said, he would beg to ask the indulgence of the House while he referred to a report in one of the leading morning journals of the debate which took place in that House on the morning of Tuesday last, and to which, probably, many Members who were present on that occasion had had their attention directed. He was one of those who cheerfully acknowledged the extraordinary ability, and, he must say, the general accuracy of the Reports of the proceedings of that House by the public press, and by none more than by The Times; but by some extraordinary typographical error, or by some mistake, that journal published an account of that debate which was very remarkable. That journal not only omitted the greater part of the observations that he had the honour of addressing to the House (of which, of course, he should not have complained), but it attributed to him a great deal to which he had no claim. He was represented as having made a quotation from a speech supposed to have been made by Mr. Miall, and as having addressed a question to the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, which he had not done. [Loud cries of "Order, order!"]

Unless the right hon. Gentleman is going to conclude with some Motion, the course he is now pursuing is not regular.

thought that, as this was a matter personally affecting himself, it was not necessary that he should conclude with a Motion.

said, he must repeat that the hon. Gentleman was pursuing an irregular course, unless he intended to conclude with a Motion.

then said, he would conclude with the Motion that the House do adjourn. He was about to add, when called to order, that the remainder of the speech attributed to him was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) who had already corrected the error so far as he himself was concerned. He moved that the House do now adjourn.

Unless the hon. Gentleman proposes to conclude with some Motion referring to the matter which he has introduced to the House, he does not amend the irregularity of his course of proceeding by moving the adjournment of the House. Unless the hon. Gentleman desires to propose a substantive Motion referring to the matter which he has mentioned, the course he is now pursuing is irregular.

said, he must apologize to the House for having acted irregularly. However, his object had been obtained, and he now bogged to withdraw his Motion.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if Her Majesty's Government have appointed, or intend to appoint, a Commission to inquire into the present state of the Public Hospital and Lunatic Asylum of Kingston, Jamaica?

replied, that the state of the Hospital and Asylum had occupied the very serious consideration of the Government. They had not appointed, nor did they intend to appoint, a Commission to inquire into the subject; but they had directed the Governor to make stringent inquiries on his own responsibility, and to give every facility to parties who desired to make any statements with respect to it.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report on the organization of the Indian Army has been presented; and, if so, when it will be laid upon the table of the House.

said, the Report had just been presented, but the evidence was not quite ready; and it was thought best that the Report and the evidence should be laid upon the table together.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the attention to the Government has been directed to the Report of the Commissioners on the subject of Harbours of Refuge, recommending grants of public money, amounting to £2,365,000 to ten harbours; and if the Government intend to propose in the Estimates for 1859 to take a Vote on account, by agreeing to which the House would be committed to this expenditure; and if any further sum was to be asked this year for the works at Alderney and Dovor.

said, the Report of the Commissioners had been presented only a few days before, and its importance was such that the Government could not possibly give any answer at present as to the course which they might adopt with respect to it. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's ques- tion, it was intended to take the usual Vote this year for the works at Dovor and Alderney.

said, he rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the re-organization of the British Museum. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to grant this Committee, he did not consider it necessary to enter into any elaborate statement of the motives which had induced him to make the Motion. He must, however, ask the attention of the House for a short time while he endeavoured to show that he was not going unnecessarily to occupy the time of those hon. Gentlemen who might consent to serve on the Committee, or to defeat the laudable intention of the Government to remedy the defective state of the Museum. That the British Museum was at present in a lamentable state of congestion must be apparent to any one who had either visited it or read the reports of the heads of departments. So far back as the year 1854, Dr. Grey, the keeper of the zoological department, reported that the zoological collection, which had cost between £14,000 and £15,000, besides the specimens presented, was almost entirely useless to the public from its inaccessibility, and that, if it were not shortly removed to a drier place, it would be utterly destroyed. In November, 1857, Mr. Panizzi stated that no specimen in this department could be scientifically examined without displacing two or three others; that the osteological collection, as well as many of the specimens preserved in spirits, being placed in the basement, were altogether withdrawn from public exhibition, and were only studied by scientific men on special occasions, and at great personal inconvenience; and that the trustees could not exhibit the collection of prints and drawings for want of space. Now, it was quite unnecessary for him to comment on the loss the public had sustained by the valuable collection of prints and drawings being withdrawn from them. They were the drawings of the great ancient masters, and of all things he should consider were most essential to form the tastes and direct the studies of artists. Perhaps, too, some of the architectural designs might be studied to advantage by future Chief Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Any person who had gone to the British Museum must be aware that the drawings that were exhibited were exhibited most imperfectly as regarded the place in which they were put, and as regarded light. Mr. Panizzi proceeded to show that the department of antiquities was in a more hopeless condition. But into these statements of Mr. Panizzi he would not enter. It was only necessary for any gentleman to make use of his eyes as he entered the precincts of the Museum. He would be astonished to see a series of glass conservatories extending all round, and defacing the colonnade, in which were stored away some of the noblest treasures of ancient art, which had been sent to us by Mr. Newton from Halicarnassus. If he asked to see the mosaics discovered at Carthage by Mr. Davis he would be taken down into the regions of Erebus and Orcus and eternal night, down mysterious cellars where these Valuable relics slept quite as undisturbed, as when beneath the ruins of Carthage, covered with several feet of earth. Last year a suggestion was made in that House by his noble Friend the Member for Haddington (Lord Elcho), which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed disposed to adopt—namely, that the natural history collections should be removed from the Museum;- that the geological one should find refuge in Jermyn-street, and the botanical one at Kew, and that the zoological collection should be provided for by either the Zoological or Linnæan Society. The unanimity in favour of that scheme which prevailed in the House of Commons was not, however, shared by the public out of doors, for on the 19th of July a protest against it was presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, signed by 114 gentlemen, among whom were all the officers in the department of natural history, and some of the most eminent scientific men in the country, such, for instance, as Professor Owen, Sir Charles Lyell, Sir John Herschell, Professor Sedgwick, and Dr. Whewell. Their objection to this plan, as was clear from the undertone that pervaded the memorial, arose principally from an apprehension that if it were adopted, the natural history collections would be dispersed to the four winds of heaven; but he believed that many of them would modify these opinions if they had an understanding that those collections should be preserved unseparated, and in a condition worthy of their importance and of the reputation of the country. Indeed, he had the authority of Professor Owen for saying that he should be willing to withdraw his name from the protest referred to if he was satisfied that the natural history collection would be kept together and transferred to some suitable establishment. He (Mr. Gregory) thought there ought to be a Committee, in order to give the gentlemen who had signed the protest an opportunity of further explaining their views as to the general question of the removal of the collections, and also should that point be decided in the affirmative, upon the next question—namely, "where to" should they be removed? He understood that the Government had already determined to remove the natural history collections to Brompton; but he could well remember the storm of indignation brought to bear on a similar proposal with respect to the National Gallery by Lord Elcho. All experience proved that the collections of natural history were the most popular of all the collections in the British Museum, and therefore the question of their removal ought to receive the fullest investigation. Granting that they ought to be removed, the Government should consider, before sending them to Brompton, whether there were not other sites which would be more easy of access to the people, and which would give a greater amount of accommodation. He need not say that he alluded to the Regent's-park, which would have the additional advantage of bringing the zoological specimens in the British Museum into closer proximity to the Zoological-gardens. It had been said that further inquiry was unnecessary, and that the Reports of former Committees and Commissions, and the papers relating to the transactions of the Museum, afforded quite sufficient information on the subject. He altogether demurred to that statement. The Report of the Committee of 1836 referred to a totally different state of things from that which existed now, and its conclusions were as little suited to the present time as the Reform Bill of 1832 was felt by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to be suitable to the present year. The Report of the Commission of 1850 was entirely occupied with the internal administration of the Museum, and especially of the department of printed books. It had no reference whatever to the question of increased accommodation or the removal of any of the collections. The points which he wished to be inquired into were not even incidentally touched upon by the National Gallery Committee. The National Gallery Site Committee of 1853, though it alluded to the removal of the natural history collections, was appointed to consider a question of art, and the witnesses who were examined before it were painters and sculptors. Its investigations, therefore, were not conducted in a manner which could afford any satisfaction to men of science. He now turned to the papers which had been presented to Parliament, and from them he should be able to show that the Government possessed no information on the subject, in 18.37, Mr. Panizzi was called upon to report on the general condition of the Museum; but, as he stated in his very able report, he was precluded "from even speculating on the possibility of the natural history collections being ever detached from the rest of the Museum." The next paper was the protest of 114 cultivators and promoters of science, against the removal of the natural history collections at all. After that came another paper drawn up by Professor Owen, in which he modified his opinion as contained in that protest. This was accompanied by an elaborate, plan drawn up for the reconstruction of the several departments of natural history. But that report was never presented to the Government at all; for the trustees decided that it should not be presented [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Oh, oh!] He had good authority, however, for asserting that it was so; and in reality, therefore, the Government had derived no information whatever, either from the reports of Committees or Commissions, or from documents relating to the Museum. He maintained that they could not form an opinion without some further inquiry. But it might be said—and this was an argument which he anticipated would be relied on—that Parliament ought not to deal with such a matter, and that the responsibility of action should rest upon the Government alone, the House of Commons reserving the right of discussing their plan when it was produced. He could not assent to that proposition, because in the first place, the criticism of private individuals, unless fortified by the evidence of persons competent to speak on the subject, would have little weight when opposed to a scheme submitted by the Government; and because, in the second place, the Government, being a political body, did not necessarily possess any exclusive scientific knowledge. In matters of politics the Government ought of right to take the initiative, but in matters of science it must derive its information from without, and he could not conceive of any tribunal more capable of giving it sound advice than a Select Committee. He believed that it would also be urged as an objection to this Committee that the Trustees themselves should somehow initiate an investigation. He saw, by the papers on the table of the House, that on the 12th of February last a Resolution was passed by the Trustees to the effect that a letter should be written calling the attention of the Treasury to the letter of the 14th of June, 1858, and stating the readiness of the Trustees to deliberate and report on the proposed increased accommodation for the museum collection. He, however, altogether objected to the Trustees being the parties to take the initiative in a matter of this kind. He had a great respect for them individually and collectively; but they were not a responsible body. The elected Trustees elected themselves; and the question to be decided was the expenditure of a large sum of money and the site of a great public establishment highly connected with the convenience of the public. The Trustees after all could only arrive at any report by adopting precisely the same process as a Committee of the House of Commons,—namely, by examining witnesses, and he infinitely preferred that a Committee of the House of Commons, accessible to the public and to the press, should be called on to give its opinion to the Government in the first instance on questions of that kind rather than an irresponsible Committee of Directors, who might take as much or as little evidence as they liked, and of whose unanimity or differences no opinion could be formed. He trusted that if any opposition should be made to the appointment of a Committee, it would not proceed from the Trustees. Another point requiring inquiry was the future structure of the Museum. The Trustees appeared from the Parliamentary papers to have considered the subject together with their architect, Mr. Smirke, and to have come to the decision to adopt the plan prepared by Mr. Smirke. It was hardly credible that in a matter of this kind not one single officer connected with the different departments was ever consulted. Professor Owen was never consulted or spoken to on the subject; Mr. Maskelyne, in the mineralogical department; Dr. Gray, in the zoological department, and Mr. Hawkins, the keeper of antiquities, had been simply ignored. Surely if these Gentlemen were at all worthy of the position they occupy, their opinions were worth obtaining. What was the consequence? Mr. Hawkins sent in a virtual, though unconscious protest against the whole plan of Mr. Smirke, which had been adopted by the Trustees. That gentleman objected to the direction in which Mr. Smirke proposed to build, and to the architectural details of the plan, as being totally unfitted to the proper and scientific exhibition of subjects of sculpture. It was not his intention to throw any blame on Mr. Smirke, because he was hampered in his plan by the instruction he received from the Trustees not to consider the possibility of the natural history collection being removed from the Museum. How, then, was the Government to act with respect to two plans entirely opposed to each other—the one authorized by the Trustees, supposing that a state of things shall continue, which it is evidently the feeling of the Government and the House of Commons that it should not continue, and the other that of Mr. Hawkins based on the intention, upon which the Government intended to act, of removing the collection? Therefore, if ever there was a legitimate subject of inquiry, this was one. There were also one or two minor matters connected with the Museum which he thought should be rectified. He desired that the Government should be able to make some change in the Act of Parliament by which at present bequests were confined to the Museum. He thought it advisable that some latitude should be given to the Trustees, so that they might be enabled to remove duplicates and specimens which they did not require. According to the Act of Parliament the Trustees were unable to get rid of these specimens except by sale or exchange. There were, however, many articles, which could not be sold or exchanged, but which local museums would be happy to receive. With respect to duplicates of hooks, it was most advisable that there should be a power of removing them to district libraries, in case they should at any future period be established in London, and thereby the present excessive pressure which the deserved popularity of the Museum reading-room had brought on it would be relieved. A reference to the catalogue of the British Museum would show that there were some articles which it would be difficult cither to sell or exchange; for instance, in the Sloane catalogue, one of the articles was the "breeches of a gentleman singed by thunder." Some years ago the Trustees adopted an excellent plan of getting rid of some of their surplus articles. They dug a hole under the Museum and buried in it all the rubbish. The workmen some time since engaged in opening a new foundation came upon these remains which were again exhumed. At present there was such an accumulation that they would have now to dig a much larger hole for burying still more rubbish. In some future time the excavator on the ruins of London (when the prophecies of Sir A. Alison came true) will be like Virgil's tiller of the soil: he will turn up with his spade the mutilated heads and limbs of Greek and Roman statues, and marvel at the gigantic bones of monsters buried out of the way by Professor Owen. Another subject of inquiry eminently suited to a Committee of that House was the connection between the heads of departments and the Trustees. He was anxious to see the heads of departments brought into immediate communication with the Trustees, when the business of the respective departments was considered. He should also be anxious to ascertain how far greater latitude might be given to the heads of departments in the arrangement of the collections. Again, with respect to the constitution of the Board of Trustees, he could not help thinking that something might be done in the way of improvement. He hoped no Trustee would be offended at what he was about to say. It was not his intention to make a vulgar ad captandum speech, and say that great dukes and men of title were not the persons to superintend a great scientific institution of this kind. Quite the reverse. He conceived that it was important that men having their leisure, education, taste, and influence in both Houses of the Legislature, should occupy the position of Trustees, he hoped to see the Museum estimates always moved by some great statesman having the confidence of the House; but he should be glad to see the proposed Committee pursue the investigation commenced in 1836, when Mr. Ridley Colborne proposed a Resolution to the effect that it was to be regretted that, without underrating the value of rank, wealth, and high station, in the character of the Trustees, selections were not more frequently made from those men who were distinguished by their knowledge in science and literature, and that it was hoped that in future this consideration would have weight. Lord Stanley, the present Prime Minister, moved an Amendment that in filling up vacancies in the trust it was desirable that the Trustees should not lose sight of the opportunity thus afforded of occasionally conferring a mark of distinction on men of eminence in literature and science. He confessed that the word "occasionally" grated on his ears, and it appeared also to have grated on the ears of the Committee; for, on a division taken upon a Motion to omit that word, the Motion was only defeated by a majority of one. Since then thirteen new Trustees had been elected, and he should indeed be hard to please if he found fault with any of them. Still he could not but think that the Board should contain a cartain proportion of men whose sole claims to distinction arose from their literary or scientific achievements. The last point to which he would advert was the expediency of giving popular lectures in connection with the Museum. The principle had already been established, because Professor Owen had received his appointment on the understanding that he should deliver lectures on physical science in Jermyn Street, but he was debarred, owing to want of accommodation, from delivering them at the British Museum. Professor Owen, who was examined before the Commission of 1850, expressed a strong opinion in favour of the delivery of lectures in connection with the British Museum, and had instanced the good which had been derived from the Hunterian course at the College of Surgeons; many persons having made bequests to the College, in acknowledgment of the benefit they had derived from these lectures. To quote the Professor's own words in his inaugural address last year to the British Association at Leeds,

"To open the book of nature without providing means for explaining her language to the masses was akin to the system which kept the Hook of God sealed to the multitude in a dead tongue."

Year after year treasures of art and science from every quarter of the globe were poured into that great institution, and this valuable collection ought not to be made a mere raree-show for the gaze of loungers who had no means of appreciating its meaning and its worth. The higher classes had the means of purchasing or borrowing books necessary for the prosecution of their particular studies, they could always obtain introductions to some of the assistants at the Museum, who would explain, to them the various objects which it contained, and he contended that measures should be taken for affording similar information to the middle classes and the more intelligent members of the working class. Some years ago he was introduced by a gentleman to several of the weavers of Coventry who were engaged in making collections illustrating the entomology of the neighbourhood. Instead of haunting the public-house they went on Sundays into the fields, and they succeeded in finding many remarkable specimens, which they took great pleasure in showing to him. But their great want was instruction. They lamented their want of books and teaching. The most they could do was to acquire a certain amount of empirical information; but without proper books or oral instruction many a working man, who might under more favourable circumstances achieve distinction, must for ever forego pursuits on which he might have shed much honour. From the year 1823 up to the year 1850 upwards of £2,000,000 had been spent upon the collections and buildings of the Museum, and he contended that the persons who paid that amount had a perfect right to participate in the advantages of the expenditure. That this Committee might cause some delay in the action of the Government (if the Government really was ready for action) he was ready to acknowledge, but it would only be for a short period, for the inquiry would not be a protracted one, but even that delay was as nothing compared with the misfortune of a wrong decision. As the reorganization of the British Museum was determined on, it was upon that reorganization that the reputation of this country as a scientific country would in the estimation of foreign nations stand or fall. With its vast opportunities for collecting all that was rich and rare, with its vast expenditure, England could not consent that its National Museum should be either a failure or a mediocrity, and therefore believing that if we have an inquiry we should have light and be successful, but that if we walked in darkness, it would fare with us, as it fared with all those who eschewed the light, we should stumble and fall.

seconded the Motion.

said, the hon. Gentleman had, in his eloquent speech, touched upon various topics connected with the present condition of the Museum and he (Lord Elcho) rose with the hope of pointing out a course which might reconcile the duties of Trustees with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He (Lord Elcho) proposed to confine his observations to one of those topics only—namely, the question of the arrangement of the collections in the British Museum, and the utter want of space which existed for the collections which at present existed. The hon. Gentleman had said he thought it desirable that others than Dukes, and Lords, and Members of Parliament should be Trustees of the Museum, and he had urged the necessity of placing among that body scientific men. But at this moment the Trustees included four gentlemen highly distinguished for their scientific attainments—namely, Sir Roderick Murchison, who was second to none in scientific reputation;—there was a distinguished Member of that House, Sir Philip Egerton, whose name was unrivalled in that department of science in which he had attained an European reputation—there was the President of the Royal Society (Sir B. Brodie)—and there was the President of the College of Physicians (Dr. Mayo). Therefore he must repeat that science was fully and fairly represented among the Trustees. Then there was the subject of lectures; as to which he thought that a Committee was hardly necessary, because Professor Owen had been appointed to the head of the scientific department of the British Museum on the express condition that he was to deliver lectures, if required to do so. That therefore was a matter with which the Trustees were quite competent to deal. He would further remark that an inquiry such as that proposed by his hon. Friend would last till Doomsday, considering the magnitude of the subjects with, which he proposed to deal. But inquiries had already been instituted; in the year 1835-6 there was a Committee which went very fully into most of the points referred to by his hon. Friend. Then again in 1847 there was a Royal Commission appointed, under the presidency of the Duke of Somarset, which sat for four years, and went most minutely into all the questions affecting the relative positions of the Trustees and their officers. Indeed they dealt, he believed, with all the points referred to by his hon. Friend, except the question of the arrangement of the Museum. He concurred in the views of the hon. Gentleman on that subject. Any one acquainted with the Museum would admit that its state in this respect was what might be termed a state of chronic congestion, without much arrangement or system, in which each department was endeavouring to oust the other in order to obtain space. But even on this subject an inquiry had taken place before the Committee upon the National Gallery which sat ill 1853. That Committee was certainly not directed to this special subject; but he himself (Lord Elcho) brought before the Committee the question of the propriety of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire whether it might not be advisable to combine the arrangement of the national pictures with that of the fine art and ar-chjæological collections in the British Museum. Subsequently the Commission upon the National Gallery site went fully into the question of the removal of the archæological and fine art collection from the British Museum; and a reference to the evidence taken before that Commission would show the crowded state of the Museum, and the necessity of some steps being taken to relieve this plethora. True, the Commission reported against the removal of the archaeological and fine art collection, giving no opinion as to the desirability of removing the zoological and natural history collection. What he maintained, however, was that incidentally there had been inquiry into these very subjects, and indeed it only required the evidence of one's eyes to see the crowded state of the collections; the evidence and printed correspondence on the subject were quite sufficient to answer the simple question, whether these collections ought, or ought not, to remain where they were for all time to come? Mr. Panizzi, in his evidence before the Committee of 1836, said,—

"The department of natural history ought to be transfered somewhere else. I wish to impress upon the Committee the absolute necessity of this separation. No good can ever be done without it."

Again in 1848, Mr. Panizzi observed that every year the question pressed stronger upon the minds of ail who turned their attention to the subject, whether collections of rarities from all countries of the globe—from the depths of the ocean—from the immensity of aerial space—together with the ruins of ancient cities—should all be crowded together under one roof, or whether some portions of them might not be maintained in separate buildings proportionate to the wealth and power of the country to which they belonged. He then suggested that the natural history department of the collection ought to be transferred to some other place. Last year, when this subject was under discussion he (Lord Elcho) ventured to express a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deal with this question himself and speedily, and not refer it once more to a Commission or Committee. Upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said—

"That the time would come—indeed he might say had already come—when they must consider the question of how the public collections of this country could be most effectually arranged. That was a question which could no longer be avoided. He was not at all prepared to say that the consideration of the question should be postponed. Committee and Commission had fulfilled their tasks. All the information required upon the subject was before the House, and what was required was a determination to avail themselves of it, in order to act upon it.

He (Lord Elcho) now heard from his hon. Friend that the right hon. Gentleman had given his sanction to the appointment of the Committee. He would not twit the right hon. Gentleman with his change of opinion, but he must say that nothing had occurred which should have led him to take a different view. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman had visited the Museum lately, and had spent several hours there, and he must have been convinced from what he saw, that it was impossible it could remain in its present state. The correspondence which had been laid before Parliament would tend to show equally that there was a want of space in the Museum, and his hon. Friend had said that Mr. Owen had drawn up a report, in which he had stated that he had no room to exhibit the speci- mens that there were in the Museum; and he had drawn out a scheme for a national collection, which occupied a space equal to that covered by the British Meseum alone. Nothing, therefore, had occurred to induce the right hon. Gentleman to change his opinion, unless it were the publication of a document which had been drawn up by certain gentlemen who seemed to be afraid that the interests of science were likely to be neglected. His hon. Friend had said that that document was owing to what had fallen from him (Lord. Elcho), when he had recommended, in a light and airy way, that the natural history collection should be scattered over the metropolis. He (Lord Elcho) certainly did say that such and such arrangements might be made, but he did not say that they ought to to made. He did not pretend to so much insight as his hon. Friend, who declared he had seen some antiquities from the ruins of Carthage when they were buried under seven feet of earth. The question was one for the Government to decide after hearing proper evidence, and there was nothing in his suggestions, therefore, which need have alarmed these gentlemen. Nor had he intended in the least to slight the claims of science in this matter. It would be folly to contend that the interests of art were to be considered at the expense of science; and that such was not his view was evident, because the question referred to the Commission of which he had spoken was, whether it would not be possible to combine with the National Gallery the fine art and archæolo-gical collections from the Museum. But the objection to the removal of these collections was the expense which would be incurred on account of their bulky character. A butterfly might be removed without difficulty, but not a marble plinth. The mere removal of one statue from one side of the Egyptian gallery to the other—a space not wider than this House — cost £60; and when the expense of removing all these bulky works was considered, hon. Members would probably come to the conclusion that the archaeological and fine art collection must remain where it was, and that if space could not be found on the present site, the natural history collection must he removed. Justice could not be done to the scientific collection if it were allowed to remain where it was. At present, there were skins of birds, beasts, and fishes, poked away in drawers, unstuffed and unexhibited; and those which were exhibited were so crowded, that in many instances it was impossible to distinguish one specimen from another. It was essential that some order should be brought into this chaos. Let the House consider what were the contents of the Museum. They consisted of stuffed birds, beasts, and fishes, dried plants, insects, and desiccated natives (so they were ticketed), from the South Sea Islands, minerals, geological specimens, and antediluvian reptiles, mediaeval pottery and glass, Egyptian, Assyrian, Grecian, Roman, Celtic, and Saxon antiquities, and works of art; the finest archaeological and fine art collection in the world, besides ancient coins, gems, and medals, drawings, manuscripts, etchings, engravings, and a library of 600,000 volumes, increasing at the rate of 16,000 volumes a year. When to this was added a copy of every newspaper published in the British Islands and in the Colonies, hon. Gentlemen would see the chaotic state to which the Museum must be reduced, and the impossibility of finding space on the present site for a collection so rapidly accumulating. With due deference to his hon. Friend, therefore, be ventured to say this was the time, not for inquiry, but for action. The course he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman was this—that he should not object to the Committee proposed by his hon. Friend, but that before any inquiry took place, the subject should be referred to the Trustees, who should lay their views upon the whole question before the Government, and that their proposals should be laid upon the table of the House. If their proposals should not be satisfactory to his hon. Friend, or to other hon. Members who took an interest in the subject, then let an inquiry, by a Committee, take place. The mode in which the House dealt with the National Gallery question had been referred to, but that, he thought, was not a good specimen of the result of a Parliamentary inquiry. The Committee upon that question issued a Report, in which they recommended the adoption of a site at Kensington, but that recommendation was carried by a majority of only one. The Government, instead of acting upon their own suggestions, brought in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendation of the Committee, but public opinion did not support the decision of the Committee, and he succeeded in carrying a Motion against the Government. It might happen that if a Committee at once began to inquire into the subject, its labours would be interrupted by a dissolution of Parlia- ment, and the inquiry would have to be commenced afresh on the meeting of a new Parliament.

said, he hoped that in any re-organization of the British Museum means would be taken to provide lectures, especially upon natural history, at a time when they could be attended by the humbler classes. He had derived great entertainment and instruction from the lectures of Professor Owen, but they were given, he was sorry to say, at an hour when the working classes could not attend. Many of that class took great delight in investigating natural history, and some of our best writers on that subject had sprung from that class. One of the best books on fishes and birds was written by one whom he had great pleasure to call his friend, the late Mr. Yarrell, and who when living was a humble tradesman in the neighbourhood of St. James's Street.

said, he thought it desirable that the Committee should be appointed. After what had occurred about the National Gallery, it was quite essential that an inquiry should take place. A memorial against the separation of the collections in the Museum had been signed by all the leading men of science in the country, who said that the removal of any of the collections from their present central position would be viewed with great disfavour by the public generally.

observed that the proposition of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho) would have the effect of shelving the Committee altogether; for if they were not to inquire until some indefinite time when the Trustees had inquired and reported, they were not likely to inquire at all. There was, he thought, another grave objection to the proposition of the noble Lord, which was, that the Trustees would guide the Committee instead of the Committee the Trustees. In his opinion, as it would be impossible much longer to avoid a large expenditure in enlarging the Museum, a Committee should be appointed to ascertain in what manner the money could be most beneficially and economically expended. It was not, he thought, true that the subject was already exhausted, and he fancied that when the Committee entered upon their labours they would find the question to be fresher than was generally supposed. The previous Committees and Commissions had entirely evaded the question of arrangement and subdivision. In his opinion the labours of the Committee would be extremely useful, and he hoped they would approach the consideration of the subject with minds entirely free from unjust suspicions, and that no factious or unworthy feelings (with regard to erroneous impressions relating to distinguished persons) would taint the results to which they might arrive, He ventured to suggest that as the present remuneration to the officers of the British Museum was extremely small, regard being had to their acquirements and to what they might be able to obtain elsewhere, the question of remunerating them better might form a fitting subject for inquiry by the Committee.

said, he still retained the opinion which he had expressed last year—that the consideration of this question by the House ought not to be much longer delayed. He thought that the House and the Government were in possession of all the information requisite to guide them in that reorganization of this institution which was not only necessary, but inevitable. They could not retain its character as a first-rate institution unless they took some means of reorganizing its different branches. He repeated that the labours of Committees and Commissions, and the information thence resulting, appeared to him quite sufficient to guide the Government in the task of reorganization; and with those views, which he still retained, he had certainly expressed the opinion that further inquiry was unnecessary, assuming that it would be the duty of Government to recommend to Parliament some means by which the evils complained of might be remedied. But unfortunately it had not been in the power of Government to make such a proposition. The pressure of business had prevented their dealing with the subject, which they had certainly intended to do; and he had now to consider whether, being unable to realize the expectations which he had held out to the House, he ought to oppose the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman proposed, and which was generally approved. The object of that inquiry was not merely to obtain information. A Committee was often very useful in reconciling conflicting opinions, and in preparing the public mind for a solution of questions of this nature. A Committee in this case could do no harm, and might do good. If he found the Committee interfering with the Government he should certainly say, "We have information enough —allow us to use the information we have, and attempt the adjustment of a long-controverted question." But the Government was not in a position at that moment to hold out to the House any fair expectation of dealing with the question this Session; and he could not understand why a Committee of the House could in any way form an obstacle to the Government in dealing with the question. If the Government was prepared to deal with the question, he should certainly intimate to the Committee with very great respect that the Government did not wish them to prolong their labours to too great an extent. They had attempted to deal with the question of the National Gallery, and had brought it to a satisfactory arrangement. But he saw no hope of the Government being able to deal with the question this Session. Under the circumstances an inquiry by a Committee of that House might be of benefit; if it did not bring any fresh information, any new results to those who had given great attention to the subject, it might still have a tendency to prepare the public mind for that change which he considered inevitable; and with that view he consented to the appointment of the Committee.

said, he was not at all disposed to complain of the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived. The announcement made by the Government last year, that they would hear no more of Committees or Commissions but decide the question themselves, was, perhaps, somewhat hasty. He could not concur in the remark made by the hon. Mover of this Motion, that the Trustees of the British Museum must be the persons of all others least qualified to give an opinion on this subject. On the contrary, if they had attended to their duties at all, they ought to be well able to express such an opinion. The position of the British Museum appeared to be this:—In January, 1858, the Standing Committee came to a Resolution that there was a great deficiency of space, and that in considering the means of providing adequate space they ought to confine themselves to the actual and immediate requirements of the Museum. The majority of the Trustees thought it would be the best way of deciding the question to adopt the Report of that Committee; he himself thought that it ought to be referred to the Government as it involved very large considerations. The institution consisted of three great divisions. First, there was the library, comprising 600,000 volumes, and increasing very largely every year. It was the best library in Europe. It had capacity to receive the additions which would probably be made to it during the next forty years; the reading-room afforded every convenience for study; and the facilities with which works were supplied to those who wished to peruse them were quite unexampled. The state of the library, therefore, though it might be still capable of some minor improvements, did not call for any extensive change. The case, however, was different with the archœological department, which was of great value in illustrating the history of art; and in regard to the natural history branch the deficiency of accommodation was still greater. The stuffed animals were crowded together in such a manner that it was impossible to distinguish the characteristics of the different specimens. The architect had proposed a plan by which, for a sum of £150,000, some of these deficiencies would he removed for a limited number of years. The question to be considered by Parliament and the Government and by the Committee, if it should be appointed, was this—whether it would be wise to go on erecting additions to the north-east and west of the existing building, or whether they ought to seek for another site in which to place a part of these collections. His opinion was that the latter course would be the best mode of preserving and increasing these collections in a manner worthy of the country. The enlargement of the present buildings, for which purpose they would require to purchase land of very great value, would necessarily be attended with very heavy expense. But supposing they decided to remove a portion of those collections, the next question was, what portion should it be? Sir R. Murchison and other eminent scientific men thought that the natural history department contained objects of very great interest, and that when sufficient space was being obtained for its accommodation the site chosen should be a convenient one for the public. Another question which the hon. Gentleman wished to raise was with reference to the government of the Museum. He thought no one could doubt that, the Museum having been partly formed by bequests, the representatives of the families which had made them must remain part of the governing body. The Earl of Derby and the Earl of Cawdor sat as Trustees on that account, and he did not think that it would be right to displace them. The hon. Gentleman had said, somewhat incorrectly, that the Trustees named their own body. The constitution of the trust was certainly a very peculiar one. The official Trustees were the persons who filled up any vacancies which might occur, and they had recently exercised their power by the appointment as a Trustee of Mr. Grote, a gentleman who was distinguished both in history and general literature, and who would be a great acquisition to the trust. Another portion of the Trustees nominated to all offices to which any salary was attached, and a third, called the Standing Committee, attended to the regular superintendence of the Museum. He believed that they discharged their duties most conscientiously. There were-generally eight or ten members of the Committee present at a meeting, and among those who were most regular in their attendance were Lord Macaulay, Sir 11. Murchison, and the Marquess of Lansdowne. The present constitution of the governing body was formed on the suggestions of the late Sir Robert Peel, and he (Lord John Russall) doubted, therefore, very much whether the constitution of the trust could be improved; but although he thought that the question had been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman rather too much in an agitating spirit, he had no objection, nor bad the Trustees any, to the appointment of the Committee.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have a clear opinion as to the course which ought to be adopted with regard to the British Museum, it was desirable that when this Committee commenced its investigation it should be informed of the conclusion at which the Government had arrived. He understood that conclusion to be that it would be expedient to divide the collections of the British Museum, and no longer to act upon the principle of combining the different collections—the library, the collections of ancient art and the natural history collections—under one roof. If the Government having arrived at that conclusion should not have found leisure to mature means for carrying their opinion into effect, such a conclusion ought to operate on the inquries about to be commenced. There was another point to which he wished to advert. He did not think that if the Committee were appointed according to the terms which the hon. Mover had pro- posed, it would be very easy for them to understand exactly what was the subject of inquiry; he did not think that the term "reorganization" of the British Museum precisely designated the hon. Gentleman's object. The main subject to be referred for inquiry was, whether the existing collections of the British Museum should be kept combined under one roof, or whether some portion should be removed to another locality; whether, in fact, there should be a fresh building for the purposes of the Museum. If that were the object, it would be desirable to use terms to express the meaning more accurately. If the hon. Gentleman desired to introduce the question of the constitution of the body of Trustees, or to refer to their administration, he should distinctly express his intention. It seemed to him doubtful whether it was desirable that the inquiry should embrace that subject. An inquiry had taken place some years ago, under the Duke of Somerset, into the constitution of the British Museum, and he (Sir George Lewis) was not aware that there were any complaints as to the constitution of the body of Trustees, or that any necessity had been shown for investigation into the construction of that body. As a Trustee of the British Museum he should make no objection to any inquiry into the constitution or administration of the trust, but if there should not be any reason for such inquiry it would be easy to bind down the inquiry to the main subject, whether there should be a distribution of the contents of the Museum. He would suggest, therefore, that the hon. Member should either amend the terms of his Motion at once, or, if not prepared to do so at that moment, that he should withdraw the Motion and give notice of introducing it in an amended form next day.

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway was so worded as to open so wide a field for inquiry that it was hardly possible to know to what particular subject the Committee should confine its investigation. If the word reorganization was retained the Committee would have to extend its labours for many years; but he understood the hon. Gentleman to complain chiefly of the want of accommodation, and with regard to that point they found that the room was clearly insufficient fur the purposes of the institution, and they were almost driven to the necesssity of dividing the collection. He would therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman, in the room of organization, to substitute some words by which the Committee would understand that they were to consider the present amount of accommodation, with a view to a better disposal of the collection. Within that limit the Committee might collect a large amount of important and useful information in which the opinions of all might be brought, as it were, into a focus. He did not, however, understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have expressed any definite opinion as to the separation of the several collections, beyond pointing out that from the limited area of the existing Museum it was impossible that they should be kept together.

said, he would suggest that the terms of the Motion should be for a "Select Committee to inquire into the accommodation furnished in the British Museum, and whether any change of site was desirable."

said, that in framing his Motion he had purposely used words of rather wide signification, because, besides the question as to the separation of the collections and the site, he wished to embrace in the reference certain points of detail connected with the internal structure of the Museum, which should be so decided as to leave no doubt that they should have a lecture-room and lectures in the Museum. He would, therefore, willingly fall in with the suggestion of the House if any hon. Member would find him a word comprehensive enough to include the disposition. of the collection, the site of the building, its structure, the establishment of lectures, and the providing of a lecture-room. He had not intended to say, as the noble Lord had represented, that the trust was too much in the hands of noble Dukes and great persons, nor to contend that the Trustees ought not to be consulted in this matter. What he wanted was, to introduce into the trust men who had derived their eminence exclusively from science. He would, however, withdraw his Motion, and substitute the following:—"A Select, Committee to inquire into the accommodation required for the collections of the British Museum."

remarked that, he thought that Amendment confined the inquiry within too narrow limits, as there were subjects beyond the accommodation required demanding inquiry. He would suggest that the Motion should be for an inquiry "into the means requisite for rendering the institution more effectual for its purposes."

said, he would recommend the addition of the words—"the establishment of lectures in connection with the Museum and the pay of the officials."

said that, considering the difference of opinion which prevailed in the House, he would ask permission to withdraw his Motion with the view of bringing it forward the next day in an amended form.

rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the benefits conferred by the Royal Warrant of the 17th of December, 1855, upon Regimental Quartermasters retiring subsequent to the date of the declaration of the war with Russia may be extended to those Regimental Quartermasters who completed the period of service specified in the Warrant, but who had retired previous to that date. To make his case clear, he might state that the Royal Warrant of 1855 allowed quartermasters, who had completed the term of thirty years' service, ten of which were in the office of quartermaster, to retire with the honorary rank of captain upon the half-pay of 10s. a day. That order was retrospective as far back as the date of the commencement of the Russian war, and its main object was to procure the retirement of old and worn-out officers in order to make room for younger and more efficient men; but he trusted that a more extensive application would be given to it than seemed to be contemplated by its framers. The number of quartermasters who had retired previous to the declaration of the late war was only forty-three, and the addition of 2s. a day to their pay would not amount to more than £2,000 per annum. They were very far advanced in years; they were much shattered by long service; and they were not likely therefore to trouble the country long. A large proportion of them had not only performed efficiently the unassuming but important duties of quartermaster, but had displayed remarkable courage and heroism in various battles, sieges, and storms. He might state a few cases. Mr. Copeland, of the 3d Foot Guards, served forty-one years, fourteen as quartermaster; he went through the Peninsular campaigns, was at Waterloo, and obtained two medals and three clasps. Mr. M'Clellan, of the 10th Hussars, served thirty-seven years, twenty-seven as quartermaster; he was five times publicly thanked by generals on the field of battle for gallantry, and he was now sixty-nine years of age. Mr. James Scott, of the 9th Foot, served fifty-four years, thirty-three abroad, forty-four as quartermaster; he served in Holland and the Peninsula, had one medal and seven clasps, and was now seventy-nine years of age. Mr. Samuel Goddard, of the 14th Foot, served forty years, thirty as quartermaster; he led the forlorn hope at the siege of Bhurtpore, was at the battle of Waterloo, and was now sixty-five years of age. The Warrant issued under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert) in 1854 did not draw any arbitrary line, but included all, and he saw no reason why that of 1855 should not have done the same. It should be remembered that the excluded quartermasters obtained their commissions at a time when it was much more difficult than now for men in their position to raise themselves to a superior rank. They did not belong to the aristocracy, but to the middle class; they had no powerful friends at the Horse Guards; they bad risen from the ranks by their own courage and devotion, and therefore he had peculiar pleasure in urging their claims upon the attention of the Government. Looking to the great age at which some of these gentlemen had arrived, the short time they were likely to enjoy the benefits of the extension, and the great encouragement which the act would give to all classes in the army, he hoped the Government would have no objection to consent to his Motion.

said, he wished to draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that as the Motion now stood there were two objections to it in point of order. Being an application for public money, it must be made in Committee of the whole House, and it could not be put without a day's notice. If the hon. Baronet would move "that this House will to-morrow resolve itself into a Select Committee to consider of an Address, &c." he would be perfectly in order.

said, he would put the Motion in the amended form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

seconded the Motion. He was sure that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister for War found it consistent with his official position he would have the greatest pleasure in acceding to the Motion, for no man could have a better knowledge of the merits of these officers than he. He thought no class in the army better deserved the consideration of the Secretary at War. The Warrant of 1854 was to the effect that the rate of half-pay upon which quartermasters should retire should be in accordance with the services they had rendered to the public. It was general in its application—there was no line drawn. A clause in a subsequent Warrant, however, limited its application. Now, out of the 43 quartermasters mentioned there were 35 between the ages of 65 and 84. The aggregate services of three of those amounted to 124 years, and they had been excluded by eleven days only from participating in the benefits given by the warrant of 1854. Considering the valuable services these men had rendered it was to be regretted they should have been excluded by a subsequent Warrant from participating in the advantages of the Warrant of 1854.

said, he also should support the Motion. The officers in question had all risen from the ranks through a series of onerous and responsible positions; many of them counted twenty and thirty years' foreign service, and a great proportion of them war service. He hoped, therefore, that the Secretary for War would promise, if it were out of his power this year, to grant an extension of the Warrant next year.

said, in the course of his experience he had known many of these non-commissioned officers who had arrived at the rank of quartermaster, and most of them had been engaged in war. At a dinner he attended at Ceylon special mention was made of Quartermaster Dunn, who, being present at the time, was referred to by his commanding officer in these terms—" If I ever wished a man in my regiment to show the rest how to leap a hedge, or how to clear the vineyard of an enemy, I would call for Quartermaster Dunn." With few exceptions he had found the quartermaster in every regiment the most distinguished soldier and a most worthy man. He trusted, therefore, the right hon. and gallant General would give them, if not now, at a future period, favourable consideration.

said, if he were to follow the bent of his own inclination on the subject he should undoubtedly accede to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and nothing could be more painful to him than to be obliged to oppose the wishes of those who had addressed the House, and still more of this very deserving body of officers. But it was his duty, occupying the responsible position of Minister for War, to point out the results that would follow from granting this Motion. All Warrants were prospective, and the present was perhaps the only instance of one being retrospective, but a special reason existed for such being the case. An application embodying the terms of the Warrant was made by quartermasters in the Crimea; it was forwarded by Lord Raglan, with a strong recommendation in its favour, and the Warrant was accordingly issued; but as it only came into operation a year after many quartermasters had retired — many of them from ill-health—it was thought advisable to make its operation commence from the beginning of the Crimean war. It was perfectly true that if the Motion were complied with it would involve an expenditure of £2,000 per annum only, and if that expense were the only obstacle it should not remain one. But it would not be a single instance. If Warrants in favour of quartermasters were made retrospective why should not those relating to every other branch of the service be made retrospective also? Increased retiring allowances had been granted in favour of paymasters, medical officers, and others whose predecessors had performed services in comparison to theirs equally entitled to retrospective consideration to those of quartermasters. The medical officers formed a very large body, and in their case it would be throwing a most serious extra expense on the public. The object of all retiring allowances was to benefit the public by inducing men who had served their time to retire and by encouraging a better class of men, if possible, to come into the service. As far as the public were concerned, therefore, the advantages of increased allowances were prospective and not retrospective. If the Motion was compiled with warrants relating to every other branch of the service must in common justice be made retrospective also; this result was clearly fatal to the Motion. Other grounds of objection however existed. An application in the terms of the Motion had been made to him in October last; he found the same application had been made to his predecessors on two previous occasions, and that after due consideration they had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to alter the practice according to which Warrants were made retrospective without inconvenience. Nothing could be more inconvenient than overruling previous decisions on such questions, as such a course would only encourage persons to renew their demands whenever a new man came into office. If it were the wish of the House to grant this money, though no provision was made in the Estimates for it, nothing would give him, individually, greater pleasure; but it was his duty to point out to the House what the effect would be, and to warn hon. Members that what they might think a small matter would lead to consequence which, possibly, they did not foresee. No Chancellor of the Exchequer in future would ever accede to a retiring allowances being increased if such Warrants were to be made retrospective, for there would be no means of ascertaining what would be the result. No Minister could frame his Estimates so as to meet such a requirement. But, to test the question in another way. Those who had retired, retired under the regulations of the service existing at the time, and he begged the House to consider that if it were proposed to reduce any class of retired allowances it would be impossible to apply the reduction to persons who had already retired under other conditions. He again expressed his great regret that it was not in his power to comply with the Motion.

said, that there would be obvious inconvenience in establishing a precedent such as that proposed by the Motion, for if it should be thought right to increase the half-pay of certain officers in the army, and if the consequence were to be that the same increase must be extended to the whole half-pay list, no Government would probably like to propose to Parliament such an immense increase of expenditure. In the same way it might be thought right to increase prospectively the pensions to invalid officers for wounds or disabilities incurred in service; but if that increase were necessarily to be extended to the whole of the existing pensioners it would be impossible for any Government to agree to such an expenditure. Therefore, much as he regretted that these men to whom the hon. Mover had referred should not receive a benefit which had been given to others, though they themselves, indeed, had never been led to think they were entitled to it, still he must say that he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking it not advisable in this instance to depart from established practice.

said, that in deference to the opinions expressed on both sides of the House, he would withdraw his Motion; but he hoped, as he could not get extra money for those whose cause he advocated, that the right hon. and gallant General would, at any rate, take into consideration the advisability of giving them extra rank, and would deem it expedient to recommend that they should have the honorary rank of captain granted to them.

, who was imperfectly heard, said he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the nature and extent of certain privileges enjoyed by Her Majesty's Household Infantry, and mentioned in the Report of a Commission appointed on the 12th day of April, 1858, as "the Privileges of the Guards;" also, to inquire whether such privileges have a tendency to produce dissatisfaction or diminish the efficiency of the army. In bringing forward this Motion he thought it unnecessary to dwell at all on the reputation gained by the Guards, as that was a matter well established and generally known; and if it were urged that vested interests were involved in the question he had to submit to the House, he was of opinion that it would he proper in some way to save existing vested interests. He should make no statement not borne out either by the celebrated Memorial of the Guards or the Report of the Commission made last year. The memorial was signed by live great and illustrious names, but he thought at the time it should have been visited with severe censure, as a manifesto like that created a precedent which if followed by others would be found most inconvenient. The brigade of Guards consisted of 6,300 men. It was officered by three full colonels and by three lieutenant colonels, who according to the memorial were colonels in the army. Then there were the majors of the several battalions, who, according to the same memorial,— and he was not aware whether any change had been made since,—were full colonels in the army. All captains in the Guards were lieutenant colonels in the army by virtue of the Royal Warrant of 1687. These officers had very great advantages in the army, for it was in their power, after serving five years on the staff, to become full colonels in the army, whereas a lieutenant colonel or major of the Line could not be on the staff without having passed an examination at Sandhurst. The lieutenants of the Guards were equal to captains in the Line, an honour which was accorded to them for their conduct at Waterloo, but he must say he thought it a very impolitic way of rewarding the army. The 7th Fusiliers had a similar honour accorded to them, namely, that the first appointment! should be a lieutenancy, but it was discovered afterwards to be undesirable, and was taken away. What was good for the 7th Fusiliers might not be bad for the Guards. In consequence of this system an old and experienced officer of the Line might find himself placed under the authority of a young officer of the Guards, and he thought it was desirable that this distinction should be abolished—the officers of the Guards being compensated in some manner for the loss of the privilege. He believed it was impossible that there could be a finer body of troops than the brigade of Guards; but it was possible to buy gold too dearly, and when it was considered that the services of the Guards were not available in the Colonies, or generally against Her Majesty's enemies in India, or elsewhere, he doubted whether, on the whole, the country was not paying too dearly for this branch of the army. The Guards consisted of 261 officers, 429 sergeants, and 5,600 rank and file—in all 6,300. The Guards cost £204,706, and the Line £1,872,567; but if the Line troops cost the same as the Guards the charge for them would be £2,289,620. There were also a number of allowances to the Guards, such as making up accounts, £140; agent of Foot Guards, £83; stock purse fund, £11,167; major's allowance for coals and candles, £344; solicitors to Foot Guards, £205 6s. 3d.; table allowances, £5004; making a total of £16,943. He had heard it said that the officers of the Guards enjoyed an annual amount of leave, and that the bulk of the regimental duty was performed by the colonels, the adjutants, and the non-commissioned officers. On what ground was it that the officers of the Guards were allowed greater privileges in this respect than were enjoyed by officers of the Line? He had also been informed that, while the Line regiments had been reduced after the war, the Guards were numerically stronger than they were before the war, and he wished to know whether this statement was well founded? There were other peculiar privileges which were possessed by the Guards. He understood that the two senior captain lieutenant colonels of the Guards arrived at the grade of colonels in five years; and he thought if that were so the privilege was one that ought not to be continued. Now, what was the relative position of officers of the Guards and the Line on active service? A captain in the Line who had the brevet rank of major commanded his company, and went into action as its captain; but the captains of the Guards, although they went into action as captains, being on the roster as lieutenant colonels, were exempted from duty in the trenches he thought this was a very objectionable privilege, for the presence and influence of the captains might have a most beneficial effect upon the conduct of their men in the trenches. He had been told that in the Crimea the captains of the Guards, being upon the roster as lieutenant colonels, went into the trenches only once a fortnight. General Canrobert took one night in the trenches and the next in reserve, and Sir Colin Campbell set a good example to his troops, by following the French system, and going regularly into the trenches; but it was said that in a short time an order was issued that generals of division should not do duty in the trenches. Another inconvenience was felt in the Crimea from these privileges. On one occasion two companies were wanted for detachment duty at head-quarters, and they were both taken from the Highland Brigade. It was said that they should be taken alternately from that Brigade and from the Guards, but it was understood that it was not the custom of the Guards to give detachments. With regard to promotion it seemed to him, as far as he understood the statements made to him, that the Major Generals, Colonels, and Lieutenant Colonels in the Guards arrived at their degrees much sooner than the same officers in the Line. It might be said that these were particular cases and the effect of old privileges which were now altered; but, then, he found that a large proportion of the full colonels of Line regiments were officers in the Guards. With regard to the Staff, he found thirty officers on the Staff who had been in the Guards, and that was a great disproportion, when it was remembered that the Guards numbered 6,300, and the Line 78,594. With regard to courts-martial he thought it very disadvantageous that a young officer, because he was in the Guards, should be President, by precedence over older Line officers. It was made the same as if a student of law were to take precedence of a Judge. He also thought that new appointments should be made by the responsible Minister of State, instead of by the colonels of regiments, although it might be said that the responsibility was accepted formally by the Minister. He would not trouble the House with documents, but there were many which he could submit in detail to a Committee.

said, he would take that opportunity of thanking the hon. Baronet for his courtesy in postponing his Motion the other evening, in order to give him an opportunity of being present; as, from the position in which he stood to the army, he should have been very sorry to be absent when this discussion took place. The hon. Baronet, when the Estimate was before them expressed alarm lest his Motion should be put a stop to on the ground of prerogative. The House must see that if this Committee were granted it would be, not a Committee to inquire into the privileges of the Guards, but into the prerogative of the Crown, from whence, as the fountain of honour, all these appointments proceeded. He thought that the hon. Baronet would, at all events, be obliged to alter the Motion, so that it might be fur an Address to the Crown instead of for & Committee of the house. Her Majesty had on so many occasions instituted inquiries into the condition and the privileges of the army, that he certainly would not take any technical objection in reference to the prerogative so as to get rid of the hon. Baronet's Motion. If the hon. Baronet had not slightly referred to some inquiries which had taken place he should have thought that he was entirely ignorant of the fact that during the last few years there had been no less than four Royal Commissions, in addition to a Committee of the House, which had investigated this subject most thoroughly. He would add that the constitution of those Commissions was by no means favourable to the Guards. The Commission which sat in 1854 consisted of the Commander in Chief, two Line officers, one Artillery officer, one Engineer officer, one Guards officer, and five civilians. The Royal Commission of 1858 consisted of the Commander-in-Chief, three officers of the Line, one of Artillery, one of Engineers, one of the Guards, and five civilians. But the inquiry of all others to which he wished to call attention was the Committee of the House of Commons he wished particularly to call their attention to the constitution of the Committee—it was the Committee which sat on the Ordnance and Army Expenditure, and reported in 1857. Lord Seymour, the Secretary at War, Mr. Hume, Mr. Cobden, Colonel Anson, Mr. Walter, Sir William Molesworth, Lord Charles Wellesley, Sir James Graham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Mr. Banks were among the members of that Committee; and in all there were thirteen civilians and two military officers. With all deference to the hon. Baronet he thought that the House would place greater reliance on the arithmetic of a Committee of which Mr. Hum; and Mr. Cobden were members than on that of the hon. Baronet. The question of the expenditure of the Foot Guards came before the Committee incidentally; and in their Report they stated that

"four Committee were informed that officers of the Foot Guards had some advantages over the infantry of the Line, and that this inequality occasioned dissatisfaction in the army, while it was also attended with increased expense. The Foot Guards are a force constantly ready for any emergency, and have always, when occasion required, been the first to be sent at short notice on foreign service. They have always been peculiarly regarded as the force whose duty it is to attend the Sovereign. They have exclusive privileges, most of which are of ancient date; but it has been stated in evidence before us that exchanges between the Guards and the Line are not unfrequent, and the advantages, to some extent, are available to the Line. As to the question of expense, the Line officers have allowances for barracks, &c, which are withheld from officers of the Guards. If, in estimating the expense of a regiment of Guards, including officers and men, these allowances are taken into consideration, it will be seen by a Return in the Appendix that the cost is £48 11s. 3d. per man in the Guards against £46 19s. 6d. per man in the Line. The excess of expense is £1 11s. 9d. or about 1d. per day, being the present amount of extra pay which a soldier in the Guards receives more than a soldier in the Line."

That was the statement in the Report of the best qualified men who composed the Committee; and that opinion was not hastily arrived at, for there were no less than 500 questions put by the Committee on the very point to which the hon. Baronet had referred, and it was impossible that any Committee could have gone more fully into detail. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that the duties of the Guards might be performed by regiments of the Line; but he (General Peel) did not think there could be a greater mistake than that; it was impossible that those duties could be properly performed unless they had regiments accustomed to remain constantly in London. The hon. Baronet asked for a Committee to inquire into the privileges of the Guards, which, he supposed, gave rise to great jealousy; and he stated what those privileges were, and when they were granted; but he forgot to say that when the privilege of captains ranking as lieutenant colonels was granted, which was in 1687, there were very few regiments of the Line in existence, and surely they could have no just ground to complain of that which existed before they were constituted. But the hon. Baronet was quite mistaken as to what the present privileges of the Guards were. The privileges of the captain and lieutenant colonels of the Guards had been altered by the Warrant of 1854. Previous to that period an officer of the Guards who obtained a company became lieutenant colonel, and went on obtaining rank as colonel. But now matters were very different. The rank of lieutenant colonel did not commence counting towards a colonelcy until the officer became a mounted officer in the Guards. It took, on an average, eight years to become a mounted officer in the Guards, and then he was only in the same position as a lieutenant colonel in the Line, who served no more that five years to attain the rank of colonel. Thus, in the case of a lieutenant-colonel in the Guards, it required thirteen years to obtain the pro- motion of colonel, whereas in the line it required only five years. The benefit to the officers in the Guards was, that when he became a captain and lieutenant colonel he might possibly, by exchanging with an officer in the Line, become the commander of a regiment, and in five years a colonel. But this exchange would not be altogether a voluntary arrangement between the two officers. It could not take place without the approval of the commanding officer of the regiment, and the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief; and be believed he knew enough of the determination of the Commander-in-Chief to maintain discipline to enable him to say that his Royal Highness would not allow a man to take the command of a regiment whom he did not think to be perfectly deserving of it. The Duke of Wellington was always in favour of these exchanges, upon the principle that, if any peculiar advantages were possessed by the Guards, they should be thrown open for exchange to the Line, and in but few instances did he ever object to such exchanges. The hon. Baronet seemed to be of opinion that great jealousy existed in the Line in consequence of the supposed privileges of the Guards. That he (General Peel) thought was somewhat of an exaggeration; for he did not think that more jealousy existed in the Line with reference to the Guards than might be supposed to exist on the part of an ensign towards a lieutenant, a lieutenant to- wards a captain, a captain towards a major, and so on. Jealousy might equally exist between two regiments of the Line where, from peculiar circumstances, the promotions in one had been more rapid than in the other. It was all a matter of chance. But upon this point he himself might bear evidence, having served for nine years in the Line and three years in the Guards. He first served six years in the Line before entering the Guards, in which he never obtained the slightest promotion. He then returned to the Line, where he obtained promotion much quicker than if he had remained in the Guards, and became senior to officers in the Guards under whom he had previously served; but he was not aware of the slightest jealousy in consequence. He served in the Rifle Brigade, and in the 71st Foot, and they always felt themselves the equals of the Guards, of whom they never entertained the slightest jealousy. He would not follow the hon. Baronet into those minor details, which many officers of the Guards understood much better; but he was totally mistaken in supposing that the captain and lieutenant colonel in the Guards had any advantage which the captain and brevet major in the line did not possess. Quite the contrary. When they were doing regimental duty they did it as captains; but when they were doing duty elsewhere they did it according to their brevet rank. The hon. Baronet was also mistaken in supposing that an officer, when first commissioned in the Guards, was appointed direct without examination. So far from that he went through precisely the same examination as in any other regiment, and he did not believe that an officer would be allowed to enter the Guards until he had passed an examination and received a certificate. There were other hon. Members in the House who could explain better than he the details of the joint-stock purse and so on; but if the hon. Baronet wished to make a Motion respecting the Guards he could not obtain further information than was already before the House in the Reports of the four Commissions and the Committee referred to. It would therefore he his (General Peel's) duty, on the part of the Government, to oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet fur the appointment of a Select Committee, on the ground that such Committee was perfectly uncalled for, that every information the House could require was before it, and that the privileges of the Guards had been possessed by them for such a number of years that it would he impossible now to take them away.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division after the lucid statement of the right hon. and gallant General; but, if he did, he (Viscount Bury) having served in the distinguished rank of Ensign and Lieutenant in the Guards for a short period should feel sufficient esprit de corps to say something on their behalf. He quitted the service before the Warrant of 1854 was in force; and therefore never had been affected by it. He was consequently an impartial witness. He remembered the time when every newspaper was filled with paragraphs headed, "The Guards and the Line," the object of which was to sow dissension between those portions of the service; but he believed that the old feeling of dissension between the Guards and the Line had long since subsided, and surely when the soil of the Crimea was red with the blood of gallant men in both divisions of the service, who fell fighting side by-side in the trenches, the feeling of fraternity then exhibited between brothers in arms must have done much to obliterate all remains of ancient animosities. His hon. Friend had said he wished to do away with the privileges of the Guards. But he had not throughout his whole speech told the House what those privileges were. All he had said might be styled the mere utterance of truisms about the position, of the Guards, but he had not mentioned any instance in which that position pressed heavily upon the Line. His hon. Friend said he did not wish to take away his personal privileges from any member of the Guards; he would allow him to retain them, or he would offer him a pecuniary compensation in their stead. But suppose, for instance, a senior ensign and lieutenant were to accept the pecuniary compensation offered by his hon. Friend, and an officer junior to him were to prefer retaining his nominal lieutenancy, which would be the senior officer the senior who had sold his lieutenancy, or the junior who retained it? The duty roster would be plunged into confusion. There was another point His hon. Friend said that a distinguished officer of the Guards, and a relative of his own (Viscount Bury) had written a memorial on this subject, and that he ought to have been severely censured for committing a breach of discipline in doing so. But he begged to remind his hon. Friend that the warrant which that memorial complained of inflicted on his gallant relative and others severe pecuniary loss, and it was not to be supposed, in this great commercial country, that a man was to submit to a loss of that kind without his doing his best to complain of such a loss. This was almost the only matter touched upon in that memorial. Then his hon. Friend said that no officer of the Line could become a member of the Staff unless he went upon the half-pay list, and that this was not the case with the Guards; but he (Viscount Bury) ventured to say, that unless an officer were in command of a regiment, it was not necessary for him to go upon the half-pay list before entering on the Staff. Then, with regard to expense, he (Viscount Bury) could only say, that his commission in the Guards had cost him £1,200, whilst in the Line it cost only £450, and though he received the honorary rank of Lieutenant, he only had the pay of an Ensign. Complaint had been made, also, of the way in which the officers of the Guards did their duty, and of the way in which business was distributed in the Crimean war; but this was a complaint on a matter of military discipline and detail. After all the brilliant services of the Guards and their notoriously high state of efficiency, he (Viscount Bury) thought it quite unnecessary for him to dwell for a moment on that point. No part of the hon. Baronet's speech referred to any privilege which weighed upon the Line and exonerated the Guards unduly; and if the privilege possessed by the Guards did not press upon the Line, he was sure no regiment would grudge the Guards such a privilege. Then, cases of general officers were brought forward; but it must be remembered that no man could be a general officer in the Guards without having served for a much longer time than the Warrant of 1854 had been in force. Those cases must, therefore, have been under the old system, to which the regulations introduced by the present Warrant did not apply. He thought the House would agree with the right hon. and gallant Secretary for War that the Motion of the hon. Baronet was inadmissible, and that the majority would concur with him in dividing against it.

said, that as an officer who had served the whole of his time in the Line, he hesitated not to declare that there had never been the slightest jealousy or ill-feeling between the Guards and the Line. As regarded the letters that were written on the subject, it was a universal opinion in the army that they were not written by soldiers, but by mischievous persons who wished to create a bad feeling between the Guards and the Line. Why should there be any ill-feeling? The Returns which he then held in his hand showed that in the regiment of Coldstream Guards, out of twenty captains, not less than sixteen began their service in the Line, and were then transferred to the Guards; that in the Grenadier Guards thirty-nine were in similar circumstances; and in the Scots Fusilier Guards the same number. There was no reason at all why officers of the Line should not at their pleasure and with the sanction of the commanders of their regiments, be transferred to the Guards. With regard to first appointments, there were very few fathers who, unless they resided in London, and had an opportunity of looking after their sons, would wish to place them in the outset of life in a position which was exposed to all the dangers and temptations of the metropolis. In the next place, officers in the Guards must either be members of the aristocracy, of rank, or of wealth, because, of all regiments, they were the worst paid. An ensign in the Line was found barracks, coals, and candles, and the cost of his servants was much less than in the Guards. It should also be borne in mind what an enormous expense the Guards were put to for the purchase of their commissions. An ensign in the Guards paid £1,200 for his commission; an ensign in the Line, £450. The ensign in the Guards got 5s. 6d. a day, and no allowances, unless he was in barracks in the provinces. The ensign in the Line received 5s. 3d., and the allowances he had enumerated. A lieutenant in the Guards paid £2,050 for his commission; a lieutenant in the Line, £700. The lieutenants in the Line got 6s. 6d., and their allowances; the lieutenant in the Guards. 7s. 4d., and no allowances. A captain in the Guards paid £4,000 for his commission; a captain in the line £1,800. A major in the Guards paid £8,300; a major in the line £3,200. A lieutenant colonel in the Guards paid £9,000; a lieutenant colonel in the line, £4,500. As long as the sale of commissions existed it was only just that those who paid these high rates should receive more remuneration than those who paid a smaller sum. True, the hon. Baronet had proposed his Motion with very great good temper. Nevertheless, he had fallen into the commission of those blunders which must be expected from civilians when they took upon themselves to meddle with military matters. The hon. Baronet said that for a junior officer to find fault with his senior was a cafe of insubordination, the fact being that the rules of the service afforded him the amplest opportunity for so doing. At all half-yearly inspections the General commanding called on even the drummer or the private soldier to come forward if they had any complaint to make against their superior officers; and, if an officer chose to draw up a written statement, against his superior officer he might insist that it should be transmitted through the commanding officer of the regiment to head-quarters. With regard to the table allowance, which was put down as a privilege of the Guards, he believed that, so far from being a "privilege" of the Guards, they had had a more frequent use of the table only because they did most duty in London: for, two years ago, when the 66th Regiment were doing duty at St. James's Palace, the table was found for them as well as the Guards. The fact was that the dinner was provided not exclusively for the Guards, quâ Guards, but for the men who happened to be on duty at the Palace. As to staff appointments the rule was that no regimental field officer was allowed to hold permanent appointments. Those officers in the Guards who were lieutenant colonels were merely regimental captains, the same as the regimental captains in the Line. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that officers in the Guards had a privilege in taking their seats at courts-martial; whereas the fact was that at those courts-martial the officers took their places in conformity with the dates of their commission; and if a captain in the line were there who was a brevet lieutenant colonel, he would take his seat according to the date of his brevet. All he (Colonel North) could say then was, that during the number of years he had served in the army he had never known the slightest jealousy or ill-feeling to exist between the Line and the Guards. He did not mean to say that when he found himself in stupid quarters in the country he did not wish himself in London. That was another affair. But the only rivalry which prevailed between the Line and the Guards was that which he hoped would always continue, and that was which should best do their duty to their Queen and country. Did not the Guards do their duty at Alma and at Inkerman? The hon. Baronet stated they never took colonial duty. Did not they go to Canada? Were they not ready to go wherever they were ordered? In fact, whatever duty the Guards had been called upon to perform, they had discharged it in a manner that reflected the highest honour upon them, and which had gained for them the admiration of their brethren of the Line; and he trusted that so long as this country had a Sovereign, so long would there be Guards, and he only hoped they might ever be composed of as loyal and gallant a body of men as were now to be found in the Brigade of Guards.

said, he had served both in the Line and in the Guards, and he had never heard at the mess of any regiment of the Line in which he had served any feeling of jealousy expressed with respect to what were called the "privileges of the Guards." On the contrary, he believed it was a subject for pride and satisfaction common to both, and he thought it attended by political advantage that our military system was one which induced men of high rank and possessing great wealth to enter the army. He considered it very advantageous that men who possessed fortunes of, from £20,000 to £50,000 a year, and such instances had occurred, were attracted to the service; for what feeling in the world could prompt them in identifying themselves with it, but that of honour and the wish to serve their country? He knew it was so considered by the officers of the army themselves, and especially, that these men, when they were in the Guards, were ready to go on active service to all parts of the world. They had gone to Canada, to Portugal, to the Crimea, and he believed it was pretty well understood that they desired to go to India. Again, he thought the duties performed by the Guards could not be so satisfactorily discharged by the Line, the soldiers of which, from the tendency they showed to get into "scrapes" when brought to London, were unfitted for the service devolving on the Guards. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion to a division, for the result would be to show there was a division among the Members of that House on a subject on which he (Sir Harry Verney) was sure there was none in the army.

said, that he was afraid the hon. Baronet would not consider his opinion an unprejudiced one, as he had spent a great part of his life in the Guards; but he could assure him that the most important part of it—that spent in active service—was in the Line. He must say that he never found any of that jealousy to which the hon. Baronet had referred, nor was it to be expected he should—for the Guards took their turn of duty in the trenches at Sebastopol quite as readily as the troops of the Line. The hon. Baronet had talked of the Report of the Commission of 1858, as if it had mentioned in a prominent way the privileges of the Guards; but, on reference to the document, he found that was not the case. The only expression in that report which at all warranted the use of those words had reference to the rank of the Guards. The point which the hon. Baronet really had in view, if he might take the various letters published with his name attached, was, whether there were to be any Guards at all—and certainly, if they were to bring the regiments successively to London, and make the Guards perform the duty now done by the Line, of course there would be no Guards at all. But he certainly felt that, if the regiments of the Line coming from abroad must necessarily take their turn of duty in the Metropolis, they would be in a very great mess. It would never do to have fresh recruited regiments of young soldiers without noncommissioned officers spread over the face of London. Not only that, but there was the expense to the officers to be taken into account, and if they brought young regiments of the Line to London, they would give to each regiment of 1,000 men no less than £1,800 a year over and above the allowances now given to the Guards. There was also another point of considerable importance. It was of great moment that officers, non-commissioned officers, and men should be able to do their duty in London with forbearance and good temper, and he thought in more than one instance had been shown the great advantage of the complete temper of the Life Guards and Foot Guards in keeping the ground on public occasions. But there was a question of still greater importance. It had been felt to be of the utmost consequence by our most distinguished Commanders in Chief, such as the Duke of Wellington and Lord Hill, to have battalions in London that could form a nucleus for foreign service whenever an army was to be sent abroad, and hitherto, whenever that service had been performed, the very first troops they laid their hands upon, as being effective in all respects, were the battalions of the Guards. The hon. Baronet had referred to service in the Colonies, but Colonel Dunne, who had been examined before the Committee upon the subject expressed his opinion positively that he did not wish, and the Line did not wish, to see the Guards taking Colonial duty. Financial economists had made charges against the colonels of regiments with respect to the sums received for clothing. They had even called them cabbaging colonels, and by the agitation that they had got up on the subject, the system was at length put an end to. What was the end of it? They had had the defalcations at Weedon, and the country bad been put to an extra expense of £100,000 a year; therefore, it, did not follow that matters were not better' managed when they were loft to the regimental officers. Then, with regard to the question of leave: by the Queen's regulations one half of the officers of a regiment could be absent during the six winter months, in regiments of Line as well as Guards. There was no difference in respect to payment between the Guards and the regi- ments of the Line. The men were paid daily. That was the system in the army generally, and it was carried out in the Guards also. As to the relative rank of the Guards, the system had been established as to the lieutenant colonels and captains, as long ago as the reign of James H., in the year 1687; but it was not only in the Guards that such disparity of rank existed, nor was it confined to times of peace. He himself knew an officer who was out in the Crimea, who was of only eight years' standing in the army, and, as a brevet major, went into the trenches and commanded captains of sixteen and eighteen years' service. If search were made in the Army List, instances would be found of colonels of very few years' service commanding majors of twenty-five and thirty years' service, and captains of sixteen and seventeen years' service. With regard to the statement that Sir Colin Campbell went into the trenches with his division, other Generals did the same duty; but as the whole division was not necessarily sent complete to the trenches, it was arranged, as far as his recollection served, that they should attend to their duties of division in camp, when the division was not sent entire to the trenches. If there was any information that he could give upon the subject he would be most happy to do so, and he must say that the hon. Baronet had brought forward the question in his usual fair way.

said, that as an officer of the Line and an officer of the Guards had been listened to, perhaps they would listen to an officer of the Artillery. The hon. Baronet had made a sidelong hit at the very existence of Guards on a former occasion. He had said, "If there are to be Guards at all, why not select from the other regiments as well?" He should be very sorry indeed to see the Guards given up as a separate corps, or that they should be selected from the other regiments. He was sure that such a plan would cause great heartburning and raise feelings that were not consonant to the feelings of a British officer. As to jealousy felt by other branches of the service against the Guards, in his branch there wore 20,000 men in its ranks; be himself had served in all parts of the world, and had in the course of his career been acquainted with many regiments of the Line, but he had never heard any expressions of jealousy on the part of the Line or the Artillery, or expressions in any way deroga- tory of the Guards. In his position, as commandant of a large garrison at Woolwich, he must have heard them if they had been used, but he never had heard them, and he did not believe any such jealousy existed. As a general officer be did not think that any corps could either in the event of social evils, or of invasion, do service in London in case of need so efficiently as the Guards. Men would be wanted who were perfectly conversant with London, and who would know their best way to any particular point to which they were ordered. Then, as to the system of purchase, he was most strongly in its favour, and he hoped that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would advance the public money to promote the abolition of the system. If purchases had taken place, they were purchases over the Artillery, sometimes in favour of the Guardsman, and at other times of the Linesman; but still he was in favour of a system which did much to give the country a constant supply of young officers. He had seen a Line regiment changed three times, while in the Artillery they were promoted to the rank of second captains at the age of forty. He sincerely hoped that the House would by a decided majority negative the Motion of the hon. Baronet.

said, he had not had the good fortune to be present at the early part of this discussion, but he concurred in what he knew were the general views of his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny). The real question at issue was this, whether it was for the advantage of the army or the country that the privileges of the Guards should be maintained? If the duties of the Guards were confined to London or to attendance upon the Sovereign the matter would he of little consequence, but as every one knew that the Guards were among the most distinguished regiments in the service, as their boast was, that wherever there was war they were present, it was clear that their position must be viewed as a military one. [Laughter]. He meant that they must be regarded as troops serving in the field and not as Household troops. Their privileges were so great and so indefensible that he confessed he was at a loss to understand what arguments could be brought in their defence. Look at the army in the Crimea. There they found that the predominance of the chief commands was given to Guardsmen; and then look at their duties, at their position on the staff at the favouritism shown in placing them on the staff. He had some acquaintance with military men, and he must say his experience differed from that of the gallant General who bad just spoken. He believed there was great jealousy of the privileges enjoyed by that corps. He had unfortunately not heard the debate in its earlier stages in consequence of his having come down to the House at a somewhat later hour than usual, and he did not, therefore, think he should pursue the discussion with advantage. [Ironical Cheers.]. He would, however, give those hon. Gentlemen who were so ready to indulge in exclamations due warning that, although he might be foiled on the present occasion, he would come back to the charge and renew his onslaught on privileges, the existence of which be believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the army. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, he was prepared to maintain that if the subject were fully investigated before a Committee of that House it would he found that they were privileges which could not be defended by logical argument. He should seize that opportunity to conclude his speech, by stating that he would give his most energetic support to the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, and by expressing to him his thanks for having brought forward his Motion.

said, that he must reiterate his opinion that the Guards possessed considerable privileges and the two principal he might name as exemption from colonial duty, and superior pay. It had been said that the expenses of the Guards were not materially greater than those of regiments of the Line; but he had heard, on good authority, that two regiments of the Guards had been offered to-the Indian Government, who declined the offer on the ground of the cost which its acceptance would involve; and also that if the whole of the service were paid on the standard of the Guards, the increased expense would be not less than £500,000.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws which regulated the qualification and registration of Parliamentary voters in Ireland, 13 &c 14 Vict., c. 68–69, s. 27. He would beg the House to remember the fact that the electors were obliged to give notice on the 20th July; and then the 27th clause provided that the clerks of the peace, having received the notices of objections to voters up to the 20th August, were by the following section authorized am) commanded, not only to regulate the list according to the baronies, but they were to have a list printed and published in every district in the county on the 22nd of the same month, thus giving each clerk only one clear day for all that duty to be performed. Now, it had been found that such a short time worked with great inconvenience, and greatly to the injury of the counties. His object was to repeal the 27th clause, and to extend the time from the 22nd to the 80th of August in the same year.

said, the hon. Gentleman had taken him rather by surprise. That being St. Patrick's night, he should not have expected that any Irish Gentleman would propose to introduce a Bill which, on the face of the notice, appeared to portend something like a Reform Bill for Ireland. Presuming that the Bill was of more serious importance than from the explanation of the hon. Gentleman it seemed to be, he had expected that the hon. Gentleman would have made an arrangement with a Gentleman who was not then present, and who knew more about the subject than he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) did, as to the time for submitting this Motion to the House. [Mr. BRADY: I did at range with the noble Secretary for Ireland.] He confessed he did not understand either the defects which existed or the proposed mode of remedying them, notwithstanding the pains which the hon. Gentleman had taken to explain both the one and the other. However, when he saw the Bill in print he should, no doubt, be better able to understand it. If it was true that proper time was not allowed by the law for the publication of the objections to voters, the time ought, no doubt, to be enlarged, and, on the understanding that that was merely the object of the Bill, he, on the part of the Government, had no objection to offer to its introduction.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to reduce the duty upon Fire Insurances, said, that an increasing agitation was going on out of doors for the total abolition of the tax on fire insurances. An association had been formed to effect that object, which was supported by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, and many other hon. Members of that House, but the more moderate proposal contained in this Bill, if conceded by the Government and the House, would, he thought, be sufficient to satisfy the public mind on this subject. His measure was not of a sweeping character, and would not interfere to any appreciable extent with the existing revenue. He sought to reduce the duty of 3s. per cent now charged on all fire insurances, the premium payable upon which did not amount to 5s. per cent. The reduction would apply to all that class of insurances popularly termed prudential insurances, and which included houses, household furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, &c. Half of the insurances effected in this country were effected at a rate of premium higher than 5s. per cent, so that this Bill would deal only with one-third, or at most with one-half, of the present receipts from the tax. The total amount of revenue derived from the duty on fire insurances, exceeded £1,300,000 per annum, the moiety of this, obtained from insurances on houses and household furniture, being £650,000. He proposed to reduce the duty from 3s. to 1s. per cent on the latter class of insurances, the apparent effect of which would be to diminish the revenue by the sum of £433,000. He said the apparent effect, because he believed the extent to which the public Exchequer would be endangered by his proposal would be considerably less than the sum he had named. Indeed, there was good reason for supposing that the temporary deficiency which the Bill would create in the revenue would be speedily supplied by the increased business which the partial remission of the tax would bring to the insurance office. In 1835 the amount of property insured had been £500,000,000, and in 1855 it stood at £800,000,000. The house would see that was not an increase commensurate with the growth of the national prosperity within the same period of twenty years. Taking an intermediate date, 1846, the property then insured was only £700,000,000, and the revenue to the country derived from it was only £1,062,000, whereas, had the fire insurances gone on increasing at the same ratio as the national prosperity, the Exchequer might have derived from those insurances no less than £13,000,000. Now, in 1859, the total amount of property in the kingdom was valued at £4,000,000,000 one-half at least of which was insurable, and would, if insured, yield the country £3,000,000 of revenue. The reason why that was not the case was that the increase of the amount of property insured had not been at all in. proportion to the increase of our national wealth. In 1851 it was calculated that the value of insurable property was £2,000,000,000. The amount actually insured, however, was only £900,000,000. The smallness of this proportion was occasioned by the pressure of this tax. In France, on the other hand, the amount of property insured was £1,800,000,000. The proportion of insured property, therefore, was much loss in England than in France, notwithstanding that the practice of insuring against fire had been carried on in this country 180 years, while in France it had only existed thirty-eight years, the cause of the difference being partly the lower rate of duty and partly the provision of the civil code, which makes the person in whose house the fire breaks out liable for the injury which it may occasion to the property of his neighbours. There was another reason in the requirement imposed upon all railway companies to insure the property throughout the whole length of the line, and these heavy insurances they were enabled to effect in consequence of the low rate charged. In Russia there was a duty which was a little worse than our own; and it acted as a virtual prohibition. There was no doubt then that if the alteration which be proposed was agreed to the amount of insurances in this country would be largely increased by the very general introduction of the French system. In Continental countries the increase in fire insurances was about 8 per cent; in England it was about 10. Mr. Coode had shown, however, that wherever the duty had been increased fire insurances had decreased. Petitions had been presented for the total repeal of the duty from all parts of the country, signed by merchants, bankers, traders, and others. There was, in fact, a strong feeling in the country against the tax, and therefore be hoped the House would give him leave to introduce a Bill to reduce it from 3s. to 1s.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the hon. Gentleman professed to ground his arguments upon the assumption, that the reduction in the duty could not materially affect the revenue. This, however, was an assertion easy enough to make, but not so easy to prove. The revenue from this source had greatly increased during the last few years, and it was still rapidly augmenting. It had advanced already from £954,000 to £1,209,000. The hon. Gentleman would find that although the insurance on agricultural property had increased since it was exempted from the duty, the amount of property subject to the tax which was insured had increased at the same time in a greater ratio. The experiment therefore advised by the hon. Gentleman would be exceedingly dangerous to an important part of the revenue. If the Government could afford to dispense with this tax they would very gladly do so; but under the circumstances he must, with great reluctance, oppose the introduction of a Bill which would only raise expectations which it would not be possible to gratify.

said, he had no doubt that if the duty were reduced the revenue would not suffer. When the duty on coffee was 3s. 6d. a pound coffee was almost a prohibited article now that it was a few pence there was a large revenue obtained from it. Then take the Post Office: he believed the number of letters sent had increased sevenfold. He believed that if the duty had only been a shilling, the ruin of many persons, which had been caused by fires, would have been averted, but the high duty had acted as a preventive of insuring. The duty was a tax on prudence, and in every sense, a most objectionable one, and he knew the feeling of the country to be very strongly opposed to it. He had himself presented petitions signed by thousands and tens of thousands of people against it, and he trusted that his hon. Friend would divide the House upon the question.

, in moving an Address to the Crown for a Commission to Inquire into the Civil Laws of Jersey, said that a Commission had been appointed in 1846 to inquire into the criminal laws of the island, and an intimation had been given that a Commission would also be appointed to inquire into the civil laws, but the recommendations of that Commission had never been carried out, nor had the second Commission been appointed. Having received various petitions on the subject, he had put himself into communication with the Home Office, and he was happy to state that the Government had agreed to grant this Commission.

said, as this was a matter which had been brought under his notice in the course of last year, he hoped his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would forgive him if he ventured to suggest the course which he thought the Government would do well to adopt in relation to it. The civil laws of Jersey were in a state that was anything but satisfactory, and the mode of procedure before the legal tribunals there had caused great discontent. If this Motion were to be acceded to be thought that there were other matters relating to prisons which might be inquired into at the same time. There was a Commission appointed to inquire into the criminal law of Jersey which had made a valuable Report. Some of their recommendations were acted upon and others not. Soon after that Commission had made its Report an intimation was made on the part of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), then Home Secretary, that it would be advisable to issue a Commission to inquire into the civil laws. If it should be the desire of the Crown, to agree to this Motion he believed that it would produce a good effect, and would tend to the improvement of those laws. There were other matters mixed up in this inquiry which, at his request, the hon. Member for Sheffield had omitted. He must say he saw no objection to it in its present form. On the contrary, he thought very material advantages would arise from it. He should, therefore, strongly press his right hon. Friend to acquiesce in the Motion.

said, that since he had been in office he had felt it to be his duty to look into the question referred to in the Motion, and had found from some correspondence he had had with persons living in the island that great confusion existed in the administration of the civil law in Jersey. He would not, therefore, oppose the Motion. With regard to the other matters in it he did not know much, but he was willing to abide by the view taken of it by the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge.

said, he rose to move for a copy of letters from Sir Baldwin Walker, on the state of the Navy, to the Admiralty or the First Lord of the Admiralty, from March, 1858, to the end of the year.

said, the documents in question were confidential papers presented to the Admiralty, and it would be neither in accordance with precedent nor beneficial to the public service to produce them. He had already communicated the substance of them to the House in the statement he had made on introducing the Estimates.

said, it was quite true that the First Lord of the Admiralty read some extracts from Sir Baldwin Walker's letters; but he did not want extracts, he wanted the actual letters themselves. It appeared that Sir Baldwin Walker was obliged to write three times to the First Lord of the Admiralty before he would take any notice of his suggestions —once in March, again in May, and again, he believed, in July. The time was when a First Lord of the Admiralty would have been impeached for leaving the British navy only one ship ahead of that of France. It was admitted that the navy was in a most unsatisfactory state; and the question was, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty had remedied those evils as soon as he came into office. The present Board, when they came into office, reduced the Estimates as far as the dockyards were concerned; and now an immense number of shipwrights were entered to bring the navy into a proper state. If that had been done last March we should now be in a different position. He thought great blame was due to the present Board as well as to the late Boards, for the present Board had not made all the exertions they ought to have made to put the navy in a proper state. He trusted the House would support him in endeavouring to get these papers.

said, that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was the last person who ought to be accused of neglecting the navy. The hon. and gallant Officer stated that nothing had been done till lately for the purpose of increasing the naval force of the country. The present Board only came into office on the 9th of last March, and in the month of May the whole of the artificers in the dockyards were put on task and job work, and were continued so during the whole summer. Afterwards his right hon. Friend, when the state of the French navy was brought under his consideration, took measures in July which resulted in the addition of four screw ships of the line to the navy. They were already converted. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: The engines are not in.] The engines were not in because, as the gallant Admiral well knew, they could not be put in till the vessels were launched, but they would be afloat in the course of a month or two. He must say that to accuse the present Board of Admiralty of neglecting the navy when they had proposed measures to add fifteen screw ships of the line and nine screw frigates to the British navy in the course of the year was to make as unjustifiable an attack as be had ever heard. With respect to the special Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer, he earnestly trusted the House would not support it, for it was contrary to all precedent that the confidential advice given by subordinate officers to the various departments should be laid before Parliament.

said, he conceived that when the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the production of these papers would be inconvenient to the public service the [louse ought to be satisfied with that assurance, but he must add that he thought it rather out of the usual course that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have rend extracts from such papers. He would not now enter upon the question whether or not, when the late Board of Admiralty left office, the navy of the country was in an unsatisfactory condition. At another time that question would be entered into by one more competent than himself to do justice to the late Board, and he was confident that it would be shown that when the late Board left office in the beginning of 1858 the navy of this country was, as regarded France or any other Power, in such a condition as the House and the country ought to be satisfied with. There was only one remark in the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Corry's) speech that he felt bound to remonstrate with, and that was with reference to the suggestions that had been made by Sir Baldwin Walker to the Board of Admiralty. The gallant Admiral had referred to some of these letters, and he mentioned that the first suggestion was made in March. After that date the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) made his financial statement, in which he recommended that the Naval Estimates should he reduced from those prepared by the late Board. It was therefore scarcely to have been expected that, after controverting the statements of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, the right hon. Gentleman should urge the necessity of pushing on the building of line of-battle ships, he could not allow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) to go forth without saying in what point he thought it unsatisfactory and insufficient.

said, that it must be recollected at the time his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty brought this subject before the House he was introducing to their notice a claim on the expenditure of the public funds to a very large amount, which obliged him to refer to the Report of Sir Baldwin Walker. He hoped, therefore, the House would consider the extraordinary circumstances under which those extracts were road, and not insist on the whole of the letters being laid upon the table. In March last the Government found a very large increased estimate for labour in the dockyards, and this the right hon. Gentleman was naturally loth to accept without a further knowledge of the subject; but at the same time when in May the Government received information from Sir Baldwin Walker of the necessity of the case, the whole of the artificers in the dockyards were put on task work, and the loss of time was fully compensated by the extra exertions which followed. He trusted from what had already been stated that the House would refuse to sanction the Motion of the gallant Admiral.

said, that if any charge wore made against the present Government in conducting the affairs of the Admiralty he was not prepared to endorse it. The present Board of Admiralty had been unwearied in their exertions to put the navy in an efficient state; but he was sorry to say the navy was not in the state which he could wish, considering the enormous sums which had been spent upon it. With regard to the Motion before the House, if the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker were confidential he should be the last man to ask for its production; but they would remember the First Lord of the Admiralty referred to and read extracts from it, clearly showing that the letter was not of a confidential nature. He therefore thought it ought to be laid upon the table, especially at a time like this, when there was a growing feeling throughout the country that there was something wrong about the administration of the Navy.

said, that he should also vote for the production of the letters, for if the Government were justified in reading extracts from them this year to support a larger Vote, they had not satisfactorily accounted for their withholding them last year when they proposed a smaller Vote.

said, he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from the gallant Admiral, and he was very much surprised at the manner in which he had described the condition of the British navy. All he could say was, that when the time of trial came the British navy would do all that was required of it. Whatever its condition it would be abundantly answerable to any demands made upon it. He did not care how inefficient the navy was— but he was surprised the gallant Admiral should attempt to lower the British power in any part of the world he certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would continue the mode he bad taken to increase the efficiency of the British navy.

said, that if there was one Member of the House who might be supposed anxious for the production of the letters it was himself; but he would never allow personal considerations to interfere with public duties. The right hon. Baronet had said it would be inconvenient to lay the letters on the table, and he, (Sir Charles Wood) should, therefore, vote against the Motion. At the same time he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Sunderland, that the British navy had never been incompetent to the task of defending our shores, and he hoped on a fitting occasion to show that during his administration at least it had been perfectly efficient for any purpose for which it could be required.

, in reply, observed that the Secretary to the Admiralty had made a very extraordinary statement, which he was sorry to say was not an unusual thing for him to do. He said that eighteen sail of the line—

Sir, I rise to order. The gallant Admiral has both spoken on the introduction of his Motion and has subsequently replied.

What took place was this: the gallant Admiral said a few words on proposing his Motion, and the First Lord of the Admiralty immediately rose before the Question was put. Therefore since the putting of the Question, I think the gallant Admiral ought to be heard in reply.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) had made a most extraordinary statement, which he was sorry to say was not unusual for him. He said that the present Board had added eighteen sail of the line and fifteen frigates to the fleet. ["No, no!"] Well, then, fifteen sail of the line and eighteen frigates. But the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) himself bad stated that we had in all thirty-three sail, and the French thirty-two. How, then, could the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) account for the addition of fifteen sail of the line and eighteen frigates. The Secretary to the Admiralty had, on a previous occasion, made another very remarkable statement. He had told the House that it would cost £ 164,000 to replace the old and inefficient coastguard ships with the efficient ships which he said were ready. That he (Sir Charles Napier) knew to be incorrect. The change could be made in eight-and-forty hours, and he would leave the House to see what accuracy there could be in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Any naval officer would tell him that he was quite wrong; but though the right hon. Gentleman had twice been Secretary to the Admiralty he still knew nothing about it.

said, he trusted, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was of opinion that the production of these papers would be detrimental to the public service, his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Charles Napier) would not press for a division.

said he should persist in his Motion.