subject the importance of which was hardly sufficiently appreciated either within or without that House, and he could assure him that it was not among Members who took an active part in the transaction of the private business of the House that he would find opponents to any amelioration of the present system. He had himself been so engaged for the last twenty years, and during that time had proposed remedies for several abuses which he believed to exist in the present system of dealing with private business. Before he approached the general question he was anxious, in reply to the remarks of the noble Lord on the way the Committee of Selection discharged its duties, to explain to the House some of the difficulties under which it laboured. Every description of Private Bill was referred to them, and it was their duty to select such Members as they thought most suitable to examine the merits of the Bill, while the number from which they had to select was extremely limited. From a return which the noble Lord had obtained it appeared that during the last Parliament 280 Mem- bers did not serve upon Private Bill Committees. The average number serving upon public Committees was 250; 57 Members were excused on account of age. There were 30 Members of Her Majesty's Government, or connected with it, who could not attend on such Committees; 13 Members were unseated at the commencement of the last Parliament; 10 or 12 Members had died; 4 or 5 had been made Peers, and 20 others had been excused on account of ill health. If all these were struck off the list, it would be seen that there were not a great many left who would be eligible to serve on Private Committees. The noble Lord complained that the Committee of Selection had "brained" the House. As a proof of the contrary, he would refer to two or three names: Sir James Graham, Lord J. Russell, Lord Stanley, Mr. Henley, Mr. Labouchere, and other Members of distinction, who on several occasions had acted as Chairmen of Committees. There was, certainly, an arrangement by which the leaders of circuits were, to a certain extent, relieved from serving on Committees, they consenting to render their services on special occasions. The noble Lord, moreover, in referring to those who were exempt, had overlooked the fact that many of them were on the Committee of Selection. The Committee of Petitions, and other permanent Committees. His (Colonel Patten's) own name was included in the noble Lord's list, yet he sat from the beginning to the end of the Session upon private Committees. In short he could assure the noble Lord that the names from which the Committee of Selection had to appoint private Committees were for many reasons very limited, but it had always been his endeavour to make the selection in the way most calculated to meet the convenience of Members, and with a view to the efficient discharge of the business which would come before them. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord in his observations respecting the excessive expenses attendant upon Private Bill legislation before Select Committees. Almost every Member of great experience in the House had endeavoured to devise some scheme for diminishing that expense, and he (Colonel Patten) himself proposed before the end of the Session to ask for a Committee to inquire into the subject. No doubt the expense was an evil which ought to be remedied, but he feared that that would not be accomplished by referring the whole Private Bill legislation to another tribunal. Some years ago the experiment was tried, and a kind of preliminary inquiry under the Board of Trade was instituted in the hope that appeals would not be made from it to the House. That preliminary inquiry was founded somewhat upon the model of the Enclosure Commission, which the noble Lord appeared to approve; but after several years of trial he (Colonel Patten), who had been the first to propose its appointment, found it necessary to move that the whole plan should be abandoned. One of the principal reasons of the failure of the preliminary inquiry was that, after it had decided, an appeal to the whole House was almost invariably resorted to. In the Liverpool case, to which the noble Lord had adverted, the greater part of the expense was incurred, he believed, in the preliminary inquiry, and then the matter had all to be discussed again in the House itself. Every attempt which had been made to provide a substitute for the present system hitherto had failed, and the House had been compelled to recur to it again. He (Colonel Patten) had a strong opinion with regard to the system of railway legislation which had prevailed in this country, but he was satisfied that while nothing could be worse for railway proprietors, the system was generally advantageous for the public. In France and other countries, where the railway legislation was conducted upon some such system as the noble Lord proposed, railways were, no doubt, constructed upon more economical principles than they were here, and the shareholders were proportionately benefited; but the public could not get branch lines and facilities of that description, which were enjoyed to a greater extent in this country than in any country in the world. He was glad that the noble Lord had brought his mind to bear upon this subject, and he hoped that he would propound some practical means of remedying the inconveniences of the present system. The noble Lord had spoken with some degree of laudation of the plan which prevailed some years ago, when there were 30 or 40 Members upon a Committee; but he was sure that if the noble Lord had ever served upon such a Committee he would not have a word to say in its praise. The merits of the case were not thoroughly looked into by the majority of the Members on each Committee, and "whips" were as general and were conducted with as much energy and anxiety as when an impo- tant division was about to take place in the House. His own opinion was that many improvements had been effected within the last twenty years, and that Select Committees in the present day were admirable tribunals as compared with those which preceded them. He could mention the names of Members who had come voluntarily during the last ten or twelve years to serve upon the same class of Committees, and by this means an uniformity of legislation had been introduced which the House never could have attained to but for the services of those hon. Gentlemen. If he might be excused for mentioning the name of one hon. Member who had given his valuable assistance in this way, and to whom the House and the country ought to be infinitely indebted, he should mention the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Colonel Pennant). The noble Lord opposite had conferred an obligation on the House by bringing forward this subject, but he thought that he had drawn a rather unfavourable picture of Select Committees. He was sure if the noble Lord would permit him to improve his knowledge of them by placing him upon one or two more of those Committees that he would see that they were not obnoxious to all those charges which he had brought against them. For these reasons he recommended the House not to commit themselves to a Resolution the consequences of which they could not clearly foresee; and he hoped that the noble Lord, in his reply, would endeavour somewhat to fill up the outline of the proposition which in his opening speech he had but sketched.

said, he apprehended that there were very few persons who would profess themselves entirely satisfied with the system of private Bill legislation as administered in that House. Probably it was a subject which at one time or another had occupied the attention of almost every working Member, and he believed, if the opinions of all those who had considered it could be collected, that it would be found that there was a general agreement upon two points — first, that some amendment in the system was desirable; and, secondly, that the difficulties in the way of such amendment were of such magnitude as to be almost insuperable. His noble Friend, notwithstanding the ability with which he had treated the whole subject, had mixed up some grievances that were imaginary with others that were un- doubtedly real and grave. He had complained of that which no one denied, namely, the costly mode of procedure before these tribunals. But it should be remembered that all litigation before any tribunal in this country, where great companies were concerned, and important interests were at stake, had a tendency to run into enormous expense. The waste of money which had taken place in the contests between opposing railway companies had been in no appreciable degree due to the peculiar composition of the tribunals to which they appealed. Their litigation had been, indeed, more expensive than that which occurred between private individuals, but that was because, when private individuals went to law, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they were spending their own money; whereas the proceedings taken by great companies were often instituted by a secretary, a solicitor, and a Board of Directors, who, at comparatively little loss to themselves, could squander the money of the, shareholders. No one acquainted with the history of the struggles occurring of late years between the great railway companies, could fail to see that there had existed on the part of those charged with their management a too eager desire to gain possession of small districts, regardless both of the expenditure incurred in securing them and of their value when obtained. His noble Friend said that these tribunals acted without responsibility. He (Lord Stanley) denied it, but even if they did act without responsibility that would be nothing more than what happened in every court of the last resort. But in fact those tribunals were responsible to that House for their decisions, which had been, and might be, revised by that House. His noble Friend also complained of those tribunals being courts from which there was no appeal. Now, that was not exactly the case, for though he (Lord Stanley) admitted the examples were rare, nevertheless they had sometimes seen the decision of a Committee reversed by the House; and there was always a second hearing before a Committee of the Lords. It should be recollected, too, that in proportion as they extended the right of appeal, they increased the liability to expenditure, which the noble Lord very properly deprecated. His noble Friend also complained of the amount of labour imposed upon the Members of those private Committees. Considering the number of Members available to serve on those Committees, and the share of labour that fell upon each individual, he did not think there was anything to justify that complaint. There might have been reason to complain at the time when the general railway system of England was under discussion, but that was an exceptional period, which could not recur. The Committees sat nominally four hours a day, but really only three and a half hours; whereas a Judge of the land, who was generally a man advanced in years, sat often eight or nine hours a day. Chairmen of quarter sessions, or magistrates who paid much attention to their duties, went through a larger amount of labour in the course of the year than the Members of these private Committees were called upon to endure. As to the question of exemptions to which his noble Friend referred, that had been so ably handled by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that he (Lord Stanley) did not think it necessary to comment upon it. His noble Friend had argued that the Members of that House were from their habits and position unfit to sit on what he called a judicial tribunal. The same reasoning, if sound, would prove that the Members of that House were unfit to serve on a jury. As to the simplicity of laymen, the ingenuity of lawyers, the tricks practised on Committees, and the varying and even contradictory decisions to which they were apt to come, precisely the same allegations might be made in regard to every class of cases tried before a judge and jury. But the truth was, these Committees were not judicial tribunals. His noble Friend contended that they were so, because, he said, parties having private interests in the question at issue were alone admitted to a hearing, and nobody appeared as counsel on behalf of the public. But it was the duty of the Committee, and especially of the Chairman, to consider not what were the interests of the parties who came before them, but what was for the general advantage of the public. Take the case of a railway as an illustration. It was not a question whether A or B had a right to make a particular line, but whether the line proposed by the one or the other would best meet the wants of the district through which it would pass. And whenever the Committees had to deal with questions at all judicial in their nature, it was a rule invariably enforced by them, or ought to be so, not to interfere in any matter of which a legal tribunal could take cognizance. The legislative remedy only began where the judicial remedy ended. But, granting it to be objectionable to intrust these functions to Committees of that house, what was the alternative open to them? In what hands would they place this power and patronage? Remembering what was the state of things when all the great arterial lines of communication were being laid down, let them ask themselves whether the power of deciding in what direction those great lines should run, what towns should be supplied with direct railway communication, and what towns should be placed upon branch lines or be altogether excluded, was a power which, consistently with the independence and purity of the administration of this country, could be safely vested in any Minister under our system of government? It was said, indeed, that the Government might delegate its functions. But delegate them to whom? This was not a case of judicial procedure. The decision of questions involving the very largest interests was intrusted to the Judges of the land; but those Judges were fettered and tied down by the law, which it was their business to declare—not to make; whereas, in the great majority of cases which came before Committees of that House, there was no law to administer and no fixed rule for their guidance, except that widest rule of all—namely, the duty of considering what was for the advantage of the general public. Such functions, then, affecting such vast and varied interests could not, without great abuse—certainly not without great suspicion of abuse and consequent discontent—be confided to any administrative Board which they could create. But though the endeavour to do away with the system of private Bill Committees would neither succeed nor deserve to do so, still a great deal might be done for the amendment of that system. The attempts made in the course of the last few years with that object had not, he must admit, been successful. The suggestion had been made, but never tried, that they should dispense with the necessity of an appearance before separate Committees of each House, and that a single Committee should be substituted composed of Members of both Houses jointly. The preliminary inquiry to which his hon. and gallant Friend bad adverted was also proposed as a means of lessening expense, and his hon. and gallant Friend had borne his testimony as to the manner in which it operated. In 1853 the then President of the Board of Trade established a general board of chairmen of Committees, the object being to bring their varying decisions into unison, and to lay down something like a code of rules by which all Committees should be guided. That experiment promised well, but it was afterwards found that the understanding come to in the general Committee had no power to bind the Members of the several Committees there represented by their chairmen; and not being so bound, they could not be relieved from the responsibility of deciding according to their own judgment. The attempt to enforce uniformity of decision lasted but for a short time, actually ceasing to exist, he believed, at the end of the very Session in which it was first established. No doubt diversity and even contrariety of decision was a great evil requiring a remedy. But while frankly acknowledging the defects of the existing system, they ought not to overlook its merits. Nobody would assert that these Committees, as now constituted, were influenced either by personal interest, local bias, or political predilections; nor, on the other hand, could they be fairly accused of negligence or carelessness in the discharge of their duties. There might in some cases be a want of special knowledge, but, having for eight or nine years taken part in Committees of that House, he could not call to mind a single instance in which it had appeared to him that there had been neglect of duty or want of attention on the part of those Members with whom he had served. He believed that those Committees were free from all imputation of partiality or neglect, and he thought that the objections which had been taken on the ground of diversity of opinion were not to be attributed to the constitution of the tribunal, but to the fact that in many cases both that House and the public were without experience of the subjects with which they had to deal; those subjects were equally new to all, the legislation upon them was experimental only; and under such circumstances it was impossible that conflicting judgments should not be occasionally aimed at, before they settled down into a uniform course of procedure.

said, he had no wish to occupy the time of the House by entering at length into the question. The subject, however, was one of importance, and involved interests of the greatest magnitude to the country at large. He had listened with the deepest attention to the arguments of the noble Lord who introduced the ques- tion to the attention of the House; and, while admitting the possibility of improving the present system, under which the private Committees of that House were constituted, he confessed his inability to discover the superior advantages of the noble Lord's proposition. Doubtless the labours of the Members constituting those tribunals were at times exceedingly severe; nevertheless, as the delegated custodians of the many important interests intrusted to them, they were bound to accept the responsibilities cast upon them, and conscientiously to fulfil those duties that were imposed upon them. He for one would resist every attempt to transfer those duties to any other body than that appointed by the great council of the nation—the chosen representatives of the people. What was the noble Lord's proposition? Why, it was one that would involve the necessity of employing some two or three hundred individuals, and of adding a considerable amount to the charges on the Consolidated Fund. He should at once say that he could not acquiesce in the proposal made by the noble Lord, and he hoped, until some more effectual remedy was proposed, that the House would not be induced to depart from the present system.

said, that the expenses attendant on the present system were enormous. He more particularly alluded to the large fees which were at present paid to professional men practising before Parliamentary Committees. So great were the costs arising from these and other causes, that they practically amounted to a denial of justice. He thought therefore that some remedy ought to be provided.

said, he thought that the noble Lord was entitled to gratitude for having brought the subject before the House, but he thought that the better way of dealing with the question would be by general legislation for local bodies. An objectionable form of centralization was produced by bringing all sorts of petty questions up to London to be decided, and such a course was only beneficial to the lawyers. At the same time, many questions arose which required to be legislated for, and that might best be done by referring the subject to a Committee, as at present.

said, he did not see why lawyers should not make their market as well as any one else; but he thought that, in many cases, the machinery of Parliament was unnecessarily set in motion, and at the same time there were questions involving large and complicated interests which were best dealt with by bringing them before Parliament in the form at present in operation.

observed, that while agreeing in some degree with the observations of his noble Friend, he considered that it must always be necessary as a last resort that those matters should be brought before the Legislature of the country. He thought that the noble Lord had done good service to the public generally by bringing the question before the House. If the noble Lord would move for the appointment of a Committee, he (Mr. Ewart) would certainly support him; but at present, he confessed, he could not see his way towards the removal of the evils complained of in the proposition he had made.

suggested that it would be advisable to follow the precedent of the Enclosure Act, and to legislate for local bodies as regarded water rates, paving rates, lighting rates, &c., giving them power, in any such matters, to act upon their own authority, after giving proof to an established tribunal that they had fulfilled all the requirements of the Act. He thought that the attention of Government ought to be turned to the establishment of a system of this character.

said, he would deprecate a hasty adoption of the principle of local legislation. Such a proposal was especially dangerous when it included such works as waterworks for instance, for the water was usually brought from a great distance over the property of others, and might in some cases be seriously detrimental. For instance, Manchester brought their water a distance of thirty miles, and Liverpool a distance of twenty-six miles. He might also remind the House that there was scarcely a town in which local boards of health had been established, that had not petitioned for their abolition. He was ready to admit that the expensiveness of the present system might very properly be considered by a Committee, with a view to its remedy; but he feared that, so long as counsel and agents were employed before Committees upon private Bills, the expense of such Bills would be very large; and he must, by way of suggestion, say from his own experience that the mode adopted in the case of Turnpike Trust Acts, which were promoted before the Commissioners by solicitors, worked satisfactorily and with less expense. On the whole, however, he did not think that any better tribunal could be adopted, for the decision of private Bills, than the one which now existed. At all events, till a better one was pointed out, they ought to adhere to the present one.

said, that he had sat six years in the House, and he did not know upon what principle Select Committees of the House were chosen.

said, a Committee had been appointed by the House to select the Members of Committees upon private Bills. That Committee of Selection endeavoured to place at the head of a Committee such Members of the House as were most experienced in private legislation, and also to place on it two or three other hon. Gentlemen peculiarly qualified to deal with the matters intrusted to it.

, in reply, said, that he had had no intention whatever of making any personal attack upon the Members of the Committee of Selection, who were entitled to the gratitude of the House for their disinterested labours. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel W. Patten) had alluded to the proposal of preliminary examinations, which he had himself suggested. But, in the cases to which he (Lord R. Cecil) alluded, Select Committees were allowed to re-open questions which had already been thoroughly examined. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), it appeared to him, had treated with some contempt the labours of the private Bill Committees. When the Judges of the land were engaged in their labours from six to seven hours a day, the noble Lord said the Committee should not object to sitting for three hours and a half. But the noble Lord must remember that these three hours and a half were over and above the nine or ten hours which were usually occupied in the regular business of the House. His noble Friend had also dwelt very strongly upon the legislative functions of these Committees, which, he said, were conducted in a purer manner than they would be elsewhere. But the answer to this was, that legislative functions, if exercised at all, ought to be conducted by the whole House collectively, and not by any small sections of it. Another point was the unjust state of the existing regulations with respect to fees. As the practice at present existed, if a man had occasion to resist any application to Parliament—as, for instance, for a railway Bill which was to take his land from him compulsorily—though his right might be well established, and his resistance perfectly legitimate, he was compelled no less than the other party to pay heavy fees. This was a state of things which ought not to continue. At the same time, after the general expression of opposition on the part of the House to his Motion, he (Lord R. Cecil) would not press it.

then rose to propose the following Resolutions:—

"That the long continued excessive mortality of the British Army has been mainly caused by the bad sanitary condition of their barrack accommodation. That this House has viewed with satisfaction the efforts of successive Governments, aided by Parliamentary Grants, to improve the moral, intellectual, and physical condition of the British soldier, and is encouraged by the happy results of such efforts and grants to hope much from a continuance and further extension of the same. That much still remains to be done with regard to barrack accommodation; firstly, for its increase, with a view to the discontinuance, as far as may be, of the present practice of billeting, as being alike oppressive to the civilian and demoralising to the soldier; and, secondly, for its improvement, both with a view to the healthy accommodation of the troops in general, and to the decent accommodation of the married soldier. That, in the opinion of this House, such increase and improvement are imperatively called for, not less by good policy and true economy than by justice and humanity."

That in moving the Resolutions of which he had given notice, in the very words in which they had stood upon the notice Paper just two years ago, he must ask for a double portion of the indulgence of the House. He was always painfully conscious of his inability to address the House in a manner worthy of the first deliberative assembly in the world. But if he had been permitted to bring the question before them two years ago, he could at least have promised that he should have spared no pains in collecting information or verifying facts. The misfortune, however, with which he had been visited had rendered it impossible for him ever to turn fully to account the mass of documents, English and foreign, he had already collected with a view to this Motion; and had sadly crippled his efficiency as an advocate, though the recollection of his own sufferings, notwithstanding, the many alleviations he had enjoyed, had intensified a hundred fold his desire to see the sickness among our soldiers diminished, and a treatment very different from that hitherto bestowed upon them when sick, adopted for the future. But previous to entering on the main question he would earnestly disavow being actuated in this matter by any party motive, and he as earnestly deprecated the indulgence of any feeling of crimination or of recrimination in connection with the great evils he lamented and deplored, and which he earnestly prayed the House and Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to remedy. The state of the case was this. The mortality in the British army had been long continued and excessive, and it would not require many figures in order to prove that position. The mortality in the Guards was upwards of 20 per thousand; that of the Line was but 18 per thousand; that of the Cavalry 11 per thousand; and in the general population of England and Wales, of the same ages as the soldier, little more than 9 per thousand, and among the population of the same ages in healthy districts nearly 7¾ per thousand. It therefore appeared that the mortality in the ranks of the Guards was nearly three times that of the population in healthy districts in England and Wales of the same ages, and to this they had to add nearly an equal number taken away by invaliding. Now, it was obvious that invaliding represented a considerable addition of the ill health and mortality among those who had been enlisted and enrolled in the ranks. The mortality varied in different regiments in different corps, during the first year after the soldiers had been pensioned, amounting in the Guards to 134 per thousand of those invalided, and on the average to something like 76. He (the noble Viscount) had more figures within reach, but he would not encumber the House with needless statistics, giving his figures from memory in round numbers rather than resorting to the tables of the blue books with whence he could obtain extracts and figures in profusion. He had said that mortality in the army exclusive of invaliding, and speaking of the troops at home, was more than double that of the rural population, and taking it in the army generally it amounted to 33 per thousand, and in particular colonies—unhealthy colonies—it was as much as 60 per thousand. In estimating the amount of this loss we should not neglect the consideration of one important fact, namely, that a soldier's life would be considered in any insurance office, at the time be was enlisted, a picked life, and one of the high. est class that could be insured. No recruit was admitted into the ranks of the army who had any trace of ill-health or of malformation. He was required to be not only sound in wind and limb, but of a certain physical strength over and above the general soundness of health. About one-third in round numbers of such as presented themselves for enlistment were rejected, and all these defective lives were thrown back on the general population, and pro tanto increased the ratio of mortality in the class with which he had been comparing the soldiers as regards mortality. But beyond that, all the soldiers who were invalided, and whose mortality varied among the different corps—but the average of which was 76 per thousand in their first year—all these were thrown back on the general population, and were included by the Registrar General in those returns of mortality, which nevertheless contrasted to so striking an extent with the awful mortality that prevailed in the ranks of the originally strong, and sound and healthy soldiery. Now he (the noble Viscount) contended that this alarming mortality was preventible, and he traced it mainly to the bad sanitary condition of the barrack accommodation of the British army. In order to determine the causes which led to such excessive sickness and mortality a comparison ought to be made with the amount of mortality and sickness prevailing among other persons in an analogous position to that of the British soldier. The admirable Report that had been drawn up by the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), assisted by other hon. Members of eminence, and among them the late Mr. Stafford, whose loss would be lamented by every soldier and every soldier's friend, furnished some very remarkable information. As compared with agricultural labourers who were members of friendly societies, the mortality in the Household Cavalry was 1½ times as great, in the Dragoons rather more than twice, in the Line in England, nearly three times, and in the Foot Guards more than three times as much. It might be said that the comparison with the more provident portion of the agricultural class was not a fair test, but taking the agricultural labourers who were not members of friendly societies the mortality was still greater in the army. In the Household Cavalry the mortality was 1 1–3, in the Dragoons 1 2–3, in the Line twice, and in the Foot Guards 2½ times as great as among agricultural labourers. It might be said that a great deal of a soldier's life was passed in towns, and that a comparatively small proportion was quartered at the Curragh, Aldershot, or Shorncliffe, in a situation analogous to that of the agricultural population. But the crowning test of the unhealthiness of the army was, that if we took the most unhealthy occupations, such as mining, or the unhealthiest occupations in towns, we should still find that the mortality in the army was greater than any; and even taking the case of night printers, an indoor occupation, involving night duty six nights out of the seven, they found that the mortality in the army was even greatly in excess of that. They were told that this mortality was owing to the night duty, and no doubt it added considerably to it; but the night duty of the soldier ought not to be more unwholesome than that of the night printer, under less favourable circumstances; the fact being that, in the case of the night printers of The Times office, where great care was bestowed on ventilation, the result was a diminution in the mortality among them which brought it nearly down to that of the agricultural labourers. He attributed this difference to the greater sanitary improvement carried out in The Times than in any other printing-office, and it bore in a very important manner on the question of barrack accommodation, and which might be corroborated by the statistical evidence of eminent medical men, who attributed to defective ventilation much of the excessive mortality and sickness in the army. The night duties of the police were far more severe than those of the soldier, a constable's period of duty being from ten p. m. to six the next morning every night in the week; yet the mortality among the Household Cavalry was 1 1–3 times in the Dragoons 1½ times, in the infantry of the Line twice, and in the Foot Guards more than twice, greater than among the police. The miners, too, presented a much more favourable result than the army. It had been said that much of the mortality among our troops was attributable to cold, but he had had placed in his hands by Dr. Guy a most able paper upon the statistics of mortality among the firemen of the metropolis, who were greatly exposed to alternations of heat and cold and other trying vicissitudes, more than the soldiers leaving their overheated and close guard-rooms, after, for reasons known only to the military authorities, and unintelligible to laymen, passing half the night there in their great coats, instead of putting them on like other people on going out into the cold air. The mortality, however, of the firemen was only as seven per thousand, and this included deaths by accident, which in spite of the hazardous nature of the employment were rare. Hence it might fairly be inferred that the night duty of the soldiers alone was quite inadequate to account for the excessive mortality amongst them; and the statistics of sickness in the Crimea contradicted the supposition, because the duty there was very much more severe, and the troops were exposed to a cold much more intense than that of England, and yet the number of deaths from consumption was only 116, whereas the deaths from pneumonia, bronchitis, and pleurisy was about four times the amount. In England the deaths from consumption and tubercular disease enormously preponderate, and were about ten times as great as those arising from disease resulting from the action of intense cold on healthy persons, and therefore they were bound to seek elsewhere than in mere exposure to cold for the cause of the immense proportion of the mortality resulting from consumption. When they analyzed this mortality they found that the number of deaths from consumption alone in the army, exclusive of invaliding, was actually somewhat greater per thousand than that of all the deaths from all causes, in the general population, of the United Kingdom, though swelled by rejected recruits and moribund invalids. The deaths annually front all causes was under ten per 1000 in the population of England. The deaths in the infantry of the Line serving at home were, from chest and tubercular diseases, upwards of 10 per 1000, the total deaths being within a fraction of 18 per 1000; while the deaths from chest and tubercular diseases in the population generally were about 4½ per 1000. The question was, whence arose this frightful scourge amongst so naturally strong and healthy body of men? Various modes of accounting for it had been given. He had disproved the idea that exposure to the cold or night duty alone were sufficient causes. It had been suggested that drinking was one cause and demoralization the other. But as to drinking, the evidence of Mr. Neilson, with reference to the rarity of delirium tremens, of nervous disorders and diseases of the digestive organs, afforded a strong primâ facie case against drinking being the great cause of disease in the army. Indeed, he could not help thinking that from a desire to avoid the true cause of the disease, there had been a great disposition amongst medical men to exaggerate the extent to which drinking habits prevailed in the army. Moreover, drunkenness when off duty was treated in the British army as a grave offence, but in the French service it was not regarded in that light, and therefore the great number of soldiers who had obtained increased pay for good conduct, and the generally exemplary behaviour of the men in our army, ought to exonerate them from such an imputation. Then with regard to the other cause alluded to, it should be observed that in the Artillery, where the mortality was little more than two-thirds what it was in the line, the admissions to the hospital on account of diseases arising from immorality, was somewhat higher than the case of the Guards. The main cause of the excessive mortality was the bad sanitary accommodation given in barracks, and therefore, by removing that bad sanitary accommodation, we might hope to remove the cause of so much suffering, of so much cost to the nation, and of so much diminution in the efficiency of the ermy. Experiments which had been tried upon animals, and verified in their results by frequent observations, went to show that over-crowding, with deficient ventilation, was quite sufficient to induce consumption and tubercular disease among the healthiest subjects. He held in his hand a Return, from which it appeared that in a very considerable number of barracks in the United Kingdom the average space per man was under 400 cubic feet; in twenty-six barracks it was under 300 cubic feet; and in some others it was very much lower than that. There were ten hospitals with an average of less than 400 cubic feet a man, and in five hospitals the average was actually less than 300 cubic feet. With regard to the barracks in the Colonies, the accounts he hail received from various quarters, together with the graphic description given by die late General Sir Charles Napier, of barrack accommodation in India in his time, left no doubt on his (Viscount Ebrington's) mind that, if such a state of things as had been disclosed before the Commission on the Sanitary State of the Army could be permitted to exist at home, under the very eyes of the military authorities, the, circumstances must be much worse in India and in the Colonies. He hoped that much had been done to remedy the frightful state of things in India as described by General Sir Charles Napier. Defective ventilation in hot climates was almost certain death, and the evidence of Sir Charles Napier on the subject was conclusive as to its destructive consequences. The description of barracks in India, as drawn by that gallant Officer, was a harrowing picture of the sufferings of British troops in foreign stations. In one case Sir Charles Napier reported that instead of putting two regiments into a barrack, which when so occupied as prescribed by the Military Board, had proved a perfect charnel house, he only put the wing of a regiment, and the result was most satisfactory. In fact, it turned out that whereas in one year almost a whole regiment had been cut off there, in the following one there was an average of only twenty-nine sick out of 1,054 men, and not one of them from climate. Equally striking effects had been produced in Jamaica, by the steps taken by Lord Metcalfe, to diminish the overcrowding of barracks in Jamaica. There was a want of decency as well as of engineering skill displayed in the arrangements connected with both hospitals and barracks in this country; and the low standard of comfort and convenience recognized in the military as distinguished from the civil hospitals in the kingdom was also remarkable. He had had some experience with regard to workhouses, and he unhesitatingly said that the average standard of workhouse accommodation in this country was enormously superior to that which was given to our brave soldiers. Not only was there a larger allowance of cubic feet per man in the dormitories in the former than in the latter instance, but in the workhouse a day room was always insisted upon, while it was scarcely ever found in the barracks. No workhouse was without a warm bath; but he knew it for a fact that no warm bath had been given in the Plymouth Hospital for some years, on account of the labour of filling the place, ten feet square, which there served as a bath; and he might observe generally that nothing struck him so much in going through the military hospitals as the contrast that existed between the appliances and comforts of civil and those of military hospitals. He now turned with satisfaction to the second part of his Motion, which declared—

"That this House has viewed with satisfaction the efforts of successive Governments, aided by Parliamentary grants, to improve the moral, intellectual, and physical condition of the British soldier, and is encouraged by the happy results of such efforts and grants to hope much from a continuance and further extension of the same."

It was only a short time since double tiers of beds had been abolished, ventilation improved, libraries, racket-courts, and other means for improving and preserving the health of the soldier, afforded to him; and great results had followed this wise, kind, and in the end economical expenditure. The third paragraph of his Motion declared—

"That much still remains to be done with regard to barrack accommodation: firstly, for its increase, with a view to the discontinuance, as far as may be, of the present practice of billeting as being alike oppressive to the civilian and demoralizing to the soldier; and, secondly, for it, improvement, both with a view to the healthy accommodation of the troops in general and to the decent accommodation of the married soldier."

After the debates which had recently taken place with respect to the ill effects of billeting in Scotland, he need not dwell upon its oppressive character with respect to civilians, and he believed that all military men were agreed as to its tendency to demoralize the soldier. It was particularly distasteful to the embodied militia, and he knew that in the case of the Devonshire militia, that the fact of their being billeted instead of in barracks materially increased the difficulty of recruiting. He had already detained the House too long, and he felt some scruples on bringing forward this subject after the debate which had occurred on the previous evening, and he would only express a hope that the House would agree to the last paragraph of his Motion—

"That, in the opinion of this House, such increase and improvement are imperatively called for, not less by good policy and true economy than by justice and humanity."

Indeed to obtain their consent, it was only necessary for him to call attention to the cost of our troops. He believed that no one would put the cost of a well-trained soldier at less than £100. Now, between the ages of twenty and forty, six out of every ten men in the army were removed by death or being invalided. The number that would be removed if the disease and mortality were only in the same proportion as in the civil population, would be only four out of ten. It was evident that by the excessive proportionate mortality in the army we sacrificed a large sum expended in the preparation and training of the soldier, while we also diminished the number of veteran troops, and caused an undue proportion of our army to be com- posed of recruits. He called upon the House therefore, on every ground, of policy, economy, justice, and humanity, to resolve that the state of things which had existed should exist no longer; that a system so costly, and so injurious to the reputation of that House, of the Government, and indeed of the country, should be at once abolished; that an entirely new system should be from this time forth established in its stead. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Resolutions.

said, he yielded to no man in a desire to see the soldier well cared for, as he thought the truest policy with regard to the soldier was to make him comfortable. If he understood the object of the noble Lord it was to increase barrack accommodation, and have a smaller number of men than at present allotted to each room, although he had not sketched out any precise plan for remedying the evils he complained of. There was no doubt that of late years the accommodation to the soldier in barracks had been greatly increased. He could remember when soldiers lay two in a bed, and even in barracks in this metropolis slept in berths, ranged one above another. All this was now changed, and the late Duke of Wellington had himself planned barracks, which had been built in London, and allotted the space which each man was to have; and among other changes, iron bedsteads had been substituted for wooden ones. The admirable Report of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) did not state the comparative mortality of the married and unmarried soldiers; but it was well known that the mortality of the married men was not to be compared with that of the unmarried. The better accommodation provided for the married man had no doubt much to do with this result. He differed from the noble Lord in his statement that he did not think the night duties of the soldier was a cause of the mortality. Now, he believed it was the cause of time mortality which existed, and when the noble Lord instanced members of different trades and said they had more night work than soldiers had, he would suggest that, though they might have more night work, they had less night duty and were less exposed to out-of-doors service in all weathers. He thought also that the injurious effect of night-duty was much aggravated by the fact of the soldier's watch being broken into two or three periods. In the intervals they lay about the guardroom in their accoutrements, and therefore could not, like the policemen, get any refreshing repose. Of late years they had been increasing the soldier's comforts, giving him racket-courts and lavatories, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had taken great pains in the improvement of barracks, especially in giving to the married soldier most desirable accommodation. The army was also much indebted to the noble Lord for bringing this subject before the House, and also to the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), who had taken great pains to add to the soldier's comforts. He hoped, however, the House would not run away pith the idea that the want of cubical space was die cause of the bad sanitary condition of barracks. Everybody knew the temptations to which soldiers were subjected, and they often suffered from disease which, not being early discovered, injured their constitutions materially. The mortality among the Sappers and Miners and Engineers, which was not noticed by the Sanitary Commissioners, was, he believed, very much less than that in any other regiment in the service. This result lie attributed to the fact that the men were kept employed from morning to night; in addition to which they had not one-tenth part of the night duty which devolved upon the Guards or the Line. The cavalry, again, were much more healthy than the infantry, which proceeded in a great degree, he believed, from the severer employment to which they were subjected, though the rooms in cavalry were generally less lofty than those in infantry barracks. If the views of the noble Lord were put to the test, hon. Members must be prepared either to diminish the force, or to increase the sum spent upon the barracks, but he feared that even then the result to which the noble Lord so kindly looked forward would hardly be attained.

said, he rose chiefly to state a few facts relative to the comparison made by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone between the police and the Brigade of Guards. He had that morning received a letter from a medical officer of the Guards, which seemed to show that that comparison was not quite to be trusted. The number of time men in the two forces was much the same, so that time ratio of mortality ought also to be nearly equal. In the first place, however, the greater part of the police were married, and their pay allowed them to live in comfortable houses. Then, any policeman might retire from the service if he found it too laborious, by giving a month's notice, while a soldier was unable to leave until he had completed his term or was invalided. Then all the bad characters and drunkards were at once dismissed from the police force, and no policeman was punished by imprisonment. The commanding officer of a regiment of Guards, however, could not get rid of his bad soldiers in this summary way, but they were imprisoned, and kept to hard labour on low diet, and came back to duty seriously deteriorated in health and constitution. The number of men discharged from the police force, as he was informed, was about twenty-five men a week, so that in twelve months it required 1,300 men to keep up a force of 6,000. Now, the Guards required only 623 men, instead of 1,300, and it was therefore very clear, as the medical officer to whom he was referring observed, that if the Guards were to invalid their unhealthy men and drunkards as the police did, the deaths would be very much reduced, and would probably exceed very little those of the police. According to table F. b, in the appendix to the Report of the Sanitary Commission, there were at the end of a given term of years 3,521 men in the brigade of Foot Guards of twenty-one years' service and upwards; whereas in the whole of the Line under the same circumstances there were only 3,135.

said, that the preservation of the soldier's health was a question which commended itself to the attention of the House on grounds alike of economy and of humanity. His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief recently complained that he could not get money from that House even for repairing the barracks. But the amount of money voted for soldiers' barracks during the last three years was most extraordinary. During the last thirty-four years no less a sum than £7,500,000 had been expended for this purpose, and more than £3,500,000 of that sum had been expended during the last three or four years. It was said that night duty interfered with the health of the soldiers, and the late Minister for War had suggested that the night duty of the Foot Guards should be performed by policemen. He was sure that the present Minister for War, who was a soldier, had never entertained such a thought. He had seen in the newspapers that a splendid pavilion had been erected in the midst of the camp at Aldershot for Her Majesty and the Court, which would allow them to pass many days and nights there, and also enable Her Majesty to entertain the officers. It was a new thing fur a Sovereign of England to live in a pavilion in the midst of a soldiers' camp; but if it were Her Majesty's wish to have a pavilion at Aldershot, he was sure the House would not object to vote the money fur it. To erect such a pavilion, however, with the money voted for the use of the soldier was unpardonable, and some explanation ought to be given by the Secretary to the Treasury or the Minister for War on the subject. He was as ready as any man to provide for the comfort and health of the soldier, but he disliked extravagance, and he trusted that if the House voted any future sums for the accommodation of the troops, it would be properly applied.

said, he wished to tender the thanks of the army to the noble Lord who had brought this subject under consideration. He believed that the night duty had a great deal to do with the mortality of the Foot Guards, and that their sleeping in wet clothes was the cause of much illness. It might be a heresy on his part, but he could not understand why soldiers should not be allowed to take off their greatcoats in the guardroom. Of course, they could not be allowed to go without their accoutrements, as it was necessary to prevent a surprise. He was acquainted with very few guardrooms where there were the means of hanging up greatcoats. He was confident that his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief had spoken the truth on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams). No one understood the wants of the soldier better than his Royal Highness, and it was equally certain that he did not possess the power to remedy one of the wants that his Royal Highness had pointed out. His Royal Highness, in fact, was only the medium of communication between the officers of the army and the Secretary for War.

did not rise to address the House upon the details of barrack arrangements. He took it for granted that the representations of the noble Lord were all true, but he would submit that, although the improvement of barrack accommodation might be the right thing to do, there was a right time in which to do it. If £3,000,000 had been voted for this purpose during the last three or four years, a large amount of barrack accommodation must have been given, and it would be well to try how far the best system had been adopted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been told that he had pretty easily lifted the House over the stile of the financial difficulty, but the House had found it necessary to impose a new tax in order to raise a sum of £200,000, and with wars abroad and great expenses for recruiting at home, the present was scarcely the right time for any large outlay.

said, that having been a Member of the Barrack Accommodation Committee of 1855, he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) that he was under a mistake in supposing that £3,000,000 had been spent upon increased barrack accommodation during the last three or four years. That sum had been spent upon the emergency caused by the breaking out of the Russian war, in providing accommodation for a large body of troops near the Metropolis, and in constructing huts and barracks in Aldershot and elsewhere. He must do the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) the justice to say that he had done all in his power when in office to ameliorate the condition of the soldier. The barracks in many parts of the kingdom were placed in the centre of populous districts, and were in most unhealthy and inappropriate situations. He recommended that those barracks should be sold—for, as many of them were in the midst of large towns, the sites which they occupied were of considerable value—and that new barracks should be provided outside the towns, which would afford more convenient accommodation for troops and ample space for their exercise. The Committee of 1855 recommended that architects should be called upon to send in designs for improved barracks. The suggestion was adopted, and plans were sent in; but he had not heard that any barracks had been built upon the plan which had been approved. He believed that the unhealthiness of the existing barracks was mainly attributable to defective ventilation and want of sufficient space; and it was utterly impossible that a large number of persons, who were constantly eating and sleeping in the same rooms, could be in a very healthy condition. He hoped, therefore, that the Motion of the noble Lord would receive the assent of the House.

remarked, that the arrangements with reference to barrack accommodation should not be left so completely as they were at present to the Ordnance Department, but that officers connected with the line and the cavalry ought to be consulted on the subject. He believed that, if the Barrack and Hospital Commissioners had a voice in the matter, not only would the health and comfort of the soldier be materially promoted, but there would be a considerable saving of public money. He was sure the House would greatly regret the calamity which had prevented the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) from devoting his attention more closely to this subject, especially as that calamity was occasioned by his zealous endeavours to ameliorate the condition of our soldiers.

said, that the Report of the Sanitary Commissioners attributed the great mortality among the troops chiefly to defective ventilation and bad drainage; and, unless proper principles were laid down for the construction of barracks, the complaints which now existed would be renewed in ten years' time. He might remind the House that, notwithstanding the rapid strides of science in most departments, the science of ventilation was at a standstill. Why, when they first got into that House, there were constant complaints of the draughts of hot and cold air by which they were alternately inconvenienced; but although Committees and Commissions were appointed to devise the best means of ventilation, their inquiries were not attended with much success. Thousands and tens of thousands of pounds had been spent upon the ventilation of the Houses of Parliament. When that House was first occupied, there was not a window in it that would open; the air breathed by hon. Members was entirely artificial, and was pumped up by some machinery, coming across the Thames on one side, and across the graveyard of St. Margaret's church on the other. He would ask whether they were now breathing sound and good air? He knew that hon. Members were constantly complaining of the sufferings to which they were subjected from remaining in the impure atmosphere of that House. He thought, then, that if all the scientific men whose services had been at the command of different Governments had failed to give them perfect ventilation in that House, the Engineer officers could not be blamed because they had not succeeded in providing perfect ventilation in the barracks. Millions of money had been spent upon drainage in this Metropolis, and yet an efficient system of drainage had not been established. Could the officers of the Engineer corps, then, be justly blamed if their endeavours to drain the various barracks of the kingdom had not been entirely successful? He must tell the House that soldiers were a class of men with whom, in matters of this kind, it was difficult to deal. As long as the non-commissioned officers were in the room, the windows were kept open; but when they left, the soldiers shut the windows and prevented ventilation. Therefore, there was a great fault on the part of the soldiers themselves. He merely rose to vindicate the conduct of the Engineer corps, the members of which were not so guilty as the Report would seem to imply.

said, he was sure that the House felt much indebted to his noble Friend for his clear and interesting speech. No man had devoted an intelligent, active, and far-seeing mind to a subject of great importance with more success than his noble Friend had in treating of the matter he had brought under the consideration of the House, and it must be evident to everybody that the accommodation which his noble Friend wished to provide was one of the highest importance to the public service. When they were told that they ought not to spend money in improving the barracks because they were engaged in expensive operations of another kind, he could not say that that argument had any force on his mind, because it was demonstrable that the money spent in improving barrack accommodation was money spent for the most economical purpose, in promoting the efficiency of the army and in taking care, as they were bound to do, of those brave men who were engaged in the service of the country. While, on the one hand, his noble Friend had pointed out the methods by which they might prevent the continuance of the evils adverted to by his noble Friend, yet, on the other, he did not think that any blame could attach to those Departments of the Service by which those evils had not hitherto been set perfectly right. They must all remember that, strange as it might appear, considering the progress of science in every department, it was only within a few years that mankind had found out that oxygen and pure air were really conducive to the well-being of the body. It must be remembered that not only had the troops been victims from ignorance in that matter, but the Members of the Legislature had been as great sufferers as the troops from the neglect of the commonest principles of science. Those hon. Gentlemen who, like himself, had had experience of the earlier House of Commons must remember the sufferings endured by Members from the vitiated and pestiferous atmosphere which they were doomed to breathe, and which he ventured to say was the cause of the death of many hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Officer said that the atmosphere of the present House was complained of. He believed that he had spent more hours in that House of late years than any other Member, and he could only say that his health had not suffered. He always quoted that House as a proof of scientific ventilation, for he thought that the atmosphere of the House, considering the number of persons assembled in it, constituted a triumph of skill in respect to ventilation. He thought that if the barracks could be supplied with as good air as that House was, the efficiency of the army would be immensely improved. It might be true that night duty in the case of soldiers was attended with injury to the health of the men, especially if the men remained with their greatcoats on in the guard room, and, when in a state of perspiration, went out and had the perspiration checked by the cold. But circumstances like that admitted of correction, and he hoped that, the attention of the military departments being directed to the matter, some simple remedy would be devised. He knew that in consequence of suggestions made to Viscount Hardinge, that nobleman provided sentry boxes with additional coats to be put on by the men on duty,—a precaution imitated from arrangements made in the French service; and the right hon. and gallant General would be able to tell the House whether that arrangement was continued. He hoped that the Resolution of his noble Friend would be agreed to. Much might be done by improvements apparently of no great importance, because, if they could not increase the cubical space of the barracks, they might by judicious arrangements, introduce into them a quantity of good air, and allow the bad air to escape. He trusted that if the House adopted the Motion of his noble Friend, that would be considered by the Government as indicating a desire that greater attention should be paid to the arrangements and improvements of old barracks and new barracks.

said, that, after what the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) had said with respect to the good economy of an outlay for the improvement of barrack accommodation, he should not refer to the objections which had been urged against it, but he wished to say a few words in reference to sonic objections which had been raised to the Report of the Sanitary Commision. He had no wish to take any exception to the statements made by the officers of the Guards, who thought that the statistics on which the Commission stated the mortality of the Guards were erroneous or exaggerated; but lie was bound to say in justice to Dr. Balfour and Sir A. Tulloch that, now that the Guards had made their own returns, so far from those statistics being impugned they were confirmed. Having been exposed to this severe test, the accuracy of the statistics stood beyond exception. The return made by the Guards was perfectly fair, and made the mortality certainly slightly larger than the Commission made it, but that might be accounted for in this manner—the Commission adopted the army statistics laid on the table of the House, which made the annual mortality of the Guards 19·15 per 1,000, and the Officers made it 19·45. The difference arose in this way—that the Guards included eighteen men returned from Canada, whom Sir A. Tulloch and A. Balfour excepted, because they did not consider them to be fair instances of the effect of duty in the Guards, as they were sent home on account of ill health contracted abroad. Nothing could be fairer than the return of the Guards, because they put down one man as having died of old age, and on inquiry he found that the man was only fifty-nine years of age, which was not commonly considered a very old age to die of, but he believed the man died of apoplexy. The return, however, produced by the Guards was most valuable, and further inquiry might be instituted into it with great advantage. There were three regiments of Guards doing identically the same duty, enlisted On the same principle, invalided on the same principle, inhabiting the same barracks, and performing the same night duty. He could not find any difference in those respects between the three regiments, but the mortality differed widely. In the Grenadiers the mortality was larger than in the Coldstreams, and it was smallest of all in the Fusileers. The late Secretary to the Commission divided the period over which this mortality extended into three distinct parts, and the result which came out as a matter of figures was worth attending to. With respect to the Grenadiers, the mortality in the first period was 21 and a fraction, in the second period 23 and a fraction, and in the third the same as in the first, 21 and a fraction. In the Coldstreams the mortality was, in the first period, 19 and a fraction, and in the two last periods 18 and a fraction each, that fraction diminishing as the time went on. In the Fusileers the mortality in the first period was 23; in the middle period 18, and at the end 15, lower considerably than the average of the Line. He had tried to ascertain how that could be accounted for, the duty and the barracks being the same for all, and it would be most desirable to ascertain whether it arose from any internal discipline, or any arrangement depending on the commanding officers, or from any difference in the origin or the habits of the soldiers. He thought it was important to search further and see what was the cause of this great difference. This led him to remark that there was a great want of an organized statistical department of the medical board. Hitherto the statistics had been, in a manner beyond all praise, drawn up by two gentlemen unconnected with the department, and they gave their time and labour fur the love of the service. The hon. and gallant Officer said that in their Report the Commissioners had drawn inaccurate conclusions as to the police. He thought he could show the contrary; but with regard to these statements, he did not stand out for the accuracy of every one of them. If they had had more time they might have come to still more accurate conclusions, but he thought it important that they should bring their labours to an end in time to commence practical operations. It was proved that the mortality was great and that it could be reduced. He cordially agreed with his noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington) who said, "Never mind who is to blame provided you can trace the causes in a way to remedy them." The Commissioners did not say that it was all owing to the barracks, or to intemperance and debauchery, or to night duty. To any one of those matters singly, charging the whole mortality together upon it, there was an irrefragable answer. Eminent and ingenious men told them that there was no intemperance in the army. It was found that among intemperate classes—especially in Scotland, where he was sorry to say intemperate classes abounded—a large proportion of deaths arose from diseases of the nervous and digestive, especially the nervous organs, and that deaths to a very small extent occurred in the army from those causes. But to say that there was no intemperance in the army was absurd, because they knew that there was a great deal of intemperance in the army. Another curious fact was that the deaths from nervous diseases in the Life Guards were to a far greater amount than in the Foot Guards; but every one knew that there was more intemperance among the Foot Guards than among the Life Guards. These things were likely to mislead. The great disease which destroyed the army was consumption, and it was easily to be understood that intemperate persons might perish from other causes long before there was any chance of their dying as a result of intemperance by disease of the nervous organs. Another statement which had been made was that cubic space and overcrowding had nothing to do with the mortality; but that it was entirely owing to the want of exercise. No doubt exercise was an important thing and the case of the Sappers and Miners was a strong illustration of this. Their barracks were not so good as those of the others; but they took a degree of exercise which no other troops took, and were healthy in proportion. The reason, however, why the Commissioners laid great stress in their Report upon the question of cubic space was that, while intemperance could not be got at very easily, and could only be effected gradually by moral influence, cubic space was a question of bricks and mortar, and they could give it to-morrow morning if they liked to put their hands in their pockets. If it were the case that cubic apace was immaterial, no man had been done greater injustice to than Shah Soojah Dowlah, who killed a number of people by putting them in the Black Hole at Calcutta. It was not a bad room, but it was overcrowded. According, however, to the theory of space being immaterial, and exercise everything, if he had only put a treadwheel in with them so that they might have had plenty of exercise the people confined in it would have turned out perfectly healthy the next morning. His noble Friend had alluded to two or three points quoted by Dr. Guy. He would mention another. Dr. Guy had taken all the printers and divided them into classes—those who lived in a space of 300 cubic feet, those in 500, and those in 600 and upwards. He then ascertained that the number of men who had inflammation, spitting of blood, or some disease of the lungs, rose and fell exactly in proportion to the number of cubic feet in which they lived. He hoped that the agreement of both sides of the House upon the subject would lead to some practical conclusion. He said last night, and he repeated it again, that he had received the most cordial support from his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, and in a very few days he hoped to be in a position to lay before him a report of the Commissioners on the London and some adjoining barracks, pointing out the means of putting them in a comparatively healthy state. It was absurd to suppose that they could carry on improvements upon an enormous scale without considerable expense, but they could not do anything so extravagant as to kill good men whom they had trained at a great expense. He believed he was right in assuming that his right hon. and gallant Friend would not oppose this Motion, and he thanked his noble Friend for having brought it forward in the efficient manlier in which he had introduced it to the House.

said, that not only every military man, but every one who had the welfare of the army at heart, was indebted to the noble Lord for having brought the subject before the attention of the House. He was perfectly certain that the more it was discussed, the more completely would the evils be remedied, and so far from objecting to the Resolution, although he did not think it necessary after what occurred last night, he believed it would strengthen the Government in that which they were now doing. He could only repeat what he said last night, that he thought he was taking a wise and practical course in taking up the question where he found it. His attention was drawn to the report of the Sanitary Commission. He inquired what steps had been taken to remedy the evils which they pointed out. He was told that a Commission, at the head of which was the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert), had been appointed by his predecessor, Lord Panmure, and he was waiting until that Commission reported, when he should call upon the House to carry into effect the remedies which they suggested. He had given every facility to his right hon. Friend to make some small changes preparatory to a general plan, and he believed the House would be ready to carry out everything which could be provided to be of benefit to the army, for he could not agree with those who said the fault lay with that blouse. An hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out that the plans of the Barrack Committee which sat in 1855, had not been carried out. The reason was, that barracks at Portsmouth only had been erected since that time, and it was necessary in that instance to construct them in connection with the fortifications. He was aware that it would be necessary, not only to improve the barracks, but to make many other improvements which might tend to improve the health and comfort of the soldier. He had done duty in every barrack in London, and it was surprising how great had been the improvements which of late years had been made in them. There was no doubt that further improvements were necessary, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman nothing would give hint greater pleasure than submitting to the House the recommendations of the Commission. The Report was promised in a few days, and no time should be lost in taking it into consideration.

said, he wished to remind the House that the Report of Dr. Balfour referred to the author of the army, not to the military authorities, as an hon. Gentleman had quoted in the course of this discussion. He had himself been for seventeen years in the Guards, and the subject of the mortality there prevailing had received his constant and most anxious attention. He had observed as a curious circumstance, which did not appear to have received from others the attention it deserved, that the mortality amongst the men of six feet in height, of which there were two entire companies in his regiment, very largely exceeded that of the central companies which were composed of short square men about 5 feet 9 inches. Now, it had been attempted to establish a comparison between the mortality of the police and of the Guards. There was no fair parallel, he contended, between the two, inasmuch as the soldiers were enlisted at the precarious age of eighteen, whereas the police entered the force at the more advanced age of twenty.

said, he was glad to find that there was at last courage enough on the Treasury Bench to come down and ask the House of Commons for the money which was wanted to improve barrack accommodation. He thought that to put the barracks into a healthy state they must double the quantity of accommodation, for instead of 500 cubic feet per man there was now only 200 and 300, whilst prisoners in gaols had 1,000 feet. He also wished to press upon the Government the desirability of attending more to the comforts of the soldier in the construction of the barracks, and of taking some pains to throw something of the air of home about his room. In any future arrangements which might be made it would be of great advantage if one or two large rooms were attached to each barrack which could be used as day rooms. In several instances where this experiment had been tried it had been attended with the most satisfactory result in respect to the health and comfort of the soldier. He might also mention that at present in a barrack-room there was not even a place for soldiers to lock up their things, whilst in every foreign barrack each soldier had a cupboard over his bed.

said, he wished to remind the House that many excellent plans had already been submitted to the authorities on this subject, but their existence appeared to have been ignored. He trusted they would be made some use of, as, if it was objected to them that they would involve too much expense, he would remind them that those plans had been framed upon specifications furnished by the Government then in office. He thought it also a great injustice to the Gentlemen, who had prepared them, for the highest reward given for them was only £200, which would not pay fur the labour they had cost. The barracks were such places that they would not put their paupers in them, and he hoped that the plans which had been sent in would be looked over, that some effectual improvement might be made in the accommodation for the soldiers.

said, the reason why no barracks had been built according to the plans referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was that, with the exception of one at Dover and another at Portsmouth, none had been commenced since the Report of the Commission. The speech of the Secretary for War was most satisfactory; the House was unanimous; and he was sure they were all ready to express their gratitude to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone for the able manner in which he had brought the subject forward. But his object in rising was to suggest to the Secretary for War one mode of getting rid of the pecuniary difficulty. Many of the existing barracks were so badly situated and so small in size that they were utterly useless, and could not be made available for military purposes. The suggestion he had to make was that the Secretary for War should get a list of those which never could be occupied, and sell them at once. By that means he would be able to raise a considerable sum of money applicable to the improvement of those barracks which might be used, and to the erection of new ones.

said, he wished to call attention to the state of the citadel barracks at Plymouth. Those barracks were estimated to accommodate 1,100 men, but a third of the space consisted of casemates, which were so badly ventilated that it was impossible for men to live in them with any degree of comfort.

said, he had to thank the House for the favourable manner in which it had received his Resolutions, and hoped that the discussion which had taken place would accelerate the movement for the improvement of barracks.

1. Resolved, That the long-continued excessive mortality of the British Army has been mainly caused by the bad sanitary condition of their barrack accommodation.

2. Resolved, That this House has viewed with satisfaction the efforts of successive Governments, aided by Parliamentary grants, to improve the moral, intellectual, and physical condition of the British soldier, and is encouraged by the happy results of such efforts and grants to hope much from a continuance and further extension of the same.

3. Resolved, That much still remains to be done with regard to barrack accommodation; firstly, for its increase, with a view to the discontinuance, as far as may be, of the present practice of billeting, as being alike oppressive to the civilian and demoralizing to the soldier; and, secondly, for its improvement, both with a view to the healthy accommodation of the troops in general, and to the decent accommodation of the married soldier.

4. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, such increase and improvement are imperatively called for, not less by good policy and true economy than by justice and humanity.

suggested that the better course would be to order that the Committees should not meet before Two o'clock on that day.

said, that great inconvenience and expense would be caused by the Committees sitting for only half a day, and he therefore objected both to the Motion of the noble Lord and to the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.